Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Cormyre]

The mugger deserved it, we have to knowingly accept that doing even the simplest of day to day activities can get us killed. That drive to work? walking across the street? flying in a plane? riding in an elevator? So hey, going out and mugging someone? yeah I would think I would have to knowingly accept that I'm putting my life at risk.

And frankly I would've taken the same first steps, I'm sure my view will probably not sit well, but I would've shot him as well and been aiming to end his life. When you're mugged/robbed if it's either just your person or your home it destroys all sense of security you've ever had. So yeah, you got socked in the face, you handed over your wallet like a good little *****, some day down the road your attacker shows up at your doorstep because he knows you're an easy mark, how did that happen? Your ID in the wallet you just handed over so you went from an anonymous victim in the park to a known target. Same would apply if he would've just simply subdued his attackers and notified the authorities, then he's known via the eventual court case.

If I had the chance with the guy who broke in and stole stuff from my house, it would've cost him his life. So I ended up getting him busted, in a few years when he gets out of jail, well I'm sure he'll remember where he stole from and the person that ended up in him getting busted, (and with me knowing the guy so I know his mentality, unless one of those good ol' prison rapes scrambled his brain) so I know when he gets out, I need to start watching my back, because he'll be after me.

I know my view is kind of short-sighted, due to a good portion of this activity being carried out by gang-members and what-not so eventually your anonymity would be taken away and someone who wanted retaliation would find you... but hey, hopefully cases like this will give some dumb****s a bit of pause before they do something stupid. And a tad paranoid probably, but it is what it is.

And yes, I do realize that that action takes the risk of me getting killed. =p

 

[Levitas1234]

This awful, and i can't believe you people. This man, Baker, pulled out his gun and started shooting before he even knew he was being mugged. He got punched in the face by a teenager and decides it's fit to kill him.
I've had friends who took the wrong path in life for a short while, and to think if we lived in the USA those friends wouldn't be here today.

 

[epiccowFTW]

Bit too extreem people should never die for any reason. just knock them out i say.

 

[Candidus]

Kid attempts to take life

Um, no.

I'd like to direct you to my post some way above yours. I'll snip the first line, it's enough to answer the point.

"If you attack somebody, you run the risk of killing them. If you believe otherwise, you might want to get acquainted with the real world."

You punch somebody, particularly in the head- but the chest or stomach can do- then YOU have taken that risk for somebody else, and you deserve whatever comes your way. If it kills you, so much the better for the rest of society.

 

[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.

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.

Maybe if you can't fire less than 8 shots, you shouldn't be carrying a gun.

Would I have reacted differently? maybe, am I carrying a fully loaded gun with hollow point rounds and a laser sight when I go out for a walk? no.

If I did carry guns on a walk, would I seek training to allow me to use it responsibly? Of course!

Are you saying no amount of training can ever teach your brain? That's bullshit. You think bomb squads are acting instinctively when they start cutting wires? Fuck no, instinct says: "Get the fuck out of there". You think firefighters react instinctively when they charge into a burning building?

 

[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

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.

Are you a thalidomide baby? Do you have tiny atrophied arms? I can easily grab items within 2 foot of me with little or no problems, Ive also taken peoples arms & dragged them into the nearest wall.

Commonly held myths - Because a person is holding a gun doesnt mean the target cant grab for it (Ask the NYPD why they needed to modify & replace their Beretta M92's) If I grabbed for a gun you were holding (inches from your chest with your tiny little midget arms) it would throw the point of aim all over the place laser sight or no. The firer wouldnt be assessing his point of aim hed be firing.

Other commonly helds - You mention measuring the length of a punch, not only can that be done from any range because humans have normal sized legs that take them from point A to point B, but traditionally a thrown punch means the throwee has impetous & carries forwards towards the punched. as to length the puncher can also adjust his torso & posture to extend or decrease the engagement range. Not a boxing match you know.

 

[necronmm]

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.

Agreed. I'm a little surprised at the assumptions I've seen in this thread that say Baker should have been level headed in that situation. It's easy to say that if you don't put yourself in the heat of the moment ie acting on instinct.

 

[MartialArc]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

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.

All you do here is explain to us that you have no idea what the proper use of a pistol in a CQB situation is. If you feel threatened for your life, as about any sane person would probably agree that getting jumped in the street is probably indicative of you being in some danger, the correct response is to aim center of mass and fire until the dude falls. There is no nonlethal way to use a handgun FFS. Leg/arm/finger/toe/penis shots can all be lethal. There is no part of the body at which you can aim and be certain you won't kill. Further more, YOU WILL MISS. This isn't shooting a a piece of paper. It's a moving target and you are sporting a heart rate of like 200. So for at least the 100th time in this thread. QUIT SAYING THAT HE SHOULD HAVE SHOT AN EXTREMITY, SHOT LESS, OR SHOT IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN HE DID. He acted in accordance with ANY HANDGUN TRAINING THAT IS AVAILIABLE. That goes to everyone, it has been explained many many many times in this thread alone what proper technique is. Basically anyone saying those things is just repeating a stupid point that has been rebutted multiple times.

If you must argue that shooting extremities is proper, go find a manual or video or something else showing a legit instructor saying that. You can't. You really really really can't. They don't exist because:
Nobody, anywhere, ever, in the history of pistols, will tell you to shoot a limb(unless they are clueless). If you have time to shoot a limb, you are shooting someone you should not be shooting, as you clearly have too much time to aim for it to be a survival situation.

tl;dr

He was trained, he acted how training would tell you.

 

[blindthrall]

Lots of people die that don't deserve it. The teenager deserved to die moreso than an AIDS baby, or one of the thousands of kids that die in Africa every day. Hell, he was more deserving than a sizable minority of the people shot by the police. Cops require much less provocation to be able to legally shoot to kill. If you start a fight with somebody who might have a weapon, that's on you.

 

[suitepee7]

he had a license to carry the weapon, and somebody attacked him. he was in fear, and defended himself. 100% in the right. i don't care if the mugger died, i don't care if he was defenceless, if you don't want the accept the consequences of your actions, do not perform those actions. simple

 

[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.

Are you a thalidomide baby? Do you have tiny atrophied arms? I can easily grab items within 2 foot of me with little or no problems, Ive also taken peoples arms & dragged them into the nearest wall.

Commonly held myths - Because a person is holding a gun doesnt mean the target cant grab for it (Ask the NYPD why they needed to modify & replace their Beretta M92's) If I grabbed for a gun you were holding (inches from your chest with your tiny little midget arms) it would throw the point of aim all over the place laser sight or no. The firer wouldnt be assessing his point of aim hed be firing.

Other commonly helds - You mention measuring the length of a punch, not only can that be done from any range because humans have normal sized legs that take them from point A to point B, but traditionally a thrown punch means the throwee has impetous & carries forwards towards the punched. as to length the puncher can also adjust his torso & posture to extend or decrease the engagement range. Not a boxing match you know.

See that bolded part? That is you misunderstanding my point, and then inadvertently confirming it for me. I said that the encounter must have been extreme close range because punching and/or grappling occurred, which means about 2 ft (could possibly be up to 4 feet, point is, very close range).

The guy was using hollow point ammunition, you know, the kind that basically SHATTERS INSIDE OF YOUR BODY.

and you still think all 8 shots are justified against an unarmed attacker, who was so shitty at attacking that Baker was still able to DRAW, TOGGLE THE SAFETY ON HIS GUN AND AIM IT WHILE BEING BEATEN!?

Jesus Christ, we're not talking about the incredible hulk here, we're talking about some stupid punk who couldn't even stop him from drawing his gun and firing a hollow point round into him, how many bullets before the kid decides Baker's pocket change isn't worth it? 1000?

 

[blindthrall]

This awful, and i can't believe you people. This man, Baker, pulled out his gun and started shooting before he even knew he was being mugged. He got punched in the face by a teenager and decides it's fit to kill him.
I've had friends who took the wrong path in life for a short while, and to think if we lived in the USA those friends wouldn't be here today.

You know what...for once I'm glad I live in the US.

 

[Numachuka]

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.

Maybe if you can't fire less than 8 shots, you shouldn't be carrying a gun.

Would I have reacted differently? maybe, am I carrying a fully loaded gun with hollow point rounds and a laser sight when I go out for a walk? no.

If I did carry guns on a walk, would I seek training to allow me to use it responsibly? Of course!

Are you saying no amount of training can ever teach your brain? That's bullshit. You think bomb squads are acting instinctively when they start cutting wires? Fuck no, instinct says: "Get the fuck out of there". You think firefighters react instinctively when they charge into a burning building?

I'd assume its because they have more than a fraction of a second to think about it.

 

[LondonBeer]

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.

The idea that the 2nd amendment wasn't meant for individuals makes no damn sense.

Honestly did they really think they needed to protect the right of the U.S. military to have guns? And why would they put such a right into the Bill of Rights alongside all the individual rights?

Clearly English isnt your first language so your forgiven for thinking that the 2nd Amendment says military. It states militia which are all citizens of the US in perpetuity in war & peacetime. Militia means an armed civilian force. That is all. Basically the intent of the 2nd Amendment is the ingrained right of any American citizen to lawfully own a firearm to provide emergency defence forces/paramilitaries if neccesary and to allow all men equal rights in the hunting of game and critters. Mostly its to shoot redcoats, but also injuns, mexicans and that one time Canada invaded.

The American 2nd amendment stopped the Japanese from invading the mainland US due to the fear of a nation of snipers. Its entire purpose is to make each man an army as long as they act within the constituition.

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?

Reductio absurdum. Baker lacked a jail at that particular moment & being unable to bend space & time whilst being struck decided to defend himself. Its fortunate 'He did NOT deserve to be shot 8 times.' Cause he was shot 4 times. He definitely deserved 4.

Evidence of a weapon is not justification of malicious intent, also your logic is flawed. If baker = CCW & Baker is man then all men potentially = CCW. How does one evidence martial arts training also how would baker in the split seconds he had to assess determine its efficacy & breadth of effect?

I suspect you are a soft pasty faced middle class child who has never experienced anything even close to real violence. If the man, it was not a kid (arguable not a human either) at 18 years old, had a knife 4 shots would still have stopped him attacking therefore no a nuke would have been ineffiecent but I see no reason not to gather all the criminals in one place &
go for a clean sweep.

This awful, and i can't believe you people. This man, Baker, pulled out his gun and started shooting before he even knew he was being mugged. He got punched in the face by a teenager and decides it's fit to kill him.
I've had friends who took the wrong path in life for a short while, and to think if we lived in the USA those friends wouldn't be here today.

I think its awful & saddens me that your friends didnt live in the US. Maybe they wouldnt have taken those wrong choices with the threat of repercussions for their actions.

The victim started firing before he was being mugged? Are you suggesting he waited until his beating finished to assess his attackers intent? Thats the most singularly unrealistic expectation I have ever heard without fear of hyperbole. Those whacky Jews the concentration camps were simply really poorly thought out & run holiday camps Hitler was gonna get around to fixing them & that woulda cleared the whole 'Holocaust' misunderstanding up. I apologise for the reduction to absurdity but it felt so very right.

Your opinion bears no relation whatsoever to reality. I suggest you 'level up' by going for a walk in the darkest roughest area you know until your mugged. The brain damage cant get any worse

 

[Danpascooch]

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

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.

All you do here is explain to us that you have no idea what the proper use of a pistol in a CQB situation is. If you feel threatened for your life, as about any sane person would probably agree that getting jumped in the street is probably indicative of you being in some danger, the correct response is to aim center of mass and fire until the dude falls. There is no nonlethal way to use a handgun FFS. Leg/arm/finger/toe/penis shots can all be lethal. There is no part of the body at which you can aim and be certain you won't kill. Further more, YOU WILL MISS. This isn't shooting a a piece of paper. It's a moving target and you are sporting a heart rate of like 200. So for at least the 100th time in this thread. QUIT SAYING THAT HE SHOULD HAVE SHOT AN EXTREMITY, SHOT LESS, OR SHOT IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN HE DID. He acted in accordance with ANY HANDGUN TRAINING THAT IS AVAILIABLE. That goes to everyone, it has been explained many many many times in this thread alone what proper technique is. Basically anyone saying those things is just repeating a stupid point that has been rebutted multiple times.

If you must argue that shooting extremities is proper, go find a manual or video or something else showing a legit instructor saying that. You can't. You really really really can't. They don't exist because:
Nobody, anywhere, ever, in the history of pistols, will tell you to shoot a limb(unless they are clueless). If you have time to shoot a limb, you are shooting someone you should not be shooting, as you clearly have too much time to aim for it to be a survival situation.

tl;dr

He was trained, he acted how training would tell you.

No shot is guaranteed to not be lethal, but there are parts to be shot in that are worse than other parts, can you honestly say you wouldn't rather be shot in the foot than in the face? Because I'm pretty sure a foot shot would be less likely to kill you than a face shot, although I don't have extensive knowledge with guns, just that, you know THE HEAD IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE FOOT (and no major arteries are in the foot)

It's understandable that he couldn't go for an extremity, but your assertion that what he did was "correct" is not clear cut in the slightest. The method you described will instantly stop an attacker that poses an immediate threat to your life, and if this mugger had so much as knife, I would say "Baker absolutely did the right thing". That technique is not meant to be a "use under any situation", it's not like "Did this guy poke you? Aim at the center of the mass and fire till he drops dead" there's a bit more to it than that!

But you know what, he didn't, he was using his fists, and apparently was so shitty at attacking Baker that WHILE BEING PUNCHED Baker managed to draw his pistol, toggle the safety, AND aim it. Does that sound like someone that could (and would have) killed Baker if he had shot only once with a Hollow point round that SHATTERS INSIDE YOUR BODY!? Fuck no!

This is a travesty, and 8 shots is fucking ridiculous, I wouldn't be surprised if Baker is lying, and the collaborating witness was under duress.

 

[blindthrall]

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.

Are you a thalidomide baby? Do you have tiny atrophied arms? I can easily grab items within 2 foot of me with little or no problems, Ive also taken peoples arms & dragged them into the nearest wall.

Commonly held myths - Because a person is holding a gun doesnt mean the target cant grab for it (Ask the NYPD why they needed to modify & replace their Beretta M92's) If I grabbed for a gun you were holding (inches from your chest with your tiny little midget arms) it would throw the point of aim all over the place laser sight or no. The firer wouldnt be assessing his point of aim hed be firing.

Other commonly helds - You mention measuring the length of a punch, not only can that be done from any range because humans have normal sized legs that take them from point A to point B, but traditionally a thrown punch means the throwee has impetous & carries forwards towards the punched. as to length the puncher can also adjust his torso & posture to extend or decrease the engagement range. Not a boxing match you know.

See that bolded part? That is you misunderstanding my point, and then inadvertently confirming it for me. I said that the encounter must have been extreme close range because punching and/or grappling occurred, which means about 2 ft (could possibly be up to 4 feet, point is, very close range).

The guy was using hollow point ammunition, you know, the kind that basically SHATTERS INSIDE OF YOUR BODY.

and you still think all 8 shots are justified against an unarmed attacker, who was so shitty at attacking that Baker was still able to DRAW, TOGGLE THE SAFETY ON HIS GUN AND AIM IT WHILE BEING BEATEN!?

Jesus Christ, we're not talking about the incredible hulk here, we're talking about some stupid punk who couldn't even stop him from drawing his gun and firing a hollow point round into him, how many bullets before the kid decides Baker's pocket change isn't worth it? 1000?

Since he did have firearm training, drawing, arming, and firing eight shots probably took all of three seconds. Notice I didn't say a thing about aiming, because he obviously didn't. Three seconds isn't enough time for a rational, thought-out approach to a dangerous situation. Why would you try to intimidate the kid with the gun, when for all you know he's packing too?

Caps lock doesn't make you right.

 

[MartialArc]

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.

Are you a thalidomide baby? Do you have tiny atrophied arms? I can easily grab items within 2 foot of me with little or no problems, Ive also taken peoples arms & dragged them into the nearest wall.

Commonly held myths - Because a person is holding a gun doesnt mean the target cant grab for it (Ask the NYPD why they needed to modify & replace their Beretta M92's) If I grabbed for a gun you were holding (inches from your chest with your tiny little midget arms) it would throw the point of aim all over the place laser sight or no. The firer wouldnt be assessing his point of aim hed be firing.

Other commonly helds - You mention measuring the length of a punch, not only can that be done from any range because humans have normal sized legs that take them from point A to point B, but traditionally a thrown punch means the throwee has impetous & carries forwards towards the punched. as to length the puncher can also adjust his torso & posture to extend or decrease the engagement range. Not a boxing match you know.

See that bolded part? That is you misunderstanding my point, and then inadvertently confirming it for me. I said that the encounter must have been extreme close range because punching and/or grappling occurred, which means about 2 ft (could possibly be up to 4 feet, point is, very close range).

The guy was using hollow point ammunition, you know, the kind that basically SHATTERS INSIDE OF YOUR BODY.

and you still think all 8 shots are justified against an unarmed attacker, who was so shitty at attacking that Baker was still able to DRAW, TOGGLE THE SAFETY ON HIS GUN AND AIM IT WHILE BEING BEATEN!?

Jesus Christ, we're not talking about the incredible hulk here, we're talking about some stupid punk who couldn't even stop him from drawing his gun and firing a hollow point round into him, how many bullets before the kid decides Baker's pocket change isn't worth it? 1000?

For the thousandth time, yes. You shoot until your out of ammo or he falls. Shooting once and then waiting to see what happens probably gets the gun snatched from you.

A handgun is not a striking range weapon. They are most effective from 10-20 feet. It becomes a huge liability in grappling distance. This is why police do not approach suspects with weapons out. There is a multitude of information that will explain to you beyond any shred of doubt or in-clarity as to why you would fire in this manner. 8 rounds out of a .45 in a panic situation is at most 2-3 seconds of firing. You can't be wrestling around with a gun at that distance. You shoot to stop the assailant. If he lives, great, but he likely will not. If you do shoot and wound him, he will probably just beat the shit out of you even more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVwmEbLMZi8

Thats a video of a guy shooting a springfield XD .45, which has a double stack mag for 13 rounds. He empties it in 3 seconds and he is going a bit on the slowside as he is under no pressure and trying to keep a sight picture. 8 rounds is nothing, quit being hung up on it.

 

[the December King]

Yes, shooting the kid in self defense was the "right" thing to do (in that I see nothing wrong with it).

Yes, firing that many shots can be justified, and I agree that it was acceptable given the circumstances.

And I am unsure about whether or not the kid deserved to die, sometimes I think the death penalty should go back to being used for all crimes and sometimes I think people deserve another chance. :/

That was very honest of you. I feel the same way- as in, some days I'm one way, some I'm the other, where the death penalty is concerned.

It could have just as easily read "two teens beat man to death just for kicks" or "two teens shoot mugging victim". The fact is is that the assailants broke the law by attacking another person. It is not up to the defender to allow the attackers a chance to redeem themselves, or apologise, or try to beat him to death, if he has a chance to defend himself. It could have just been a mugging. But in the role of victim, we aren't privy to hindsight.

But no one DESERVED to die, in my opinion.