Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[TNPspectre]

Why do you need to physically knock an unarmed assailant on his ass? In what situation would having a gun fired at you and a bullet enter your body NOT cause you to stop attacking if you are completely unarmed? Even if he was armed, he's not going to draw a weapon AFTER being shot (he had no weapon drawn when the shots were fired), that's just insane.

Shot AT him 8 times. Only 4 connected.... You might wanna read the article again.

It was dark, his vision was blurry and he was on the ground. In such a situation it's about emptying your gun until the attacker goes down.

Why does it have to be? I would think it would be more about establishing the fact that you have a gun, one shot is enough for that, nobody who doesn't ALREADY have a weapon in hand is going to continue after a shot is fired.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

Ok first of all he was not being punched when he fired he was punched dazed drew his gun and then fired. I highly doubt that he was standing there blasting away the instant he was hit also I never said the human being would catch on fire but a persons shirt can and will most definitely catch fire at a close range if the attacker was still punching while he fired he would have had to have his gun already drawn when the attack started I think you need to read the article again.

 

[Gindil]

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.

*Ugh*

This contorts the argument to an nth degree. He defended himself to an unknown assailant that punched him in the face. Baker was the first guy that the teen saw, the teen didn't try to threaten him with violence, he acted in a violent manner against Baker! And on top of that, there were two of them! Against all of that, he shot one of them dead, not knowing if he had a gun, a knife or whatever. The facts are, at the time of the shooting, he may have been armed. There ARE gang related incidents in Florida and the teenager shouldn't have pushed his luck.

The entire friends thing really is unnecessary. This kid chose the wrong path and paid the price for it. No, I can't feel sorry for him because if he had just kept walking and only did talking, he would have been fine. The blame falls squarely on the teenager for initiating the conflict.

The US is relatively safe, so long as you approach people the right way. A punch to the face never is good.

 

[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?

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.

Eight rounds is nothing? I wonder if you would feel that way with them ripping into your flesh and shattering inside your body. It's not about how long it takes to fire 8 rounds, I don't care if he could do it in less than ONE second, the point is there was absolutely no reason to believe that 8 rounds would be required to stop an unarmed mugger, who quite honestly probably could have been stopped with NO rounds considering he failed to prevent Baker from performing all the necessary steps to go from "holstered pistol" to "8 bullets in your flesh" while attacking him at close range.

This was not a trained killer, it was some stupid punk mugger, you really think he'd continue after getting shot? The kid didn't even know the guy had a gun until after the eighth round sealed his coffin.

You said IF he lives, who the hell lives with eight hollow point rounds in their torso?

 

[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?

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.

I capitalize short phrases for emphasis, it's hardly caps lock, it's just an alternative to bolded type.

I wouldn't have tried to intimidate the kid with a gun, I would have shot once, and if he'd done anything other then let go of me, THEN fire seven more shots. Do you think this kid could have killed baker in less time than it would take him to squeeze a trigger a second time? This guy wasn't fucking Altair.

 

[Blobpie]

He felt he had to defend him self, and he did.
If i were in that situation i would have warned them first, then shot... to kill of coarse.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

...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.

well if there is anything i've learned in life, is when you confront/take something on, you make sure you win. so in that situation i would definitly pull the double tap rule and make sure he is down, especially at the time im sure baker didn't know if he had a gun, so the kid could have taken it out after a shot (presumably saying it hit him somewhere not that vital) and shot back at baker.

ot: dont blame him one bit, if your a dumbass and try and rob someone, especially someone random and harmlessly taking a jog, then you deserve everything you get imo.

 

[Gindil]

Eight rounds is nothing? I wonder if you would feel that way with them ripping into your flesh and shattering inside your body. It's not about how long it takes to fire 8 rounds, I don't care if he could do it in less than ONE second, the point is there was absolutely no reason to believe that 8 rounds would be required to stop an unarmed mugger, who quite honestly probably could have been stopped with NO rounds considering he failed to prevent Baker from performing all the necessary steps to go from "holstered pistol" to "8 bullets in your flesh" while attacking him at close range.

This was not a trained killer, it was some stupid punk mugger, you really think he'd continue after getting shot? The kid didn't even know the guy had a gun until after the eighth round sealed his coffin.

You said IF he lives, who the hell lives with eight hollow point rounds in their torso?

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.

Ok, folks? Here's a nitpick for ya. He was shot FOUR times, not 8. Baker fired 8 shots. Carlos really should have thought about his actions...

Also, as I believe MartialArc is referring, the gun could have had a semi-auto that allows for quick firing. I don't know guns so...

Anyway, the entire thing about what he was? We know after the fact along with Baker. As I explained above, gang related incidents can happen in Florida along with a varied number of other occurrences that elevate a situation. He really should not have punched him in the face...

 

[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.

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.

So you'll let someone start beating you on the streets, and your first assumption is "well this isn't so bad?" I doubt it. Baker has no way of knowing what the mugger was carrying. And who knows how baker managed to pull his gun. It's no secret that if you are attacked in close range like that, not expecting a thing, then only the ineptitude of your attackers gives you hope. But people tend to become more ferocious after they, ya know, start beating someone. Usually when the guy turtles and the attacker can't see his face things get really brutal. In this case Baker managed to pull while his attacker was still in the "poking and prodding" stage. But I digress, are you really going to let someone just beat the shit out of you on the street instead of shoot them because they are shitty at it? I doubt it. As for the number of shots, you need to shut up. Really, just shut up. Unless you can find something to corroborate your opinion that shooting once and assessing is justified or intelligent, your being publicly clueless.

Fucking ridiculous is that a guy gets mugged and manages to defend himself, and you instantly assume he was plotting to murder someone.

As for where I'd prefer to get shot, I'd prefer not to get shot, so I don't make a habit of mugging people. 8 shots is like 2 seconds of firing, go watch that video. You try to make it sound like he spend 20 seconds drilling this kid with the pistol over and over, thats assuredly not the case.

And seriously, what are you even arguing? That we should be more cognizant of the dangers of mugging as a profession? Do you represent the muggers union or something? It is brutal work conditions, but I think that its in the job description somewhere.

 

[Mondai Randy]

He was defending himself , so I think he was justified , it's a shame the teen died , but he did something stupid

 

[Candidus]

And seriously, what are you even arguing? That we should be more cognizant of the dangers of mugging as a profession? Do you represent the muggers union or something? It is brutal work conditions, but I think that its in the job description somewhere.

I approve of the whole response, and this paragraph in particular.

You attack somebody, you suspend your ordinary rights. End of story. You behave like vermin, you get exterminated like vermin.

 

[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.

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?

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.

He clearly thinks it does, let him have that tiny glimmer of hope .

@Danpascooch - Would it offend you less if he had used full metal jackets or match standards or half load wad cutters ? If one is carrying a gun for personal defence its assumed your gonna be attacked by persons. ADDITIONALLY (you seem to understand caps lock better at least thats what your style implies) 4 rounds hit not 8 again proving you neither read me or others you quote. FURTHERMORE the difference at that range in the choice of ammunition from a .45 calibre weapon would be utterly irrelevant training rounds would probably pierce the lung.

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

Is that really necessary?

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.

I'm just countering an argument I hear over and over.

Apparentelly it is neccesary. You state 'right of the U.S. military to have guns?' either you arent very clever (which I did not assume) or you misunderstand the meaning of the word militia. Thats requires clarification. Its kinda important. A militia is not a military force it is the citizens.

It is always best to counter an arguement accurately with factual information. Otherwise your just making noise.

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.

The definition of succinct, thank you Numachuka bunny, I dont need to comment further.

 

[MartialArc]

Eight rounds is nothing? I wonder if you would feel that way with them ripping into your flesh and shattering inside your body. It's not about how long it takes to fire 8 rounds, I don't care if he could do it in less than ONE second, the point is there was absolutely no reason to believe that 8 rounds would be required to stop an unarmed mugger, who quite honestly probably could have been stopped with NO rounds considering he failed to prevent Baker from performing all the necessary steps to go from "holstered pistol" to "8 bullets in your flesh" while attacking him at close range.

This was not a trained killer, it was some stupid punk mugger, you really think he'd continue after getting shot? The kid didn't even know the guy had a gun until after the eighth round sealed his coffin.

You said IF he lives, who the hell lives with eight hollow point rounds in their torso?

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.

Ok, folks? Here's a nitpick for ya. He was shot FOUR times, not 8. Baker fired 8 shots. Carlos really should have thought about his actions...

Also, as I believe MartialArc is referring, the gun could have had a semi-auto that allows for quick firing. I don't know guns so...

Anyway, the entire thing about what he was? We know after the fact along with Baker. As I explained above, gang related incidents can happen in Florida along with a varied number of other occurrences that elevate a situation. He really should not have punched him in the face...

A modern revolver would go about as fast. The point is, its not like he intentionally shot the kid until he was sure he was dead. And yes, 8 shots fired, 4 hits. He reflex shot until it quit shooting.

To piggy back on what you say about not punching him in the face, which do you consider a more justified escalation of force:

1. Using a gun on someone that just hit you.

2. Hitting a random person on the street.

I'll go on a limb and say that had baker stabbed the kid to death, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What it comes down to, and I think its pretty clear here, is that some people really don't like guns.

 

[zombie711]

A life is a life, but when you try to mug some one anything that happens to you, you will have comming

 

[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?

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.

I'm not saying he had a jail, I'm saying his retaliation was immensely disproportionate to the threat.

I also never said that evidence of a weapon is justification of a malicious intent, I don't even know why you're bringing that up, what does it have to do with anything? Baker doesn't have the right to try to punish malicious intent, only to defend himself physically from imminent danger. Baker, AFTER getting attacked, was able to draw the pistol, toggle the safety, and take aim, considering in those seconds the attacker did not reach for a weapon, or (in the case of martial arts training) completely incapacitate/prevent Baker from using the gun, the 8 shots were not justified.

I don't appreciate your groundless assumptions about me, I could say a lot of awful things about you that I have absolutely no way of knowing the validity of but I like to think I'm more reasonable and civil than that.

 

[Brockyman]

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.

You may not want to back down on the issue of the "constitutional right to bear arms", that is you're right, just like its the right of someone to think that the Earth is flat and the universe revolves around it. In other words, you're can be proven wrong with solid facts. This isn't a case like the existence of God, the Roswell incident, or if Elvis is alive or not.. They have conflicting facts that could prove or disprove the theory, or no way to empirically gauge any quantifiable measures or facts. There is historical proof... studies of the language and writing of the day, quotes from the Founders themselves, and some good old fashion COMMON SENSE.

THE AMENDMENT
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

MILITIA ARGUMENT
I know the first argument against the 2nd Amendment is the "Militia" part. Your crowd likes to use this to try to invalidate the spirit of the amendment. Here are the reasons why this is a false concept

1. The Preamble (everything up until the comma) is one reason why the law (everything after the comma) is used. It was basically "ye-olde" speak to make a law sound more important and to give a bit of reasoning why it was created. Just because the United States has a standing army doesn't mean the right to bear arms is invalidated

2. While the US now has a formal standing military (the Founders DIDN'T WANT THIS by the way...), that doesn't necessarily rule out the need for a militia. To use a video game/fictional example, the games Homefront (invasion N Korea) and Turning Point (invasion by Nazis) both have the US being invaded and normal citizens taking up the fight on their home turf. This is one thing that makes the United States so unappealing to invade. For a real life example, Japanese Fleet Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto stated "Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass." People have a right to defend their property and lives from hostility, no matter if its an invading army or a stupid punk.

WAY OF LIFE
The truth of the matter is, basically every family in the United States during the writing and ratification of the Constitution owned firearms, usually rifles for hunting/militia duty/home protection. Some even found it strange they would even have this amendment in the document because they were a part of life. The reason the Founders put it in was, honestly, to protect the people from the government. History shows us that before any totalitarian regime takes power (Fascist or Communist) the guns are taken from the individual because they don't want the masses to oppose them.

INTENT
Many people like to say that the intent of the 2nd Amendment is just for the militia... Well, I think the guys who wrote it know more about its intent... What do they have to say...

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)

I think you get the idea.

MISGUIDANCE AND DEMONETIZATION
I understand that many people want gun control out of a sense of compassion... they don't want to see innocent people hurt when crazy people go on mass shootings, and I can respect their intentions. However, ridding the law abiding citizen of the tools to protect themselves will create more harm the good in the world. One reason being, that the bad guys don't turn in their guns during the round ups, leaving the villains with an advantage over a baseball bat wielding homeowner.

Also, the demonetization of the gun itself shows the ignorance of humanity in the 20-21st Centuries. We were very effective of killing people w/ clubs, stones, then sharpened sticks, then sharp rocks on sticks, spears, swords, maces, arrows, crossbows, scythes, staffs, nun-chucks, throwing stars, knives, fire, catapults/trebuchets, martial arts/unarmed combat, hangman's nooses, guillotines, war hammers, battle axes, spiked helments ect. Most males carried these weapons every day of their lives, on the battlefield, the hunting grounds, and to defend against bandits, raiders, and thieves. I don't know of many historical accounts were they called for a ban on the tools of the day..or some Roman Senator claiming that the knife was responsible for Caesar's assassination. The fact is the training in these TOOLS and art forms were great honors, or seen as a means of SURVIVIAL.

Now days we want to blame the TOOL for the actions of the USER! Guns don't kill innocent people on their own, a madman has to be on the other end, just like a pencil doesn't misspell words, the writer does.

So, with all due respect, you can believe that people shouldn't be able to own guns. That's your right. You can even believe in your heart that there isn't a Constitutional basis for it.. that again is your right, but don't be surprised when people look at you like a flat-earther. I've proven your argument wrong in 15 mins, and I'm just a regular guy, think what someone that does this for a living could do.

 

[vazzaroth]

Personally, I believe "You MIGHT DIE" is a good stance to have when it comes to dissuading people from stealing from others. I'm not saying an instant death penalty is good, it's clearly too strong of a punishment to have that as the rule, but maybe it will make people think twice knowing it's a possibility.

If I caught the MF'ers that broke into my car (Twice) in the act and had a gun on me... I would shoot the whole clip (Which is what I assume he did. Especially if it was a 1911 .45 with one in the chamber) in a rage at the guy. I just wonder... if this man had shot once but it nailed the guy in the brain, would there be this outrage? I think so. One bullet and 8 bullets are roughly the same, and just one can easily kill you. Anyone making a huge deal about the defender's actions is both unrealistic and (most likely, cue contradictory posts after mine) ill-informed about what it's actually like to shoot a gun at night while threatened/fearing for your life/possessions after being bashed in the face.

 

[MartialArc]

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.

Agreed. I honestly and truly do wish that the kid had not died. But just as you say, it is not up to the defender to ensure that he lives. And your right, for all we know they could have killed him, even if they didn't mean to. Beating someone unconscious tends to leave some damage.

 

[itsnotyouitsme]

I can not say either way. For one thing baker shot 8 times and hit 4, that means he did not have a very trained sight and was shooting more sporadically out of fear rather then with intent to hit and kill. Although i will never agree with the fact that he killed him, if he had shot in the air or without the intent to hit then the kids might have attacked again and gained control of the gun. Needless to say, if you get shot there is always a chance to die no matter what.
All in all, I think the punk needed to learn a lesson, but I don't think he should have died.

 

[Brockyman]

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.

I'm not saying he had a jail, I'm saying his retaliation was immensely disproportionate to the threat.

I also never said that evidence of a weapon is justification of a malicious intent, I don't even know why you're bringing that up, what does it have to do with anything? Baker doesn't have the right to try to punish malicious intent, only to defend himself physically from imminent danger. Baker, AFTER getting attacked, was able to draw the pistol, toggle the safety, and take aim, considering in those seconds the attacker did not reach for a weapon, or (in the case of martial arts training) completely incapacitate/prevent Baker from using the gun, the 8 shots were not justified.

I don't appreciate your groundless assumptions about me, I could say a lot of awful things about you that I have absolutely no way of knowing the validity of but I like to think I'm more reasonable and civil than that.

Honestly, his retaliation wasn't really disproportionate. You don't seem to grasp the main point of this, so I'll try to make the lesson as simple as possible.

DON'T BE F*CKING MORON BY DOING ILLEGAL THINGS TO HARM PEOPLE OR YOU CAN/WILL DIE!

Don't think it can be much clearer then that, but I'll add some commentary...

The whole "proportionate" response idea reminds me of a bad Cold War era movie where the US and Russians wouldn't go all out b/c of mutually assured destruction, so they just would respond in kind to each other to keep things from escalating to nuke time.

The fact of the matter is a human has a right to defend his life, the life of others, and his property from theft or harm. If I wake up and there is a strange man in my home stealing my TV, I'm going to shoot him. I don't know his intent, maybe he's poor and needs money, maybe he's a greedy son of a ***** that wants the item I worked hard to obtain, or maybe his next trip in he's going to murder and rape my family. Honestly, I DON'T CARE WHAT IS INTENT IS. He came into my home (and in this case came up to a man on the street) and assaulted my person or my property. This isn't an "accident" or a set of unfortunate events, he made the decision to break the law and violate my rights, and DEATH is a possible consequence.

As far a martial arts training, I know several black belts. I asked one of them before posting this what he would have done in this situation if he was so armed. He said he'd shoot the SOB. Knowing martial arts doesn't guarantee victory against a knife wielding baddy, despite what you've seen in movies and games. You can still be stabbed, even if victory is yours at the end of the fight. Why should someone put themselves in ANY amount of danger to defend themselves. If you can walk away without a scratch without losing any property, that's the best option, and if a loser has to die for that outcome, then so be it.

So basically, the moral is IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DIE, DON'T ROB PEOPLE.

Easy

 

[MartialArc]

I can not say either way. For one thing baker shot 8 times and hit 4, that means he did not have a very trained sight and was shooting more sporadically out of fear rather then with intent to hit and kill. Although i will never agree with the fact that he killed him, if he had shot in the air or without the intent to hit then the kids might have attacked again and gained control of the gun. Needless to say, if you get shot there is always a chance to die no matter what.
All in all, I think the punk needed to learn a lesson, but I don't think he should have died.

Do you think Baker was specifically trying to kill him though? Or was it a side-effect of Baker trying to repel him.

That he should not have killed him is a given. I think really the only thing up for debate is if he meant to or not.

Shooting someone to death because they robbed you: Crime

Someone dying because you shot them while trying to keep them from robbing you: Self Defense

People just seem to present some odd evidence for the former in this one.