Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Brockyman]

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.

Maybe someone else will learn the lesson... maybe you'll die the next time you commit a crime. Unlike the death penalty, there is no appeals when the guy your robbed is holding a 45

 

[The Hairminator]

It is a shame the kid had to die, but Baker felt that his life was in danger and had the right to enact lethal force. Sure, in hindsight, it is easy to say that it was excessive shooting someone 8 times.

Yet, for all the people who say he should've fired a warning shot or shot in the leg, just keep that in mind next time you play "Left 4 Dead" or "Call of Duty" and you get bummed rush by a group of hostiles. You panic and spray rounds at anything that could be a threat. I know that video games is nothing like real life, but it is a good way of getting my point across to anyone who hasn't been in a life or death situation.

Then I think the question you should ask yourself is; are you really fit to carry a weapon that can kill with the press of a trigger if you are prone to freak out and let your primal brain kick and lose control the moment you get some adrenaline? Yes, I think 8 bullets is a bit too excessive, the guy must have been on the ground before half of that.

Also, the guy was training to be a marine, he if anyone should have been able to do this right. Is a guy with such a twitchy and extreme trigger finger under pressure really the kind of person you want in any armed forces?

 

[LondonBeer]

WHAT IF HE HAD A KNIFE? Should the government have dropped a fucking nuke on the area?

Im 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.

Highlighted for comedy effect. Toggling the safety takes less than a fraction of a second. The safety actually exists to stop the hammer falling and discharging the weapon. Its irrelevant to the process.

AGAIN 4 SHOTS HIT.

My assumptions are far from groundless they are based on your input. Contrary valid experiences would have enabled you to contribute intelligent rational arguements.

 

[MartialArc]

It is a shame the kid had to die, but Baker felt that his life was in danger and had the right to enact lethal force. Sure, in hindsight, it is easy to say that it was excessive shooting someone 8 times.

Yet, for all the people who say he should've fired a warning shot or shot in the leg, just keep that in mind next time you play "Left 4 Dead" or "Call of Duty" and you get bummed rush by a group of hostiles. You panic and spray rounds at anything that could be a threat. I know that video games is nothing like real life, but it is a good way of getting my point across to anyone who hasn't been in a life or death situation.

Then I think the question you should ask yourself is; are you really fit to carry a weapon that can kill with the press of a trigger if you are prone to freak out and let your primal brain kick and lose control the moment you get some adrenaline? Yes, I think 8 bullets is a bit too excessive, the guy must have been on the ground before half of that.

Also, the guy was training to be a marine, he if anyone should have been able to do this right. Is a guy with such a twitchy and extreme trigger finger under pressure really the kind of person you want in any armed forces?

8 bullets=2-3 seconds of firing. For the 1001st time. You shoot till the guy falls or your out of ammo. Also he only hit 4 times. When someone attacks you the last thing going through your head is going to be "I should be careful not to shoot him too much to make sure he survives." Your thoughts will consist of "HOLY FUCKIN SHIT I'M GONNA DIE!!!!" You will react accordingly.

Man, you lot are awful cavalier about getting robbed. Lets see how you handle yourself next time someone emerges from the darkness and hits you. I can guarantee you that your heart-rate spikes, the adrenaline is like an explosion in your head, and primal instincts do take-over. It takes a very substantial amount of training to teach the trigger discipline a soldier has. And that shit all goes out the window in CQB like this. Coolheadedness might be feasible for a 50ft engagement, but with someone on top of you, its all low brain function and not much rational thinking.

 

[Brockyman]

You people are idiots who don't get out of the house, you think anyone that has ever resorted to mugging someone is some sort cretin of society that deserves to be killed on sight! How can you justify ending one's life over the contents of your pocket? How can you justify Shooting him eight times? How can justify not fighting on equal grounds and trying to fight the kid who is much younger than his military trained self?

I am glad i can separate myself from you sadistic self righteous assholes by saying i wouldn't shoot.

1. No one was killed on sight
2. I can easily justify it. A part of my life went into earning everything I own. Why should a punk be able to take what is mine? It's that kind of talk which has led to the downfall of society itself. People use to be RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS. He chose to ROB SOMEONE. Bandits/Robbers/Thieves have existed since the beginning of time, and I don't think the ancient caravans/stores/individuals worried about the life of the one trying to take what isn't theirs. Now we worry more about the criminal then the victim
2a Also, the victim may not always know the intent. Someone comes at a woman with a knife... is he going to rob her? Maybe he's going to rape her? Maybe the contents of her vagina and her emotional well being and suffering aren't worth someones life to some scuzzball like you...
3. The eight times... was a bit much. However in some situations and depending on the type of weapon, type of person, and type of drugs they are on, one shot doesn't always do it. However you have to be watchful of bystanders when you shoot as well. This point I'll give you...kinda.
4. Also, it's very easy to justify not "fighting on equal grounds". Dude had a knife. Even with the best training, the bad guy can still get a few good stabs in, maybe slashing a wrist or arm that could lead to amputation or death. The defenders first goal is to get out of the situation UNHARMED, or with the least amount of harm possible. If I have a gun, and someone attacks me with a knife, the next think you hear will be BAM BAM, b/c my health isn't worth their life either.

 

[^=ash=^]

You people are idiots who don't get out of the house, you think anyone that has ever resorted to mugging someone is some sort cretin of society that deserves to be killed on sight! How can you justify ending one's life over the contents of your pocket? How can you justify Shooting him eight times? How can justify not fighting on equal grounds and trying to fight the kid who is much younger than his military trained self?

I am glad i can separate myself from you sadistic self righteous assholes by saying i wouldn't shoot.

Could I just throw in some stuff? .. I'm going to anyway...
He shot the mugger 4 times,
Since he was jumped it wasn't a "fair Fight" and any chance of fighting on equal grounds is out of the question,
Baker seems to need the money since he has to do paid work for friends thus the money must mean a lot to him,
18 years old is barely defenceless so against a 28 year old there is essentially no difference,
Finally the mugger made the choice to attack people in an area where people are allowed to carry concealed weapons so must have known the risk of his actions.

Before you flame me which I can tell you're thinking of doing from your, quite frankly, abusive posts regarding other peoples opinions: The mugger did not deserve to die and I wouldn't wish death on anyone but he must have known what risks he was taking to try and rob a random person on the street. As a consequence he lost his life, but noone will learn from this. The death penalty isn't a deterrant or violent crimes such as this would stop so this is just an unfortunate incident.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

He did the right thing, end of.

 

[punkrocker27]

I have absolutely no standing on this issue, though I am surprised by the poll results. Also this article is sensationalist, it's filled with loaded words.

 

[Dragunai]

read first


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1346574/Jogger-Thomas-Baker-shot-dead-unarmed-mugger-released-charge.html


I've heard about this, and alot of people are putting the blame on Baker, what's you opinion on this matter?

I believe he had a legitimate reason to fire, he had a CCW permit, he was attacked by 2 people, and feared for his life. Simple, don't want to get shot? don't mug people. He deserved it.

I just voted yes and at time of posting the current poll responce is 1803 YES and 183 NO and therefore human society speaks volumes once again through numerical stats.

So Im going to take the extreme Left Wing road here and say.

HOORAY!!! On this, the rarest of occassions a man defended his life from an unprovoked attack that stemmed from a filthy scumbag who would rather drop out of school and leech from society AND WAS NOT punished by the government for doing it.

GO that judge and GO the person in that state who introduced a "Stand your ground" law. They need to be made national American heroes for giving honest, decent people the right to exterminate scum like that kid and slowly improve human kind for all.

Incedently did anyone else notice the media doing what it ALWAYS does when some ethnic minority who broke the law gets taken out by whitey?

They took a photo of him smiling and looking harmless and called HIM the victim while Thomas Baker was obviously out wih a gun looking to kill some innocent minority kid.

Fuck that. So sick of white people being made out to be the bad guys in these stories and Im sick of the good guys getting into trouble for defending their lives and the property they bought with money they earned from jobs they do to help keep society moving along by paying taxes and so on.

Go Thomas Baker!

 

[zombays]

People say "Oh, he didn't have to shoot 8 times" Well, if you had blurry vision and thought someone had a weapon, you'd shoot multiple times hoping that at least ONE of them hit the assailant.
EDIT: He hit him with 4 of the bullets.

 

[Gindil]

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.

I may not like guns but people have a right to carry them so long as they are responsible with them.

In terms of escalation of force, if it's late, I'm jogging and someone's just punched me in the face, I'm breaking an arm, cracking a neck, or pulling out a gun and shooting. Someone messing with my routine like that must have bad intentions. I am NOT taking chances on my life so someone can rob me of $500 dollars that I had in my pocket.

 

[MartialArc]

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.

I may not like guns but people have a right to carry them so long as they are responsible with them.

In terms of escalation of force, if it's late, I'm jogging and someone's just punched me in the face, I'm breaking an arm, cracking a neck, or pulling out a gun and shooting. Someone messing with my routine like that must have bad intentions. I am NOT taking chances on my life so someone can rob me of $500 dollars that I had in my pocket.

Well that sounds damn reasonable to me. =) It wasn't being critical of you or anything, was just mean to be thought provoking. People seem to forget that, ya know, the guy went up and hit Baker with no provocation as far as we know.

I'd say attacking someone without provocation is a much larger escalation of force than shooting an attacker too.

And for sure man, I completely respect people not liking guns. If that's the case, don't carry one. You seem to be one of few that can have his own opinion without trying to shove it down everyone's throat. I commend you.

 

[TheAceTheOne]

Self-defense: I believe this was the case. Given the "Stand your ground" laws, Baker's concealed carry permit, and the mugging (which, in my book, constitutes immediate bodily harm and/or threat of death), there's no way to chalk it up to anything else.

As for Baker shooting multiple shots: It can take several shots to kill or incapacitate a person based on where they hit. If Baker shot in panicked self-defense, as I would if I were in this situation, and he honestly believed that his attacker had intent to harm or kill him with a weapon, shooting the kid as many times as he did might have been the only course of action his potentially panicked brain saw as reasonable. While that reasoning may not be the best, it's what I have. He acted as I would have, had I been in his position, and he stayed with the kid until authorities arrived, if I read the story correctly.

The family of the attacker (the mugger. I refuse to call Baker an attacker, as given the situation, I believe he shot in self-defense) is wrong to file a lawsuit, at least in my opinion. If anything, they could have kept a better watch on the kid, so it didn't happen the way it did.

I mean no disrespect to Baker, the kid, the family, or anyone else involved by the way.

You people are idiots who don't get out of the house, you think anyone that has ever resorted to mugging someone is some sort cretin of society that deserves to be killed on sight! How can you justify ending one's life over the contents of your pocket? How can you justify Shooting him eight times? How can justify not fighting on equal grounds and trying to fight the kid who is much younger than his military trained self?

I am glad i can separate myself from you sadistic self righteous assholes by saying i wouldn't shoot.

I'm not sadistic, or self-righteous. Can you honestly tell me that if you were jumped in the dark while following your normal routine and ended up in a potential struggle for your life, that you'd just let the mugger take the stuff he wanted, possibly from your cold, dead body? Good God, man, haven't you ever seen Batman? (Estimate based on my own guess, coming up...) At least 75% of the time, if you give stuff over to the mugger... you'll still be hurt or killed. If you want to take that chance with your life, then that's alright. But if you claim that someone who wants to play it safe with their life is a sadistic, self-righteous A-hole, perhaps you should re-evaluate the situation. (Yet again, no disrespect meant.)

 

[Gindil]

You people are idiots who don't get out of the house, you think anyone that has ever resorted to mugging someone is some sort cretin of society that deserves to be killed on sight! How can you justify ending one's life over the contents of your pocket? How can you justify Shooting him eight times? How can justify not fighting on equal grounds and trying to fight the kid who is much younger than his military trained self?

I am glad i can separate myself from you sadistic self righteous assholes by saying i wouldn't shoot.

Great, ignore everything that everyone is saying in a debate and get passive aggressive. That's the right approach to defending yourself.

You said before that you were not in the US. Now you go to outright abusing people without any semblence of an argument. That, quite frankly, is uncalled for.

My suggestion? Either answer the people asking you questions in return or leave the thread if it's too heated for your sensibilities. No one is holding you here if you feel you have moral high ground in an intense situation such as taking a life.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I wonder if there were no such things as possessions and greed if humankind would commit such acts at all? Or if there would be any need for weapons at that point? Ah, the dreams of society without the basic fundamental evils in the world.

Sorry about that. I'm going to back to smoking a joint and listening to John Lennon. Gonna try to not take life too seriously. Then find some shrooms and listen to Bill Hicks.

I wonder if it's too late for us to re-learn what it meant to be human?...

EDIT: I don't know if this has been said, but I don't currently have the patience to check 33 pages worth of posts. So, reversing the trend that I bash religion on a regular basis, I'm going to use a positive example from a religious figure.

"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."

I think society, now, has taken this saying to mean "Do Unto Others BEFORE You Think They Would Do Unto You".

 

[SirDoom]

You people are idiots who don't get out of the house, you think anyone that has ever resorted to mugging someone is some sort cretin of society that deserves to be killed on sight! How can you justify ending one's life over the contents of your pocket? How can you justify Shooting him eight times? How can justify not fighting on equal grounds and trying to fight the kid who is much younger than his military trained self?

I am glad i can separate myself from you sadistic self righteous assholes by saying i wouldn't shoot.

Before the mugging, he was an innocent guy. During it, he became a violent attacker with an intent to do physical harm for some reason or another (in this case, it was to knock the guy out and steal his money). He didn't deserve to die, but he certainly didn't deserve to be able to beat up an older guy, steal his possessions, and run away with no punishment either. As for the 8 times... yeah, that probably was a bit much, but in a moment of fear your reactions tend to be a bit more rapid. Once the first shot was fired, I doubt you'd be able to stop and say "Ok, I hit him and he's no longer a threat." Your body will keep on going for a few seconds.

...and there are no equal grounds in a fight. There is only one kind of real fight- the kind where someone is hitting you for the sake of hitting you. This can easily be a life-or-death situation, and you'll want to use every method available to ensure you stay alive, be it throwing sand, grabbing a baseball bat, or pulling out a gun. There is no honor in dying because you decided that since he was punching you, you should fight back with your fists rather than something you have on you that will give you a better advantage.

 

[Blatherscythe]

You people are idiots who don't get out of the house, you think anyone that has ever resorted to mugging someone is some sort cretin of society that deserves to be killed on sight! How can you justify ending one's life over the contents of your pocket? How can you justify Shooting him eight times? How can justify not fighting on equal grounds and trying to fight the kid who is much younger than his military trained self?

I am glad i can separate myself from you sadistic self righteous assholes by saying i wouldn't shoot.

And I'm glad that I could walk up to you and kick your hypocritical, self rightious ass and then slit your throat for your wallet. I believe you are the one who needs to get out more, the victem had no fucking idea if he was getting mugged or if he was going to be killed. The average mugger doesen't give half a damn about his target's well being and is a fucking cretin, a boil on society's ass. There was also two of them, equal grounds my ass. So think before you make an ass of yourself.

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

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

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

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.

With all due respect, ie none, you've proven nothing. You've heard the old (supposed)fact that if you teach a certain type of monkey to masturbate it'll die from starvation soon after, well this is the same. Just because it is the gun that does the killing doesn't justify letting any old idiot have one. But yeah, due to the abusive nature of your comment, consider yourself ignored too. I have no time for absolute dickheads.