Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Jonabob87]

So it's better that a young man dies than a middle aged man loses the cash he's carrying?

Just another reason why gun control is completely necessary. When your first reaction to a threat is to take someones life there's something very wrong. There's a huge difference between self-defense and murder/manslaughter.

How is defending myself from someone who came up and assaulted me unreasonable in any way?

Baker didn't even know they were just after his money. All Baker knew was that some person he didn't know had just punched him in the face, and he feared for his life.

So the first response isn't to, say, punch him back? No it's to end his life. Can you honestly defend that decision to kill someone for hurting you? It's not so much fear as it is cowardice.

It isn't just that he hurt Baker. Baker had no way of judging whether or not his very life was at stake, so he stayed on the safe side and defended himself.

Anyone who's actually done any real self defense knows that it isn't a time when you pussyfoot around. You hit full force with everything at your disposal, because to do anything else jeopardizes your own life even further. You don't do nonsensical stuff like just punch him, try and disarm him, shoot him in the leg, or whatever other nonsense you can think of. You try to end it as quickly as possible, with whatever means are available.

And go ahead and call him a coward if you want. We'll see how brave you are when some person randomly assaults you.

Nice assumption, remember they make an ass out of you and me. I've been randomly assaulted before, once with a broken bottle and once with a bike chain. While I live in a country that controls guns (i.e. a sensible one), I can assure you if I had any sort of gun I would not have fired it. I live in an area comprised of drug addicts and drug dealers so I'm no stranger to violent individuals.

Is there really such a lack of respect for human life in America?

 

[Valiard]

So if im getting this right the only problem that most of you have is that the criminal in question was a teenager...is that it?

 

[Csae]

So it's better that a young man dies than a middle aged man loses the cash he's carrying?

capital YES.

The kid can learn, the adult can heal & make the money back. Both families can possibly prosper.

Now one is dead.

This is no different from killing for money, its your own money so you protect it by killing, i personally don't understand why a 28 who is getting fit to be in the army and jogs at midnight (Like thats a smart idea) gets ko-d by a 18 year old.

But you know, i won't be bothered by it, yes he technically could of had a gun, and shooting him was possibly, or arguably the safest thing the person could of done... But thats not what bothers me.

What bothers me is how people approve of this. Approve of a death. "Well its for self-defense, its his right, its"

Blaaaah.

One person robbed.

One person killed.

*Whos commit the worst crime?*

Hell i wont even get into the fact that wtf are you thinking jogging around at midnight with 500$ bucks in your pocket? (I'll just pretend that part is wrong.)

Seems to me like the death sentence is a whole lot easier to carry out now... Scare someone, and you're liable to die for it. Without trial, without authoritys.

.ps: remind me to visit and grab a permit/gun, bump into you on the sidewalk and shove myself into a tree busting my nose, turn around and shoot you in the face. Reasonble defense he shoved me into a tree and told me to give him my money. I think if a hitman was to have a easier job, he'd quit and become an accountant.

 

[Nutcase]

Anyway it's unfortunate that a child got killed, but his actions were idiotic and it was all his fault. Mugging is a big boy crime, and it seems like he made the childish mistake of thinking he could knock out a guy in one hit.

Not a child but an adult. He was 18. Of course, when reporters seek to make a sob story where the criminal is painted as a victim, or want to make him sound harmless, they will happily extend terms like "youth" all the way up to 30+ years of age. I have seen this happen in reporting about rioting muslim immigrants in France, Sweden, Greece.

 

[Sovvolf]

He was in the right defending himself and well they shouldn't have mugged him. However, no, the teen didn't deserve to die. Nobody should ever deserve to die over a simple mugging. Its a shame that the teen did die. However I don't think that Tom was in the wrong shooting him

 

[Valiard]

capital YES.

The kid can learn, the adult can heal & make the money back. Both families can possibly prosper.

Now one is dead.

This is no different from killing for money, its your own money so you protect it by killing, i personally don't understand why a 28 who is getting fit to be in the army and jogs at midnight (Like thats a smart idea) gets ko-d by a 18 year old.

But you know, i won't be bothered by it, yes he technically could of had a gun, and shooting him was possibly, or arguably the safest thing the person could of done... But thats not what bothers me.

What bothers me is how people approve of this. Approve of a death. "Well its for self-defense, its his right, its"

Blaaaah.

One person robbed.

One person killed.

Hell i wont even get into the fact that wtf are you thinking jogging around at midnight with 500$ bucks in your pocket? (I'll just pretend that part is wrong.)

Seems to me like the death sentence is a whole lot easier to carry out now... Scare someone, and you're liable to die for it. Without trial, without authoritys.

I dont understand why people think that if you treat a criminal humanely he wont still rob you or cripple or even kill you. I mean ask yourself this if you ended up killing someone in self defense one time would you not defend yourself again or would you give up everything including your dignity to make sure that even the mugger got away ok? do you think he gives a damn about you?

 

[QuantumT]

Nice assumption, remember they make an ass out of you and me. I've been randomly assaulted before, once with a broken bottle and once with a bike chain. While I live in a country that controls guns (i.e. a sensible one), I can assure you if I had any sort of gun I would not have fired it. I live in an area comprised of drug addicts and drug dealers so I'm no stranger to violent individuals.

Is there really such a lack of respect for human life in America?

This is the internet, so for all I know you're claiming that just to make a point, but I digress.

All I can say is that if you had had a gun in those circumstances, chosen not to use it, then died, I would have been calling you a moron, because you had the opportunity to defend yourself and chose not to.

What if they had been planning on beating Baker to death? Would it have been justified then? I would like to point out that from Baker's perspective that if he was being beaten to death, it would have looked exactly the same.

It's not that he was just going to take Baker's money. Con men and other white collar criminals steal more money all the time and don't get shot for it. But Mustelier didn't just threaten Baker's money. He threatened Baker's very well being, so I'm going to be hard pressed to be sympathetic to anything that happens to him.

EDIT: Maybe this is just an irreconcilable difference in opinion, but I think that when you attack someone to the point where they fear for their life, any rights you have are forfeit.

 

[bpm195]

Anyway it's unfortunate that a child got killed, but his actions were idiotic and it was all his fault. Mugging is a big boy crime, and it seems like he made the childish mistake of thinking he could knock out a guy in one hit.

Not a child but an adult. He was 18. Of course, when reporters seek to make a sob story where the criminal is painted as a victim, or want to make him sound harmless, they will happily extend terms like "youth" all the way up to 30+ years of age. I have seen this happen in reporting about rioting muslim immigrants in France, Sweden, Greece.

My bad; I got the corpse and his sixteen year old accomplice mixed up. Either way, it's still unfortunate that he ended up dead.

 

[Coop83]

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.

We'll make it a grey area - did he have to shoot the mugger dead? Did he have to shoot the mugger directly? Sometimes, a warning shot fired into the air will get the job done and scare them off, particularly if they happen to be unarmed, as this case was.

He could have shot to wound, as opposed to kill, although in the heat of the moment, it's not like a computer game, with automated location targeting.

I'd like to say that I do not endorse gun laws, but if someone punched me in the face and I set about them, hospitalising them in the process, I'd probably be the one that gets arrested. The mugger should have know better, as you never know when you'll pick on someone that has a concealed weapon about their person.

Hopefully, would-be muggers can learn from this.

 

[Valiard]

Double post...sorry

 

[Valiard]

Hopefully, would-be muggers can learn from this.

Learn what exactly?

 

[Jonabob87]

Nice assumption, remember they make an ass out of you and me. I've been randomly assaulted before, once with a broken bottle and once with a bike chain. While I live in a country that controls guns (i.e. a sensible one), I can assure you if I had any sort of gun I would not have fired it. I live in an area comprised of drug addicts and drug dealers so I'm no stranger to violent individuals.

Is there really such a lack of respect for human life in America?

This is the internet, so for all I know you're claiming that just to make a point, but I digress.

All I can say is that if you had had a gun in those circumstances, chosen not to use it, then died, I would have been calling you a moron, because you had the opportunity to defend yourself and chose not to.

What if they had been planning on beating Baker to death? Would it have been justified then? I would like to point out that from Baker's perspective that if he was being beaten to death, it would have looked exactly the same.

It's not that he was just going to take Baker's money. Con men and other white collar criminals steal more money all the time and don't get shot for it. But Mustelier didn't just threaten Baker's money. He threatened Baker's very well being, so I'm going to be hard pressed to be sympathetic to anything that happens to him.

EDIT: Maybe this is just an irreconcilable difference in opinion, but I think that when you attack someone to the point where they fear for their life, any rights you have are forfeit.

So the 28 year old MAN is to be so afraid of an 18 year old who looks about 14 and a 16 year old that he feels they may kill him? That's pathetic.

Of course this is the internet and I could tell you I was the fuhrer if I wanted to so don't worry about whether you believe it or not, I wont.

 

[QuantumT]

So the 28 year old MAN is to be so afraid of an 18 year old who looks about 14 and a 16 year old that he feels they may kill him? That's pathetic.

Not that it really matters, but recall that the first blow impaired his vision badly enough that he only hit with 4 out of 8 shots at point blank range.

And what if one of them decides they want to pull a weapon? Remember that his vision was impaired enough that he couldn't tell whether they were armed or not.

 

[Jonabob87]

So the 28 year old MAN is to be so afraid of an 18 year old who looks about 14 and a 16 year old that he feels they may kill him? That's pathetic.

Not that it really matters, but recall that the first blow impaired his vision badly enough that he only hit with 4 out of 8 shots at point blank range.

Yes only 4 out of 8 fired at two boys who probably ran for their lives the second they saw it.

 

[LockandKey]

I agree. What if the shooter simply pulled out his gun? Would the mugger have fled upon realising the danger to his life? Or even just a bullet to the leg. I don't think the shooter should be punished but this is a case of excessive force.

A bullet to the leg still has a pretty good chance of killing a guy, especially if it goes through the bone.

 

[QuantumT]

Yes only 4 out of 8 fired at two boys who probably ran for their lives the second they saw it.

If he responded as you should in that kind of situation, they likely didn't have time to run. He has absolutely no obligation whatsoever to give them the chance to react to him changing the situation (however, it's worth noting that he only shot one of them even though there were 2 people there).

To carry this on in my beating to death analogy:

They were initially only planning on beating him to death with their fists, because it's more fun that way. But when they see he has a gun, they pull out their guns and shoot him instead because he decided to hesitate.

PS- If you're just going to carry on with the whole "He doesn't have the right to defend his own life" thing, then it's not really worth continuing this.

 

[Jonabob87]

Yes only 4 out of 8 fired at two boys who probably ran for their lives the second they saw it.

If he responded as you should in that kind of situation, they likely didn't have time to run. He has absolutely no obligation whatsoever to give them the chance to react to him changing the situation (however, it's worth noting that he only shot one of them even though there were 2 people there).

To carry this on in my beating to death analogy:

They were initially only planning on beating him to death with their fists, because it's more fun that way. But when they see he has a gun, they pull out their guns and shoot him instead because he decided to hesitate.

PS- If you're just going to carry on with the whole "He doesn't have the right to defend his own life" thing, then it's not really worth continuing this.

Of course he has a right to defend his own life, when did I say he didn't? He just doesn't have the right to take someones life who showed no signs of having any weapons whatsoever. Surely if they were armed and planned on mugging him they would have held him up? If they had weapons and just wanted to beat him they'd have taken him by surprise with them.

There is no logic in any of this and now a young man is dead because apparently shooting someone dead is preferable to being punched in the face. It's disgusting.

 

[QuantumT]

Of course he has a right to defend his own life, when did I say he didn't? He just doesn't have the right to take someones life who showed no signs of having any weapons whatsoever.

All Baker knew was that he had been punched in the face for no apparent reason, and that he couldn't see for crap. That means that he couldn't tell if they were armed or not.

Surely if they were armed and planned on mugging him they would have held him up? If they had weapons and just wanted to beat him they'd have taken him by surprise with them.

I offered my possible explanation for why they wouldn't start with weapons but either way when you threaten someone's life, you lose any right to be treated fairly.

And they did take him by surprise. And fists are perfectly capable of killing someone.

There is no logic in any of this and now a young man is dead because apparently shooting someone dead is preferable to being punched in the face. It's disgusting.

Being punched in the face once maybe. But what about twice? Or three times? Or until I'm in the hospital? Or dead?

Remember that all these situations start exactly the same way.

Note: I'm not saying that it's a desirable outcome, but it's not an outcome that Baker can be blamed for in any way.

 

[goldendriger]

So lets see if i got this right, Guy A gets punched in the face by guy B, Guy A pulls out a gun and shoots Guy B? well if i got that right, arrest guy A, its call "Excessive force" if he pulled out a gun and told them to back off, and 1 reached for something, fair enough, but he basically went "Oh no a fist fight, BANG!"