Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[StBishop]

Most .45's are a 7+1 weapon. Meaning 7 rounds in the mag plus an extra in the chamber totaling 8. He just emptied the mag, most likely in shear reaction or panic. If he would've had a 9mm he might have shot more because it holds more.

"If he had a 9mm" or "If he'd had a 9mm"
not "If he would have(/would've) had ..."

Sorry, huge pet peeve.

OT: I don't think it was morally correct to shoot the kid, let alone kill him, even if the death was unintentional.

However he has the legal right to do so. Which is why I'll never spend any more time in the United States than I have to.

 

[RelexCryo]

This is a fairly difficult decision. "Was the shooter right?" Well...yes and no. I could see the scenario playing out that way. The man was outnumbered, and the mugger (apparently) stated that he intend to knock the man out. The mugger then hit the shooter in the face, causing enough damage to induce bleeding and blur vision. The shooter then pulled out the gun (with a laser sight and loaded with hollow points) and proceeded to fire. The shooter felt his life was threatened and had been wounded afterwards. His vision was impaired, so one could argue that he couldn't tell exactly what was going on, and fired to stop the threat.

On the other hand, the shooters actions were somewhat excessive. His gun was loaded with hollow points, which are designed to cause more damage to fleshy targets, especially an unprotected 16 year old wearing casual clothing. The gun also had a laser sight, a weapon modification, displaying that the shooter apparently had some sort of knowledge and or experience with firearms. Or a large enough wallet. He fired 8 times, hitting the mugger 4. Eight hollow points to anybody in the general area of a kill-zone would likely prove fatal. The fact that he fired eight meant either A.) he wanted the target dead intentionally or B.) he was suffering from severe stress and wasn't thinking properly, coupled with all that adrenaline.

Taking all that in light, there really should have been some sort of "maybe" option here. Both parties were in the wrong to some extent.

A) Carlos, the guy who died, was 18. He was an adult.

B) People have been known to take .45 ACP hollowpoint rounds without dropping to the ground, continuing to attack after they have been hit, centermass, with all 7 rounds from a 1911. Because of this, many police stations train you to keep shooting until the gun is empty or the target falls to the ground.

Guns are not magic wands. There are human beings who can take a ridiculous amount of bullets without dropping. There is no way of knowing how resilient an attacker is until after they are neutralized.

 

[Aur0ra145]

I haven't read the thread but I did read the article.

"'I know that he thought my brother had a gun,' said Dianela Gonzalez, Mustelier's sister.

'But I mean, it was eight shots fired. How do you shoot someone eight times in self-defence? That makes no sense.'"

Seriously? I can dispatch 8 well aimed shots in 16 seconds, if I am fearing for my life, I will keep shooting until the threat is neutralized. I can not believe they are trying to sue someone for defending themselves from a mugger. 8 shots? Really? His magazine probably had 16+ shots in it, so I do not see anything to favor for the attacker. This goes back to say, if you can't stand the consequences, then don't do the crime.

In other words, if you live in America, thing twice before committing crime because you never know who is armed.

 

[Cmwissy]

Daily Mail?

Don't expect an accurate article.

EDIT: Meh, might as well make my point.

No, Baker wasn't right, he was rational and did what he had to do, but he wasn't morally or objectively 'right'.


The flaw is in the question.

 

[mirasiel]

His gun was loaded with hollow points, which are designed to cause more damage to fleshy targets

I have to pick up on this but hollow points are a good idea because half their design function is to not over penetrate your target and hit by standers and they have really good stopping power (IE they put the target down).

Would you have prefered he used ammo more likely to blow through the target (in this case foolish punk) and sent eight rounds off into the nights rather than 4?

 

[Sodoff]

All you people saying he deserved it?

Yeah, I'm embarrassed for you. Of course he didn't deserve it for fuck's sake! Death for a mugging, hardly a fair trade.

Note that I'm not defending the mugging, or attacking the shooter, but saying he deserved it is utterly ludicrous.

Get a fucking sense of proportionality.


Also: I'm curious why he shot so many times, and why he'd think someone was armed if they'd just punched him in the face. And further more, aren't hollow-point bullets designed to cause more damage? Why is a man walking around with a handgun full of those? And no, I don't care if he has a license. The whole need in America to have armed civilians is just ludicrous.

This!

Hollow point bullets are not for playing around. They are created to cause as much damage as possible.
and laser sight?? Really?

Also Im appalled by how quickly alot of people are willing to dismiss the loss of an 18 year old life as a fair trade.
Maybe im missing something in not being American, but running away or just handing over the money seems as a preferable choice to shoothing someone eight times.

 

[UnmotivatedSlacker]

I'm going to say no, he could have easily just scared them off instead of firing eight times. Sounds like one of those people that buys a gun secretly hoping they get to shoot someone with it someday.

Sounds like someones never been mugged before. He got floored by an attack without warning and was dazed. For all he knew he was going to die right there, he reacted appropriately. Also, just threatening to shoot them could have just as easily gave the muggers another opening to attack and he could have been dead instead. This scenario is especially likely since they were close enough to PUNCH him in the face. I am seriously disturbed by the number of people saying Baker was in the wrong when he was the one being attacked and out-numbered.
EDIT: Oh yes, forgot mention he probably shot 8 times because he was attacked in the middle of the night and panicked. And as several people in this thread have said, it would not take long to fire 8 shots. Hell, he might not have even realized how many shots he fired at the time.

 

[clockout]

He made a choice which ended up costing him his life. It happens.

 

[Aur0ra145]

His gun was loaded with hollow points, which are designed to cause more damage to fleshy targets

I have to pick up on this but hollow points are a good idea because half their design function is to not over penetrate your target and hit by standers and they have really good stopping power (IE they put the target down).

Would you have prefered he used ammo more likely to blow through the target (in this case foolish punk) and sent eight rounds off into the nights rather than 4?

You sure?

Hollow points are meant to kill people. I carry hollow points in my handgun for self defense. Let there be no mistake, this individual defended himself to the best of his ability and I completely agree with this.

When faced with extreme circumstances, like this man, you want everything to be on your side. I've said this in threads before, but being of the utmost preparedness will prevent me from leaving this earth before I plan to.

In other words, the 7 P's, "Proper Prior Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance."

I don't understand how people will concede there rights to muggers and criminals in other countries, but here in Texas we believe in standing up for what you believe and taking responsibility for what you have done.

For those of us not from Texas, we will defend our stuff until you kill us. Does that invite violence? NO! We have a polite society around here and everything is wonderful. I don't understand how people can not side with the jogger for this story. For me it is very black and white. He was threatened, he responded how he felt necessary and some criminals got killed in the action.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

It was self defense. Gruesome but in those situations, I have to side with he/she whose life is being threatened.

 

[mirasiel]

His gun was loaded with hollow points, which are designed to cause more damage to fleshy targets

I have to pick up on this but hollow points are a good idea because half their design function is to not over penetrate your target and hit by standers and they have really good stopping power (IE they put the target down).

Would you have prefered he used ammo more likely to blow through the target (in this case foolish punk) and sent eight rounds off into the nights rather than 4?

You sure?

Hollow points are meant to kill people. I carry hollow points in my handgun for self defense. Let there be no mistake, this individual defended himself to the best of his ability and I completely agree with this.

When faced with extreme circumstances, like this man, you want everything to be on your side. I've said this in threads before, but being of the utmost preparedness will prevent me from leaving this earth before I plan to.

In other words, the 7 P's, "Proper Prior Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance."

I don't understand how people will concede there rights to muggers and criminals in other countries, but here in Texas we believe in standing up for what you believe and taking responsibility for what you have done.

For those of us not from Texas, we will defend our stuff until you kill us. Does that invite violence? NO! We have a polite society around here and everything is wonderful. I don't understand how people can not side with the jogger for this story. For me it is very black and white. He was threatened, he responded how he felt necessary and some criminals got killed in the action.

Hmm, Im not trying to deny that HP are pretty fucking deadly (are there any non-deadly fast moving peices of metal?) but people seem to be trying to paint him as a psychopath for using rounds that to my knowledge are extremely well suited to use in self defence by civilians as it fits 2 good criteria:

A) yes it'll will put a mother fucker down, that makes it deadly.
B) It should not go through the target and kill the old lady down the street*.

I dont think HP rounds magically stop and never go through but their design is meant to insure that they really shouldn't.


*yes you should be aware of what lies behind your target but planning =/= reality.

 

[Axzarious]

For all the people saying the kid didn?t deserve to die... Do you have any idea what those situations are like? Besides, the kid should have EXPECTED RETALIATION if he was going to try to rob somebody. The kid should win a Darwin Award.

Call me cold, but I think somebody should expect to lose at least as much of what they plan to take when robbing somebody. Heck, I'm sure some robbers have shot, killed, and maimed people for only $60. For those complaining about the price of a human life... well, just look at the retarded reasons people have killed for. Its essentially worthless in any real value aside from sentiment.

 

[QuantumT]

This!

Hollow point bullets are not for playing around. They are created to cause as much damage as possible.
and laser sight?? Really?

Exactly right they aren't for playing around. If you're going to go through the trouble of carrying a gun around, why on earth would you use anything other than the best bullets for stopping attackers? The same goes for the laser sight. Why use anything other than the best available equipment?

Also Im appalled by how quickly alot of people are willing to dismiss the loss of an 18 year old life as a fair trade.

I won't say that he deserved it necessarily, but he certainly had it coming.

Maybe im missing something in not being American, but running away or just handing over the money seems as a preferable choice to shoothing someone eight times.

All Baker knew was that he was being assaulted. Mustelier hit Baker, Baker feared for his life and defended himself. Baker is in no way at fault.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

In fairness, you really don't need eight hollow point shots to take someone down. That said, blurred vision, fear, and imminent, present violence is a great way to get your finger to pull. The man feared for his life, and had a believable threat presented, and he defended himself. Good on you, Florida, for defending his right to defend himself. Did the guy deserve it? Probably not. Did he have reason to be shot? That, yes, I can say. Choosing to mug someone means you also choose the consequences of your actions, which might (and did) mean facing someone who will be carrying.

 

[UnmotivatedSlacker]

8 shots isn't self defence.
Also, I don't think being mugged qualifies as "reasonable" belief he would die - and risking killing someone over valuables is generally not seen as proportionate or necessary. Not when he saw no weapon (sorry about the double negative).
So I would say he was wrong. And would hope he would be put in jail if it happened in here in the UK - which he probably would. It isn't like he shot to miss as a warning and accidently killed them - he shot to kill.
It is understandable, but I don't think you should be allowed to do that kind of thing.

The guy came out of nowhere with a buddy in the middle of the night, punched him in the face; without any demands, no words saying that he was after his money.

It was more than reasonable.

And don't forget, at least for those of us who actually read the article, after being punched in the face he couldn't see straight. Anybody with a brain can understand that he shot eight times because he could hardly see and had no idea if he hit the guy or not, or if they were doing anything in return.

It's sad when the article is right there and people still try to make stuff up about how things happened.

I did read it thank you. Please don't troll. He shot 8 times to kill someone clearly going for his valuables. He could have fired a warning shot. He could have ran. He had choices - and yes he would be afraid but he didn't know if they were armed or not but pulled his weapon first escalating it and making him the one who made it life or death. Is it understandable? Yes. But should killing someone with intent be something you get away with no repurcussions? No.
Also it doesn't say he could hardly see - "blurred vision" is what it says, which is in his interests to play up - that could mean anything from seeing nothing to a merest haze. It's sad when the article is right there and people still try to make stuff up about how things happened.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.257862-Things-You-Might-Incorrectly-Believe-About-Guns Read this, you might actually learn something. Also, you really expect a guy with "blurred vision" to be able to outrun their attacker? Seriously?

 

[gbemery]

I believe he had a legitimate reason to fire, he had a CCW permit, he was attacked by 2 people, and feared for his life. Simple, don't want to get shot? don't mug people. He deserved it.

Agreed, I find it rather odd that people try to defend those who commit these senseless crimes. If somebody wants to harm me or take my property I have every right to defend myself.

 

[Soveru]

One less douche in the world. Someone give the man a pat on the back.

 

[Ziadaine_v1legacy]

Most .45's are a 7+1 weapon. Meaning 7 rounds in the mag plus an extra in the chamber totaling 8. He just emptied the mag, most likely in shear reaction or panic. If he would've had a 9mm he might have shot more because it holds more.

Plus when you get punched, blurred vision and scared that person might have a weapon, naturally the adrenaline pumps through you and you litterally cant help but just fire for your life.

 

[The Noble Shade]

To those who are commenting about the number of shots fired, think of it this way:
the person in front of you wants to kill you. You have a gun, and at that moment it's you or him, nothing else matters.

You shoot to kill. In desperation, emptying the gun is what usually happens.