Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Kingsman]

The fact that there are 200 people out there who honestly believe that Baker should've given a verbal warning, or waved a pistol around, or not had a gun, or found some other peaceful non-lethal solution with a thug who PUNCHED HIM IN THE FACE WITH AN ACCOMPLICE AND TRIED TO KNOCK HIM UNCONSCIOUS honestly scares me.

Seriously. I'm legitimately scared that someone like that might be in a seat of power.

 

[OmegaAlucard777]

I find the fact people are saying "Oh. Just shoot him in the leg. That would have been good enough." to be down right silly. Lets go over the facts shall we?

It was night time, low visability. Baker was punched in the face.. cut lip and blurry vision. So he took out his gun and shot 8 times, hit 4.

Now, people with gun training, if it is cops, military, or handgun owners... are taught when their lives are in danger to shoot at the CENTER MASS of a person. This it to make sure that their bullet finds it's mark and to put them down.

To shoot in the leg would have been a wasted shot, and the fact his vision was BLURRY means he probably wouldn't have hit the leg anyway. If it is hard to hit a slim leg when you can clearly see, it's almost impossible for someone with blurry vision to hit is aswell. As far as I see it, he did what he needed to do to protect himself.

The kid didn't "deserve" to die... But I am not going to care for the loss of him either. That's my opinion.

In short: He knew the risks. He gambled that night, hoping his "Victim" wouldn't retaliate and he lost. Game Over.

 

[macfluffers]

The fact that there are 200 people out there who honestly believe that Baker should've given a verbal warning, or waved a pistol around, or not had a gun, or found some other peaceful non-lethal solution with a thug who PUNCHED HIM IN THE FACE WITH AN ACCOMPLICE AND TRIED TO RUN WITH HIS MONEY honestly scares me.

I imagine they simply may not be aware of proper handgun use or how street crime usually works. Most of the people who said "no" on this thread mostly seem ignorant about one of those or both.

 

[Danny Ocean]

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.

You're not going to be able to convince me, but I will stand up to the barrage of quotes I'm getting on this point here.

First off the fact I'm sitting safely makes no difference and it's a stupid jab to make. You know that. Don't lower yourself.

Second: obviously I'm not judging the incident. I'm judging the reaction to that incident. I'm judging the fact that the vast majority of US citizens are looking upon the excessive force deployed in response to this child and deeming it perfectly fine without even blinking because of some tragically simplistic notions of self defence and fairness. They seem to be able to apply empathy only to the man and not the boy. I'm judging how no-one is bothering to ask any more questions, instead deciding that people dying like this in your country is a perfectly acceptable state of affairs to be in. I'm judging all this, and finding it sickening. I'm glad I don't live over there. I don't care how rich and free you all supposedly are or how powerful your country supposedly is. The nonchalance with which you seem to regard these events (and they are very frequent over there) leaves me feeling cold.

So perhaps before declaring me 'holier-than-thou', perhaps you should consider why I'm thinking what I'm thinking. You might be inclined towards some national introspection.

"...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..."

Don't be dumb. That means the public-at-large, not individuals. Let's take a look at the whole thing, and embolden the real pertinence.

"No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, 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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

He was never charged with anything, so this is irrelevant.

True. I was confusing right to due process with the other trial-related rights.

Execution isn't considered cruel or unusual according to our courts, so that's irrelevant.

That's why I said arguably. This is hardly irrelevant. It's one of the reasons I and many others would never move to the USA out of principal.

The man clearly thought that death was an appropriate sentence for mugging, because he was carrying a gun. That's wrong.

Why is protection against criminals wrong?

When did murdering for money become right?

You can protect yourself in innumerable different ways. I've done so myself. Reaching straight for a gun indicates either panic, insanity, or the conditioning of a wider society which is in acceptance of the notion that killing people for trivial things is easy and fine.

I think he panicked, which is why I say he shouldn't be punished beyond something small. If he didn't panic, he was calm in his murder. This would suggest he was at peace with it. He clearly wasn't, as he stayed behind to tend to the boy.

Both of these males are victims of your society, in my eyes. That is why I regard it so scathingly. I don't blame them in particular, but rather your entire nation for fostering the circumstances and attitudes in which these things can occur without further consideration. That is what sickens me.


Edit:

"I'm going to kill this bastard for hitting me and trying to mug me." More likely he fired off eight shots in order to stop whatever the fuck was hitting him.

Of course. That's why I acknowledge he shouldn't be punished. See the massive rant above.

I understand you wouldn't have the gun in the first place, but you're telling me that in a situation where you believe you could die at any moment you wouldn't do what you thought you had to in order to survive?

I'm telling you that it shouldn't be the case that the first response of a man in a violent situation, seeking survival, is to end the life of his attacker. It's all kinda in the rant above.

The fact that there are 200 people out there who honestly believe that Baker should've given a verbal warning, or waved a pistol around, or not had a gun, or found some other peaceful non-lethal solution with a thug who PUNCHED HIM IN THE FACE WITH AN ACCOMPLICE AND TRIED TO KNOCK HIM UNCONSCIOUS honestly scares me.

Seriously. I'm legitimately scared that someone like that might be in a seat of power.

Oh please. Don't assume that just because someone thinks differently from you that they must be ignorant of what they speak.

 

[Nietz]

This was a tough nut to crack. On one hand you have the shooter who was defending himself. If you ask me that is a VERY basic right that one has. And on the other hand you have the murder of a human, which is basically VERY wrong. No one is really right or wrong here in this argument. No one wins.
Sometimes, one wishes that the only ammunition that was sold to civilians would be the non-lethal kind.

 

[TornadoADV]

I agree with Baker, don't mug somebody with a firearm. In fact, don't mug anybody at all, does wonders for your lifespan.

 

[nomis101uk]

Is the concept of "excessive force" that alien to people? Unless you believe that unarmed muggers should receive the death pentality I don't see how you can consider this just. And the fact that he had a permit for the gun is entirely irrelevent to the moral question at hand.

Taking a human life is far worse a crime than unarmed mugging. The circumstances do radically reduce the shooters moral accountablity, but not so much as to remove him of any guilt. He should be punished.

What's more people should not be allowed to carry or use personal firearms in public. If they're going to a shooting range they should have to keep the gun in a locked case. That would allow people to own a firearm, but reduce danger to the public. And before any American's jump down my throat about "oh, well criminals won't listen to that, so at least let law abidding citizens defend themselves", look at how well that's turned out in your country where people are killed every day by guns.

 

[TornadoADV]

Is the concept of "excessive force" that alien to people? Unless you believe that unarmed muggers should receive the death pentality I don't see how you can consider this just. And the fact that he had a permit for the gun is entirely irrelevent to the moral question at hand.

Taking a human life is far worse a crime than unarmed mugging. The circumstances do radically reduce the shooters moral accountablity, but not so much as to remove him of any guilt. He should be punished.

What's more people should not be allowed to carry or use personal firearms in public. If they're going to a shooting range they should have to keep the gun in a locked case. That would allow people to own a firearm, but reduce danger to the public. And before any American's jump down my throat about "oh, well criminals won't listen to that, so at least let law abidding citizens defend themselves", look at how well that's turned out in your country where people are killed every day by guns.

Because the logical step to take is to further empower the criminal and hope he show's mercy on his victims? Yeah...no. Remember folks, when the Police are only minutes away, you only have seconds to live.

 

[macfluffers]

Don't be dumb. That means the public-at-large, not individuals.

I'm sorry that my interpretation is different than yours. Besides, the only difference is scale. If the police were there, and they thought the mugger had a gun, they would have opened fire as well. Protection of the public means protection of the people, which means the protection of persons.

Anyway, the point of the Bill of Rights was (and is) to protect the states and the people from the federal government, so to be honest, bringing up the bill of rights is a little silly, since the only people who can violate those rights are the gov't.

When did murdering for money become right?

As I've said, Baker didn't know he was being robbed, so the "Is money worth killing for?" argument is a little out of place. If instead the mugger did what muggers are supposed to do, and just demand the money without immediately resorting to violence, and Baker still shot him, then it would be different.

You can protect yourself in innumerable different ways. I've done so myself. Reaching straight for a gun indicates either panic, insanity, or the conditioning of a wider society which is in acceptance of the notion that killing people for trivial things is fine.

I think that if any culture is to blame, it's gang culture, which teaches urban kids that killing people on the street is cool. I don't know about what street gangs are like where you're from, but here, sometimes gangsters kill just to prove to their gang how hardcore they are. If you live in a place that has those sorts of people, then reaching straight for a gun is both nontrivial and reasonable.

Both of these males are victims of your society, in my eyes. That is why I regard it so scathingly. I don't blame them in particular, but rather your entire nation for fostering the circumstances and attitudes in which these things can occur without further consideration. That is what sickens me.

I think that this has less to do with the actual subject of discussion and more about the difference between how you view things versus how people in America tend to view things. In the US, we tend to see things as up to the individual. That's why there are so many "he deserved it" posts here. Those posters figure that it was the mugger's responsibility to handle his life, no matter what situation he was in. It was his choice to attack Baker, and therefore, it was his choice and responsibility that got him killed. From what I understand, many other places in the world focus more on the system, which sounds like the argument you're making. I respect that, and I won't deny that the culture of America needs reform, but I still think that Baker was in the right.

soldiers are HUMAN not soulless mindless automatons.

Amen. Soldiers reserve the right to shoot with less than 100% accuracy under stress.

 

[Kingsman]

Is the concept of "excessive force" that alien to people? Unless you believe that unarmed muggers should receive the death pentality I don't see how you can consider this just. And the fact that he had a permit for the gun is entirely irrelevent to the moral question at hand.

Taking a human life is far worse a crime than unarmed mugging. The circumstances do radically reduce the shooters moral accountablity, but not so much as to remove him of any guilt. He should be punished.

What's more people should not be allowed to carry or use personal firearms in public. If they're going to a shooting range they should have to keep the gun in a locked case. That would allow people to own a firearm, but reduce danger to the public. And before any American's jump down my throat about "oh, well criminals won't listen to that, so at least let law abidding citizens defend themselves", look at how well that's turned out in your country where people are killed every day by guns.

EDIT: Blech, stupid spam-checker made me post early. Anyway...

A pistol is excessive force.

A pistol.

Maybe he should've carried a KNIFE for defense. Maybe he should've taken a karate class.

Excessive force would've been an assault rifle. Excessive force would've been capturing and torturing the kid.

The fact that he called the police and stayed with the kid after he was shot frankly shows to me that the guy was a perfect samaritan who did everything his civil duty called for.

I honestly want to know what you'd think if you got jumped by two guys in an alley. If you'd think that a PISTOL would've been an excessive defense.

This stupid kid tried to outnumber and overpower an innocent man, and he didn't think through the consequences. He paid for it dearly.

If he was LUCKY, he would've been caught, jailed, and gotten a second chance. He wasn't. Dem's the breaks.

And for the record, the fact that America has over 300 MILLION citizens probably accounts for the fact that one out of every THOUSAND people, if that, is killed by a gun.

 

[DeamonSadist]

In response to the question of justifying the number shots fired: You shoot until the assailant falls down...period.

 

[Malyc]

Most .45's are a 7+1 weapon. Meaning 7 rounds in the mag plus an extra in the chamber totaling 8. He just emptied the mag, most likely in shear reaction or panic. If he would've had a 9mm he might have shot more because it holds more.

Not strictly true, as a fairly large number of the polymer frame handguns have room for as many as 15 rounds (14 in the mag, 1 in the chamber). That being said, any self defense instructor will tell you that you keep shooting until the threat is no longer a threat.
I believe the mugger's family is overreacting over the amount of rounds fired.

 

[Kenko]

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

And the kid should'nt have assaulted him in an attempt to mug him. The kid was a criminal who knew exactly what he was doing. Thus it was welldeserved. If you dont want to be shot, dont attack people in the middle of the night.

EDIT: Correcting myself and you as well. Its not a kid, it was a teen.

 

[OmegaAlucard777]

Is the concept of "excessive force" that alien to people? Unless you believe that unarmed muggers should receive the death pentality I don't see how you can consider this just. And the fact that he had a permit for the gun is entirely irrelevent to the moral question at hand.

At the time of the shooting. Baker believed his mugger to be armed. Said so right in the article that he thought the teen had a gun. Hell, even Carlos's sister stated:

"And while they do not dispute that Baker feared his attacker had a gun they are angry at the number of shots fired.
'I know that he thought my brother had a gun,' said Dianela Gonzalez, Mustelier's sister."

So in that state of time, it is not called excessive force. You can say that after the fact yes, but not during the time.

Human beings have 3 base responses to a hostile situation. Fight, Flee, Freeze.

Baker chose what he and I believe to be the correct one in that situation. Fight.

Can't Flee, because he thought the teen had a gun, so he believed he would have just been shot in the back. Same reasoning for Freeze, he thought he might get shot.

I still and will believe this to be a just circumstance of Self Defense. No one will/can convice me it isn't. That's the beauty of opinions isn't it?

 

[Terror_666]

I remember a story from here in the Netherlands a couple of years ago which seems relevant.
A girl on her way home was attacked by three guys, unfortunately for the guys she was very well trained in martial arts and put two of them in the hospital in serious condition. In a later interview she stated that instinct just took over and she was fighting for her life and perfectly willing to use all her skills to stop and or kill them, she did not think of consequences of her actions or the possible well-being of her attackers.

My question is I guess how is this more acceptable than using a gun to defend yourself. because the guys survived or is it because she gave them a "fair" fight.

 

[JWAN]

He had no idea if they were unarmed or not, and he was outnumbered, and when he pulled out his handgun it had already escalated to a strong armed robbery.

One less the jail system has to support.

 

[Danny Ocean]

I'm sorry that my interpretation is different than yours.

There is no ambiguity regarding the use of the word 'public'. Seriously. It's not even my interpretation, that's just how it is. To illustrate:

populace: people in general considered as a whole; "he is a hero in the eyes of the public"
not private; open to or concerning the people as a whole; "the public good"; "public libraries"; "public funds"; "public parks"; "a public scandal"; "public gardens"; "performers and members of royal families are public figures"
a body of people sharing some common interest; "the reading public"
affecting the people or community as a whole; "community leaders"; "community interests"; "the public welfare"

And that's just from google.

As I've said, Baker didn't know he was being robbed, so the "Is money worth killing for?" argument is a little out of place. If instead the mugger did what muggers are supposed to do, and just demand the money without immediately resorting to violence, and Baker still shot him, then it would be different.

And I still take issue with the fact that shooting him was a first reaction conditioned into him by wider society.

I think that if any culture is to blame, it's gang culture, which teaches urban kids that killing people on the street is cool. I don't know about what street gangs are like where you're from, but here, sometimes gangsters kill just to prove to their gang how hardcore they are. If you live in a place that has those sorts of people, then reaching straight for a gun is both nontrivial and reasonable.

Perhaps, but one would think that you wouldn't go out jogging in the middle of the night in such areas. Regardless, that's simply narrowing the lens from what should be a much wider vista of problems, as you understand. I take issue with the fact that the first reaction was shooting.

I also take issue with the fact that guns are so prevalent among the criminals of the US as to make it a safe assumption that everyone is able to kill you in a split second.

I respect that, and I won't deny that the culture of America needs reform, but I still think that Baker was in the right.

You're bang on there. I guess we must just respectfully disagree.

This death made me angry and upset, while it seems to make so many on here happy. I can't ever countenance that. I mean, I find this example:

One less the jail system has to support.

Just a horrible thing to say.

 

[Shotgunjack1880]

Most .45's are a 7+1 weapon. Meaning 7 rounds in the mag plus an extra in the chamber totaling 8. He just emptied the mag, most likely in shear reaction or panic. If he would've had a 9mm he might have shot more because it holds more.

Not strictly true, as a fairly large number of the polymer frame handguns have room for as many as 15 rounds (14 in the mag, 1 in the chamber). That being said, any self defense instructor will tell you that you keep shooting until the threat is no longer a threat.
I believe the mugger's family is overreacting over the amount of rounds fired.

OK, I'll clarify. Most single stack magazine that a 1911 Model firearm are 7+1. Some of your newer model firearms with a double stack style magazine can hold more than that. Sorry I had not clarified to which model I was referring too. I also didn't mention 8, 12, 15, 30, and 50 round magazines either.

 

[JWAN]

...The guy was being mugged. His assailants were physically attacking him and he had a permit to carry the weapon. Baker was in the right from my perspective. The only problem I see is that he shot the teenager 4 times, but that's about it.

Well, to tell you the truth if I believe someone has the ability to cause me harm I would also continue to pump bullets into them until there dead.No sense in leaving a wounded, pissed off,violent, possibly armed mugger

 

[TheMan2203]

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.

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.[/quote]

In all fairness i never said he was a drug dealer an i know nothing about guns but surely he couldve just left the money at home, that way if he were mugged, attacked or whatever then he wouldnt have lost anthing and if he'd gone for a run at a more appropriate time when he's knows it wont be as dangerous then he wouldnt need the gun in the first place, so to kinda some up i think the blame was with both parties in this one, plus i personally dont know anything about the area where this happened, there could be drugs problems for all u and i know, these people couldve been involved, i dont know, you dont know im only saying this situation and the circumstances surrounding it are muddy and generally difficult to make an informed decision unless you were there or you were on of the officers on the scene.