Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Compatriot Block]

It's already been said many times, I'm sure, but for those interested, here's more on what's wrong with "shooting to wound, not kill."

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InstantDeathBullet

 

[Someonetookmyname]

i see a lot of people saying that he should have shot him in the leg instead, but remember that he was punched in the face, so perhaps his vision was blurred, and he panicked, he just wanted the attackers to go away, so he shot wildly, if i had a gun, i would propably have done the same.

Ps. im against guns for the public, im just saying, if i were in his situation, and i had a gun, i would have shot too.

 

[chadachada123]

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

It's not impossible to shoot a foot, no, but under those circumstances it'd be so incredibly unlikely that he'd be better off just not firing.

He fired 8 shots with a gun with a laser pointer, yet only half of them hit from a pretty short distance. That should give you an idea of just how hard it is to hit someone especially while being assaulted. Him shooting only once would have had a fair shot of missing, and that still doesn't get into the next point that I'm about to make.

There are many documented cases where an attacker is shot 2 or more times in the chest but *continues to attack* for seconds to minutes on sheer adrenaline (or drugs, in some cases) before finally collapsing. Shooting once could very well have been useless had the mugger been on some sort of drug or just really hyped up.

Your assertion that "guns are loud and would scare him off" is also unsupported. We have no idea what was running through the mind of the mugger, and while he may have surrendered in the face of a gun, he may also have just tried to grab it. The distance between the parties was implied to be very small, and the second or two hesitation in firing more rounds could very well be enough time for the mugger to grab a hold of it.

Try going to a range sometime, test out firing a few weapons. You'd be surprised.

 

[Omikron009]

Baker was absolutely right. He was carrying a large amount of money, which is enough to make anyone a little bit more paranoid. Somebody tried to violently rob him, and he defended himself. When you mug somebody, you risk getting shot.

 

[b1zarr0]

I am of the mind that most if not all robbery/mugging crimes should be punishable by death. that little bastard had it coming.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

4 shots? I don't see why that's wrong. I can't imagine the sister understanding what runs through your mind when someone assualts you and you think they could easily pull a gun and blast your brain onto the sidewalk.

In panic, people drowning are capable of draging others down with them. Does that mean that they like to drown people or they would do that with a clear mind intentionaly? No.

It's no shock that in fear, you stop using logic and quickly try to preserve your life.

 

[BarbaricGoose]

I'm not saying the kid deserved it, but if you don't wanna get shot, not mugging people would be a good place to start.

The law's clearly on the shooter's side. If I had a gun, and I was in the shoes of the shooter, I'd shoot the mugger, too. Especially if I was carrying $500. I'd like to think that I'd be able to control my shots and not mortally wound him, but I don't know that.

And why is "Mugger" in quotes in the title of that article?

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

You know, if the assailant wasn't such a god awful mugger, the idiot might actually be alive to carry on his criminal ways. His stupidity alone warrants him a grave in my book.

And when I mean "god awful mugger", I mean that you don't start by engaging a fight with your victim.

 

[Urialanis]

Right to defend yourself, good thing.
Right to carry a gun, arguable point.
Trying to mug someone, deserves to be punished.
Overall outcome, favorable for the victim.

 

[danintexas]

You can guess my thoughts on this by my name and avatar.

The ONLY time I will ever kill someone is in defense of my family, me, or my property.

"Is killing someone over your TV really worth it?" - I am not the one who made that choice. The guy on the other end of my gun made that choice in saying they would put their life up for a TV. By the way - Fuck that guy for making me have to shoot him. Why couldn't he go out and buy is own TV.

I have a permit - I carry a 9mm every day. I have never pulled it - I have never used it. Chances are I never will in my life time. I pray I never have to. I also have fire insurance on my house that chances are I never will use. But if my house catches fire I don't want to be standing there wishing I had it.

 

[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.

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.

Even then, shooting someone in the leg is one of the worst things you could do if your "shooting to wound". Why? Because of the femoral artery. You can bleed out in seconds from just a knick. So, no, it's not "safer." There is no such thing as "shooting to wound." Every shot has the potential to kill someone, so every shot is lethal.

Not directed at you specifically, just people in general. Most gun myths irk me, but the "just shoot in the leg" one really pisses me off.

 

[LondonBeer]

Looks like the popular opinion thinks Baker was correct in his actions.

Good to know theres hope for humanity.

 

[TheMan2203]

this be a tough call for instance why did he have a laser sight on his gun? Y was he running around after midnight with said gun AND 500 dollars in cash? In his pocket when he goes for a jog?
I'm not saying the mugger didnt deserve some sort of punishment for what he did/tried to do but i think theres more to this than meets the eye and the YES OR NO poll doesnt really fit here.

 

[Dastardly]

this be a tough call for instance why did he have a laser sight on his gun?

Safety. Being more accurate is safer when using a firearm. Laser sights aren't the pinpoint sniper-fuel that movies make them out to be, they just allow the layman to put shots out more accurately.

Y was he running around after midnight with said gun AND 500 dollars in cash? In his pocket when he goes for a jog?

Gun - for protection. Money - why shouldn't he?

I can only guess some folks are trying to spin this like he's some kind of drug dealer (or buyer) out there, and maybe this was some kind of "deal gone bad?" Doubtful. No one said anything, or found any drugs, or any of that. More than likely this guy was checked for signs of intoxication by the cops (as this has an impact on most concealed-carry laws), if not outright asked to submit to testing.

 

[Odin311]

The other thing that I don't get about everyone that says that he "Should have only shot once.", "He should have shot a warning shot." or "He should have shot to disarm.". As someone that has been extensively trained in CQB, and the use of small arms, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that Baker would not have succeeded. If the attackers pressed their attack, he would have been mugged, and his pistol would now be in the hands of a couple of people that have already shown a disposition towards violence. There is no telling who would have been in danger if that situation occurred.

It is truly unfortunate that someone died during this incident. If we where to brake down what could or could not have happened, we would be here for another 35 pages of posts.

The fact of the matter is that Baker was still arrested by the Police. He was questioned, and based on his responses he was released. I guarantee you that the Police are looking into the matter further. They will attempt to determine things like: Did Baker know the assailants? Was Baker out looking for trouble in the hopes of getting into an altercation? Why was Baker carrying $500 while jogging at night? They will continue to investigate, and if they determine that he was in the wrong, he will be arrested again, and charged with murder. The only thing that we know now, is that they don't have any reason to hold him while they complete their investigation.

 

[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.

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

I understand where you are coming from... the "I don't want anyone to die" mentality, and I can respect that. But the truth is when you have training on how to use a weapon (I have myself, so I'm not talking about of my butt) you are trained to aim for center mass. ("aim small, miss small" if you remember the movie "The Patriot")

Even with training, handguns aren't the best for making headshots, or footshots in this case. Just like when other criticize why the "cops don't just shot them in the head" or "shoot the tires of the car"... its really hard to make those shots, especially under duress.

The point I just wish everyone to get is that the mugger was still wrong. This wasn't a Tuscan-like moment where innocent people where hurt by a crazed madman. This was a person making the conscious decision to assault an innocent human being. If you stand on active train tracks, your going to get hit by a train, and its not the trains fault. Should he have died? I don't have the right to answer one way or the other, but he'd still be alive today if he didn't make a stupid decision, and I hope that someone reading that story may go "huh, maybe I shouldn't be a dickhead, I could die..."

 

[Supernaut565]

There is a lesson in this ... and that lesson is don't mug people I support the shooter and that question about how many shots he had fired well he had just been punched in the face and feared for his life.

 

[beema]

Simple, don't want to get shot? don't mug people. He deserved it.

Pretty much yeah. I mean, there's two sides to every story, perhaps the kid was desperate and had little alternatives for money -- but I've been unemployed for almost a year and could use money, and you don't see me robbing people, so fuck that excuse. Dumbass kid. This kind of thing is pretty rare though. Usually it's the muggers that shoot the victim, even if the victim has a weapon.

Still, something doesn't feel 100% right to me. Wtf was this guy out jogging at night with all that cash on him for? Moreover his gun was fitted with a laser sight and hollow point rounds (hollow points are illegal here, I'm pretty sure). That and that he fired eight times is kind of disturbing. Sounds like he might be in to some criminal enterprises himself...

Ironic that this thread is literally framed by the image of a giant gun.

 

[BodomBeachChild]

I guess he coulda tried to shoot him in a noncrital part, but what's the point in trying if yer not gonna five 100%?

 

[Zarmi]

Way to go! If you mug someone, you can expect punishment, and hopefully in the worst of ways. This is why I'm all for death penalty. There's just some people we don't need in the world, and this mugger is one of them. Shooting him was a good choice.