Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Faladorian]

For everybody claiming 4 shots was excessive, what if he only shot him once and then he pulled out a gun himself and shot and killed Baker? The whole idea of self-defense is to defend yourself and not die.

Baker was right to do what he did. The world isn't missing anything more than a thug and a robber.

 

[Elburzito]

Baker was completely right in shooting him. Let it be a warning to other scumbags out there who refuse to find an/a (unsure) honest living out there.

 

[^=ash=^]

Firstly to those who say mugging is a "minor assault" or any variation upon.
http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=126530
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Muggers+kill+lawyer+yards+from+his+home%3B+City+solicitor+stabbed+in...-a0140880173
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/muggers-kill-soldier-1417279.html
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=136606
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3102525/World-War-II-hero-aged-90-murdered-by-petty-thief-for-40.html

I uderstand death is a tragic thing, but taking stupid risks to get some petty cash is unjustifiable. You want money? Get a job.

When faced with potential death I say anything goes in terms of defence, 8 shots and only 4 landed suggests the victim (yes Baker is the victim and Mustelier is the assailent) was in a state of panic and "shots to the leg" would be an unreasonable choice to make since you would probably miss 100% of the time.

 

[NickCooley]

The guy was jumped (thats jumped as in they surprised him not casually strolled up to him shouting "WE'RE GONNA MUG YOU" giving him plenty of time for a warning shot or bullet to the leg or whatever other stupid suggestions there were) by two teenagers that as far as I can tell from the story had every intent of taking his money by whatever means they could. I'd be more suspicious if he DIDN'T panic. In that situation I'd probably fire every bullet I had.

 

[katsumoto03]

i hate to use the "slippery slope" fallacy, but well... it is. where do you draw the line? in Montana, where i live, a Wal-mart employee recently shot another when they got in an argument. the state had recently passed a law similar to Florida's "stand your ground" law, and he claimed he felt his life was in danger (even though they were both at work, in Wal-mart...). who's to say if he was right or wrong? all i know is someone got shot at Wal-mart over a stupid disagreement and a potentially dangerous law, setting an even more dangerous precedent.

granted, in Baker's case, his life was more clearly in danger, but shooting him 4 times seems excessive. idk... not gonna pass judgement here. on one hand the mugger deserved it, but i just see this leading to bad things.

I agree. What if the shooter simply pulled out his gun? Would the mugger have fled upon realising the danger to his life? Or even just a bullet to the leg. I don't think the shooter should be punished but this is a case of excessive force.

The odds of someone being calm enough to shoot someone in the leg in this situation is extremely low.

 

[thecoreyhlltt]

That's what happens when you try to rob people.
He deserved it fully, in my opinion.

i think you mean, "that's what happens when you try to go jogging"
but yea, he was in the right as they say. although to me 8 shots seems a bit much, but what do i know??

 

[MrMixelPixel]

I don't believe the kid deserved death.

However, I don't believe Baker is at fault here. People have aright to defend themselves. He was attacked so he retaliated in self-defense. Perhaps a bit extreme, but I can imagine it's hard to determine what is and isn't extreme when being assaulted. Especially if you are unsure if your attackers are unarmed.

I agree with his decision.

 

[Therumancer]

It's a pretty straightforward situation. The guy was confronted by multiple opoonents, as such lethal force was perfectly acceptable. A lot of people who are anti-gun, or anti-violence really don't seem to "get" how force escalates. Another similar situation is if the person carrying the guy/weapon and responding with lethal force has reasonable cause to believe his opponent has combat training. A guy who knows karate, or has trained with the military can be considered armed and dangerous.

Of course this is a very general breakdown on things, laws and the continuum of force vary from state to state and town to town. Seems like the law was clearly in support of what he did in the area. Some parts of the country are a LOT less friendly towards criminals than others.

Back when I took Criminal Justice, we covered Connecticut's laws (at the time) where the basic situation is one where someone is required to flee before they use any degree of force at all. The only time someone can defend themselves is literally if they are run down or cornered. This exists largely as a way of dealing with rowdy drunks and the like, since it means in a fight, who threw the first punch is irrelevent. If there was a fight and neither guy tried to run away, it doesn't matter, both are liable. There are exceptions to this in practice of course, but at least how the law was then this guy would quite probably have run into trouble because he didn't try and run away after being punched before pulling his weapon. Of course if attempted escape was impossible, or he was boxed in, what he did would have been fine also since he was outnumbered. Simply put he's not a cop carrying a utility belt full of options, taking on two younger and stronger people hand to hand would have resulted in him being killed or seriously injured, he likely didn't have any options between "fight barehanded" and "blow their heads off". With "fight barehanded" not being a viable option... well, that's what the gun is for.

I understand people who are anti-gun wanting to spin this into some kind of travesty, but the bottom line was that a pair of scumbags tried to rob the wrong person, their ages being irrelevent to the situation here.

 

[DanielDeFig]

A robbery case actually going to trial has the benefit of hindsight and afterthought. It also implies that both parties survived the crime.

Well, wouldn't the chances of that improve of half the civilian population wasn't carrying lethal weapons? Couldn't the money and time spent on arming citizens from criminals be better spent looking for and addressing the root of the problem (Why they feel the need to mug someone)?

Believing that killing criminals will somehow "deplete" the number of criminals, is the same vein of thought as ethnic cleansing.

 

[dancinginfernal]

Was he right to shoot? Yes.

Was he right to shoot that many times? No.

If you're in a haze after being punched in the face, fearing for your life, you're going to pull the trigger until you're sure you're safe.

He was in the right to defend himself, it's just a shame the kid had to die.

 

[archvile93]

Hmmmm... Eight times? Seems a bit much. Granted, he panicked, but if you're going to panic in those situations you shouldn't have a damned license. I think he should get some form of punishment, although not a large one.

Here's the thing though. Do you want to just fire one shot and learn you missed when he stabs you, or would you rather keep shooting in order to increase the odds that the threat is neutralized?

 

[deathbydeath]

if his life was in danger, sure, but since i doubt it was, i think he should have tried to avoid killing them

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Did he deserve to die? No.
But at the same time, I don't think the shooter should be punished for defending himself, especially if he had the license to carry the weapon.

And this is coming from someone who thinks America's right to bare arms is ridiculously outdated.

Are you me? Because these are my thoughts exactly.

One thing I do dislike about Australian and English law is that it blames the person defending themselves if they use an excessive or lethal amount of force. Someone explain to me how you're supposed to gauge the appropriate amount of force when you're being attacked, you think you might be killed and instinct and adrenaline are flooding your system? Makes no sense to me.

I actually covered something like this at university. We use the objective test of 'what would a reasonable person' deem as 'reasonable' force, but this is flawed system, because people come in so many shapes and sizes. For instance, a 5ft women deems less of a threat than a massive 6ft man, so it goes without question that more force is needed for the latter? But in the eyes of law, if for instance, the man happens to have brittle bone disease, a normal punch to the face could cause massive damage or even death, that force would be excessive and the defender may be punished.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

How are you supposed to reason if you don't use logic? And how can you come up with ethical and moral arguments if you don't use reason?

Morality and ethics are completely relative. Thus if you find it morally or ethically despicable that some people get killed for some reason, then that's just an arbitrary opinion. It doesn't necessarily make it any more logical than another persons argument claiming that it was a good and beneficient thing that this particular person got killed.

Logic is just a way of measuring if arguments stay consistent with eachother and the overall philosophy. The thing is, philosophies differ, and none is more "superior" than the other. They are matters of opinion, and opinion is completely arbitrary.

 

[SouthpawFencer]

The fact that this happened and so many people condone it sickens me. Why not just make mugging punishable by the death penalty? It's the equivalent.

Heh. If they were willing to follow through with their logic, which they have proven they are not. Why use that line of reasoning if you can't defend it all the way?

There's a difference between there being a legally executed (no pun intended) death penalty for mugging, and being glad that a violent criminal who victimized innocent people is now dead. For one thing, wrongful convictions are a major risk. For another, if there's a death penalty for mugging, then muggers have a darn good reason to kill their victims (getting rid of a witness who can get them executed). This logic is also used by people who oppose the death penalty for people who rape children, and I'm forced to agree with that logic. Very, VERY few people oppose killing rapers of children on the grounds of "They don't deserve to die", afterall.

And I don't care that it was "only" $500. I wouldn't have cared if it was $1. It was not theirs to take, and their victim has every moral right to defend himself and his possessions, even if this involves lethal force. I never understood why people quibble over the dollar amount. At what point do you draw a line and say "anything over this amount justifies using potentially lethal force to defend, while anything less obligates you to not risk killing the mugger"?

 

[Kracka]

For everyone saying how the mugger was shot 8 times, read closer. There were 8 shots fired but he was only hit 4 times. Also, after being hit in the face and disorientated, its difficult to 'just shoot them in the leg'. Firing a warning shot or just aiming it at the people give them enough reason/time to kill you if they are armed.

Its unfortunate the mugger died, however those are the risks one takes when you assault someone. Perhaps the 16 year old will straighten up because of this?

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Hmmmm... Eight times? Seems a bit much. Granted, he panicked, but if you're going to panic in those situations you shouldn't have a damned license. I think he should get some form of punishment, although not a large one.

Here's the thing though. Do you want to just fire one shot and learn you missed when he stabs you, or would you rather keep shooting in order to increase the odds that the threat is neutralized?

Yeah but eight shots? That seems a bit over the line to me.

 

[Lord Kloo]

And the worst part is you think that's a perfectly reasonable attitude!

I'm sorry but killing is killing, I wouldn't kill someone to save my own life and its completely medieval to kill someone just because they could kill you. If we're going to allow this then why doesn't the state just execute everyone who committed any crime in which the victim feared for their life.

My attitude is perfectly reasonable and I personally believe that killing just like that or even causing pain so causally to prevent pain on your own part is extremely selfish and ridiculous that anyone could ever justify it, true I can't justify the mugging either but thats on a much lower level to manslaughter.

I'm glad the UK is tough on killing (by self defense included and I hope they get tougher. Thats all I can say really. Oh and sorry if you meant something else entirely..

 

[Wintermute_]

Did he deserve to die? No.
But at the same time, I don't think the shooter should be punished for defending himself, especially if he had the license to carry the weapon.

And this is coming from someone who thinks America's right to bare arms is ridiculously outdated.

Second amendment is VERY outdated. The thing was written when there was the danger that Indians would pillage your village and the U.S.'s only standing army was for a time the relative equivalent to militia. and the defense against oppressive government thing as well, but now, its unreasonable.

OT: Thats really sad. Why the hell did he have to fire 8 shots? why even bother firing? Point the gun at him and say "stay where you are, hands up, while I call the cops". Muggers don't die, you don't get mugged, and justice is served fairly. But instead, dead teen that mad a bad choice.