Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Daddy Go Bot]

Shooting once? He could barely see and you want to make sure the attacker is no longer a threat. One shot is simply not enough, and when it comes to handguns it's all about emptying the magazine until the hostile(s) is no more.

Not that I'd expect a furry to understand such things, but when you're randomly assaulted by thugs who don't even make demands for your belongings, they will most likely kill you.

And when you know you're in a situation where you're aware you might get killed, your instincts take over you and you're completely hopped up on adrenaline.

I'd expect someone like you to strive to do no better than to satisfy your innate, instinctual bloodlust, so I suppose I'll leave it at that.

You want to kill anyone who poses a threat, I want to make sure everyone leaves alive. The fact that you said you would even empty your magazine shows that you clearly have no regard for his live, which is something I find to be terrible. But that's my view. You have yours. They're incomparable. So leave it be.

I would much rather die than kill someone if it could at all be prevented.

The whole magazine thing is how people are trained to use a handgun. People can survive 5 shots to the torso and still manage to kill you, so that's why you do it.

Believe me, you can say "I'd rather die than kill someone in self-defense" all you want, but when your instinct for survival kicks in you simply don't care about anything else but your well being. That is simply how the human brain and works and it has saved us since the dawn of time.

 

[Murderiser]

Mugging =/= death penalty
Furthermore, we only 'know' the guy had blurred vision because he CLAIMED he had. Seeing as he shot a guy 4 times, possibly illegally, isn't it possible he could be, y'know, lying to cover his tracks.

Also, who f***ing jogs at night with a handgun in the first goddamn place?

 

[TNPspectre]

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.

Quite frankly that's false. For all you know it might panic him into pulling a knife or a gun. Someone shoots, you going to automatically feel like you can escape from them? Then add the possibility the attacker's on drugs.

Honestly, you'd think the police never had any trouble catching someone since all they needed to do was fire once if the suspect didn't already have something in their hand.

Yeah, it could very well panic them into pulling a knife, but the thing about that is, THEY HAVE TO PULL THE KNIFE. Whereas you already have a gun that is loaded, safety off, drawn, pointed at them, and ready to fire since you have already taken a shot, if they reach for something THEN fire the other seven times.

I'm new so forgive me for not doing the snip thing. But alot of the things you are saying are pretty out there with a compact ccw the barrel length is very very short so you wouldn't be pressing it against any one also with a .45 acp going of close to your face at night you'll be hard pressed to get a good sight picture and finally in all self defense and law enforcement scenarios you are not taught to shoot assess then shoot as others have said because it doesn't take long for someone even untrained to become a serious threat also if the muggers friend had time to run away the other one must have stuck around for some reason.

First off, when I said "press the barrel" I didn't mean literally, I meant at that range how could anyone need a sight? Think about how close the two of them must have been.

Second, it doesn't take long for him to become a threat, but I bet he can't do it in the time it takes to pull the trigger a second time (like, 0.2 seconds I'm guessing?) he was unarmed, so why fire the second shot before even seeing what he does? It's obvious he's not some master of hand to hand combat who is going to instantly kill you, if that was the case he wouldn't have been able to draw the gun.

first of all lets say he is still within punching distance if he missed his first shot as soon as he got focus to take a follow up shot the mugger could lets just say kick him in the head doesn't take long to close distance of less then a few feet and it doesn't take a hell of alot of force to connect a boot to the head another thing you're missing is he missed 4 times no one says he connected with the first four or last four so to assume he hit an unknown assailant IN THE DARK with no clear sight picture and knowing there were 2 that attacked would have been the same as dropping the gun on the ground and painting a target on his face

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Mugging =/= death penalty
Furthermore, we only 'know' the guy had blurred vision because he CLAIMED he had. Seeing as he shot a guy 4 times, possibly illegally, isn't it possible he could be, y'know, lying to cover his tracks.

Also, who f***ing jogs at night with a handgun in the first goddamn place?

One of the assailants was backing up Baker's story. He wasn't even aware he was mugged, he was simply assaulted by them with no declaration of a mugging.

 

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

He was well within his rights to shoot someone he thought was threatening his life but:

1)Why was he out running so late?

2) Why did he have $500 with him on a jog?

Methinks he was looking for trouble, but that's just my opinion. Still, another loss of human life.

 

[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.

Quite frankly that's false. For all you know it might panic him into pulling a knife or a gun. Someone shoots, you going to automatically feel like you can escape from them? Then add the possibility the attacker's on drugs.

Honestly, you'd think the police never had any trouble catching someone since all they needed to do was fire once if the suspect didn't already have something in their hand.

Yeah, it could very well panic them into pulling a knife, but the thing about that is, THEY HAVE TO PULL THE KNIFE. Whereas you already have a gun that is loaded, safety off, drawn, pointed at them, and ready to fire since you have already taken a shot, if they reach for something THEN fire the other seven times.

I'm new so forgive me for not doing the snip thing. But alot of the things you are saying are pretty out there with a compact ccw the barrel length is very very short so you wouldn't be pressing it against any one also with a .45 acp going of close to your face at night you'll be hard pressed to get a good sight picture and finally in all self defense and law enforcement scenarios you are not taught to shoot assess then shoot as others have said because it doesn't take long for someone even untrained to become a serious threat also if the muggers friend had time to run away the other one must have stuck around for some reason.

First off, when I said "press the barrel" I didn't mean literally, I meant at that range how could anyone need a sight? Think about how close the two of them must have been.

Second, it doesn't take long for him to become a threat, but I bet he can't do it in the time it takes to pull the trigger a second time (like, 0.2 seconds I'm guessing?) he was unarmed, so why fire the second shot before even seeing what he does? It's obvious he's not some master of hand to hand combat who is going to instantly kill you, if that was the case he wouldn't have been able to draw the gun.

first of all lets say he is still within punching distance if he missed his first shot as soon as he got focus to take a follow up shot the mugger could lets just say kick him in the head doesn't take long to close distance of less then a few feet and it doesn't take a hell of alot of force to connect a boot to the head another thing you're missing is he missed 4 times no one says he connected with the first four or last four so to assume he hit an unknown assailant IN THE DARK with no clear sight picture and knowing there were 2 that attacked would have been the same as dropping the gun on the ground and painting a target on his face

Again, he has a gun all ready to fire, all he has to do is pull the trigger, I can't see them knocking him out before he can pull a trigger, he should have taken one shot and then saw their reaction, if they tried anything, then go nuts.

Also, if he's in pitch black darkness with a gun with the intent of jogging, he should be committed to an asylum. There is no way it was that dark.

 

[TNPspectre]

Mugging =/= death penalty
Furthermore, we only 'know' the guy had blurred vision because he CLAIMED he had. Seeing as he shot a guy 4 times, possibly illegally, isn't it possible he could be, y'know, lying to cover his tracks.

Also, who f***ing jogs at night with a handgun in the first goddamn place?

One of the assailant was backing up Baker's story. He wasn't even aware he was mugged, he was simply assaulted by them with no declaration of a mugging.

pretty much what you said the accomplice said that the mugger said "I'm gonna bam on him" or something along those lines then ran over and attacked which is coincidentally how a lot of gang initiation murders happen. (not saying they were trying to join a gang just that baker might have thought there intent was to beat him to death.)

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

He was well within his rights to shoot someone he thought was threatening his life but:

1)Why was he out running so late?

2) Why did he have $500 with him on a jog?

Methinks he was looking for trouble, but that's just my opinion. Still, another loss of human life.

Loss of a human life? More like the loss of a piece of shit sociopath who wanted to beat an innocent civilian unconscious.

 

[Fawcks]

Shooting once? He could barely see and you want to make sure the attacker is no longer a threat. One shot is simply not enough, and when it comes to handguns it's all about emptying the magazine until the hostile(s) is no more.

Not that I'd expect a furry to understand such things, but when you're randomly assaulted by thugs who don't even make demands for your belongings, they will most likely kill you.

And when you know you're in a situation where you're aware you might get killed, your instincts take over you and you're completely hopped up on adrenaline.

I'd expect someone like you to strive to do no better than to satisfy your innate, instinctual bloodlust, so I suppose I'll leave it at that.

You want to kill anyone who poses a threat, I want to make sure everyone leaves alive. The fact that you said you would even empty your magazine shows that you clearly have no regard for his live, which is something I find to be terrible. But that's my view. You have yours. They're incomparable. So leave it be.

I would much rather die than kill someone if it could at all be prevented.

The whole magazine thing is how people are trained to use a handgun. People can survive 5 shots to the torso and still manage to kill you, so that's why you do it.

Believe me, you can say "I'd rather die than kill someone in self-defense" all you want, but when your instinct for survival kicks in you simply don't care about anything else but your well being. That is simply how the human brain and works and it has saved us since the dawn of time.

I find it deliciously ironic that the furry is the one saying you can surpass instincts and be a human being, capable of better things than succumbing to primitive bloodlust.

A teenager is going to survive a shot to the torso with enough strength to kill you, no less? I'm not buying it. Maybe if he had a knife, but honestly, it would take time to draw it out and get in range if you're running back with your gun trained on them after the first shot as opposed to SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT KILL ASK QUESTIONS LATER

 

[strobe]

I'm British and think the number of guns in the hands of the USA's public is ludicrous.

A point that I haven't read is that these were hollow point bullets. Isn't that an ammunition type that is designed to do the most damage possible to targets like fleshy bodies? Just checked the Wikipedia article and yes, it is. What the hell?! Why is that alright?

To answer the OP, my opinion on the matter is that nobody should have had a gun and there should've been a tiny chance of anyone carrying. As far as the case goes it seems, even from the small amount of information given to the media, that the applicable law was served.

(Half serious here) Why bother concealed carry permits? Why not just let people sling on holsters like the good ol' days back on the Frontier? (Not here) Better yet! Martial law!

 

[Fawcks]

As I said, when you're randomly assaulted by multiple thugs in the middle of the night you need to assume the absolute worst.

Single punch to the face? It busted up his lip and his vision became blurry. He assumed they were armed (Which is a safe assumption to make) and when you're in such a situation your body goes into survival mode. It's all about instincts and your instinct tell you cease the threat as quickly as possible.

By the way, warning shots are pure hollywood and not a viable option when you're in striking distance.

I can't do that. If you want to assume the absolute worst, go ahead. But I personally would not, and I would try my best to make sure everyone left alive. TO be honest, this is why I'll never carry a gun or a knife. Also why I'll never go JOGGING at NIGHT.

Might as well walk into a lions den after marinating yourself in barbecue sauce. But I digress.

I instantly throw away that "Vision blurry" bit because we can't know for sure, and he obviously panicked. His testimony on that is not credible as such.

If warning shots are out of the question, how about shooting once? Is that too much?

He missed 50% of the time. Shooting once in conditions where he can only manage 50% accuracy at point blank range with a laser sight seems like a rather bad idea.

Bad case scenario: He hits, and they cease their attack due to injuries.

Worst case scenario, he misses, and they continue their attack.

Most likely scenario: The shot hits or does not hit, and they cease attacking because either they're unarmed, or they were merely surprised at the sound of a gunshot, not knowing immediately if they've been hit, OR they fall over in a heap and die. The second or two of initial confusion might be enough time to get further away, aim better for a shot, etc.

I love how you say, "He missed 50% of the time" as if that was a statistic he was contemplating in his head at the time. He PANICKED, plain and simple. He fired eight shots because he PANICKED.

I doubt that is the most likely scenario. For all you know he could try and take the gun and I see no reason to assume that it is the more likely scenario that he wouldn't. He was prepared for violence. Given the situation I doubt he'd just freeze. As for getting away, Baker had just been hit. You don't trust his blurred vision thing, but I don't think it's fair to outright dismiss that as being a possible part of the scenario.

I didn't say that as if it were a statistic he was contemplating, not my problem if you took it that way. I am using it to point out that one shot was likely not going to hit. But what he probably knew was that he wasn't having a great time aiming.

How can it NOT be the most likely scenario? They're going to keep attacking after they've been shot? 50% chance alone says one of them is hit by that bullet you fired (More if you can aim), and if you think an 18 year old won't hesitate after being SHOT AT, you're insane. So much as the sight of a gun trained on someone is enough to make them panic.At least a 50% chance says it hits, and then the guy goes down, so I'm pegging that as the most likely scenario.

 

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

He was well within his rights to shoot someone he thought was threatening his life but:

1)Why was he out running so late?

2) Why did he have $500 with him on a jog?

Methinks he was looking for trouble, but that's just my opinion. Still, another loss of human life.

Loss of a human life? More like the loss of a piece of shit sociopath who wanted to beat an innocent civilian unconscious.

Oh you know the guy do you?
people try and rob for a plethora of different reasons, it doesn't make him a sociopath. It's possible but don't jump the fucking gun here. Everyone deserves a second chance and what happened was tragic.

 

[TNPspectre]

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.

Quite frankly that's false. For all you know it might panic him into pulling a knife or a gun. Someone shoots, you going to automatically feel like you can escape from them? Then add the possibility the attacker's on drugs.

Honestly, you'd think the police never had any trouble catching someone since all they needed to do was fire once if the suspect didn't already have something in their hand.

Yeah, it could very well panic them into pulling a knife, but the thing about that is, THEY HAVE TO PULL THE KNIFE. Whereas you already have a gun that is loaded, safety off, drawn, pointed at them, and ready to fire since you have already taken a shot, if they reach for something THEN fire the other seven times.

I'm new so forgive me for not doing the snip thing. But alot of the things you are saying are pretty out there with a compact ccw the barrel length is very very short so you wouldn't be pressing it against any one also with a .45 acp going of close to your face at night you'll be hard pressed to get a good sight picture and finally in all self defense and law enforcement scenarios you are not taught to shoot assess then shoot as others have said because it doesn't take long for someone even untrained to become a serious threat also if the muggers friend had time to run away the other one must have stuck around for some reason.

First off, when I said "press the barrel" I didn't mean literally, I meant at that range how could anyone need a sight? Think about how close the two of them must have been.

Second, it doesn't take long for him to become a threat, but I bet he can't do it in the time it takes to pull the trigger a second time (like, 0.2 seconds I'm guessing?) he was unarmed, so why fire the second shot before even seeing what he does? It's obvious he's not some master of hand to hand combat who is going to instantly kill you, if that was the case he wouldn't have been able to draw the gun.

first of all lets say he is still within punching distance if he missed his first shot as soon as he got focus to take a follow up shot the mugger could lets just say kick him in the head doesn't take long to close distance of less then a few feet and it doesn't take a hell of alot of force to connect a boot to the head another thing you're missing is he missed 4 times no one says he connected with the first four or last four so to assume he hit an unknown assailant IN THE DARK with no clear sight picture and knowing there were 2 that attacked would have been the same as dropping the gun on the ground and painting a target on his face

Again, he has a gun all ready to fire, all he has to do is pull the trigger, I can't see them knocking him out before he can pull a trigger, he should have taken one shot and then saw their reaction, if they tried anything, then go nuts.

Also, if he's in pitch black darkness with a gun with the intent of jogging, he should be committed to an asylum. There is no way it was that dark.

you're assuming an awful lot about aiming and shooting guns if he cannot properly align his front and rear sights he most likely will not connect as proven secondly checking how someone reacts doesn't take as long as you thing if he fired and the guy was still standing he was a threat I've personally seen trainees fire 9mm ccw at 15 feet and miss a whole magazine or two this was a new shooter under controlled circumstances I would hate to see panicked shooting from anyone.

 

[JaredXE]

I think the kid deserved it. And in pro-active response to the uppity people who claim, "He's just a kid!" or "It was only a mugging! You want the death penalty for a mugging?":

I will NEVER get killed while mugging someone. You know why? I DON'T FUCKING ASSAULT AND MUG PEOPLE! The damned kid commited a dumb, violent and dangerous criminal act, he did it with malice aforethought, and he got shot dead due to stupidity. Good. He DESERVED IT. Permissive behavior towards minor crimes breeds permission to attempt bigger crimes. Bet that the dead boy's friend never attempts a stupid stunt like that again.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Shooting once? He could barely see and you want to make sure the attacker is no longer a threat. One shot is simply not enough, and when it comes to handguns it's all about emptying the magazine until the hostile(s) is no more.

Not that I'd expect a furry to understand such things, but when you're randomly assaulted by thugs who don't even make demands for your belongings, they will most likely kill you.

And when you know you're in a situation where you're aware you might get killed, your instincts take over you and you're completely hopped up on adrenaline.

I'd expect someone like you to strive to do no better than to satisfy your innate, instinctual bloodlust, so I suppose I'll leave it at that.

You want to kill anyone who poses a threat, I want to make sure everyone leaves alive. The fact that you said you would even empty your magazine shows that you clearly have no regard for his live, which is something I find to be terrible. But that's my view. You have yours. They're incomparable. So leave it be.

I would much rather die than kill someone if it could at all be prevented.

The whole magazine thing is how people are trained to use a handgun. People can survive 5 shots to the torso and still manage to kill you, so that's why you do it.

Believe me, you can say "I'd rather die than kill someone in self-defense" all you want, but when your instinct for survival kicks in you simply don't care about anything else but your well being. That is simply how the human brain and works and it has saved us since the dawn of time.

I find it deliciously ironic that the furry is the one saying you can surpass instincts and be a human being, capable of better things than succumbing to primitive bloodlust.

A teenager is going to survive a shot to the torso with enough strength to kill you, no less? I'm not buying it. Maybe if he had a knife, but honestly, it would take time to draw it out and get in range if you're running back with your gun trained on them after the first shot as opposed to SHOOT SHOOT SHOOT KILL ASK QUESTIONS LATER

That is is kind of funny when you think about it.

The first part of your post is simply not true. This is not about bloodlust, this is about your instinct to survove. If said survival require killing then that is what you're going to do. There is really no arguing this.

A teenager? Irrelevant, this is simply how you use handguns. Besides, he was fearing for life and when you fear for you life do you realize how much adrenaline is released in your blood? Losing control over a situation and simply squeezing the trigger is fairly likely.

 

[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.

Quite frankly that's false. For all you know it might panic him into pulling a knife or a gun. Someone shoots, you going to automatically feel like you can escape from them? Then add the possibility the attacker's on drugs.

Honestly, you'd think the police never had any trouble catching someone since all they needed to do was fire once if the suspect didn't already have something in their hand.

Yeah, it could very well panic them into pulling a knife, but the thing about that is, THEY HAVE TO PULL THE KNIFE. Whereas you already have a gun that is loaded, safety off, drawn, pointed at them, and ready to fire since you have already taken a shot, if they reach for something THEN fire the other seven times.

I'm new so forgive me for not doing the snip thing. But alot of the things you are saying are pretty out there with a compact ccw the barrel length is very very short so you wouldn't be pressing it against any one also with a .45 acp going of close to your face at night you'll be hard pressed to get a good sight picture and finally in all self defense and law enforcement scenarios you are not taught to shoot assess then shoot as others have said because it doesn't take long for someone even untrained to become a serious threat also if the muggers friend had time to run away the other one must have stuck around for some reason.

First off, when I said "press the barrel" I didn't mean literally, I meant at that range how could anyone need a sight? Think about how close the two of them must have been.

Second, it doesn't take long for him to become a threat, but I bet he can't do it in the time it takes to pull the trigger a second time (like, 0.2 seconds I'm guessing?) he was unarmed, so why fire the second shot before even seeing what he does? It's obvious he's not some master of hand to hand combat who is going to instantly kill you, if that was the case he wouldn't have been able to draw the gun.

first of all lets say he is still within punching distance if he missed his first shot as soon as he got focus to take a follow up shot the mugger could lets just say kick him in the head doesn't take long to close distance of less then a few feet and it doesn't take a hell of alot of force to connect a boot to the head another thing you're missing is he missed 4 times no one says he connected with the first four or last four so to assume he hit an unknown assailant IN THE DARK with no clear sight picture and knowing there were 2 that attacked would have been the same as dropping the gun on the ground and painting a target on his face

Again, he has a gun all ready to fire, all he has to do is pull the trigger, I can't see them knocking him out before he can pull a trigger, he should have taken one shot and then saw their reaction, if they tried anything, then go nuts.

Also, if he's in pitch black darkness with a gun with the intent of jogging, he should be committed to an asylum. There is no way it was that dark.

you're assuming an awful lot about aiming and shooting guns if he cannot properly align his front and rear sights he most likely will not connect as proven secondly checking how someone reacts doesn't take as long as you thing if he fired and the guy was still standing he was a threat I've personally seen trainees fire 9mm ccw at 15 feet and miss a whole magazine or two this was a new shooter under controlled circumstances I would hate to see panicked shooting from anyone.

We already established this is under 2 ft (because the guy is punching him)

If you can't hit a full sized person from UNDER two feet away, your bullets must be exiting out of the side of the goddamned barrel.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

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.

Quite frankly that's false. For all you know it might panic him into pulling a knife or a gun. Someone shoots, you going to automatically feel like you can escape from them? Then add the possibility the attacker's on drugs.

Honestly, you'd think the police never had any trouble catching someone since all they needed to do was fire once if the suspect didn't already have something in their hand.

Yeah, it could very well panic them into pulling a knife, but the thing about that is, THEY HAVE TO PULL THE KNIFE. Whereas you already have a gun that is loaded, safety off, drawn, pointed at them, and ready to fire since you have already taken a shot, if they reach for something THEN fire the other seven times.

He couldn't see if the assailants were armed or reaching for a weapon (Remember, there were two of them and there wasn't a lot of light at the time of the indecent. From his position, he can't watch both to see if they draw a weapon or if they even have one drawn) , he was on the ground (Meaning he wasn't exactly in a position to keep them at a distance and his gun wasn't even drawn at the time.) and he was disoriented (Sucker punches usually do that to you.). Not to mention that he is an average Joe, not a member of your local police force or even the neighborhood watch. He didn't have training in firing a hand held weapon and I believe someone said earlier that it is very easy to fire 8 shots in a small amount of time. Given the circumstances, I'm not surprised he lost control of the weapon and I don't blame him for it.

That's kind of my point, he didn't have training firing a hand weapon.

This is a deadly weapon, he shouldn't carry it around without proper training, and if he does carry it around without proper training, he should be responsible for his actions, that's like hitting someone with a bus and then saying "but I didn't know how to drive"

He had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and he obviously did know how to use the gun as he has to show proof of training in order to get the Permit. Even then, that training basically boils down to shooting at a gun range or a similar circumstance. No average Joe is gonna be prepared for a situation where their life is in danger if they use the current method of training. Even then, they don't fire from a position where they're on the ground, they don't fire at night, and they don't disorient the shooter before hand during training. He knew how to operate the gun and he knew how to use it, but he was placed in a position where his training was useless.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

He was well within his rights to shoot someone he thought was threatening his life but:

1)Why was he out running so late?

2) Why did he have $500 with him on a jog?

Methinks he was looking for trouble, but that's just my opinion. Still, another loss of human life.

Loss of a human life? More like the loss of a piece of shit sociopath who wanted to beat an innocent civilian unconscious.

Oh you know the guy do you?
people try and rob for a plethora of different reasons, it doesn't make him a sociopath. It's possible but don't jump the fucking gun here. Everyone deserves a second chance and what happened was tragic.

He said he was going to knock Baker out.

Did anyone read the article?

 

[Callate]

Yes, he had a right to defend himself, including using deadly force. When someone you don't know comes up to you and punches you in the face, the burden is not on the victim to try to scope out whether the perpetrator is carrying any other weapons.

What I am disturbed by is that the shooter was using hollow points, fired eight times, and only hit four. Hollow points are not necessary to deter typical street crime. And what if he had hit someone else, firing that wildly?