Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[LondonBeer]

It's a shame things like mace or tazers haven't been invented...oh wait, and does no one see the potential loss in civil liberty? He 'believed' the kid to be armed, only the kid wasn't, which means his judgement was wrong, which means his decision was wrong, which means he's a murdering prick as opposed to a mugging prick. This will now set a stupid, pro-gun precedent, in that as long as you 'believe' you should have killed someone, your belief is all that's required.

Scenario; I knock on your door to get you to turn the music down, you answer drunk with something small and black in your hand, your trying to hide it. I shoot you dead, ending your drunken Wii session, which I 'believed' to be a weapon, or maybe you weren't holding anything at all, turns out I can kill you anyway.

You realise that alot of countries consider a tazer or CS to be a class one firearm? Furthermore the redundancy of your statement is spectacular given that he is an American. Not only is the right to bear arms constituitional but given the proliferation of firearms, why would you bring mace to a gunfight or a tazer for that matter?

Moving swiftly on because this obliterates the irrelevance of the prior paragraph but ....

If you knock on my door & shoot me, your going to jail regardless. You instigated the event. Your humped no jury will find you innocent.

In a fallacious attempt to prove 'This will now set a stupid, pro-gun precedent, in that as long as you 'believe' you should have killed someone, your belief is all that's required.' exists in law already. Its called reasonable force in the UK. If someone is intent on harming you & you cant stop them without hurting them you must hurt them to defend yourself. 'No man may surrender home or health to the government or any other individual' Very very old law. The statement 'No man may' actually makes it illegal for the individual to surrender himself to injury.

Again just to summarise ... Dont go knocking doors , thats what the police are for.

I live in the UK, and I think you've got a very skewed misunderstanding of 'reasonable force'. The fact that the assailant was using his fists and was found to be unarmed would be evidence enough to rule that Baker was in fact guilty of significantly unreasonable force. Which of course, to any rational human being, he was. America's 'constitutional right to bear arms' has a lot to answer for and very little going in it's favour.

Past tense, was found later to be using his fluffy pillow would still be irrelevant. Do you mind for a moment old chap I need to check to see if your carrying any other weapons on your person .....

If you consider & a jury considers your life to have been threatened and your physical security compromised (A blow struck in the dark in a creepy park at night qualifies)then ANY action to deter further assualt is LEGAL. If it was broad daylight in a playpark & the muggers promised not to kick him to death then youd have a point.

I used to bounce (doorman for you Americans) so I know people who have twatted knife wielding little plebs with a fire extinguisher. Boy nearly died, pal did a night in the jail and was let out on consideration of the fact the junkie POS had a KNIFE. Proof of intent to cause physical injury justifies reasonable force to resist it, within a reasonable practical & ordinary level.

The arguement the mugger wasnt armed & the victim should have known that isnt ordinary, reasonable or practical.

It is in fact perfectly reasonable and practical. An armed mugger does not lead with their fists, no matter how much the NRA members in this thread might like to think otherwise, and reasonable force only means enough force to safely neutralise an attacker. In the example you used, the guys were clearly wielding the knives (from the start from the sound of things, funnily enough), and so the use of whatever was nearest to even the odds was perfectly reasonable. If the person being attacked had ignored the fire extinguisher and instead chosen to pull a gun then you bet your ass they would have been convicted (ignoring the fact that we're not dumb enough to legalise firearms in the first place). Proof of intent to cause physical injury must be consistent with the method of defense. Again, if you were to shoot someone who was clearly unarmed, regardless of their intent, you would be convicted here.

Again you are demonstarting a lack of experience. Alot of street fighters have knifes in pockets and either bottle out of showing them or are saving them for a last resort. The example I use I apolgise for the lack of backstory & history but the knife came out when the individual was backed into a corner. We have legal firearms (check your facts my son), if a gun had been drawn in self defence it is the ATTACKERS duty to retreat just as its the victims to do so in light of an imment threat to personal safety. 'Proof of intent to cause physical harm must be consistent with method of defence' sounds clusterfucky dont pick and choose statements you mean A person may use such force as is, objectively, reasonable in the circumstances as he, subjectively, believes them to be. This extends to pre-emptive defensive measures. This means if you think your life is in danger then you may respond in a manner you find befitting to defence of your self.

Because you think being punched isnt a threat doesnt mean someone else wouldnt (Nifty if you r a haemophiliac you can just shoot anyone whos gonna bump into you ).

The attackers werent clearly unarmed. Your arguement is fallacious. The victim was carrying a CCW implicit in the name is the word CONCEALED. The Obvious Reasonable Practical man, the fundament of legal assessment, carrying a concealed weapon can legitimately and reasonably assume all other individuals are carrying a concealed weapon.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

I wasn't there.

Keeping that in mind, I feel like the guy got really angry and used his right to carry arms to kill the kid rather than just wound him. I might have done the same thing in the same situation. I'm not ruling out self-defense, but I'm not an idiot, and I know a gun can be practically used for more than just killing (scare tactic, debilitiation, etc.).

Personally, though, I think regular people shouldn't have hand guns or automatics. Guns like that should be reserved for the military. Besides, what if Baker had a tazer instead... Then we have 2 living people. One repenting in jail and one with his money back in his pocket.

That's the best case scenario IMO.

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

Yes, I'm coming at this from a moral perspective, but only after logic and rational thinking has been applied. One man's paranoia that someone else 'might' be armed is not grounds to shoot someone multiple times. If someone were to punch you in a bar fight or something along those lines, would you really consider it reasonable to assume they're armed too and open fire until they're dead?

It's funny how you try and change context to demonize Baker. This was not just a bar fight. They were all alone in the dark and the other guy had back up. There was no apparent reason for the mugger's violence. The scenario has changed radically. Context makes a hell of a lot of difference concerning what is or is not reasonable to assume.

So a guy who was armed would clearly need a whole load of backup?

Did not say that.

*You implied that it was reasonable for Baker to have assumed that the muggers were armed. If you do not agree with the above statement then you can't possibly believe that to be a reasonable assumption.*

That's a reasonable assumption to you? Um, no.

It wasn't my assumption, it's your strawman argument.

*No, it was Baker's assumption, which you have been defending.*

In fact, in that situation, the fact that Baker didn't himself die riddled with bullets or stab wounds is overwhelming evidence that the whole group was a bunch of unarmed opportunistic idiots.

That is not something that Baker was able to know beforehand. What we know afterward is irrelevant since Baker cannot tell the future.

*True. That much I concede, but the above statements render it irrelevant anyway.*

Context does make a massive difference, but the pro Baker crowd in here is choosing to mostly ignore it. A grown man should not be letting the fact that a park is 'dark and creepy' influence their judgement, and if so they certainly should never have been granted a firearms license. If you own a gun, you should be damn sure you can remain cool-headed enough to use it responsibly. Baker didn't.

Oh, where did it say that he was letting that influence his judgment? I don't recall anyone else saying it was "dark and creepy". But the setting, whatever it was that late at night, was probably one where you could reasonably worry about a mugging.

*Read a few post up from the one of your that I quoted. The words 'dark and creepy' were specifically used. Also, anyone worried enough about mugging to carry a gun whilst jogging has the responsibility to learn how to assess a situation calmly.*

Do tell me, have you been trained with a gun? If not then do tell me how you determined what responsible behavior is. I hope not off of gut feeling.

*Knowing what responsible behaviour is does not require firearms training(although if you must know, yes, I've had some basic training with a semi automatic rifle). Responsible behaviour is a theoretical concept by its very nature. Principal influences practice, not the other way around.*

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

Kid attempts to take life

Um, no. Where is the evidence that the kid intended to take Baker's life? I'll give you a clue - There is none. An unarmed kid punched a guy once. Holy crap, he must be some kind of supervillain!

 

[Musclepunch]

Basically, don't mug people and you wont get shot

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

A person may use such force as is, objectively, reasonable in the circumstances as he, subjectively, believes them to be. This extends to pre-emptive defensive measures.

That's where you're wrong. Legal precedent in this country shows that what the 'defender' believes is irrelevant. Pre-emptive defensive measures are still illegal if they are lethal or intended to deliberately maim. Many cases have, controversially, ruled in favour of the criminal due to the overzealousness of the person defending their property.

And yes, we have legal firearms, but not in the sense that any random person can pop into k-mart and pick up a small arsenal. Don't attempt to take me out of context, it's the mark of a bad debater.

 

[Chaza]

Sadly yes. Though the mugger did not deserve to die. Really there were so many better ways of dealing with the situation e.g mace or maybe a taser?

Do humor me.

Mace? He was sucker punched and could barely see and outnumbered to say the least.

Taser? Good luck with that ONE-SHOT taser of yours when you're outnumbered and battered.

Those were just other options I gave off the top of my head. I still stand by my view that shooting the mugger was unnecessary. Considering the mugger was unarmed shooting the man was over the top. To be honest I don't even understand why he was carrying a gun.

 

[Gindil]

A person may use such force as is, objectively, reasonable in the circumstances as he, subjectively, believes them to be. This extends to pre-emptive defensive measures.

That's where you're wrong. Legal precedent in this country shows that what the 'defender' believes is irrelevant. Pre-emptive defensive measures are still illegal if they are lethal or intended to deliberately maim. Many cases have, controversially, ruled in favour of the criminal due to the overzealousness of the person defending their property.

And yes, we have legal firearms, but not in the sense that any random person can pop into k-mart and pick up a small arsenal. Don't attempt to take me out of context, it's the mark of a bad debater.

He's talking about US law, you're in the UK. There's going to be differences in what's self defense. And yes. It is legal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense#Legal_status_of_self-defense]

"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...." There is no duty to retreat under these circumstances. However, if one is "challenged" in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge and using deadly force, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self defense.


In some countries and U.S. states, the concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self-defense instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow (sucker punch) and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person.

 

[Jroo wuz heer]

...The guy was being mugged. His assailants were physically attacking him and he had a permit to carry the weapon. Baker was in the right from my perspective. The only problem I see is that he shot the teenager 4 times, but that's about it.

even the excessive waste of lead was justified, I have been mugged before, and if I had had a gun on me it would be empty within seconds of me taking it out

 

[maddawg IAJI]

...The guy was being mugged. His assailants were physically attacking him and he had a permit to carry the weapon. Baker was in the right from my perspective. The only problem I see is that he shot the teenager 4 times, but that's about it.

even the excessive waste of lead was justified, I have been mugged before, and if I had had a gun on me it would be empty within seconds of me taking it out

I know, rethinking about it and even arguing about it, I realize that nothing in that situation could have prevented him from keeping his cool and only using a minimal amount of force.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Sadly yes. Though the mugger did not deserve to die. Really there were so many better ways of dealing with the situation e.g mace or maybe a taser?

Do humor me.

Mace? He was sucker punched and could barely see and outnumbered to say the least.

Taser? Good luck with that ONE-SHOT taser of yours when you're outnumbered and battered.

Those were just other options I gave off the top of my head. I still stand by my view that shooting the mugger was unnecessary. Considering the mugger was unarmed shooting the man was over the top. To be honest I don't even understand why he was carrying a gun.

Oh really? Then list some options that actually makes sense. And why do question why he was carrying a gun? It saved him a trip to the hospital and a mugging. Plus, he got rid of petty criminal.

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

Yes, I'm coming at this from a moral perspective, but only after logic and rational thinking has been applied. One man's paranoia that someone else 'might' be armed is not grounds to shoot someone multiple times. If someone were to punch you in a bar fight or something along those lines, would you really consider it reasonable to assume they're armed too and open fire until they're dead?

It's funny how you try and change context to demonize Baker. This was not just a bar fight. They were all alone in the dark and the other guy had back up. There was no apparent reason for the mugger's violence. The scenario has changed radically. Context makes a hell of a lot of difference concerning what is or is not reasonable to assume.

So a guy who was armed would clearly need a whole load of backup?

Did not say that.

*You implied that it was reasonable for Baker to have assumed that the muggers were armed. If you do not agree with the above statement then you can't possibly believe that to be a reasonable assumption.*

That is not what you just said. You just started randomly talking about baker needing backup.

*I said nothing about Baker needing backup. I stated that Baker should have been able to reasonably judge that the kid had backup and likely wouldn't have needed it if he was armed.*

That's a reasonable assumption to you? Um, no.

It wasn't my assumption, it's your strawman argument.

*No, it was Baker's assumption, which you have been defending.*

No, you started talking about Baker needing backup no one else did.

*Nope. I said nothing of the sort.*

Context does make a massive difference, but the pro Baker crowd in here is choosing to mostly ignore it. A grown man should not be letting the fact that a park is 'dark and creepy' influence their judgement, and if so they certainly should never have been granted a firearms license. If you own a gun, you should be damn sure you can remain cool-headed enough to use it responsibly. Baker didn't.

Oh, where did it say that he was letting that influence his judgment? I don't recall anyone else saying it was "dark and creepy". But the setting, whatever it was that late at night, was probably one where you could reasonably worry about a mugging.

*Read a few post up from the one of your that I quoted. The words 'dark and creepy' were specifically used. Also, anyone worried enough about mugging to carry a gun whilst jogging has the responsibility to learn how to assess a situation calmly.*

I said nothing about creepy. Furthermore you are making unreasonable demands and failing to back up how your way is the calm solution as opposed to the utterly inexperienced solution.

*I didn't say that YOU said anything about creepy, someone else did. I'm making no demands at all. Point out a demand that I made. So, you're saying that blindly unloading half of your ammo into a kid's chest while supposedly unable to aim properly is the 'calm solution'?

Do tell me, have you been trained with a gun? If not then do tell me how you determined what responsible behavior is. I hope not off of gut feeling.

*Knowing what responsible behaviour is does not require firearms training(although if you must know, yes, I've had some basic training with a semi automatic rifle). Responsible behaviour is a theoretical concept by its very nature. Principal influences practice, not the other way around.*

So do tell me, where do they tell you stuff like shoot him in the leg? Or just shoot once?

*My experience is on the shooting range. I would never use a gun on a civilian, nor would I personally own one, so I've never had any need for training in defensive usage. Not that I consider firearms to be in any way defensive anyway*

Amendments made, if you can't debate rationally like a civilised human being then I no longer have any time for you. I'm done with justifying why I believe a man who used specifically lethal ammunition repeatedly on a kid is a killer, especially to someone who clearly has no problem with the idea of everyone carrying a gun in the first place. Waste your breath and grind your gears with further attempts to discredit me or to defend the indefensible if you must, but since you will be blocked it means nothing to me.

 

[Koroviev]

It has already been said a million times, but the kid made a foolish, and not to mention violent, decision that ultimately ended in tragedy. Hopefully this unfortunate incident will serve as a cautionary tale.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Blocked him? Really? Way to forfeit the argument, bro.

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

A person may use such force as is, objectively, reasonable in the circumstances as he, subjectively, believes them to be. This extends to pre-emptive defensive measures.

That's where you're wrong. Legal precedent in this country shows that what the 'defender' believes is irrelevant. Pre-emptive defensive measures are still illegal if they are lethal or intended to deliberately maim. Many cases have, controversially, ruled in favour of the criminal due to the overzealousness of the person defending their property.

And yes, we have legal firearms, but not in the sense that any random person can pop into k-mart and pick up a small arsenal. Don't attempt to take me out of context, it's the mark of a bad debater.

He's talking about US law, you're in the UK. There's going to be differences in what's self defense. And yes. It is legal [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense#Legal_status_of_self-defense]

"A person may... use DEADLY physical force upon another person" "when and to the extent he reasonably believes such to be NECESSARY to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be .... a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy or ROBBERY; or (c) ... a burglary...." There is no duty to retreat under these circumstances. However, if one is "challenged" in a bar for a fight, accepting such challenge and using deadly force, instead of walking away, generally will not constitute a self defense.


In some countries and U.S. states, the concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self-defense instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow (sucker punch) and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person.

Maybe I'm wrong, but as his comment was a response to me specifically referring to UK law, I'm pretty sure that he was too.

As for the U.S law on pre-emptive self defense, I've known a few violent paranoid schizophrenics in my time (Yeah, how the hell that happened I don't know. Same shit, different day, huh?), and by that law they would be justified in violently lashing out at someone for the sole reason that they felt threatened.

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

Blocked him? Really? Way to forfeit the argument, bro.

Perhaps, but I really don't care if that's how people see it. I believe what I believe, he believe what he believes, and we clearly won't end up compromising or seeing eye to eye. So, I'm saving myself the hassle and the stress of further pointless bickering with an anonymous individual whose views are ultimately of no actual importance to me. You'll notice he's the only person who I've been debating with that I have chosen to ignore, so I'm still open to debate, just so long as it isn't based upon the 'constitutional right to bear arms', as I disagree with that on a fundamental level and am not prepared to back down on that issue.