Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Someonetookmyname]

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.

i wondered bout that as well, but i dont think he were looking for trouble, because he had 500£ on him, the article didn't say anything about him yelling: KICK MY ASS I HAZ MONEYZ!
perhaps he just forgot to take out the money from his pants.

I cant explain why he would be out running so late.
The jogger is a spy?!


I also think that he should be allowed to shoot, if the mugger hadn't died, he would have gone to jail, but now because he was shot, the victim is the bad guy for defending himself

Eight shots is kind of overkill though...

And i am against guns for the public...

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

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?

Have you given the circumstances any thought?

 

[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.

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.

again you are assuming a lot and if you're under two feet then there is no reason at all to stop shooting like I said the attacker could have just kicked his leg out at two feet and if you have ever fired a .45acp compact one handed the recoil alone would knock the gun far far off target I'd have to say though i think you're way off at 2 feet because at that range the mugger would have been caught on fire by the fricken muzzle blast

 

[ReverendJ]

If I put my WANT over your RIGHTS I deserve whatever happens to me. Don't want to get shot? Don't mess with people. Think the force was excessive? http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.257862-Things-You-Might-Incorrectly-Believe-About-Guns?page=1

 

[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?

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.

Way to totally ignore my point moron...

 

[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

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.

First part is kind of true. But why do you see killing him as the ONLY way to survive? It's called fight or flight for a reason, killing him is NOT the only, automatic, uncontrollable reflex to that situation. He panicked, and that affected his judgment, but he could have chosen another way out. It's not theoretically impossible for him to have not shot his weapon. He could have tried to evade and taken a shot, using the cover of fire to escape.

I find it kinda funny that he was struck unaware (I presume), had the time to get a gun out and aim at the assailant and fire, but not enough time to contemplate anything. Did the criminal strike him from the front? How did he get caught unaware from the front? It's confusing. If not from the front, how did he cut his lip?

If we just agree that he panicked and didn't think rationally, we're pretty much in agreement here.

 

[TNPspectre]

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?

A common misconception about hollow points is that they are made as some sort of super damaging psycho bullet they are made specifically for defense against non armored assailants they are made to increase the stopping power of the round and decrease collateral damage don't listen to everything Mel Gibson said in lethal weapon, if the guy was using shredder rounds it would be a whole different story.

 

[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.

Way to totally ignore my point moron...

Would you mind explaining said point?

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

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?

Hollowpoints are the preferred carry ammo for self defense and law enforcement. FMJ tends to punch through the target putting bystanders at risk. HP's tend to stay in the target, and not ricochet as much as FMJ's. I've already addressed the other two questions in my earlier post. Accuracy in a fight or flight situation is NOT accuracy in a controlled fire on a range. All things considered, 50% hits isn't bad at all.

 

[Scars Unseen]

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?

You didn't read the whole thread (not that I blame you with this one). The point was made that hollow points stop at the target they impact, thus minimizing the risk of unintentional casualties due to the bullet traveling through after impact. Also, the whole point of a (non-hunting) gun is to kill an opponent. As has been said many times over in this thread, you don't shoot to injure. You don't shoot to disable. You shoot at center mass until the attacker drops (usually dead). Period. Anything else is Hollywood fiction or bad training, and will likely result in prison time and/or lawsuits (if you had time to aim to disable it obviously wasn't a life threatening situation).

 

[Tyrant T100]

I think he was perfectly in his right to shoot just as I don't think 8 shots is excessive. When your attacked you panic, I can hardly blame him for firing more times than necessary, better he shot more times than needed and survived, there have been a few cases where people have shot once or twice and then got killed or injured because the attacker wasn't fully incapacitated by the shots. So yes better the criminal dies than the innocent.

 

[Starke]

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.

And like I said, you're confusing the intent and usage of a laser sight, because you are describing their intended purpose exactly opposite. You wouldn't need to use a laser sight at 50 feet because you have time to properly aim, you would want a laser sight if you are trying to defend yourself quickly and in a close proximity. It's a tool primarily for faster target acquisition not necessarily for precision.

I know they aren't nearly as accurate as in the media, but I can't imagine you need a laser when a guy is so close you can literally press the barrel against him

Funny thing about automatics. Most modern automatics are designed to unseat the battery if the barrel is pressed against someone, preventing the weapon from discharging.

That said, snapshooting even at very close range can be really fuckin' tricky, especially when you're under adrenaline, and, a laser does make snapshots a LOT easier.

So, it works something like this, anyone in under 30ft of you can attack you with a melee weapon before you (or rather someone with close quarters combat training) can reliably draw, aim and discharge a firearm. Combine this with standard pistol doctrine at close ranges which calls for multiple shot bursts on the target.

It's a little disturbing at first glance that he had a 50% accuracy rate, but honestly, I'm not sure I'd do any better.

 

[Fawcks]

Asking how it cannot be the most likely scenario is a logically invalid way to show it is. First off, 50% chance to hit doesn't mean that they will stop if hit. I happen to livei n reality where being shot once doesn't automatically make people fall over like a cardboard cut out. Secondly, I do not trust your mind reading powers and not trusting them does not make me insane. Instead realizing that panic can make people keep acting, and that adrenaline can make you not notice you've been wounded just means I am looking at it more rationally.

You honestly think a teenager could keep fighting and kill this man while unarmed, or have time to draw a weapon when shot in the chest? This is a freaking teenager. This isn't like a movie or videogame where people tank after 2-3 shots. :| When did I ever say anything about trusting anyone? I said that a single shot is likely all you'd need to subdue the threat or lessen it, at least until you can figure out what the heck is going on, this guy obviously had no clue.

 

[Murderiser]

Hollow points are also banned by the Hague conventions I believe.

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

The ignorance about firearms in this thread is incredible. It's ok to be ignorant, but to have a dead set opinion (which you insist on sharing with the world) on something that you are truly ignorant about is criminally stupid.

 

[Lord Deathray]

He was attacked suddenly and therefore he panicked, so he shoot at them. But I do not agree that it was the right thing to do. They tried to mug him, but the mugger did not deserve to die.
I think it was wrong of the police to let him go, they should at least investigate and come to a conclusion in the court.
But the real problem here is that he was jogging, whit a gun in his pocket, WHY? I see no reason for him to bring his gun whit him. I know he had a licence but still. If it is accepted or necessary to bring a gun for jogging, there is something wrong. If the area is that unsafe, it NEEDS a better police force and it is a sign for the goverment make the place safe.
So I do not think he did the right thing, but I can see why he did it, but I think the problem is that he took the gun whit him and that it is acceptable for him to do so.

 

[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.

First part is kind of true. But why do you see killing him as the ONLY way to survive? It's called fight or flight for a reason, killing him is NOT the only, automatic, uncontrollable reflex to that situation. He panicked, and that affected his judgment, but he could have chosen another way out. It's not theoretically impossible for him to have not shot his weapon. He could have tried to evade and taken a shot, using the cover of fire to escape.

I find it kinda funny that he was struck unaware (I presume), had the time to get a gun out and aim at the assailant and fire, but not enough time to contemplate anything. Did the criminal strike him from the front? How did he get caught unaware from the front? It's confusing. If not from the front, how did he cut his lip?

If we just agree that he panicked and didn't think rationally, we're pretty much in agreement here.

The lip? He was simply sucker punched (From the front I'd assume). Fight or flight? He's caught unaware, dazed and fears for his life. Under such adrenaline fueled circumstances there is literally no time to think about such things.

 

[v0rtic3s]

#&%!... what happened to the "old days"...

Firstly, when you're being attacked, you're not going to stop to think about how many bullets you're firing, you're simply going to react; a twitch response to defend one's self.

Secondly, when the #&%! did "we" as a society become so "diluted", so "watered-down" and weak of mind and in all ways, the anything resembling the honor and strength went out the window!?

How the hell did this world become a place where people feel sorry for the one who victimizes others!?

He didn't deserve to die? Really? Do you think he would have grown-up to become the next great President, and would have changed the world, bringing about world peace? Tell me, what good is a person like that going to for the world? What do they bring to the table, in terms of redeeming qualities? What do they offer?

They're a waste of my air, and anyone lazy and dishonorable enough to mug or steal, if they caught, deserve what ever they get. The hell with this "modern day" thinking/feeling. People have gone soft. If this were the "old days", and he attempted to mug someone walking along a dirt path through the woods somewhere, sure enough, the other pulls out a dagger and stabs his ass, or he gets caught, turned over to the King's court, and they #&$!ing hang his ass. Maybe draw-and-quarter him.

I have a veritable arsenal of weapons, and while I'd prefer to use a sword or a mace, because any idiot can/it doesn't take a real man to pull a trigger, modern weapons are necessary in the modern day. I'm also trained in three different martial arts. I could kill with my hands, or with any caliber of gun I own and carry, and would do so, should some punk-ass scumbag attempt to #&$! with my personal space, my wife or any family.

Keep in mind as well, for all YOU know, it was the VICTIM who would have ended-up dead after he was mugged. Punk kid could have felt/grabbed and shot the victim with his own gun. Who knows, it's happened to cops, even.

The kid is dead. The way it should be. No honor? No life! #&%! him. Invade someone's personal space, try to steal their #&%!, if you get killed, good riddance. One less potentially dangerous, meaningless low-life in the world. Maybe he would have turned out to be a rapist and/or murderer when he got older as well... and what if it were YOUR daughter?

Bet you'd be feeling different then, having learned this punk kid had a criminal record, had mugged someone who had a gun, and the guy with the gun never shot him, which left the loser to grow up and become a rapist and murder.

Yeah, yeah... "Well, he could be reformed"... right. People keep up with that kind of self-deluded, ignorant "silver lining" bull#*$!, and the world is going to reach the hell it's already spiraling towards in a thimble, even faster.

/rant

 

[Scars Unseen]

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.

Way to totally ignore my point moron...

If it makes you feel better, I'll address them. I'll try to refrain from insulting you, even.

1) No death penalty was carried out. Don't confuse self defense with judicial trials.

2) Prove he's lying. And no, I don't have to prove he isn't. That's not how US law works.

3) People who work during the day and live in an area with a record of night time muggings might jog at night with a handgun. It's not illegal. Mugging at night is.