Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[LondonBeer]

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.

Any reasonable human being ought to realize that whether he was armed or not was irrelevant, what is relevant is what Baker could have known. It would be unreasonable to expect Baker to act on what he cannot know and have to wait once it's too late. A reasonable person would judge him based on the evidence he had when he acted. But I suppose being a snob about which country you're from overrides reasonable.

I think you should rethink the word Snob. [sub]Sorry but I'm British to, gotta stick up for my countrymen and all that [/sub]

Anyway to my point. I do agree that whether or not the kid was armed is irrelevant all Baker needed was a fear that the kid would pull out a knife or a gun. I said in my fist post on this forum that I felt baker used unreasonable force, granted he was just decked hard enough to give him a near concussion. But the fact of the matter is it would have only taken ONE bullet to make the kid back off, whether he was armed or not.
Baker fired over half his ammo at that kid, instantly. If Baker had a licence for his concealed gun then that suggests to me he's had some basic training in firearms and "appropriate use" of that firearm. Now I've not been trained in how to handle a weapon but I'm fairly sure that Baker wouldn't have been taught to pull out his gun and nearly empty his clip into an assailant from what I assume was not far off point blank range. (Considering He was punched I think it's reasonable to assume Baker was within 2 to 6 feet).

To clarify I don't think Baker was wrong in pulling out his weapon, or even firing. Just his excessive force.

He would have theres a reason two to the chest one in the head is a maxim. The other thing is that Hollywood glosses over is entanglment, even assuming Baker stumbled backwards both parties arms would be within easy reach, grappling could actually account for the multiple shots. Although I suspect Bakers panic & fear would have overridden sensible behaviour. Simply dumping the clip wildly into the air would have acheived the same results.

A good example is ask any bouncer with 'martial arts' training if theyve ever even considered using it when their actually being attacked properly. The answer will be not a chance. First instinct is hit them, only cold calculated considerations made with time and planning would approach your formula combat from fairly pointless karate classes Muscle memory lets you hit em technique lets you do it fast, but your brain makes you hit em however works to stop em hitting you. Also hair pulling, thats why 99% of bouncers have crew cuts The other 1% are balding.

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

Again your total lack of experience is showing through in addition to inability to read. You are asserting that Baker whilst jogging, saw these two individuals assessed them for threats, frisked them for weapons & them ran them through a serious of tests to evaluate their skills in mugging so that he could form an opinion? A grown man is more aware of the dangers in the dark than a child like yourself. You claimed logic & rational though earlier, is it more or less likely that you would be murdered in the dark or the light? Your arguement is again built on this fallacy that Baker knew all the facts of the situation and was thinking clearly and effiecently after going for a long run & then being punched in the gut an event physiologically which would have compromised any decision making through the sympathetic nervous system triggering all the effects of vaso-dillation and adrenal antagonism via the fight or flight reflex.

Your basically saying Baker should have ignored reality and overridden his biological functions to act rationally. What your approach appears to be is the rational of a pudgey white middle class child of indolence who has never thrown a blow in anger or seen realistic depiction the same.

The CCW qualification requires firearm mechanics and terminology, cleaning and maintenance of a firearm, concealed carry legislation and limitations, liability issues, carry methods and safety, home defense, methods for managing and defusing confrontational situations, and practice of gun handling techniques without firing the weapon (wiki) with some states requiring equivalency of military training in use of force.

Non of that requires Baker to be unthreaten by a potentially dangerous situation. In fact the NRA you so decry are biggest advocates of weapon and personnel safety. If you own a gun you should be calm headed ? Can you explain your rational for that ? Impulsiveness was not the issue. Impulsive behaviours arent related to flight or fight. You seen to think the victim was punched in the gut, stepped back had a little cuppa tea & regained his breath & decided to shoot his attacker. Again this 'feature' of reality might exist in a playground but amingst adults things happen a tiny smidgeon faster.

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.

Any reasonable human being ought to realize that whether he was armed or not was irrelevant, what is relevant is what Baker could have known. It would be unreasonable to expect Baker to act on what he cannot know and have to wait once it's too late. A reasonable person would judge him based on the evidence he had when he acted. But I suppose being a snob about which country you're from overrides reasonable.

I think you should rethink the word Snob. [sub]Sorry but I'm British to, gotta stick up for my countrymen and all that [/sub]

Anyway to my point. I do agree that whether or not the kid was armed is irrelevant all Baker needed was a fear that the kid would pull out a knife or a gun. I said in my fist post on this forum that I felt baker used unreasonable force, granted he was just decked hard enough to give him a near concussion. But the fact of the matter is it would have only taken ONE bullet to make the kid back off, whether he was armed or not.
Baker fired over half his ammo at that kid, instantly. If Baker had a licence for his concealed gun then that suggests to me he's had some basic training in firearms and "appropriate use" of that firearm. Now I've not been trained in how to handle a weapon but I'm fairly sure that Baker wouldn't have been taught to pull out his gun and nearly empty his clip into an assailant from what I assume was not far off point blank range. (Considering He was punched I think it's reasonable to assume Baker was within 2 to 6 feet).

To clarify I don't think Baker was wrong in pulling out his weapon, or even firing. Just his excessive force.

Given the circumstances he couldn't aim very well, so how many bullets was he supposed to fire off to know he'd hit the guy? And one bullet isn't necessarily enough, the better way to tell is if the kid fell over or ran off.

Others have said several times in the thread that usually you're supposed to shoot several times. And that police are trained to do so. Not sure where you get your information on how many times he ought to be shooting if properly trained.

He couldn't aim very well, sure, but he wasn't completely blind. He could at least have aimed in the vague direction of the legs, after all if he was planning on emptying his clip it's pretty safe to say he would have at least hit once or twice. He was careless.And yes, a reasonable person would judge him based upon the evidence he had when he acted, and that's exactly what I'm doing.

I could fire 8 shots long before the attacker fell to the ground. Again hollywood lied to you, there would be no flying bodies. The attacker would stagger & would not fall over until he let go of the rigour in his mucles, this would require a shot through the spine or brain pan to acheive in any format considered quick.

In close quarters had you ever been in a fight youd know that vision is obbscured by trying to focus on a series of close objects moving rapidly towards you and your brain and eyes trying to determine the biggest event. This is ignoring the blow to the stomach (see above for physiological effect). Given that in proper full fledged total war conflict waged by trained warfighters tens of thousands of rounds are expended to kill a single target, does this make sense that a random guy in the street (training for the army is not the same thing as being in the army by a distance of measure as yet measured due to lack of humungus stick light years long) is gonna score a hit on a hard target at pointblank while dazed ? Im sorry the matrix lied to you real life doesnt have bullet time & pulling a trigger requires effort that moves the guns point of aim significantly when not target shooting. Assuming Baker was using one hand He was lucky he hit the target at all & probably used simple proximity & pointing his arm at the target to score the hits he did. Aiming requires time & stability.

The evidence available to Baker at the time was that two men were assualting him for an unknown sinister and malign reason with a demonstrated intent to cause injury. No conversation or discussion was offered and therefore his attackers were unrestrained in their intent. If your saying your judging the victim a murderer based on that information you are deeply deeply flawed in both reason and understanding.

 

[warheadx2]

I am so sorry in my country guns are allowed only to law enforcement members, government officials and high rank military. When i was mugged 10 years ago by four guys for whatever money i had in my pockets, in broad daylight, i would have done the same thing, if i had a gun.

 

[Gindil]

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.

Sorry, didn't see that and thought it was US law there.

I'm still trying to figure out the thing about pre-emptive self defense versus schizophrenics... That doesn't make sense.

The part I specified actually explains the parts where you questioned earlier. What do the schizos have to do with it?

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

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.

It's still a total and complete forfeit, and now nobody wants to debate you because they know you consider "LOL I BLOCK U" to be a reasonable tactic.

 

[xXx5Niq3rzxXx]

Congratz on more than 1000 posts on you thread, Ramierezdoeverything!

 

[Chris^^]

I'd probably do the same in Mr. Bakers position, 8 shots may appear excessive but (at risk of sounding callous) it's better to be safe than sorry..

 

[Csae]

I dont understand why people think that if you treat a criminal humanely he wont still rob you or cripple or even kill you. I mean ask yourself this if you ended up killing someone in self defense one time would you not defend yourself again or would you give up everything including your dignity to make sure that even the mugger got away ok? do you think he gives a damn about you?

Because people make mistakes.

Next time quote me properly so i can find out the easy way that you've replied.

 

[LondonBeer]

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.

Thats English Law. Pre-emptive defence is not illegal. One case the victim in said case was mentally unstable. Could you cite these many cases, I can only see the Martin Case from 12 years ago. The overzealousness is misqouted by you. The prosecution of self-defence cases is rigorous to make it a legitimately rare defence.

You cant pop into K-Mart and buy a small arsenal either, where did you get that information from. A pistol & a shotgun are not an arsenal. Additionally most states have a waiting period for most items.

Im not taking you out of context & the mark of a bad debater is one who blocks others who prove them wrong, ignore factual evidence, repeat false disproven conceits, and reiterates clearly fallacious states detached from the reality of the discussion.

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.

No I dont think you have ever met a violent paranoid schizophrenic ever. I doubt youve ever even seen one on TV. Not only is violent paranoid schizophrenia rare its clinically controlled. Addressing your reductio absurdum again and with your intimate knowledge of the Mental Health Act youd know that mentally ill patients are exempt from a self-defence plea. or any plea due to the delinquent status. However the issue has never arisen what with their heavy medication & institutionalisation ( Thats a big word ).

Also a provision of gun ownership is a clean mental health record. So your rather absurd inaccurate false & frankly incredulous example is null & void.

 

[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.

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

I'm way off at 2ft?

Ok, measure the length of one of your arms. How long is it? That's the max range you can punch someone. This guy was getting punched when he took the shot, unless this mugger is the Green Lantern and can punch you with his mind, that's the correct distance.

Humans aren't that flammable...

 

[LondonBeer]

I am so sorry in my country guns are allowed only to law enforcement members, government officials and high rank military. When i was mugged 10 years ago by four guys for whatever money i had in my pockets, in broad daylight, i would have done the same thing, if i had a gun.

Brilliant example Warhead & I share your pain. The difference between a gun control advocate and a gun owner is one undeserved beating.

 

[mangus]

He didn't deserve to die. And the loss of his life is a tragic waste.
a kid lost his life, and that's a pretty heavy price to pay.

I consider a life spent being an affliction on your fellow man to be a more tragic waste. When someone is seriously threatening your life, see how "excessive" you get.

 

[LondonBeer]

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

I'm way off at 2ft?

Ok, measure the length of one of your arms. How long is it? That's the max range you can punch someone. This guy was getting punched when he took the shot, unless this mugger is the Green Lantern and can punch you with his mind, that's the correct distance.

Humans aren't that flammable...

As mentioned by myself earlier you can easily assume grappling would occur as well. Trust me a .45 has a big old kick on it unless your really used to it. Its kinda like someone slapping the barrel

 

[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.

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.

I'm not talking about what is legally required to get a gun, I'm saying that he bought it with the intent of using it for self defense while jogging, basically the only situation I could ever see that gun coming into play while jogging is a mugging.

So he should have looked into training or at least information on how to defend yourself with a gun during a mugging without turning the mugger into tattered scraps of bullet ridden gore.

 

[Del-Toro]

...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.

If you read where he said he had blurred vision, which a good crack to the head will do, he probably just kept pulling the trigger til he was damn sure the threat was neutralized. On top of that he probably panicked, most people aren't trained for situations like that.

exactly, that's what most of the bleeding hearts here don't seem to get. If you're attacked in the park and you have a gun, your first instinct is empty the clip into the general direction of your assailants. Doesn't have to kill them, doesn't have to hurt them, as long as it scares them.

Also, good call using hollow points, I'd have hated for a round to over penetrate and hit someone who wasn't a violent thug.

 

[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.

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

I'm way off at 2ft?

Ok, measure the length of one of your arms. How long is it? That's the max range you can punch someone. This guy was getting punched when he took the shot, unless this mugger is the Green Lantern and can punch you with his mind, that's the correct distance.

Humans aren't that flammable...

As mentioned by myself earlier you can easily assume grappling would occur as well. Trust me a .45 has a big old kick on it unless your really used to it. Its kinda like someone slapping the barrel

Can grappling occur at more than 2ft or so range?

I don't believe this mugger had a literal grappling hook.

I know the thing has a kick, but COME ON, as long as you manage to actually hold the thing somewhat steady (something the sights won't help you with anyway) you'd be pretty fucking hard pressed to miss because your aim was off, if he was pulling on your arm or something that's a different story, I'm talking about aim.

 

[LondonBeer]

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.

I'm not talking about what is legally required to get a gun, I'm saying that he bought it with the intent of using it for self defense while jogging, basically the only situation I could ever see that gun coming into play while jogging is a mugging.

So he should have looked into training or at least information on how to defend yourself with a gun during a mugging without turning the mugger into tattered scraps of bullet ridden gore.

And of course your a rock hard bastard impervious to physical slight & pyschological horror .... right ?

Pro-tip :- Training teaches your muscles it doesnt teach your brain. Real people in real fights dont utilise their training they shit their pants and react instinctually.

 

[Danpascooch]

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

Yeah, and don't have a shoplift if you don't want a store manager to sodomize you with a cane, and don't jaywalk if you don't want a bus to hit you, and then back up and run you over a second time, then piss on your corpse. Oh wait, that's fucking insanity.

It's a mugging, and he deserves jail, hell, he possibly deserved to be shot once.

He did NOT deserve to be shot 8 times.

People in this thread are forgetting this guy showed no evidence of having a single weapon or hand to hand combat training at all, I can't believe everyone thinks it would have taken the full 8 shots to end the mugging.

What if he had a knife? Should the government have dropped a fucking nuke on the area?

 

[Slayer_2]

He's totally justified, in my opinion. Him firing 8 times could be more due to panic and lack of training rather than anything else. I'd be more concerned if he had executed the kid with a single shot between the eyes. Hell, the first time I fired at gun a range, I spazzed out and fired off two shots because the recoil scared me. And yes, he could have just threatened with the gun, or shot the teen non-fatally, but in those situations you don't have time to think things through.