Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Jfswift]

I read it. I don't feel he had time to discern if the two were armed or not. He made a decision to survive and I don't hold that against him.

 

[dvd_72]

as sad as it is, I must say that I believe the shooter was in the right here. Loss of life is never good, but when it's kill or be killed, one has little choice.

 

[MrHero17]

Well after reading 31 pages I've gone from siding with Baker to... siding with Baker . Most anything I've wanted to say has been mentioned but I'll add this in, personally, I don't think it makes much sense to require victims to be concerned and thinking about their assailants health. If someone cold clocks you in the middle of the night I don't think it's your responsibility to worry about what happens to the person who attacked you.

I also think that this video gives a good example of why I don't expect the victim to be able to precisely determine if an assailant is armed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwAI8HWh9io

I fail at embedding

 

[Siege_TF]

8 shots with a semi-auto is not unreasonable when you're vision has gone blurry because some punk just blindsided you. Consider, because a lot of people haven't for some reason, that at point blank with a lazer sight he only landed half his shots. I read a about a case in the states in law class which is slightly related: A man was mugged by three assailants who had knives, he shot two of them, one died immediately, one fled, and one was merely wounded. He was convicted of manslaughter because he finished off the one that was wounded (and was laying prone), saying something to the effect of "You look like you might make it, have another." according to witnesses.

Baker's case is not nearly the same because it was one series of events - He didn't stop and execute poor widdle Carlos after putting one in his gut, he fired eight times in one burst, and, because it bares repeating, he only managed to hit with half of them. Is it a shame? Debatable. Does it have the Evil Intent nessessary to convict him of something? Appearantly not.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

...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.

Panic for one thing.
Another is that a person who is fiercely dedicated cannot easily be stopped; 1 bullet can eventually kill, but usually not stop a person.

 

[Dwarfman]

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.

Fortunately or unfortunately the Australian government doesn't view things that way. They just ban the whole lot.

 

[russkiimperial]

Four shots is not excessive at all if you're trying to immediately stop someone. You'd be amazed at the number of times people have gotten shot and lived. Even if the assailant would eventually bleed to death it would've been too late. I think too many people have seen the classic movie cliche in which a person pulls the trigger and BAM the assailant instantly falls to the ground.

edit: Just wanted to add I was quite impressed at how many people on this site believe in the idea of self defense by any means necessary. So many other countries in the world don't afford people such a right.

 

[Dwarfman]

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.

Our Tactical Response Group has exactly the same thing. PLease forgive me though I want my police to have ALL advantages not just one.

 

[ImprovizoR]

When I hear people say how the kid deserved to die because of that it makes me think about your mental health. These aren't medieval times. He didn't deserve to die but the man was right to defend himself. Still, he did overreact. But he reacted because he was already assaulted twice. I wonder how many more people will have to die in order for Americans to realize that 2nd Amendment is wrong? Don't you guys know how many people die in your country of gunshot wounds? Compare the numbers with Europe. Like it isn't bad enough that your judicial system sucks.

 

[Dezeal]

I'll be honest, and say I skipped a good thirty pages of this topic. Now, if I'm repeating what someone else said, oh well. The following needs to be noted.

Some people have said "shoot him in the leg." I present to you the Femoral Artery. Sever this bad-boy, and you bleed out real fast.

For those of you that say what would of been better, do note, you weren't being mugged, you weren't punched, you weren't about to be punched again, for all you knew, the next hit would be with a knife, trying to kill you.

The man was in close-quarters, meaning had he shot and NOT killed the assailant, but merely wounded him, the assailant has the opportunity to kill you. That's not something you particularly want.

Now, Hollow-points, as most have said, are meant to kill. They're meant to kill their target, and ONLY their target. When using a gun, you do not want the bullet to pass cleanly through your target, possibly hitting a bystander. Besides, most attackers do not wear body-armor, so armor piecing would of been fairly pointless, and standard bullets don't have the stopping power you NEED in a life and death situation.

As for the eight times, if you claim you've never panicked, then you're an outright liar. When you believe your life is in danger, you shoot to kill. If the target is nullified, and not killed, even better. Just remember, in situations like this, better to of killed, then of been killed. Did the teen "deserve" to die? No. Unfortunately, the poor decisions he made got him killed. That's life, no one said it was fair.

 

[shedra]

Did he deserve to die? No.
But at the same time, I don't think the shooter should be punished for defending himself, especially if he had the license to carry the weapon.

And this is coming from someone who thinks America's right to bare arms is ridiculously outdated.

^This.
The kid was punching a man in the face. If you're going around doing that, you're bound to punch the wrong guy. It's a shame he had died, but the man didn't do wrong by killing him.

 

[Adzma]

snip

I completely agree. If someone had blindsided me causing my vision to give out, I would merely fire as much as possible in the general direction of my attacker. Baker did the right thing.

 

[Gezab]

Good.

He deserved it.
The man joined the 2.5 million people, anually, who defend themselves with firearms.
Good job to the man.

 

[TheHitcher]

Why on earth did he shoot so many times? There's a thin line between malice/abuse of power and self defence here...

However, I think the moral of the story is don't rob people.

 

[Thedarkness77]

Yes he had the right to diffend himself but he had no right to shot him four times.

 

[macfluffers]

Fortunately or unfortunately the Australian government doesn't view things that way. They just ban the whole lot.

All of them? Because of a brand? That seems odd. Do they allow other 9mm guns?

Now that I think of it, maybe it's because all Glock pistols are relatively high capacity...

 

[Gezab]

Fortunately or unfortunately the Australian government doesn't view things that way. They just ban the whole lot.

All of them? Because of a brand? That seems odd. Do they allow other 9mm guns?

Now that I think of it, maybe it's because all Glock pistols are relatively high capacity...

No, and no.
The pistol doesn't decide the capacity. The magazine size does. They could easily enforce a ban on hi-cap mags like Canada does. However, they don't, because to people who know nothing about guns, brand names make the killer. This is why some countries ban "AK-47s" but not similar guns like VZ-58's. Because "AK-47" sounds dangerous.

Also, not all glocks are high-capacity as a standard magazine size. For example, the Glock 36 and 39 both have standard 6 round capacity, which is about the same as a standard 100 year old revolver

 

[macfluffers]

No, and no.
The pistol doesn't decide the capacity. The magazine size does. They could easily enforce a ban on hi-cap mags like Canada does. However, they don't, because to people who know nothing about guns, brand names make the killer. This is why some countries ban "AK-47s" but not similar guns like VZ-58's. Because "AK-47" sounds dangerous.

Also, not all glocks are high-capacity as a standard magazine size. For example, the Glock 36 and 39 both have standard 6 round capacity, which is about the same as a standard 100 year old revolver

That makes sense. I can see how non-gun people could have those sorts of preconceptions.

I was under the impression that Glock pistols were all had at least 14 rounds because of the double column thing, but I guess I was mistaken.