Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Fooz]

he was right to defend himself.

also everyone saying that he didnt need to shoot 8 times, it states that he was suffering from blurred vision, so maybe he didnt know if any bullets had hit, im not saying this is a good argument but he was most likely shocked and did it out of sheer panic

 

[Malyc]

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.

Police in America maintain one edge that is a ***** to argue with: They are allowed the use of fully automatic submachine guns AND military type assault rifles, if the situation requires it. I can tell you that I would not enjoy going up against a SWAT team, even if I had the same guns they did. They also have another edge that would allow them to overcome even the most determined criminal: training. The proper amount of training can just about guarantee that you win the gunfight, even if all you have is a knife.

 

[Malyc]

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.

THANK GOD!!! I was starting to think I was the only one who knew what the hell I was talking about...

EDIT: kinda confusing when you find yourself quoted in the post you were trying to quote...

 

[xPixelatedx]

This is exactly why people shouldn't be allowed to carry these things. Arming everyone to the teeth is the stupidest tactic against crime one can conceive. To all those who say, 'Well he didn't have time to think' you are exactly right, he didn't.. he was startled and immediately decided to kill someone. Is that what we are turning into? Will we soon be bumping into each other on the streets and shooting each other dead over such collisions? Killing someone abruptly from being startled could be equated to other sudden killings, like killings of anger. Both hit you out of nowhere and prey on your baser instincts reflexively. Which is why you shouldn't be carrying an instrument of death if you are the kind of person to be so rash. Yes, he did have a right to defend himself, both morally and legally, but self defense is only justifiable by the severity of the danger. So if the danger is unknown it's ok to murder everyone around you as fast as you can? Or if not that, it's ok to shoot someone dead in a fistfight? Saying this guy was right is answering yes to one or both of those.

This could have been worse, considering two kids were involved it could have been a prank, by strangers or friends. That's not an exaggeration, that kind of catastrophe has happened before and is just another good reason why people shouldn't be allowed to kill on a whim. Those could have been completely innocent lives, and what's worse bystanders could have been there and got wounded or killed to with those 8 shots being fired so frantically. I believe this victim is as much a danger to society as his assailants... well, no, he's even more so, he has a gun and he's more then willing to kill without thinking. I can't say the same for those teenagers.
For the record, no, I wouldn't have killed the kid. Yes I know you cannot think in a sudden dangerous situation, but believe it or not everyone isn't so volatile. Killing the other person isn't the first thing that comes to my mind in a dire situation. For all who said it was, I worry about you... that's not healthy. Considering that these were just teenagers and not mob bosses, the guy could have just as easily pointed the gun at them and backed away. If I possessed such a weapon, that's exactly what it would be for. And if that does not work we could always fire surface to air missiles at them and roll in a few tanks, since it's so chic to be excessively deadly to kids'n all.

 

[macfluffers]

Police use glocks, glocks should be illegal to ensure the police maintain that edge.

FYI, "Glock" is just a brand. Their handguns are all variants of the same design, but they come in several sizes.

 

[yamitami]

words go here

I agree with everything you said up until the arm or leg shot. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect anyone under any situation to hit a perfect arm or leg shot, first try. Besides it would end up killing the guy anyway.

You're absolutely right. Particularly since any hope he'd have of hitting an arm or leg would be up closer to the joint (since that part of the limb doesn't move as much) and the likelihood of hitting the main arteries is very high. Someone shot in the stomach would probably last longer than someone hit square in the upper arm. Trust me, I know this better than most since when I broke my arm as a kid the bone end came a centimeter from severing the artery.

However most people here won't know this so I gave Baker an Olympic medal in marksmanship for the purpose of an extreme example.

 

[Odin311]

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.

I would fist like to point out, that I never quoted you. You feel that my comments were directed to you, and are offended. You have my apologies.

If you look at all of my comments that I have made, the one thing that is a constant is I maintain that it is a tragedy that someone has died. The loss of life is tragic, and I morn with the family of the young man that died.

You are using the responses (that are coming from people all over the world) to judge the country where the man was shot. There are horrible things that happen everyday in every country, and while I don't know where you are from, it doesn't seem right for you to judge an entire society by an incident, and the responses of random people on an internet form.

You are offended, and accuse me of declaring you holier-than-thou. Once again, I didn't quote you or direct any of my comments at you. The comment was directed at many of the people that have posted here. There are many who are making claims, and statements about bullet types/excessive force/concealed cary laws/shooting to disable/weapons that they obviously have no experience with, or knowledge about.

The fact of the matter is that murder is illegal. Baker is guilty of killing someone. It just so happens that the state he lives in has determined that he will not be prosecuted, due to the circumstances. Killing someone is not something that a normal person can do, and just move on. He will have to live with the fact that he took someone's life for the rest of his.

Once again you have my apology. My comments wasn't meant as a personal insult.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

This is exactly why people shouldn't be allowed to carry these things. Arming everyone to the teeth is the stupidest tactic against crime one can conceive. To all those who say, 'Well he didn't have time to think' you are exactly right, he didn't.. he was startled and immediately decided to kill someone. Is that what we are turning into? Will we soon be bumping into each other on the streets and shooting each other dead over such collisions? Killing someone abruptly from being startled could be equated to other sudden killings, like killings of anger. Both hit you out of nowhere and prey on your baser instincts reflexively. Which is why you shouldn't be carrying an instrument of death if you are the kind of person to be so rash. Yes, he did have a right to defend himself, both morally and legally, but self defense is only justifiable by the severity of the danger. So if the danger is unknown it's ok to murder everyone around you as fast as you can? Or if not that, it's ok to shoot someone dead in a fistfight? Saying this guy was right is answering yes to one or both of those.

This could have been worse, considering two kids were involved it could have been a prank, by strangers or friends. That's not an exaggeration, that kind of catastrophe has happened before and is just another good reason why people shouldn't be allowed to kill on a whim. Those could have been completely innocent lives, and what's worse bystanders could have been there and got wounded or killed to with those 8 shots being fired so frantically. I believe this victim is as much a danger to society as his assailants... well, no, he's even more so, he has a gun and he's more then willing to kill without thinking. I can't say the same for those teenagers.
For the record, no, I wouldn't have killed the kid. Yes I know you cannot think in a sudden dangerous situation, but believe it or not everyone isn't so volatile. Killing the other person isn't the first thing that comes to my mind in a dire situation. For all who said it was, I worry about you... that's not healthy. Considering that these were just teenagers and not mob bosses, the guy could have just as easily pointed the gun at them and backed away. If I possessed such a weapon, that's exactly what it would be for. And if that does not work we could always fire surface to air missiles at them and roll in a few tanks, since it's so chic to be excessively deadly to kids'n all.

The other kid; you know the guy Baker let live after they had assaulted him with no demands? Flat out said they going to try and mug him. Not a prank.

Bumping into each other is different than having 2 guys come up to you in the middle of the night and smashing you in the face. Use a proper analogy.

Pointing the gun at them? Are you stupid? That's flat out saying 'Please take my gun; I do not care for my life, so you may have it.'

Read the damn article.

 

[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.

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.

one shot, eight shots, what's the difference right?

you could fiddle around in hypotheticals all night long, but it doesn't explain the need to keep shooting when the guy was on the ground after a couple of shots. The guy was a thug, and he was stupid for even attempting such a thing, but I guess this'll be a learning experience for him...

oh wait. Snap.

 

[macfluffers]

This could have been worse, considering two kids were involved it could have been a prank, by strangers or friends.

The other kid explicitly said that the plan was to knock Baker unconscious.

Either way, punching someone in the face really hard in the middle of the night would never be considered a prank by the target of said "prank". If someone I knew tried to do this to me, I would try to break his arm.

And in the end, he wasn't "startled" as you've mentioned, he was punched in the face by an anonymous attacker.

one shot, eight shots, what's the difference right?

you could fiddle around in hypotheticals all night long, but it doesn't explain the need to keep shooting when the guy was on the ground after a couple of shots. The guy was a thug, and he was stupid for even attempting such a thing, but I guess this'll be a learning experience for him...

oh wait. Snap.

He probably fired all those shots in 2 seconds. The kid couldn't have hit the ground alive, so he didn't "keep shooting when the guy was on the ground".

Also, a single shot rarely kills, or even immediately disable.

 

[Captain Pancake]

you could fiddle around in hypotheticals all night long, but it doesn't explain the need to keep shooting when the guy was on the ground after a couple of shots. The guy was a thug, and he was stupid for even attempting such a thing, but I guess this'll be a learning experience for him...

oh wait. Snap.

Oh wait, you misread the article. Snap. The guy with the gun ended up on the ground, not the mugger. Oops.

that's kind of beside the point, moreover far from the statement I was making. what does is that this kid is dead. Now, do you have an actual point to make?

This could have been worse, considering two kids were involved it could have been a prank, by strangers or friends.

The other kid explicitly said that the plan was to knock Baker unconscious.

Either way, punching someone in the face really hard in the middle of the night would never be considered a prank by the target of said "prank". If someone I knew tried to do this to me, I would try to break his arm.

And in the end, he wasn't "startled" as you've mentioned, he was punched in the face by an anonymous attacker.

one shot, eight shots, what's the difference right?

you could fiddle around in hypotheticals all night long, but it doesn't explain the need to keep shooting when the guy was on the ground after a couple of shots. The guy was a thug, and he was stupid for even attempting such a thing, but I guess this'll be a learning experience for him...

oh wait. Snap.

He probably fired all those shots in 2 seconds. The kid couldn't have hit the ground alive, so he didn't "keep shooting when the guy was on the ground".

Also, a single shot rarely kills, or even immediately disable.

I didn't say he was still alive when he hit the ground. I'm saying that he was on the ground and he kept firing.

Let's look at this in the case of a structured argument

The jogger was in danger
the jogger had a right to defend himself
he had no way to know whether or not his assailant was armed, so he took action.
However,
his weapon had a laser sight, designed to improve accuracy. I'm assuming if he spent the kind of money on such a piece of kit then he would at least know how to use the thing. So he would have been able to fire a non lethal shot, or if that were not possible, and given the range, made a clean shot to the head (and don't try and tell me that it takes more than one shot to kill there, I may not know guns but I'm not stupid). Better still he could have fired a warning shot, the sound of which would give the attacker at least pause to wonder.
so,
he had the capacity to use a force relative to the attack, and he didn't. This may have been down to the shock of the situation, but the point stands.
so can it not be said that his reaction was extreme? isn't that the point of this debate?

 

[Randomologist]

Do I think the mugger deserved to die? Probably not.
Do I think the jogger was right to shoot him? Hell yes. This is why the Americans keep guns, isn't it? Self defence, and I think its fair to say that someone hitting you repeatedly in the face constitutes an attack.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Non-Lethal shot? Shot to the head? You only shoot to kill and you only go for the center of mass (aka the torso). Anything else would be borderline stupidity.

And that's disregarding his vision was blurred from the sucker punch and it was dark.

 

[mega48man]

he didn't have to kill him, just pulling the gun out should be enough to scare anyone shitless. the teenager didn't actually have a gun, se he definitely would of run and no one would have been killed. now had the teenager also pulled a gun, yes, the baker should of taken the shot.

all in all, he should scared the kid with the presence of a gun, not kill him

besides, we're fuckin teenagers, we make bad desicions, we do dumb shit, but our life isn't even a third over yet, i don't care if we're a pain in the ass but you should never EVER rob someone of their life.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

he didn't have to kill him, just pulling the gun out should be enough to scare anyone shitless. the teenager didn't actually have a gun, se he definitely would of run and no one would have been killed. now had the teenager also pulled a gun, yes, the baker should of taken the shot.

all in all, he should scared the kid with the presence of a gun, not kill him

At point blank range you don't wave around a gun near someone who has a clear change of disarming you.

 

[mega48man]

he didn't have to kill him, just pulling the gun out should be enough to scare anyone shitless. the teenager didn't actually have a gun, se he definitely would of run and no one would have been killed. now had the teenager also pulled a gun, yes, the baker should of taken the shot.

all in all, he should scared the kid with the presence of a gun, not kill him

At point blank range you don't wave around a gun near someone who has a clear change of disarming you.

fair point

i doubt the kid knew martial arts though. and come on, if you were there and you saw a gun, would you fight him? i'd back the f**k off and run like hell

 

[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.

one shot, eight shots, what's the difference right?

you could fiddle around in hypotheticals all night long, but it doesn't explain the need to keep shooting when the guy was on the ground after a couple of shots. The guy was a thug, and he was stupid for even attempting such a thing, but I guess this'll be a learning experience for him...

oh wait. Snap.

With enough adrenaline flowing after being physically assaulted, I can imagine eight shots being a good possibility. Not everyone has cold nerves of steel that allow them to make rational decisions when their life is in danger.

Far as the mugger goes, that's what happens when you physically assault people. At least this might be a good learning experience for his partner in crime.

 

[macfluffers]

However, his weapon had a laser sight, designed to improve accuracy. I'm assuming if he spent the kind of money on such a piece of kit then he would at least know how to use the thing. So he would have been able to fire a non lethal shot, or if that were not possible, and given the range, made a clean shot to the head (and don't try and tell me that it takes more than one shot to kill there, I may not know guns but I'm not stupid). Better still he could have fired a warning shot, the sound of which would give the attacker at least pause to wonder.

Non-lethal shots are extremely difficult and almost never happen intentionally in real life. People trained to use firearms are always instructed to shoot to kill.

Your argument about the lethality of headshots is correct, but why? Why would he shoot the head when he could shoot the torso? If you intend to kill (and you should never shoot without the intention to kill) the best option is to fire multiple rounds into the torso. All experts on the subject agree, that is what you should do if you need to shoot.