Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Burningsok]

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.

No it isn't an equivalent. A robbery case actually going to trial has the benefit of hindsight and afterthought. It also implies that both parties survived the crime.

When you are being held up however you have no way of knowing if the muggers who assault you are going to let you get away with your life. For all you know, they could kill you as soon as you've handed over your wallet. I.e, when the crime occurs, the victim doesn't have the luxury of afterthought or hindsight. He or she is right there in the moment and has to make a tactical choice ON THE SPOT that insures that he or she walks out of the situation in one piece. If that means killing one of the muggers with a gun, then that's the only right course of action to take.

Or perhaps you'd prefer a society where mugging is perfectly okay? Yeah, let's make the lives of muggers EVEN EASIER!

Killing someone for mugging is an overreaction, and that people defend it as being perfectly valid is a sick reflection of society. Why bother building a society free of muggers when it's easier to just shoot the lot of them?

Guess what buddy... Shit.. Fucking.. Happens. Please tell me you would actually try and think everything over while getting your face beaten in. I'm sure as hell not gonna stand their and let the little punks walk all over me. Hey if the fear of death is enough to scare criminals away then so be it.

It sickens me that people try to justify things like this; It makes them look like push-overs. At what point are you gonna put your damn foot down and say "NO!"?? Life and death isn't enough for you??

I'm really, really sorry I offended you. In retrospect, what the hell was I thinking? It's completely morally acceptable to shoot an unarmed teenager, Baker was just being a responsible gun owner. Muggers do it for fun, you know.

ok, I might of overreacted. Look, what your trying to argue is quite irrational. The guy got blind sided on the streets, and there was more then one teenager. I would be scared shit-less and pull the gun out too. Unfortunately, stuff like this happens, but ignoring survival instincts in a situation like that is just idiotic.

btw, please... sarcasm, it doesn't help your point. Also, unarmed does not always mean someone isn't dangerous.

 

[Reaper195]

He shouldn't have been shot! He was only trying to mug someone!


Yes, that was some straight up sarcasm.

 

[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.

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.

First, what exactly was "abusive". I compared you to a flat-earther, but that really isn't "abusive", it's used to make a point, a point that you were completely unable to dispute. I also used some hyperbole and some extreme examples to add some humor and some lightheartedness to a dull subject. I absolutely proved, and you didn't have any facts to dispute me. Your reply really made no sense at all...especially the masturbation comment. Reading a few of your earlier post, I thought there might actually be someone intelligent that could make a compelling argument for your side, but instead we get this, a whinny child that ignores/blocks people that you can't debate with facts. I read the other guys post that you ignored, and my argument was the Constitutionality of the amendment only.

However, to be clear, a person has a right to defend their property. Seeing as you probably live with your parent/guardians, have no job, you probably don't know how hard people work for their money and property. A person that wants to take my property isn't going to get it without a fight. I'm not even talking about personal self defense at this point. Another human being doesn't have the right to my property for any reason. I give to charity and help out the less fortunate, but even those people don't have the right to steal from anyone. Self defense is the same, but much more important. If a man w/ a knife is walking toward my wife, I'm going to shoot him. No questions... he could be trying to kill her, rape her, or just steal $5. I don't care. When you intentionally break the law, you must have consequences for your actions. Do I think all thieves should be killed? No. If they can be reported to the police, the jail is acceptable, but in the heat of the moment, I'm going to protect what is mine from the scum of the earth.

Second, we don't 'let' anyone have arms. Its a natural right, like the right to free speech, assembly, religion, and the press. We don't "let" people have free speech, its ours to begin with, unless a criminal violates the law and are placed in jail, or killed by the victim of their crime (either one is fine with me)

This post isn't for your benefit, but for the forum, mainly to illustrate the pure stupidity of your reply. As far as ignoring me, I'm sure I'll be crying myself to sleep

 

[Brockyman]

Basically, don't mug people and you wont get shot

Best line of the day!!!!!

 

[Brockyman]

shoot to disarm, not to kill. Christ, you americans play too much COD

You watch to many action movies. It's boarder line impossible to shot a knife or gun out of someone's hand without causing injury even under the best conditions. You shoot until they stop.

 

[theevilsanta]

snip

Nice post.

 

[Irridium]

shoot to disarm, not to kill. Christ, you americans play too much COD

You watch to many action movies. It's boarder line impossible to shot a knife or gun out of someone's hand without causing injury even under the best conditions. You shoot until they stop.

Injury yes, death no. You dont need to shoot to disarm... shoot the guy in the foot is usually enough to stop most attackers.

Yes the foot, the part of the body that is smaller then the head, always moving, and is near impossible to hit unless the target is standing still at point blank range.

This attacker was moving, attacking, and Baker was already punched in the head, meaning he probably couldn't aim at, let alone hit, such a small target.

 

[macfluffers]

shoot to disarm, not to kill. Christ, you americans play too much COD

Um... theres a difference between getting shot dead & getting shot in the leg... Either shot would have stopped the attack. He wasn't wrong to shoot him (well he was wrong, but this is the US we are talking about, where everyone is gun crazy), he was wrong to take a fatal shot.

To both of you...there's no such thing as shooting to disarm, or shooting to wound. Shooting a leg or shoulder can kill, and you'll probably miss such a small target anyway. People trained to use handguns are told to shoot to kill, and to fire multiple times.

And for the record, it's not true that in the US "everyone is gun crazy". America is a big place, and a lot of people here don't like guns.

 

[Caligulove]

I don't think anyone deserves to die from a failed mugging, nor does being mugged give you the right to kill your attacker, in my book.

At the same time, theres a lot of fear at play. Plus, mugging someone isnt exactly the smartest thing to do.

 

[Dfskelleton]

I would've done the same thing. Survival is one of our most basic instincts, and when it's threatened, the law doesn't matter.

 

[thatsnotchocolate]

shoot to disarm, not to kill. Christ, you americans play too much COD

You watch to many action movies. It's boarder line impossible to shot a knife or gun out of someone's hand without causing injury even under the best conditions. You shoot until they stop.

By disarm i meant remove your assailants capacity to attack you. its not impossible to shoot their feet and its not impossible to just shoot once, correct me if i'm wrong but your standard pistol isn't an automatic and it what spam off a s#!tload of bullets from one trigger pull. Also one trigger pull makes a big bang that scares the cr*p out of most people

 

[Giest4life]

Here's a thought: don't mug people? Also the story contains a lot of grammatical, and journalistic errors.

shoot to disarm, not to kill. Christ, you americans play too much COD

You watch to many action movies. It's boarder line impossible to shot a knife or gun out of someone's hand without causing injury even under the best conditions. You shoot until they stop.

By disarm i meant remove your assailants capacity to attack you. its not impossible to shoot their feet and its not impossible to just shoot once, correct me if i'm wrong but your standard pistol isn't an automatic and it what spam off a s#!tload of bullets from one trigger pull. Also one trigger pull makes a big bang that scares the cr*p out of most people

I don't know if you've experienced a "fight or flight" situation before, but I have. I have stared down the barrel of a 9mm as the guy proceeded to rob me, and it wasn't exactly easy for me to focus evasive maneuvers and had I a gun, I would've shot the guy--emptying the round--without any thought for disarming him. But that, of course, could just be my reaction to such a situation.

 

[thatsnotchocolate]

shoot to disarm, not to kill. Christ, you americans play too much COD

You watch to many action movies. It's boarder line impossible to shot a knife or gun out of someone's hand without causing injury even under the best conditions. You shoot until they stop.

Injury yes, death no. You dont need to shoot to disarm... shoot the guy in the foot is usually enough to stop most attackers.

yeah thats what i meant

 

[Vodes]

Excessive yet justified...

 

[Dfskelleton]

shoot to disarm, not to kill. Christ, you americans play too much COD

You watch to many action movies. It's boarder line impossible to shot a knife or gun out of someone's hand without causing injury even under the best conditions. You shoot until they stop.

Injury yes, death no. You dont need to shoot to disarm... shoot the guy in the foot is usually enough to stop most attackers.

Yes the foot, the part of the body that is smaller then the head, always moving, and is near impossible to hit unless the target is standing still at point blank range.

This attacker was moving, attacking, and Baker was already punched in the head, meaning he probably couldn't aim at, let alone hit, such a small target.

A shot to this hip would've been possible at close range, but yeah. I'm sure everyone who's like "OMG YOU AMERICANS ARE SUCH STUPID WANNABE ACTION HEROES YOU SHOULD'VE SHOT HIM IN THE LEG" would shoot him in the chest too. Under extreme stress (which is easily caused by the threat to your personal safety), your judgement and logic is heavily clouded, and you'll do whatever nessecary to survive.

Of course, you wouldn't say that if it happened where YOU live. Not to imply that where you live is a bad place, oh no, but I've noticed a large amout of disdain for America on these fourms, and I can see why. We're not at the peak of our state as a country. We're in a bit of an awkward status right now. But Dammit, we're Americans! Even if we commonly fail to achieve these, we believe in liberty, honor, freedom, and justice! We just need something to click, something to get the gears of our country turning again, whatever and whenever that is.

 

[MattyDienhoff]

there's no such thing as shooting to disarm, or shooting to wound. Shooting a leg or shoulder can kill, and you'll probably miss such a small target anyway. People trained to use handguns are told to shoot to kill, and to fire multiple times.

This is correct.

shoot to disarm, not to kill. Christ, you americans play too much COD

And you've seen too many movies. People are trained to aim for center of mass (the torso) for a number of reasons, namely:

There's no safe place to shoot someone. Movies would have you believe that if you shoot someone in the shoulder, they'll be incapacitated and have their arm in a sling for a few weeks, and then they'll be just fine and dandy. Not so. A gunshot wound to the shoulder can destroy the ball-and-socket joint, crippling that arm permanently. It can sever one of the major blood vessels causing a fatal loss of blood in a short time span. Likewise with the legs, the femoral artery is one of the largest blood vessels in the body, should a bullet sever that, the person in question will soon bleed out. So shooting someone in the limbs can still kill them, but usually doesn't incapacitate the person in question instantly. Hence another reason people are trained to aim for the torso. Gunshot wounds to the torso are easier to make and more likely to incapacitate a person quickly.

You're either using lethal force or you're not, there's no middle ground here. If you've made the call to shoot at someone who's already attacking you, your only goal should be to force your attacker to stop what he's doing, by killing or incapacitating them. If you fear for your life, using a little bit of force which may or may not be enough to dissaude the attacker is just a bad idea.

Aiming for a limb, especially an extremity like a hand or foot, means you're much more likely to miss entirely. A bullet is a very small thing and it's much easier to miss your target than you would think, even under the best of circumstances. Even experienced and trained police marksmen equipped with scoped rifles and who have the time to carefully line up a shot very rarely try to "shoot to wound" because it's a recipe for failure.

And these eight shots were not fired under the best of circumstances, far from it. This guy was being assaulted and had already been struck in the head at least once, he was probably confused and fearful for his life. The fact that only half of his 8 shots fired hit something is telling. And that's when he was (presumably) shooting for center of mass, if he had been aiming for the guy's foot he may not have hit anything.

 

[Eisenfaust]

yeah, i support it... though i think shooting him four times was a little unnecessary... and the second guy just looks nuts...

 

[Hawk eye1466]

Since he was punched in the face and he said his vision was hazy I'm not suprised that he emptied the gun he was panicked I'm pretty sure most people wouldnt say oh i fired twice i guess i can stop now people need to stop assuming he had a clear head he was panicked and he did what most people would do