Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Geekosaurus]

That'll teach him to mug someone.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

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.

Now think about what you just said, "He should have looked into training or at least information on how to defend yourself with a gun during a mugging," what could he have possibly done? How could you learn to defend yourself from a mugging when you're,

1) Disoriented.

2) Alone against multiple assailants.

3)In the dark.

4) On the ground

and
5) Unsure if they have a weapon or not.

Think about it, what you're suggesting is he learn to defend himself from a completely random event. It's like a lightning strike, ya, you think about what you would do in those circumstances, but the reality happens much faster and usually your reflexes and insticts act before you can even think about your next move.

There was nothing he could do. Even learning a martial arts would have been of no help in this circumstance (No matter how hard you can punch, it won't help if you don't see the first blow coming and you're already on the ground.) In sheer desperation, he fired his gun. In desperation, no amount of training (Even if it existed) would have prepared him for the reality.

 

[Gitty101]

They were in the wrong, Baker did what he thought was neccessary to protect himself.

 

[Olorune]

Comment removed due to uncessary inbox rape. Clearly my opinion that a kid shouldn't have died wasn't popular.

Sure, that kid shouldn't of been shot FOUR times, but yeah Baker was 100% in the right in what he did...except for firing more than once. Did he miss or something?!? Fuck! You don't even have to shoot people that many times in most games!

 

[AngryFrenchCanadian]

Was he in the right to shoot? Absolutely, but it's still a tragic loss of human life. Rhetoric such as "Don't want to get shot? Don't mug people." indicate a complete disregard to the circumstances of the incident and does not address the root of the problem, which is comprised of a multitude of factors, such as poverty, lack of education and laws on weapons.

 

[Senaro]

Comment removed due to uncessary inbox rape. Clearly my opinion that a kid shouldn't have died wasn't popular.

Sure, that kid shouldn't of been shot FOUR times, but yeah Baker was 100% in the right in what he did...except for firing more than once. Did he miss or something?!? Fuck! You don't even have to shoot people that many times in most games! XD

It is indeed a shame that adult decided commit a violent crime and had to take the responsibility for his actions. It's almost like human beings should be held accountable for the things they do or something.

 

[Olorune]

So the guy was carrying 500 british pounds, and jogging after midnight with a laser-sighted handgun with hollow-point bullets? What the hell???

Always be prepared (?)

 

[Olorune]

Comment removed due to uncessary inbox rape. Clearly my opinion that a kid shouldn't have died wasn't popular.

Sure, that kid shouldn't of been shot FOUR times, but yeah Baker was 100% in the right in what he did...except for firing more than once. Did he miss or something?!? Fuck! You don't even have to shoot people that many times in most games! XD

It is indeed a shame that adult decided commit a violent crime and had to take the responsibility for his actions. It's almost like human beings should be held accountable for the things they do or something.

I understand what you're saying and I agree. "Don't want to get shot? Don't mug people." I'm just saying that it sucks a life was wasted on something stupid like mugging people.

 

[Senaro]

Comment removed due to uncessary inbox rape. Clearly my opinion that a kid shouldn't have died wasn't popular.

Sure, that kid shouldn't of been shot FOUR times, but yeah Baker was 100% in the right in what he did...except for firing more than once. Did he miss or something?!? Fuck! You don't even have to shoot people that many times in most games! XD

It is indeed a shame that adult decided commit a violent crime and had to take the responsibility for his actions. It's almost like human beings should be held accountable for the things they do or something.

I understand what you're saying and I agree. "Don't want to get shot? Don't mug people." I'm just saying that it sucks a life was wasted on something stupid like mugging people.

I agree completely. My quotation was more for Girl With One Eye. It is a shame someone decided to throw their life away like that, though.

 

[Lord Krunk]

The guy was absolutely right to shoot the mugger. 8 times was really overdoing it though.

As for the law, it needs to be reworked. Dumbass gun-nuts can abuse the hell out of it, and I bet they already have.

 

[Hitokiri_Gensai]

As someone whose been mugged while carrying, i know the fear that comes with someone trying to rob you and possibly kill you. You have to make a snap decision, you dont have time to make more of a decision and for someone whose never been through a combat situation, they tend to act on instinct rather than brains.

So yeah, four times seems unreasonable, but think of it this way, in a second, someone has tried to rob you, possible try to kill you, youre not aware of their intention, youre carrying so you draw your sidearm and fire at them. Its all over in a split second, before you can even collect your thoughts, how many times did you pull the trigger? I cant tell you how many people ive heard of in situations like that, that cannot for the life of them, remember how many times they fired. Its a situation in which the brain shuts off and relies soley on the fight or flight response.

So was he right? damn straight, unarmed or not, someone attacked without marking intention and the man was fighting for his life.

 

[Nukey]

A criminal's a criminal, age doesn't make a difference. Baker defended himself, which he was allowed to do, from a man attempting to inflict harm upon him; if I were in his shoes, I would have done the same.

Personally, I'm a bit happy the little shit's dead, one less sociopath we have to worry about fucking up society for then rest of us.

 

[TOGSolid]

Was he right to shoot? Yes.

Was he right to shoot that many times? No.

There are so many problems with this statement which I will counter with a quote:

1. ...you should shoot only once, or perhaps twice.

Myth. While we tend to call "excessive force" on people who fire repeatedly, they're doing exactly what they should. This isn't the movies, and we're not all crack shots. It's extremely easy to miss with a handgun. Most shots under duress fired miss completely, even with cops and military personnel.

What's more, a single bullet can eventually kill someone (though most people survive single gunshot wounds), but it rarely stops them instantly. Some assailants may take four or five slugs and still have to be physically wrestled to the ground by police. That's four or five hits, not just shots fired. Your goal isn't to hurt them. It's to stop them. So you should continue firing until they stop.

Let's also not forget that this guy was scared shitless, just gotten decked, was fearing for his own safety, etc. etc.

Adrenaline is a *****. Note that at that close of a range, he still missed HALF of his shots which completely corroborates my quote. Anyone who says Baker was being excessive really doesn't know shit about shit.

 

[SbE]

If you get attacked/mugged you have every right to defend yourself in any way you see fit at that moment imo. It's unfortunate that he died, but if you're stupid enough to attack someone in a country where it's quite likely that someone is carrying a gun, then you're too stupid to live, to be quite honest.

About the 8 shots fired, I don't get how the number is in any way relevant. If you fear for your life, which any sane person would when attacked by two people at night, the last thing on your mind is "how many shots would seem acceptable in hindsight?", you just keep fucking firing until the threat is neutralized.

This is coming from a person that thinks a large segment of the population of a civilized country owning and carrying firearms (other than hunting rifles) is pure insanity.

 

[Bernzz]

It's a shame about the waste of life, but I support Baker fully. He feared for his life, and I believe he did the right thing.

 

[yamitami]

To start with, that article lists the dead man as 'victim'. Not alleged anything, not deceased, not anything with any HINT of journalistic objective. This is biased against Baker in the first place so any details you get from this article are going to paint him in a bad light.

Secondly, everyone here who's never fired a gun needs to stop acting like they know what they are talking about. In fact, someone who is scared is MUCH more likely to fire multiple times without even thinking about it, let alone if they've been punched in the head and are possibly dazed and can't tell if the attacker is down yet. Also, your mind instinctively aims for the bigger target when you're not sitting there telling it to go somewhere else. Biggest target on a human is the torso, so that's where Baker's instinct led him. It would only be reasonable to expect an arm or leg shot if Baker came across the mugger attacking someone else and therefore had time to sit and line up the shot.

And lastly, this unarmed business is bullshit. How was Baker supposed to know this? This kid was outside the norm since almost all muggers have SOME kind of weapon even if it's only a pocketknife. Baker had every reason to believe his life was in danger and every reason to fire.

 

[LondonBeer]

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

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

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.

Ill translate Mako Soldiers post ... zOMG you proved me wrong again, I blocked that other guy & Im ignoring London Beers arguements so Imma pick another troll with you, but Ive probably blocked you because you have facts & legal precedence & shit to back you up. Also monkeys cause if I mention monkeys itll sound smart.

I have no more time for absolute dickheads because being one myself takes up so much time.

 

[Acting like a FOOL]

No. He was wrong. If someone mugs you, but punches you rather than draw a weapon on you, then you should at least start by threatening them with the weapon you are carrying. A reflexive response of "shoot first, ask questions later", proves why civilians should not be given the power to end peoples live so easily.

And to all of you that say the mugger "deserved to be shot": that's disgusting. Not even if he'd had a weapon (where lethal self-defence is excusable), would he have "deserved" to die. There is no logical explanation that can ever be given as to why a person "deserves" death.

Sadly, random acts of violence are not about Logical Morality. A man can train his reflexes and be psychologically prepared to fight someone, but he's never prepared to be randomly attacked. This man simply wished to jog as he usually did(armed as he usually is) but he just so happened to cross paths with a youth who wanted to make some quick "easy" cash. the jogging man is met with a nasty right-hook out of the dark of the night and is left on his knee bleeding and dazed. Quickly looking up he sees two large shadows in the weak light. Drawing the gun he sets the laser sight on the closest assailant and opens up rapid fire before he is attacked again. the other assailant flees with the laser sight resting on his chest. the jogger inspects the body of his attacker who is on the ground bleeding out, calls the police and stays with the body. the jogger went out that night not wanting to kill anybody and not wanting to get mugged. the youth went out that night to mug somebody.
he met an unfortunate end but it was one he brought on himself.

 

[Acting like a FOOL]

No. He was wrong. If someone mugs you, but punches you rather than draw a weapon on you, then you should at least start by threatening them with the weapon you are carrying. A reflexive response of "shoot first, ask questions later", proves why civilians should not be given the power to end peoples live so easily.

And to all of you that say the mugger "deserved to be shot": that's disgusting. Not even if he'd had a weapon (where lethal self-defence is excusable), would he have "deserved" to die. There is no logical explanation that can ever be given as to why a person "deserves" death.

Sadly, random acts of violence are not about Logical Morality. A man can train his reflexes and be psychologically prepared to fight someone, but he's never prepared to be randomly attacked. This man simply wished to jog as he usually did(armed as he usually is) but he just so happened to cross paths with a youth who wanted to make some quick "easy" cash. the jogging man is met with a nasty right-hook out of the dark of the night and is left on his knee bleeding and dazed. Quickly looking up he sees two large shadows in the weak light. Drawing the gun he sets the laser sight on the closest assailant and opens up rapid fire before he is attacked again. the other assailant flees with the laser sight resting on his chest. the jogger inspects the body of his attacker who is on the ground bleeding out, calls the police and stays with the body. the jogger went out that night not wanting to kill anybody and not wanting to get mugged. the youth went out that night to mug somebody.
he met an unfortunate end but it was one he brought on himself.

It's a shame about the waste of life, but I support Baker fully. He feared for his life, and I believe he did the right thing.

 

[Ca3zar416]

He definitely should not have shot that many times. A single shot and backing up could have probably solved the problem right there but, I do think he was right do defend himself. Even if they only had inferior armament's there were still two of them and he feared for his life. I don't think this specific case should be one where he should be convicted criminally.