Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Odin311]

There is also no evidence that the robbers where going to stop at just hitting him once, and Baker didn't know what the robbers intentions were. This news report could have easily read: "Man in coma after mugging."

Some of the people that are saying that Baker was in the wrong, need to put themselves in his shoes. What would you have done in that situation?

It is also apparent form some of the posts, that many of the detractors are not experienced with firearms, concealed cary laws, or the use of deadly force. I would recommend doing some research before making claims as to who was right or who was wrong.

I do feel that it is horrible that someone lost their life during this incident, and would have preferred a better outcome.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

I love when people keep arguing the HP rounds. I mean, seriously, did you expect rounds that dispenses hugs and hot coco?

No, it was about getting rid of the threat with minimal penetration (Hence why they're perfect when it comes to self-defense)

 

[locoartero]

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.

Finaly some sense from a HUMAN BEING and not some fascist sociopath who thinks his money and material stuff are more important than another human life.

Here in Argentina we have a self-defence law that makes a hell of a lot more sense. If you have a gun and your attacker doesn´t you have to pull the gun, point it and give the other person a chance to flee, or hold'em at gunpoint while you get the police to come and arrest them. I read someone say that would be silly, It wouldn't, it would be SPARING ANOTHER HUMAN LIFE. Shooting and killing when you have the chance to use the gun as leverage to drive them away is just murdering for the sake of it. This "victim of robbery" is A MURDERER, A SOCIOPATH (AS EVERYONE IN THE ARMY) who carried a gun everyowhere, loaded with a SPECIFIC TYPE OF BULLET DESIGNED TO KILL. He's sick, and deranged (Again like EVERYONE IN THE ARMY) and shot to kill because they dared to mug him.
Still, have you noticed this kind of violent crimes and VIOLENT OVERREACTIONS only seem to take place in the USA? Why is that? The USA have produced alone more serial killers than all the other countries combined. Isn't that little wierd? MAYBE, and just maybe, it has something to do with the fact that there's a gun on every goddamn house, so guns are something normal in that culture, and that same culture tends to cherish and embrace violence. Why else would they have thousands of books, tv shows and movies about serial killings? You have a population that's obssesed with murder and violence, paranoic because of what the media keep forcing inside their frigthened little heads, and ARMED! Of course it's gonna be a bloodbath. I'm surprised this doesn't happen more often. And your responses in this forum just give me the creeps. You are condoning murder because THIS IS WHAT YOUR SICK SOCIETY HAS TAUGHT YOU TO DO. Use your heads and start thinking like humans again. I'm begging you all.

 

[mirasiel]

I do feel that it is horrible that someone lost their life during this incident, and would have preferred a better outcome.

Well a better outcome would be that 2 young men did not think it was ok to attack someone at random, a slightly less 'better' (I think I hear my english teacher screaming)outcome is that 1 idiots death serves as a wake up call to others, most liklely outcome is that his peers dont get the message and more of them end up on slabs*.


*I know that to some that is the better outcome (and I agree to a degree) but I'd rather people just realise that life is better when you dont try and be a douche to everyone else.

 

[Ganthrinor]

Fuckin' A. When you try to mug somebody, getting shot is an occupational hazard. End of story.

Maybe getting shot is, but getting shot 8 times with hollow point rounds shouldn't be.

Yeah, muggers are assholes who deserve to go to jail, but they don't deserve to be ripped apart by a hail of bullets.

The mugger got hit by 4 rounds out of 8 fired. Any knowledgable gun owner knows that when attacked, you shoot until the target is down. 8 rounds fired from a .45 handgun is hardly a hail.

Hollow Points are the best choice of ammo given his surroundings and civilan status. Standard rounds will exit a human body and continue on to cause additional collateral damage. You would rather he used AP or FMJ rounds and was a threat to everything and everyone not sheltering behind concrete? Perhaps Incendiary rounds, so he could start fires? Flechette rounds so the target suffers in agonizing pain after flesh had been flensed from bone and sinew until he bled to death?

No, Hollow Points and 8 rounds fired with 4 hits is about as good an outcome as could be expected in this situation. Granted, the BEST outcome would have been if the Little Mugger That Couldn't had decided to get a job and work for money rather than trying to roll late-night joggers.

 

[Spoon E11]

wow this thread has alot of threads.

But anyway OT.

Thats why america allows you to carry guns isn't it?

 

[Danpascooch]

You realize that penetrating minimally IS maximum harm right? You WANT the bullet to exit your body.

Secondly, eight shots is not normal, expected, or alright. If this guy needed a gun, he should have properly prepared himself for what to do in a crisis, he should have received training on how to defend yourself without turning a guy into swiss cheese with special anti-infantry rounds.

You might say "well, he panicked, it was a mistake" well, it was a mistake that cost a human life, I am all for having a gun for self defense, but if you don't receive the training you need to responsibly use it, you SHOULD be held accountable for killing someone.

Before you say "how could he have done this any differently!?" I would say he should have shot at a limb if possible, if NOT possible, he should have fired one, MAYBE two shots. Eight shots mean he was not prepared for the responsibility of gun ownership.

One cause, two effects. You're assuming that he used hollow-points because he wanted to hurt someone, when it's also possible he just only wanted to hurt one person and no one else at a time.

You don't get it: when you shoot someone, you're supposed to shoot to kill. It's what everyone is told to do if they need to shoot somebody. Shooting limbs is very difficult, you're told to aim for the torso. In fact, shooting anything in a tense situation is difficult. Ask ANYONE who has any real experience and training, you aim to kill, and you aim for the torso. Also, there's no difference between killing someone with two bullets and killing with eight.

Victim is alive, mugger is dead. This is how it's supposed to work.

You think it's alright to kill a man who does not immediately threaten you physically, and only verbally tells you to give him your money?

You're insane, and you should be careful, because if Baker's case isn't clear cut, that situation would certainly be murder.

If they threaten me verbally, that's the same as threatening physically. There's no difference. The danger is still present.

If a guy comes up and asks for money, that's not mugging. If a guy says he's going to punch me until I give up my wallet and watch, that's a mugging. He doesn't need to show a weapon or raise his fist, it's enough.

As Bob Dylan once sang "For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled"

Man the times, they are a-changing....*Blows Harmonica*

I love you for that.

It may be difficult to aim for the limb, but eight shots is overkill, can you honestly see any situation where the man would not stop punching him after being shot? Yes he CAN still punch him, but why the fuck would an unarmed attacker continue attacking after he heard a gun go off in his face?

Saying there is no difference between threat of violence (verbally) and actual violence is just wrong, at least in the eyes of the law, there is a HUGE difference between me going up to you and saying "I'm going to shoot you" without a gun and ACTUALLY DRAWING A GUN AND FIRING A SHOT AT YOU. I don't know where you're getting that they're equal, but it's not even close.

 

[Danpascooch]

(why the FUCK do you need a laser sight for self defense while jogging?)

I'll quote myself from earlier -

Secondly, I hardly beleive that there is any reason for anyone to need a laser sight on their gun for self defence. Laser sights aren't for close quarters shooting like that. Hell, the mugger was killed at pretty much point blank range.

That's quite the opposite of the truth, seeing that's exactly what laser sights are for.

Despite what you see in the movies/games of snipers picking off guys with laser sights at 1000m, a laser sights primary purpose is not accuracy, in the sense of making your shots more precise, but for faster target acquisition. In close quarters rather than having to line up your shot with your normal sights, you simply put the dot on the target. This transitions into you being able to fire at your target more quickly.

At distance they are no more or less useful than any other sighting device as it can still only be sighted for a single range. Bullets don't travel flat, most barrels are designed to curved up slightly resulting in a parabolic flight. So if you sight your laser sight for center mass at 300m, it's going to be mostly accurate close in, but at 150m you'll need to aim at the dirt as the bullet will be at the top of its arc.

Military and police forces often won't use laser sights unless they are in a non-visible spectrum, like infrared paired with night vision goggles, and then if they can confirm only their forces have the equipment to see them, primary because they can be seen and give away their presence otherwise.

So contrary to there being no reason, a laser sight is actually a very reasonable accessory for someone worried about defending themselves in a close environment, in a rapid manner and is not concerned about the red dot giving away their position.

I'll also repeat myself from earlier.

If he couldn't shoot someone from the UNDER TWO FOOT RANGE required for the guy to punch him, he is legally blind and has no business owning a gun.

Would he need it for 50 feet? Sure, does he need it for a guy who is punching him? Or even a guy charging him with a knife? no.

 

[Kaymish]

the guy shot a criminal and someone wanted to put him away i cant believe it i would say its an attack lawyer going on a crusade but they dismissed the charges
the criminal took on the risks when he decided to try and mug a guy in the united states did he deserve it? no i dont think so but still the guy who shot him shouldn't go to court

 

[Danpascooch]

My point was obviously and clearly that he had a weapon thats power was not proportional to the intent. Which was basic self defense from common thugs.

Hollow point round: Deforms on impact ensuring a large amount of energy is dumped into the target doing lots of tissue damage and most likely toppling your target. This mean that when you shoot someone with it you ruin their day and most likely put them on their arse.

The other effect of the round deforming and dumping its energy is that it ceases to move forwards and (hopefully) does not leave the target area (chest, hip and arse of criminal scumbag in this case) and kill some little old lady watching from downrange.

These properties make it the perfect round for defending yourself at probably close range against angry young males who want to hurt you in an urban setting.

/edit some one beat me too it on the laser sight and I shouldn't have said that last sarcastic part.

That's cute, I specifically like the part when you insulted my intelligence without knowing a single thing about me other than a few posts where I don't particularly like the fact where a man shot an unarmed person eight times.

Why do you need to physically knock an unarmed assailant on his ass? In what situation would having a gun fired at you and a bullet enter your body NOT cause you to stop attacking if you are completely unarmed? Even if he was armed, he's not going to draw a weapon AFTER being shot (he had no weapon drawn when the shots were fired), that's just insane.

 

[Platinum117]

Far too often in the country you are punished for defending what you are entitled to protect from unwarranted harm. In the heat of the moment, pulling the trigger 4 times would not even register. As long as the guy didnt stand over him and put a coup de grace into his head then he was well within his rights to defend himself.

 

[mirasiel]

It may be difficult to aim for the limb, but eight shots is overkill, can you honestly see any situation where the man would not stop punching him after being shot? Yes he CAN still punch him, but why the fuck would an unarmed attacker continue attacking after he heard a gun go off in his face?

Did you read the article,at all?

He feared that the person attacking him was armed, the dead perp's own buddy has basically backed up Bakers version of events and the police have drawn the conclusion that it was a justifiable homicide.

You do realise that people have continued to attack after being shot, actually if i recall correctly the .45 ACP round was developed precisely because crazy fuckers kept on coming after being shot.

Christ-on-a-stick troops in Iraq have been moaning for years now that the rounds from the m16 are not good enough as the crazy fuckers keep on coming after being shot by them (and considering that some of those guys blow up when close enough...) .

 

[Danpascooch]

Fuckin' A. When you try to mug somebody, getting shot is an occupational hazard. End of story.

Maybe getting shot is, but getting shot 8 times with hollow point rounds shouldn't be.

Yeah, muggers are assholes who deserve to go to jail, but they don't deserve to be ripped apart by a hail of bullets.

The mugger got hit by 4 rounds out of 8 fired. Any knowledgable gun owner knows that when attacked, you shoot until the target is down. 8 rounds fired from a .45 handgun is hardly a hail.

Hollow Points are the best choice of ammo given his surroundings and civilan status. Standard rounds will exit a human body and continue on to cause additional collateral damage. You would rather he used AP or FMJ rounds and was a threat to everything and everyone not sheltering behind concrete? Perhaps Incendiary rounds, so he could start fires? Flechette rounds so the target suffers in agonizing pain after flesh had been flensed from bone and sinew until he bled to death?

No, Hollow Points and 8 rounds fired with 4 hits is about as good an outcome as could be expected in this situation. Granted, the BEST outcome would have been if the Little Mugger That Couldn't had decided to get a job and work for money rather than trying to roll late-night joggers.

The guy didn't have a weapon in his hand, a single hit would have sent him packing, maybe not immediately physically drop him to the floor, but fuck man, he was just SHOT, he's not going to keep punching the guy.

 

[aldt]

America: where even the joggers are armed. And they're the ones who usually discover the bodies...

 

[Danpascooch]

It may be difficult to aim for the limb, but eight shots is overkill, can you honestly see any situation where the man would not stop punching him after being shot? Yes he CAN still punch him, but why the fuck would an unarmed attacker continue attacking after he heard a gun go off in his face?

Did you read the article,at all?

He feared that the person attacking him was armed, the dead perp's own buddy has basically backed up Bakers version of events and the police have drawn the conclusion that it was a justifiable homicide.

You do realise that people have continued to attack after being shot, actually if i recall correctly the .45 ACP round was developed precisely because crazy fuckers kept on coming after being shot.

Christ-on-a-stick troops in Iraq have been moaning for years now that the rounds from the m16 are not good enough as the crazy fuckers keep on coming after being shot by them (and considering that some of those guys blow up when close enough...) .

This is a mugger, not an armed terrorist with a bomb strapped to his chest that has already accepted that he is going to die.

I don't think the M16 not stopping suicide bombers in Iraq really relates to a jogger defending himself from a fucking MUGGING.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Why do you need to physically knock an unarmed assailant on his ass? In what situation would having a gun fired at you and a bullet enter your body NOT cause you to stop attacking if you are completely unarmed? Even if he was armed, he's not going to draw a weapon AFTER being shot (he had no weapon drawn when the shots were fired), that's just insane.

Shot AT him 8 times. Only 4 connected.... You might wanna read the article again.

It was dark, his vision was blurry and he was on the ground. In such a situation it's about emptying your gun until the attacker goes down.

 

[macfluffers]

snip

Someone get this man a cookie! This is what I've been trying to say!

snip

You get a cookie too.

people in the US have different values than me and that makes them fascists

Baker didn't know he was being mugged. He killed the mugger before the mugger attacked before asking for money, because he was an idiot. Baker thought he was fighting for his life, and as far as we know, the kids may have considered killing him.

By the way, ALL BULLETS ARE MEANT TO KILL. They're just less effective than full metal jackets against armor.

Sorry that my country has different values than yours.

snip

I'm tired, so I'll just close by saying that if you wait until your assailant draws a weapon, he'll draw it first, and then shoot it first, meaning you're the only who will die. You can't wait for him/her.

 

[Danpascooch]

Why do you need to physically knock an unarmed assailant on his ass? In what situation would having a gun fired at you and a bullet enter your body NOT cause you to stop attacking if you are completely unarmed? Even if he was armed, he's not going to draw a weapon AFTER being shot (he had no weapon drawn when the shots were fired), that's just insane.

Shot AT him 8 times. Only 4 connected.... You might wanna read the article again.

It was dark, his vision was blurry and he was on the ground. In such a situation it's about emptying your gun until the attacker goes down.

Why does it have to be? I would think it would be more about establishing the fact that you have a gun, one shot is enough for that, nobody who doesn't ALREADY have a weapon in hand is going to continue after a shot is fired.

 

[poppabaggins]

did the mugger deserve to die? maybe.
do I mourn for the loss of his life? no.

the mugger was a waste of the resources used to keep him alive.
thinning the herd isn't a bad thing.