Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[mirasiel]

B
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

If im standing next to you and punching you, do you really want to give me the slightest chance to disarm you?

How many bullets do you think is reasonable to fire? 1,2, 3 or enough that the bad guy stops moving?

He could have shot him in the balls I suppose but I dont think he's a trained sniper, hint anywhereelse non-lethal would probably just piss him off an waste ammo as you try to hit a small moving target in the dark with blurred vision.

I mean i suppose he could have used VATS mode but since the real world isnt a video game....

 

[smithy_2045]

1 less scumbag in the world, I feel no sympathy for the kid.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

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.

Or , you know ... given that they DIDN'T take his money, and given that witness effectively said that the fight had been disengaged oir the fact that the gun was fired EIGHT TIMES, FOUR of them HITTING we can assume that the bulk of the weapons fire wasn't in close quarters.

The 16 year old who disengaged stayed, either implicating himself, or having been held at gun point by the individual.

Do I need to paint you a picture?

The mugger struck once, a gun was pulled, the mugger attempted to flee, was gunned down whilst the 16 year old failed to flee and was held until police arrival.

Do I also need to paint the picture of baker probably be a crook to begin with? Jogging ... at midnight ... with 500 pounds equivalent of USD in your back pocket with a .45 with hollow point rounds. The guy is already shady to begin with ... hell I wouldn't be surprised if he was looking for a fix <.<

 

[Reagus]

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.

lol so you make a comment about the UK being sheeps and bragging how you'd love to meet some of the people who apparently wouldn't defend themselves because they find what you say questionable, yet you say you should kill when defending yourself instead of injuring for "legal reasons" haha, indeed, I care more about legal gramifications than the moral ones.

Nowhere does it say that the mugger was drawing a gun, or looking like he was going to. He hit him with his fist in the face, which is disgusting and at that point you should be able to use force in order to protect yourself, but reasonable force. Like I said, I still don't see why he had to shoot him when he had his gun pointed at the mugger and not threaten the guy to get the fuck on the floor

 

[beniki]

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.

I would suggest that every soldier since the beginning of time does agree with me.

Very few people enter the military with the sole aim of killing a lot of people. The most highly used reason to enter it at all is to protect loved ones, like you say. But I can't think of any soldier that dispassionately pulls the trigger, especially the first time they do. It's something they force themselves to get used to.

Killing is wrong, and the only reason you are so willing to do it is because you believe someone is going to kill you or your family. To use your own words against you, you can talk about natural process all you want, but you won't accept that process for yourself or family.

I'm not saying it's not justifiable. I'm not saying he, or you, should just throw up your hands and let someone attack you. What I am saying is that the act of killing will have a profound affect on you, whether you allow yourself to agree with it or not.

Killing is wrong. There may be circumstances where you have to, but it's still wrong. It's beyond childish to think that you could kill someone and then carry on with your life like nothing happened. You cannot live your life ignoring the consequences of your actions.

And I will never accept a phrase like 'good killing'. That is madness.

 

[Jonabob87]

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

Yeah cos when i am being robbed the law is there to protect me? When i am stabbed or shot and blending to death i will remember that. I do not condone violent acts. I am also against gun ownership. But in the moment what is resonable force to protect yourself? What if they call your bluff when you point a gun at them or you give them time to pull a gun on your? Not saying extreme violents is right. But we all make choices. If a criminal robs me i will do everything i can to fight him off. Whatever it takes and i will not give a shit about him as i am protecting myself.

But, if you pull a gun amnd the criminals runs away. Then yes, you should let them go. But in a one on one situation and you are fighting. Then the welfare of the criminal is not your first concern.

There's no reason to think the boys didn't brown trouser and run away, I'm sure they did the moment they saw him pull a gun out.

 

[macfluffers]

Plus, who fires eight shots in self defence? it takes one at most, none of it is used as a threat.

People trained in handgun use are told to empty their magazines when they use their weapons. Furthermore, you are also told to shoot to kill (if you don't then it's an admission that you didn't need to shoot in the first place, since you didn't need to kill). Eight shots is not as excessive as people think, as one shot isn't enough to kill in most cases. Since Baker was not a sniper calmly sitting 500 meters away from his target, multiple shots were justified.

 

[Seneschal]

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?

That's just ridiculous and illogical. It would lead to a cascade of people shooting other people without warning or provocation. Are you seriously suggesting that a pistol is never a deterrent? I mean, why do policemen even bother to arrest people then, when they can just SHOOT THEM? "A gun is meant to be shot, multiple times, and you shouldn't wait," right?

If Baker would have delayed his barrage for a second, he would see whether his attacker had a lethal weapon or not, and the attacker would stand down when confronted with a gun. That's what a policeman does. A civilian draws a gun and starts firing away because he's untrained, undisciplined and should not be in possession of one.

And it's always too late if your attacker has a gun. That doesn't allow policemen to be trigger happy, and you don't see them shooting down every purse-snatcher on the street because "he might have a lethal weapon." That's why it rarely comes down to lethal force in countries that have strict gun regulation - practically nobody owns one and they're hard to come by. The culture of "shooting to kill even if you're not sure, but you assume everyone to be armed, in a country where everyone COULD be armed, especially in a situation where your aren't thinking clearly" eventually leads to people getting shot over nothing.

 

[mirasiel]

If he had not had the firearm, then he would have lost his money and had a sore head,

or brain damage or death.

Why do people think this guy should have been able to see into the heart of these arseholes?

If I and a mate walked up and kicked you in the balls would you think "well gosh that was mean, I guess he's finished now" or "motherfuckers attacking me, fight or flight time" ?

 

[Reagus]

As someone has said above, what would the scenario have been if Baker DIDN'T carry a gun. He would get hit in the face, might try and fight back (but probably wouldn't due to fear of a lethal weapon), maybe get injured some more, and maybe also lose his money.

So we have one potentially badly injured guy who has been mugged, and two alive and well off muggers. Then the police could be alerted, and the two muggers also potentially arrested, money returned, and freedoms lost.

 

[Reagus]

Also why didn't he just give the money over? I can't tell by reading that report if he was punched in the face straight away or after being told to hand over the money, but if he had handed over the money then the chances are they would leave him alone since they got what they wanted.

Unless ofc your not saying that $500 is the cost of a life. Heck, even Baker admitted he wanted to protect his $500, not a word about him being scared for his own life.

 

[Jonabob87]

But me. All criminals have no right to live, especially if your crimes involve the killing, exploitation and abuse of innocent people. Any one sticking up for the rights of criminals are pathetic. There own actions are breaking the law. So if they die or get injured commiting that crime then that is tough.

I want a world where the innocent are deemed more worthy than the criminals. Doesnt seem like it these days.

I want a world where everyone is treated as an equal human being. Clearly not the one you're after. I assume you've never done anything in your life, never downloaded illegal music or software for example? That would you a criminal, the very people you're happy with the deaths of.

I feel really REALLY sorry that you have such a shitty world view.

 

[Jonci]

In some locations, what Baker did is the best course of action. To shoot to wound with a single round would be evidence that he was in a calm situation that didn't require force and could have been prosecuted. The law protect people in situations where the act of rational thought isn't permitted in the course of self-defense. He was surprised and out-manned. He emptied his weapon, which is what the panicked human mind will likely do 9 times out of 10.

I've even been instructed by weapons and law experts that if you ever have to confront an attacker or intruder while using a gun, fire, at least, three bullets from the weapon. Otherwise I'd face charges of manslaughter or worse for being an "expert marksman" if I seriously wounded or killed them with less.

There's nothing excessive about protecting your life from obviously violent men.

 

[Thedayrecker]

He did shoot an unarmed kid four times...

That seems a little excessive...

Yeah there was no reason for this kid to die.

 

[macfluffers]

Sorry for the long post, it seems that 5 people all responded to my posts at the same time...

snip

It's different with the police, because other police know where they are and can help if something bad happens and they usually outnumber the criminals.

snip

Soldiers are trained to kill. They know this, and therefore, they do it because they think that by killing, they are doing some sort of good.

I don't see why you think that me valuing the lives of my family undermines my argument. If one of them dies, it's no big deal, it's just a part of the circle of life. However, if I can prevent it, I'll do it, even if it means killing a non-innocent person.

I think that if an action is justifiable, it shouldn't weigh on your conscience. "Yeah, I killed that guy, but he was holding those people hostage. I just prevented several deaths!" Why would anyone feel guilty about that?

To clarify, when I said "good killing" I really meant "killing that had good effects". If you say that killing is justifiable, then really, you don't disagree with my core philosophy on the subject.

snip

Uh, I never called anyone a sheep. You must have me mistaken for someone else.

And I may have cited the legal reason, but there are practical reasons to shoot only to kill as well. I'm just tired of repeating it over and over again. But, for you, I'll do it once more.

Shooting to kill is the only way to make sure the other guy is truly disabled. The police never shoot to wound, and civilians are told never to shoot to wound as well. If you're going to shoot, you need to go all the way, since no part of the body is safe from a kill shot (getting hit in the leg can cause you to bleed out quickly), and you're probably going to miss if you aim for extremities anyway.

snip

The forensics will tell if the mugger was trying to flee or not. If not, then he did the right thing. If the mugger was fleeing, then you're right. The autopsy will show what happened, and if Baker did open fire on a fleeing mugger, then he should be punished. However, that's not the way things seem.

That said, you're right that it's a little suspicious, but that doesn't automatically mean that Baker is a criminal. Even if he is a criminal, that isn't really related to the mugging.

So by mugging someone you forfeit your right to live?

I wouldn't say that, but if you start by attacking someone, you've invited instant retaliation.

Put it this way: a smart mugger declares that he is robbing the victim, usually accompanied by displaying a weapon, and then uses violence if he doesn't get what he wants. What does this guy do? He goes straight to the violence. Baker didn't even know he was being mugged, he just knew that he was being punched in the face.

 

[Jonabob87]

But me. All criminals have no right to live, especially if your crimes involve the killing, exploitation and abuse of innocent people. Any one sticking up for the rights of criminals are pathetic. There own actions are breaking the law. So if they die or get injured commiting that crime then that is tough.

I want a world where the innocent are deemed more worthy than the criminals. Doesnt seem like it these days.

I want a world where everyone is treated as an equal human being. Clearly not the one you're after. I assume you've never done anything in your life, never downloaded illegal music or software for example? That would you a criminal, the very people you're happy with the deaths of.

I feel really REALLY sorry that you have such a shitty world view.

For fuck sake. Use your brain, we are not saying "the guy stole a sugar packet from McDonalds....shoot that bastard". A criminal that threatens lives deserves no life, especially if they are attacking me or my family. AS IN A PERSON THEATENING ME AND MY FAMILY!!! Does that make it easier all in capitals because i do not care about shoplifters or online music pirates. Just those that threated the life of me and the people i love. If they are killed through me defending myself then i will smile because i have protected me and my own. I do not want to kill but neither did i ask to be robbed. Equal means we treat people the same. How does a criminal treat people the same?

Hah, calm down.

No, equality is treating someone the way you'd like them to treat you.

 

[InsanityBaronOfAtrocity]

I love the

'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?

hurrduurrr quotation. When in danger you use the utmost force to incapacitate your attacker, not shoot him a few times and stop to see if hes still coming or not. Kid deserved it. Act like a dick feel the consequences. Such a shame we aren't allowed to carry here.