Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[macfluffers]

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.

Have you ever fired a handgun while dazed while being afraid that you're about to die? I assure you, the tension makes you a lousy shot.

And when you get shot four times, you don't scream, you die. (And by the way, you should always shoot to kill, so don't say it was excessive, because it is exactly what you're supposed to do.)

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.

"Instant"? "Slightest"? Baker was walloped from behind. If you're attacked by an anonymous attacker at night, going for your gun is the right response.

It couldn't have been another jogger, he was hit in the HEAD! In the FACE! A passerby doesn't do that! And it was enough to blur his sight and break his lip, so it wasn't a light hit either.

Again, you NEVER threaten with a gun. You aim and shoot. That's how guns are supposed to be used. Trying to be pacifistic with a gun is a recipe for disaster, and no expert recommends it.

Here's the kicker about your argument: it would make sense if the dead guy were actually innocent, but as we can see, he was indeed a violent criminal with the intent of robbing Baker. How is this anything but appropriate?

 

[beniki]

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.

I'm not arguing legality, I'm talking morality.

And how can you say killing is not inherently wrong? It's a violent and abrupt destruction of a human life. All the potential of that life is gone. Everything he might have been, good or bad, is taken away, without his say.

Wait, why am I even explaining why killing someone is bad?

 

[GotMalkAvian]

I won't say that Baker was "right," but I do believe he was justified in using a legally owned and carried weapon to defend himself from what he reasonably thought was a life-or-death situation. I won't say that the muggers deserved it, but they need to accept the fact that people may defend themselves if attacked.

 

[macfluffers]

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

I am amazed at how many people are this ignorant about firearm use.

1) You always shoot to kill. No exceptions. Shooting to wound suggests that your life was never in danger, meaning you were never justified in using your weapon anyway. Also, hitting a leg or arm is very difficult. You should always aim for the center of the chest and shoot to kill.

2) You should shoot multiple times. Shooting once rarely kills someone. The only way to make sure that the attack works is to shoot multiple times. In fact, handgun users are told to empty the magazine.

3) You don't wait for the enemy. If they already have the weapon aimed at you, it's too late, and you're already dead. Can you draw a gun faster than they pull the trigger?

 

[macfluffers]

I'm not arguing legality, I'm talking morality.

And how can you say killing is not inherently wrong? It's a violent and abrupt destruction of a human life. All the potential of that life is gone. Everything he might have been, good or bad, is taken away, without his say.

Wait, why am I even explaining why killing someone is bad?

You are explaining it because the belief that killing is always wrong is NOT as universal a value as you think it is. Put it this way: Every soldier in the history of the earth has disagreed with you.

Killing is not inherently wrong because everyone dies, and death is a natural process. Killing is just making that natural process happen. There are times when killing is good, and when killing is bad. It's not always wrong, and I believe that self-defense is the most easily justifiable form of good killing.

Talk about "the potential of that life" all you want, if someone tries to hurt me or my family, I'll hurt them back harder.

 

[Reagus]

I am amazed at how many people are this ignorant about firearm use.

1) You always shoot to kill. No exceptions. Shooting to wound suggests that your life was never in danger, meaning you were never justified in using your weapon anyway. Also, hitting a leg or arm is very difficult. You should always aim for the center of the chest and shoot to kill.

2) You should shoot multiple times. Shooting once rarely kills someone. The only way to make sure that the attack works is to shoot multiple times. In fact, handgun users are told to empty the magazine.

3) You don't wait for the enemy. If they already have the weapon aimed at you, it's too late, and you're already dead. Can you draw a gun faster than they pull the trigger?

Why must you always shoot to kill? Shouldn't you shoot based on the circumsances and situation? And what was wrong with simply pulling out the gun and ordering the guy to get down on the floor until you called the police? Since like you said yourself, "if they already have the weapon aimed at you, it's too late".

And no, i'm not ignorant of firearm use, it's just that it's never been a part of my life since I live in England. Aka the place where its very rare for any sort of crime involving a gun, which means there are probably a lot more knife related crimes here, but thats another debate.

I like your "You don't wait for the enemy", you sound as if your in a bloody war, or that enemies are around every corner. The mugger was an arsehole and a blight on society, indeed, but I wouldn't consider him "the enemy" lol - You sound like you've been indoctrinated in the military

 

[macfluffers]

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.

Oh, so you're saying he should have just taken the beating like a man, given the kids his money, and then give them his gun once they found it so they could shoot him with his own weapon? Yeah, that's definitely the smarter, more sane decision for him to make.

 

[Reagus]

Why give a warning shot? That is retarded. He shouldnt be commiting the crime in the first place. Might as well sign post myself to all criminals telling them how much expensive stuff i have and what level of threat i am.

Because your not the one who should be passing judgement on him within the law, thats up to a variety of courts and bodies which you may or may not agree with, but thats how it works.

I feel like i'm reading bloody Light explaining his justification of his use of the Death Note

 

[mirasiel]

Well I wish I knew where these 138 (and rising) people were, I feel like giving someone a damn good shoeing and apparently they wont fight back

Plus I need some money for the weekend and they'll just give it to me.



I like people who'd rather be 'morally superior' and dead than alive and a little guilty, makes my life so much easier. God bless the UK and all the sheep within her borders.

 

[Jonabob87]

The reaction to this is sickening. People are even making things up to make it sound more acceptable for this guy to shoot at two unarmed BOYS.

He was not punched in the back of the head, he was punched in the face. Before punching him one said "I'm going to knock him out"

He didn't see them pull anything, that's nowhere in the article.

Well I wish I knew where these 138 (and rising) people were, I feel like giving someone a damn good shoeing and apparently they wont fight back

Plus I need some money for the weekend and they'll just give it to me.



I like people who'd rather be 'morally superior' and dead than alive and a little guilty, makes my life so much easier. God bless the UK and all the sheep within her borders.

Who ever said we wouldn't fight back? Countries without guns are full of people brave enough to be in a conflict with someone and not feel the need to kill them to win.

Also, "sheep" coming from an American endorsing the deadly use of fire-arms is hilarious.

 

[mirasiel]

Why give a warning shot? That is retarded. He shouldnt be commiting the crime in the first place. Might as well sign post myself to all criminals telling them how much expensive stuff i have and what level of threat i am.

Because your not the one who should be passing judgement on him within the law, thats up to a variety of courts and bodies which you may or may not agree with, but thats how it works.

I feel like i'm reading bloody Light explaining his justification of his use of the Death Note

Did I miss an advance in technology where the police instantly teleport to the location of a crime in progress?

I mean they must be able to do that since you're stripping people of their right to defend themselves from bodily harm, right?

 

[macfluffers]

Why must you always shoot to kill? Shouldn't you shoot based on the circumsances and situation? And what was wrong with simply pulling out the gun and ordering the guy to get down on the floor until you called the police? Since like you said yourself, "if they already have the weapon aimed at you, it's too late".

And no, i'm not ignorant of firearm use, it's just that it's never been a part of my life since I live in England. Aka the place where its very rare for any sort of crime involving a gun, which means there are probably a lot more knife related crimes here, but thats another debate.

I like your "You don't wait for the enemy", you sound as if your in a bloody war, or that enemies are around every corner. The mugger was an arsehole and a blight on society, indeed, but I wouldn't consider him "the enemy" lol - You sound like you've been indoctrinated in the military

You must always shoot to kill for practical and legal reasons. By not shooting to kill, it's legally an admission that you didn't need to use your weapon since you didn't need to kill to save your life. That's why people trained in handgun use are told to shoot to kill.

He was being attacked, and you have to realize that he made his decision in less that a second. It looked like his attacker was was drawing a weapon, so he didn't have time to do anything other than shoot.

"The enemy"? If you get into a fight with someone, what else do you call him?

I've not been indoctrinated by anyone. I don't even own a bloody gun. I just think people don't realize that Baker actually did everything by the book, and he only did everything an expert would have told him to do.

 

[Reagus]

Basically to clarify my position on the original issue of Baker.

I agree that:

He had the right to defend himself after he had been physically attacked
He shouldn't have any charges brought against him for the incident that occured
Theres nothing wrong with him carrying a firearm if he's legally allowed to
The mugger was a disgusting arsehole

I disagree with:
Him pulling out his gun and not simply threatening them to use it
Him firing eight times
That he couldn't have fired at him in non-lethal locations, especially considering his gun had a lazer dot sight

 

[macfluffers]

The reaction to this is sickening. People are even making things up to make it sound more acceptable for this guy to shoot at two unarmed BOYS.

Keep in mind, Baker thought they were armed. Besides, if someone says, "Hey, I want to go beat up a guy and take his money", that person has revoked his right to receive sympathy simply because of his age.

 

[Captain Pancake]

This is interestingly prevalent to me, as we had a debate in my philosophy class about gun control (I led the case against bearing arms) While he was acting in self defence (He was under immediate threat of physical harm) He didn't quite act relative to the intended threat. This shows how a firearm can cause impressive escalation, as it was not the mugger's intention to kill him. If he had not had the firearm, then he would have lost his money and had a sore head, and I'm sure his friends would understand that he couldn't have done anything. The case being what it is, sure he kept his money, but the other guy died, he may have been a low life but he didn't deserve for his to be cut short because of it. Plus, who fires eight shots in self defence? it takes one at most, none of it is used as a threat.

 

[Jonabob87]

The reaction to this is sickening. People are even making things up to make it sound more acceptable for this guy to shoot at two unarmed BOYS.

Keep in mind, Baker thought they were armed. Besides, if someone says, "Hey, I want to go beat up a guy and take his money", that person has revoked his right to receive sympathy simply because of his age.

So by mugging someone you forfeit your right to live?