Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[milkkart]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/jogger-wont-be-charged-in-fatal-town-n-country-shooting/1144768

the guy was carrying legally and he's got a right to defend himself but some of it seems kinda iffy in that article it says he said 'you wanna play games' when the first guy came at him then waited until the second hit him to pull out his gun. wouldn't the thing to do have been to immediately draw and warn them to step the fuck off or take a bullet?

according to that he fired 8 shots, hit the guy 4 times "one in the chest, two in the back and one in the buttocks." how do you shoot someone in the back and buttocks in self defence? also why would you need to fire 8 rounds. also 4/8 shots hit at close range? some get this man some shooting training.

oh and the daily mail is not by any stretch of the imagination a reliable source of news. it just barely ranks above the tits n' scandal redtop tabloids in terms of quality.

 

[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.

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.

Also true, and neither did I... Anyway, I am going to be carrying as much ammo as I can easily conceal. There is nothing more useless than an empty gun.

 

[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.

Also true, and neither did I... Anyway, I am going to be carrying as much ammo as I can easily conceal. There is nothing more useless than an empty gun.

I agree. My conceal holster is a shoulder holster. I carry one in the gun and 2 extra mags. I have a total of 22 rounds on me when wearing that particular rig. Some of my other ones. I can carry ALOT of ammo.

 

[Piecewise]

Who goes jogging at midnight with 500 pounds in their pocket? Thats just plain fucking idiotic.

It may be idiotic, but it doesn't make it right to punch him in the face and steal that money. You can say he was unwise to be doing what he was doing but it doesn't make what the mugger did justifiable. Anyway the mugger didn't know how much money he was going to get from him when he attacked him, he could not possibly have expected to get that much from someone who was out for a run. He was prepared to attack a stranger for a far smaller return than that.

True, but anyone with half a brain isn't going to put themselves in a situation where mugging is likely. It's like a 17 year old girl walking naked through a men's prison: true, it doesn't justify any sort of crime against her but it also doesn't really engender sympathy. Running around in the middle of the night is a bad idea, and having huge wads of cash in your pocket that you really want to hold on to is even worse. This guy was the perfect storm of bad judgment.

 

[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.

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.

Also true, and neither did I... Anyway, I am going to be carrying as much ammo as I can easily conceal. There is nothing more useless than an empty gun.

I agree. My conceal holster is a shoulder holster. I carry one in the gun and 2 extra mags. I have a total of 22 rounds on me when wearing that particular rig. Some of my other ones. I can carry ALOT of ammo.

When i get my rig, I'm going to end up with at least 27 rounds. The ruger sr9c has a good capacity for a sub compact. Unfortunately, ruger hasn't shrunk down their .40 cal handgun down to compact size, so it's a bit big for me to be carrying around.

 

[Malyc]

You know he could of just pistol whipped him, or shot him in the leg in self defence, rather than shoot him eight times with the intention of making him dead.

So no, I don't think he had a right to kill him (no one has the right to kill anybody no matter what they do).

You, sir, have been watching too much TV. Pistol whipping someone is asking for you to get shot with your own gun, shooting someone in the leg, in the dark, is a risky prospect at best, and more likely to end with injury to an innocent bystander at the worst. The leg is less than half the size of the human torso, so the better bet would be to go with the center mass shot. If you read the article, you would see that he only shot the mugger 4 times, but fired 8 shots. This winds up being a 50% accuracy situation. If he were attempting a leg shot, he likely would only have hit the guy once. That would be unlikely to stop a determined assailant, and any self defense instructor will tell you that you fire until the threat stops. If the gun goes *click* before that happens, slap in the next mag, and continue firing.

 

[Thyunda]

Well, I can honestly say that if I was in Baker's position, I would have done the same. Eight shots. These weren't aiming-down-the-sight, deliberate shots, these were clearly panicked trigger-pulls. Of course the kid didn't deserve to die. Nobody deserves to die. But he ran that risk when he assaulted a random stranger. And let's face it, if we're attacked in the street, our attacker has probably got backup. If he wasn't able to handle retaliation, he'd not have thrown the first punch. It's only natural for Baker to assume the kid had something lethal with him.

So for my standing - Baker was innocent. Excessive force my arse. You try taking a single deliberate shot to someone's leg after being smacked in the face. Still...carrying that pistol - there must have been problems before. If there were, then he'd have had even more reason to panic.
Okay, so a child dies. That's a tragedy. Kid could have changed his ways. He had family. He had friends. He should not have died. But that can't be helped now, and trying to make Baker a villain isn't going to help anybody. He is not a murderer who could strike again, he's an innocent man trying to save his life, so to take that life away from him would be the real tragedy. Not pleasant when you really get down to it. If Baker gets tried for murder, it begs the question, why fucking defend yourself? If you fear for your life, you might as well let them take it, since if you defend yourself, you WILL be punished.

Again - excessive force? Bull. Shit.

 

[Dwarfman]

I'm not going to answer the poll on account of my answer being both.

Yes the accused was justified in his own personal defence. The man was in fear of his life. He had a permit to carry a concealable weapon and after the incident he did all the right things ie he phoned the police and remained at the scene of the attack.

I am however wondering why the accused - a civilian for all intensive purposes - had a .45 pistol with a laser sight and hollow point ammunition. That seems excessive.

 

[Jazoni89]

You know he could of just pistol whipped him, or shot him in the leg in self defence, rather than shoot him eight times with the intention of making him dead.

So no, I don't think he had a right to kill him (no one has the right to kill anybody no matter what they do).

You, sir, have been watching too much TV. Pistol whipping someone is asking for you to get shot with your own gun, shooting someone in the leg, in the dark, is a risky prospect at best, and more likely to end with injury to an innocent bystander at the worst. The leg is less than half the size of the human torso, so the better bet would be to go with the center mass shot. If you read the article, you would see that he only shot the mugger 4 times, but fired 8 shots. This winds up being a 50% accuracy situation. If he were attempting a leg shot, he likely would only have hit the guy once. That would be unlikely to stop a determined assailant, and any self defense instructor will tell you that you fire until the threat stops. If the gun goes *click* before that happens, slap in the next mag, and continue firing.

Yeah, i didn't really think about that response, i'm fucking stupid, ignore it.

 

[House_Vet]

Just because Baker wasn't in the wrong doesn't put him in the right. If I were in his position I suspect I'd do the same, but that doesn't make it any better.

 

[HandsomeJack]

You'd think "Death by gunshot" would make an excellent deterrant to would-be muggers if this story get more attention...

In all seriousness, voilent end to a violent crime, what more do you expect? Noone should have to play noble and accept the beating of a random stranger for fear of excessively defending one's self. If he had put up his dukes (while outnumbered mind you) who's to say they wouldnt have felt justified using enough force to subdue Baker that Baker may have ended up being the one dead.

Besides, where is the argument for the common sense of the attackers? Sure mugging is bad and they shouldnt have done it, but you'd think the moment a gun was drawn they would immediatly have the sense of self preservation to flee! People tend not to shoot a fleeing target in self defense.

Tragic, yes, that a 16yr old died for being stupid. But better the 16yr old for thier own choices than anyone else for that 16yr old's choices.

Self defense should not be excessive, or bleed over into retribution, but should be allowed as far as the attacked needs to be assured thier safety. If 3 shots is the norm for a police officer, I think 4 isnt excessive for an average person.

 

[Dorkamongus]

I've seen this in several posts, but since this is a long thread, I'll repeat them with a point of my own.

First, Baker had been hit in the head. He was bleeding, and his vision had been blurred. He wouldn't have been able to see much more than a blurry silhouette of two people intent on attacking him.

Second, when he pulled his gun, they were close enough to reach him. They had hit him once already, and he didn't have time to wait, or he'd have been hit again, knocked out, or killed with his own gun. We can't know for sure.

Third, getting hit in the head isn't going to help people make rational, well thought decisions. Baker more than likely panicked and fired his weapon as fast as he could in the mugger's general direction, since he couldn't see him through his blurred vision, and it was already dark.

Last is my own point, referring to some other's posts about the money Baker was carrying. He's unemployed. That money in his pocket was probably the only money he had. But even that's mostly irrelevant, since the mugger didn't demand the money at all, and went straight for hitting Baker. For all Baker knew, the mugger could have been attacking him just for the hell of it. The subject of money only came up after the attack was over.

Oh, and one other thing about him jogging in the dark. Jogging in the dark is actually the best time to do so, since there's fewer cars moving about, there's less pollution to breathe in, and he didn't have to worry about dodging other people. The air is cooler, allowing for more exercise, and he more than likely thought that getting mugged was never going to happen to him.
But in the end, this is just speculation on my part, and I don't really know for sure

 

[Malyc]

I'm not going to answer the poll on account of my answer being both.

Yes the accused was justified in his own personal defence. The man was in fear of his life. He had a permit to carry a concealable weapon and after the incident he did all the right things ie he phoned the police and remained at the scene of the attack.

I am however wondering why the accused - a civilian for all intensive purposes - had a .45 pistol with a laser sight and hollow point ammunition. That seems excessive.

1: Laser sight=assistance for people with bad eyes/aiming reference in low light areas.
2: .45 does not mean Mother Of All Handguns. That would be the .500 S&W magnum.
3: Hardball ammo has a tendency to over-penetrate, so HP rounds are the best bet in a self defense situation.
4: Civilians=people too, some cops use a .45, so does that mean that civilians can't? If that were the case, civilians wouldn't be able to use handguns, because most, if not all handgun rounds have been used at least once by at least one cop.

 

[Captain Pancake]

If he had not had the firearm, then he would have lost his money and had a sore head,

or brain damage or death.

Why do people think this guy should have been able to see into the heart of these arseholes?

If I and a mate walked up and kicked you in the balls would you think "well gosh that was mean, I guess he's finished now" or "motherfuckers attacking me, fight or flight time" ?

If you walked up to me and kicked me in the nuts, I'd kick or punch you back. I wouldn't pull out a damn gun and blow your nads off, that wouldn't be responding with relative force. That would be escalation.

 

[Malyc]

You are correct sir, but guns are still bad and should be illegal. All people should learn ninja moves instead.

Where can I sign up? I think the gunplay in Wanted may count as ninjitsu with firearms.

 

[Senaro]

If he had not had the firearm, then he would have lost his money and had a sore head,

or brain damage or death.

Why do people think this guy should have been able to see into the heart of these arseholes?

If I and a mate walked up and kicked you in the balls would you think "well gosh that was mean, I guess he's finished now" or "motherfuckers attacking me, fight or flight time" ?

If you walked up to me and kicked me in the nuts, I'd kick or punch you back. I wouldn't pull out a damn gun and blow your nads off, that wouldn't be responding with relative force. That would be escalation.

What if I was assaulted in the middle of the night by a group of people while I was jogging, and I had no confidence in the martial arts skills I learned from watching Enter The Dragon? I think my first reasonable alternative would be to pull out my gun and fire a shot or two.

 

[WolfMage]

Alright, time for some knowledge to be brought in.
When defending one's self with a handgun, or any weapon, you keep firing, or swinging, or what have you till the stop. Not till they die, not till you hit them, till they STOP.
If the man, who had been punched in the head, even could land a leg-shot, that isn't what you do. You shoot center mass till they turn and run, or fall down.
Besides, HP or no, adrenaline and other drugs can negate the fact that the attacker got hit.

Also, those saying "But why did he have HP rounds?", it's so that the round doesn't exit the body, potentially hurting someone else. And yes, they cause more damage, but THAT'S WHAT A BULLET DOES.

And about whether the kid deserved it? Yes. He deserved whatever retaliation the victim could bring, and in this case, it was almost half an inch of stopping power. His death is on his own foolish hands.

I would have done exactly this, with one exception; I'd have shot at them both, unless I saw the kid running. You fire on whomever is the best target that is actively endangering you. Not choose by age, gender, race, and if it would be "politically correct".

And finally, how is this any fuel against the 2nd Amendment rights of US citizens? I'm thoroughly confused by that asertation.

 

[Dwarfman]

1: Laser sight=assistance for people with bad eyes/aiming reference in low light areas.
2: .45 does not mean Mother Of All Handguns. That would be the .500 S&W magnum.
3: Hardball ammo has a tendency to over-penetrate, so HP rounds are the best bet in a self defense situation.
4: Civilians=people too, some cops use a .45, so does that mean that civilians can't? If that were the case, civilians wouldn't be able to use handguns, because most, if not all handgun rounds have been used at least once by at least one cop.

Alas I will confess I don't know enough about US law to argue. Your explanation for the use of hollow points makes a hell of a lotta sense too.

I however do not agree that just anybody should carry types of weaponry used by police or military. I'm sure the weapon would not be considered either so please don't get mad, this is a personal belief of mine that weapons used by police or military should only be used by the police and military. If .45s are used by police then .45s and above should be illegal. eg Police use glocks, glocks should be illegal to ensure the police maintain that edge.

Regardless this man would be well on his way to prison if it happened in Australia.

For starters you need a Category H licence to have a handgun - this includes airguns and target pistols. Even then a .45 is illegal unless you apply for a special permit. You also need a valid excuse for needing a handgun and that excuse seems to be restricted to sport and target shooting. There are no civilian licences in Australia for concealable weaponry - you can be criminally charged with having a pocket knife over a certain length and type afterall.

Laser Pointers are banned in New South Wales and Western Australia so my guess is the accused would be facing separate charges for the laser sight as well - alas can't find the legislation on that one.

Poor bugger would face more charges than the kid who tried to bash him. Although a charge of grievous bodily harm can really screw you over nowadays.

 

[ESCAPIST DELETE THIS ACCOUNT]

No. He was wrong. If someone mugs you, but punches you rather than draw a weapon on you, then you should at least start by threatening them with the weapon you are carrying. A reflexive response of "shoot first, ask questions later", proves why civilians should not be given the power to end peoples live so easily.

And to all of you that say the mugger "deserved to be shot": that's disgusting. Not even if he'd had a weapon (where lethal self-defence is excusable), would he have "deserved" to die. There is no logical explanation that can ever be given as to why a person "deserves" death.

He made a split second choice between shoot or potentially risk getting disarmed. While you can try to sound high and mighty on a forum im sure under the same situation you would have done the same. And how was he supposed to ask questions when he was being attacked?