Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Harrowdown]

I agree that the man had a right to defend himself, but he did kill someone. If he did indeed believe his life to be in danger, then he hasn't technically done anything wrong. Seeing as the mugger didn't actually have a weapon, and considering that he fired 8 hollow point bullets at the guy, i'd say he wasn't exactly within the parameters of appropriate retaliation.

On top of that, how did the kid deserve it? Do muggers and petty thefts deserve the death penalty now? I suppose that scales down to handing out life sentences to litterers, then. The law has to be logical, and it has to be unbiased, otherwise lynchings would still be a thing. Muggers don't deserve death.

 

[macfluffers]

snip

I don't get it. Why should he feel guilty? Why should he go to jail? Why is killing in self defense wrong? What law did he break?

If he didn't have the "presence of mind" to restrain himself from shooting a gun eight times, he shouldn't be carrying a gun.

When you shoot a handgun, you're supposed to use all the bullets. That's what people are trained to do.

Eight shots is not excessive. One bullet rarely kills someone, two will work if you're lucky. Four hits? Bingo. How do you get that many shots into someone in a hectic situation? You shoot them a lot.

On top of that, how did the kid deserve it? Do muggers and petty thefts deserve the death penalty now?

The main problem isn't that he didn't declare that it was a robbery. He just started attacking. As far as the jogger knew, he was being attacked with the intention of being killed. If a person does that, he or she deserves to die, not just because he or she is a bad person who's a menace to society, but because he or she is both stupid and violent, an awful combination.

 

[matt87_50]

that will do a million times more as a deterrent, than any official punishment will (certainly, the dead teen will never mug anyone again... but you know what I mean).

if you're not allowed to use a gun to defend yourself...

WHY the **** do they bother allowing guns at all!?

however... if the mugger was not currently wielding a weapon, I doubt there was really much need to shoot him at all, let alone 4 times. it seems unlikely that 4 shots were required to stop the attack. in which case, the shooter is liable.

it should be a requisite of a gun license (do they even have them in the US...) that you know how to at least attempt to non-fataly incapacitate someone with a firearm.

using the excuse that you 'feared for your life' is not good enough to justify killing someone.
it should only be acceptable if it is the ONLY way you could have reasonably been expected to stop the threat, without too much risk to yourself. and there should be reasonable expectations for people who use weapons as self defense, to KNOW how to most efficiently do so, as I mentioned above.

 

[The Night Shade]

Someone try to rob him so he pull a gun in self defense.He is the victim

I love simplicity. This really is what it boils down to, isn't it? The talk about overkill and warning shots is silly. Mugger = dead is really all it took for me to make my opinion.

Yes because that's how it should be simple but some people always try to take advantage of any situation to ***** about stuff that they don't like

 

[Yuzzi]

Well, I probably would have done the same. ...Not really, I would've shot once. I'm such a nice guy.

 

[Seneschal]

snip

I don't get it. Why should he feel guilty? Why should he go to jail? Why is killing in self defense wrong? What law did he break?

If he didn't have the "presence of mind" to restrain himself from shooting a gun eight times, he shouldn't be carrying a gun.

When you shoot a handgun, you're supposed to use all the bullets. That's what people are trained to do.

Eight shots is not excessive. One bullet rarely kills someone, two will work if you're lucky. Four hits? Bingo. How do you get that many shots into someone in a hectic situation? You shoot them a lot.

On top of that, how did the kid deserve it? Do muggers and petty thefts deserve the death penalty now?

The main problem isn't that he didn't declare that it was a robbery. He just started attacking. As far as the jogger knew, he was being attacked with the intention of being killed. If a person does that, he or she deserves to die, not just because he or she is a bad person who's a menace to society, but because he or she is both stupid and violent, an awful combination.

Then I guess we have different cultural values, because killing in self-defense isn't acceptable as "standard procedure" to me. And don't think for a second that we are talking about a level-headed gun expert here, the jogger had a .45 with hollow points and a laser sight. Yeah, that's truly a self-defence weapon!

Now we have a precedent for pulling a gun when confronted with a punch and shooting somebody 8 times. How is every barfight in America going to end now? With a dead man and a gunman walking free? After all, if someone throws a punch, that's SURELY lethal intent!

 

[Mumonk]

Yes, fuck that stupid kid. If I believed in hell, I would wish he burned in it =P

 

[beniki]

snip

I don't get it. Why should he feel guilty? Why should he go to jail? Why is killing in self defense wrong? What law did he break?

Because killing someone is an inherently wrong thing to do. Thou shalt not kill is one of the few points most people agree on.

You'd still feel guilty over killing someone. I don't think any reasonable person stands over a corpse saying 'I'm glad I killed the bastard.' Just because it was an accident, or it was justified doesn't make you immune from knowing you just ended someone's life. And in this case, it was a kid. It would be calling him heartless to say he should feel okay with it.

The jail time is a way of letting the killer know that society has forgiven him, in a way just letting him go won't do. Remember those times with your friends when you've accidently hit Need instead of Greed on something he really wants? Do you remember still feeling bad even after he said it was okay? Same principle, just higher cost.

Jail time isn't the only option though, just the one I talked about. You could have a fine, but I'd be wary about pricing human lives. Community service would be best really, since you can counteract the guilt by doing some good.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Hell no ... the mugger punched him <.<

He feared he had a weapon ... he didn't even stop to find out ... And then he shot him. FOUR FUCKING TIMES, with EIGHT BULLETS being fired.

This wasn't about protecting one's life, it was about anger. Point in the general direction and let loose a barrage of bullets even after the mugger had threatened the target with only his fists.

And on the accused own statement 'I was scared I'd lose 500 pounds in cash (suspect enough don't you think?)' ... but the fact of the matter is that that's no justification for killing someone

It was aggravated assault leading to murder. It was a deliberate action of vengeance, not protection, against an unarmed and fleeting individual.

...and he got off scot-free? World is a sick place sometimes x.x

 

[norwegian-guy]

Baker shot in self-defence against muggers. On this note he was acting out actual legal rights, as well as being in a posisiton where his choice of action is ethicly aceptable. My only problem is the fact that he shot the mugger 8 times, that's a little over the top. By that I mean that when he was shooting someone 8 times it seemed like he went with an instinctive action against an attacker (the action I speak of is meet oposing force with force), I'm not saying he was wrong, but someone who (porbably) emptied his gun into someone as an instinctive reaction shouldn't be carrying a gun on the street.

 

[Flying Dagger]

the threat of a gun should have been enough.

and firing it 8 times? that sounds like retribution rather than self defence.

 

[macfluffers]

Then I guess we have different cultural values, because killing in self-defense isn't acceptable as "standard procedure" to me. And don't think for a second that we are talking about a level-headed gun expert here, the jogger had a .45 with hollow points and a laser sight. Yeah, that's truly a self-defence weapon!

Now we have a precedent for pulling a gun when confronted with a punch and shooting somebody 8 times. How is every barfight in America going to end now? With a dead man and a gunman walking free? After all, if someone throws a punch, that's SURELY lethal intent!

Why is a .45 with hollow points and a laser sight not a self-defense weapon? A .45 has respectable stopping power, but it's not excessive. Maybe all he needed was a 9mm, but that's not the point. A laser sight just makes aiming easier. It has nothing to do with offense or defense. And hollow points? What would you suggest, a full metal jacket that's designed to penetrate armor?

It should be mentioned that handguns are meant as defense weapons. You don't see soldiers or cops assaulting a building with them, and that's because they are meant to be carried around with you, ready to use in case of an emergency.

A barfight is different because you can see the attacker ahead of time, and you can see the attack coming. A mugging at night? Not the same at all.

Put it this way: if the mugger had a gun, would you still be complaining? If it's midnight and in the dark, and you've just been hit really hard in the back of the head, you don't have time to ask the attacker if he's pulling out a weapon or not. You assume the worst. That's what Baker did, and although it turned out to not be the worst, his judgement was still sound.

Because killing someone is an inherently wrong thing to do. Thou shalt not kill is one of the few points most people agree on.

Killing is not inherently wrong, and what he did wasn't illegal anyway.

the threat of a gun should have been enough.

and firing it 8 times? that sounds like retribution rather than self defence.

This has been gone over and over again. If he just pulled out the gun, the attacker could have tried to disarm him. Besides, Baker thought that the attackers had a weapon, and if he were right, and he didn't shoot them, he'd be dead and this topic would have a different title.

By the way, if you've been trained in handgun use, you are told to empty the magazine into your opponent. You're supposed to shoot to kill, and unless you reload, it's not overkill.

 

[teutonicman]

Unfortunate end to an understandable response.

 

[acer840]

Well, being in Australia and having absolutely no idea on American Gun laws and the Second Amendment, I will go out on a limb here;

Did he have the right to defend himself; Yes. If I was out jogging, 2 people confronted me, one punches me in the face and it looks like he might have a weapon, I would too shoot my attacker. Not to kill him, but to get him away.

He shot him 8 times; He said he had blurred vision and a cut lip. The guy must have hit him hard in the face for that, so to me that would explain the 8 shots fired. With that pain going through and the adrenalin kicking in, you would probably loose count of your fired shots and it sound like he emptied the magazine, something you would do in a situation where your dazed and scared. And he hit him four times with Hollow Rounds, which is designed NOT to penetrate through the body and cause further harm to civilians. Why he had a Laser on the weapon I have no idea.

Someone said to fire a warning shot: You NEVER fire a warning shot: That bullet will go somewhere, it is a dangerous thing to do for innocent people.

Did the mugger deserve to die; Hell no. No one deserves death for petty crimes. But if you mug someone, they have the right (or should have) to defend themselves. I personally don't agree with a Gun, but I've never been in that situation.

 

[CL4P-TP]

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

I, personally, most likely would NOT be able to keep my cool in a situation like that. I would be shooting 'till I heard a clicking sound.

Kinda like Black Ops

 

[erto101]

8 shots are not justifiable. Ever.

Here are 2 justifications.

A) His vision was impaired badly enough that he missed with half of them at point blank range.

B) Heat of the moment.

Well that was hard.

So an adrenalin rush justifies killing someone?
Impaired vision doesn't mean unable to see yet alone unable to hear the guy screaming from being shot more than once, and, for all i know, he could be a lousy shot not vision impaired.

 

[Seneschal]

Then I guess we have different cultural values, because killing in self-defense isn't acceptable as "standard procedure" to me. And don't think for a second that we are talking about a level-headed gun expert here, the jogger had a .45 with hollow points and a laser sight. Yeah, that's truly a self-defence weapon!

Now we have a precedent for pulling a gun when confronted with a punch and shooting somebody 8 times. How is every barfight in America going to end now? With a dead man and a gunman walking free? After all, if someone throws a punch, that's SURELY lethal intent!

Why is a .45 with hollow points and a laser sight not a self-defense weapon? A .45 has respectable stopping power, but it's not excessive. Maybe all he needed was a 9mm, but that's not the point. A laser sight just makes aiming easier. It has nothing to do with offense or defense. And hollow points? What would you suggest, a full metal jacket that's designed to penetrate armor?

It should be mentioned that handguns are meant as defense weapons. You don't see soldiers or cops assaulting a building with them, and that's because they are meant to be carried around with you, ready to use in case of an emergency.

A barfight is different because you can see the attacker ahead of time, and you can see the attack coming. A mugging at night? Not the same at all.

Put it this way: if the mugger had a gun, would you still be complaining? If it's midnight and in the dark, and you've just been hit really hard in the back of the head, you don't have time to ask the attacker if he's pulling out a weapon or not. You assume the worst. That's what Baker did, and although it turned out to not be the worst, his judgement was still sound.

Because killing someone is an inherently wrong thing to do. Thou shalt not kill is one of the few points most people agree on.

Killing is not inherently wrong, and what he did wasn't illegal anyway.

the threat of a gun should have been enough.

and firing it 8 times? that sounds like retribution rather than self defence.

This has been gone over and over again. If he just pulled out the gun, the attacker could have tried to disarm him. Besides, Baker thought that the attackers had a weapon, and if he were right, and he didn't shoot them, he'd be dead and this topic would have a different title.

By the way, if you've been trained in handgun use, you are told to empty the magazine into your opponent. You're supposed to shoot to kill, and unless you reload, it's not overkill.

That's just a recipe for disaster. Instant gun violence at the slightest provocation should NOT become encouraged as the standard thing to do. If it was that sudden, and he was "blurry eyed", after the attack, that might have easily been another jogger bumping into him. It's not like he stopped to check, to aim or to threaten; as soon as he could, he pulled out his gun.

So, a barfight is different because you can see your attacker? Well, he obviously couldn't see a thing here, he didn't know the mugger was armed, he was stunned from the punch and blurry eyed, as he puts it. I'm dreading a place where pulling a gun in that state of mind is legally the best option, and most justifiable. "I didn't know if he was armed, unarmed, mugging me, or trying to kill me, and I wasn't clear-headed. Therefore, I'm obviously the right person to judge who has lethal intent and to act on it with BULLETS!" No, sorry, that's just a short-sighted law. It empowers individuals at the expense of public safety.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I'm not saying that the guy should have ran or cowered and allowed the muggers to take his money. He should have defended himself, and in a state that has such gun laws, he should have done that with his gun. But death is disproportionate retribution to a petty crime. The gun rights work by assuming a gun is a deterrent first, and lethal weapon second. The fact that a guy died is not something to be cheered and supported as most posters here seem to do.

 

[Reagus]

Question: Why didn't he shoot the mugger in the multiple non-lethal parts of the body instead of multiple times in the chest?

Or simply pull out his gun and tell him "Right, get on the ground now and don't move or i'll shoot, i'm calling the police"

You don't just pull out a gun and straight away start shooting somebody in the chest multiple times unless they themselves have a visible lethal weapon aimed at you

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

8 shots are not justifiable. Ever.

Here are 2 justifications.

A) His vision was impaired badly enough that he missed with half of them at point blank range.

B) Heat of the moment.

Well that was hard.

So an adrenalin rush justifies killing someone?
Impaired vision doesn't mean unable to see yet alone unable to hear the guy screaming from being shot more than once, and, for all i know, he could be a lousy shot not vision impaired.

Well, not only that but if he fired so many times because he had blurred vision (and only half the bullets hitting the victim) meant he was either;

A: Firing out of intense hatred and loathing of the target (murder)
B: Firing a weapon blind in a public place (a felony I should think)

Either way he should have the book thrown at him.

Here's hoping this atleast bars him from ever attaining a job in the military at the very least. This man is either criminally insane, or criminally negligent ... take your pick.