Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man
- Thread starter RamirezDoEverything
- Start date
No, Baker wasn't in the right. This is way, way over the top. He should receive some kind of small punishment like confiscation of his gun or a savage guilt trip from the judge or something. Self-defence is all fine and dandy, but this isn't self defence. The response is way too extreme.
This man isn't a hero. He just effectively killed a child. This is a fucking tragedy, not something to be idolised. He did what he felt he had to do at that moment, and that's the only reason I can see for not dealing out some proportional justice. The man went out jogging, at night, with intent to kill (What other intent can you have with a gun). He's clearly fit if he wants to join the army, so why couldn't he retreat? What's wrong with running? You'll lose your honour?! Pathetic. Say he got mugged- what would he lose? His wallet? Fucking hell. Next time I lose fifty quid and my cards I'll go kill someone, shall I?
And no. It's not okay that he panicked. For starters, this guy wants to be a motherfucking soldier- he shouldn't panic like that. You don't need to give all you've got, you just scare them off or, if that doesn't work, run. Where was the warning?! Christ almighty. Victims of the system, both.
Supreme court judges don't see fit to mete out the death penalty for petty thievery, and the courts over here haven't seen fit to do that for over a hundred years. What makes you think that this one individual suddenly had the right to essentially give out a death penalty?
It honestly disgusts me how many people are saying that this was entirely fine. That is, in my opinion, a sick response from what seems to be an increasingly sick society.
This man isn't a hero. He just effectively killed a child. This is a fucking tragedy, not something to be idolised. He did what he felt he had to do at that moment, and that's the only reason I can see for not dealing out some proportional justice. The man went out jogging, at night, with intent to kill (What other intent can you have with a gun). He's clearly fit if he wants to join the army, so why couldn't he retreat? What's wrong with running? You'll lose your honour?! Pathetic. Say he got mugged- what would he lose? His wallet? Fucking hell. Next time I lose fifty quid and my cards I'll go kill someone, shall I?
And no. It's not okay that he panicked. For starters, this guy wants to be a motherfucking soldier- he shouldn't panic like that. You don't need to give all you've got, you just scare them off or, if that doesn't work, run. Where was the warning?! Christ almighty. Victims of the system, both.
Supreme court judges don't see fit to mete out the death penalty for petty thievery, and the courts over here haven't seen fit to do that for over a hundred years. What makes you think that this one individual suddenly had the right to essentially give out a death penalty?
It honestly disgusts me how many people are saying that this was entirely fine. That is, in my opinion, a sick response from what seems to be an increasingly sick society.
It wasn't panic, it was self-defense.Danny Ocean said:
What should he have done? He was punched in the face, and as far as he knew, they wanted to kill him.
Your argument about the death penalty would be relevant if he immobilized them and then killed them, but that's not what happened. And to top it off, he didn't know he was being robbed. The muggers were planning on knocking him unconscious first, so from his perspective, he wasn't being mugged, he was being beaten for no reason.
A good reason to ban guns if I ever saw one. If he hadn't assumed he had a gun, because lets face it it wouldn't be unlikely, then the need to fire would't have arisen, he could have scared him off but chances were that he'd be mugged at gun point and would be shot dead if he pulled his weapon and didn't immediatly fire. The problem now is that with all the guns available in the US, banning them will simply mean that criminals will have a far easier time getting them than the police will.
I do not live in a country that allows guns, so can't fully contribute. However I am always agains the use of guns by civilians, even if their lives are in danger. Guns kill so many innocent people (not that this was the case here) that the sacrifice is worth it. For example, had he not assumed that his assailant was armed, he would not have shot. If guns were illegal, then this fear would not be there.
I basically agree with this. Well said.Danny Ocean said:
Thank you Captain Hindsight! You've saved us all again.
I hate all this should've, could've, would've in threads like these. He was human, he was jumped by two guys, panicked and did what he thought he had to. I would've done the same in that situation I think but I haven't been through that so I can't say.
Also, there's a lot of people here that don't know what mugging means it seems. From what I've gathered from this thread the popular consensus on mugging is that the muggers in question casually stroll over from a fair distance away, loudly announcing their intentions and giving a chance for a warning shot, shot to the limb (which could still be very fatal) or some other stupid idea.
Baker was jumped, he had no time for all these things. That fact he only shot one of the kids, letting the other get away proves he wasn't a psycho with his bloodlust on. I'd be more suspicious if it was one clean shot to the head or torso instead of this blind spraying.
And you can stop all this "He's training to be a soldier, he shouldn't of panicked" bollocks right now. For one he's training, not a soldier yet and two, soldiers are HUMAN not soulless mindless automatons.
Oh don't be stupid and try and twist the words as if it actually means anything. Of course he panicked. You don't coolly and calmly shoot someone for punching you, especially if it's an 18-year-old boy. That's insane.macfluffers said:
What do you bloody well think?! Are you seriously telling me that your first response to someone simply punching you is ending their entire fucking life?! What the hell is wrong with you!?
Right. Of course. An armed assailant will obviously punch you if they want to kill you. When it comes down to it this is a massive assumption that neither you nor I know the answer to. Neither of us are the man who was mugged, so neither of us can know what was going through his head. In that particular situation I'd reasonably assume that they wanted something from me, because that's far and away the most common reason for people attack you outside of the bar areas, but that doesn't matter because I'm not him and neither are you.
Is life really so cheap over there that you're prepared to pick on something like this?
A man committed attempted robbery, and was killed for it. The only difference is that instead of a trial and proportional punishment, he was killed on the spot in complete disregard of your 5th, 6th, and arguably 8th amendments. The man clearly thought that death was an appropriate sentence for mugging, because he was carrying a gun. That's wrong.
To be honest though I don't really care what you or anyone else supporting this man thinks. No-one will be able to persuade me that what he did was right. I understand his side of the argument- in fact it's very simple- and I still think he was wrong. He shouldn't be killed, but he shouldn't be let off either. I hope the face of the boy he killed burns away in his conscience for the rest of his life.
Since when were 18 year olds considered boys? By 18 in most of the world, as far as I'm aware, you're legally an adult.
Well...when you assault somebody can you really blame them for defending themselves? It's a shame that anybody had to die but thats what happens.
Legality and reality are different things. I'm 18, and I fully acknowledge that I'm still basically a child. I also acknowledge that many 20-30-something are still basically children. Go ask any 40-something year old, and I'll bet that they'll still say I'm essentially a child, too.NickCooley said:
I'm not twisting anything. Reacting quickly and decisively is not panicking. Besides, what does the mugger's age have to do with anything?Danny Ocean said:
If this were a bar fight or a tussle with someone I didn't get along with, that would be different. However, in this case, a man who lived in an urban area was assaulted without warning. The first thing that would have gone through my mind wouldn't have been "Oh hey, this guy probably wants my money, I'll just give it to him so he'll go away" it would have been "Holy shit these people are beating me up what the fuck stop punching me!"
Normally, muggers tell you that they are robbing you first so that it doesn't come down to violence. Ergo, anyone who has ever been mugged would not have thought that this was a mugging. If it happened to me, my assumption is that this was a kidnapping, for ransom or stealing my organs. I'd be willing to kill to prevent either of those.
By the way, I hope you realize that beating someone to death without a weapon isn't all that difficult if you have the element of surprise.
"...except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..."
He was never charged with anything, so this is irrelevant.
Execution isn't considered cruel or unusual according to our courts, so that's irrelevant.
Why is protection against criminals wrong?
I think that the main point you're missing is that Baker was fighting for his life. If he didn't kill the mugger, they would have beaten him unconscious. Bleeding out on a street throughout the night is bad for your health. (And that's assuming that they weren't planning on killing him to get street cred.)
I see, I'm 19 while I still might not consider myself an adult all the time (there's still a -teen in my age, I can cling onto that) I still know and expect to be treated as an adult and because of that I know I should act like one. I can appreciate why you see the event as a boy that's been killed but in my eyes at least I can only see a man. He certainly didn't deserve to die for a mugging but he consciously chose to attack and steal from Baker and suffered the consequences. Unfortunate yes, but I'm finding it very difficult to be sympathetic.Danny Ocean said:
Perhaps, but when you say, out loud, that you want to knock some random person on the street unconscious so you can steal their wallet, and then you go and try to do it, you have forfeited the privilege of being considered a kid.Danny Ocean said:
PS- Something I forgot to mention in my previous post is that if he did not use his weapon, and they found it on him, they would have stolen it. I would have wanted the wannabe-gangbanger to die rather than have him running around with a stolen piece. The next time he would have attacked someone, he would have shot his victim.
something doesn't add up here: he was jogging after midnight (fair enough) with a loaded firearm (hmmmmm...) with £500 in his pocket? who does that, go jogging with a substantial amount of money? if this was a genuine mugging, then anyone who provokes violence for their own gain should know the consequences so the kid had it coming, but this sounds like a botched drug deal to me.
It's been mentioned before, but Baker was clean. Yeah, that's a lot of money to just be carrying around, but there wasn't any evidence that the kids were selling or buying anything from him.bultuit84 said:
If anything, it might suggest that he was going to a drug deal or something, but the mugging was unrelated.
Peoples holier than thou attitude is what is sickening. Apparently they have never have been in a life or death situation. The fact that people keep bring up the fact that it was a boy that was killed is also irrelevant. If it was a 45 year old criminal that had a history of violence, would you have the same response?
It is a tragedy that someone was killed.
Having said that, I can't accept the fact that when someone gets suddenly attacked in the dark, that they are supposed to react in a way that you (who have the luxury to sit at the safety of your computer) approve off. Worse yet you judge an entire culture based on a single incident.
When it comes down to it, I have faith in the Police to determine what should happen. And I know that if anything is found to be different, Baker will be up on charges for murder.
It is a tragedy that someone was killed.
Having said that, I can't accept the fact that when someone gets suddenly attacked in the dark, that they are supposed to react in a way that you (who have the luxury to sit at the safety of your computer) approve off. Worse yet you judge an entire culture based on a single incident.
When it comes down to it, I have faith in the Police to determine what should happen. And I know that if anything is found to be different, Baker will be up on charges for murder.
just been reading the previous ones that had the same suggestion.macfluffers said:
what if (pure theory) the jogger was meant to be meeting two youths of a similar description, asked them if they had whatever he was looking for (which they may or may not have had), and the youths found this too much of an opportunity to get some easy cash and attacked the man, everything seems to fit into place, wonder what really happened
I don't think the guy should face any charges... He was attacked and he was acting in self defense. Legally, I feel he was in the right... And the 2 kids were in the wrong...
BUT
He shouldn't have shot anyone... Pulling the gun would more than likely be enough to scare off the kids and get back anything they may have taken... He shouldn't be punished for that mistake but he will have to live with it...
However, my opinions and the opinions of everyone else on the site are irrelevant because we weren't there to see how things played out...
BUT
He shouldn't have shot anyone... Pulling the gun would more than likely be enough to scare off the kids and get back anything they may have taken... He shouldn't be punished for that mistake but he will have to live with it...
However, my opinions and the opinions of everyone else on the site are irrelevant because we weren't there to see how things played out...