Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Dwarfman]

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...

Not an expert in the matter but when I researched for this thread I read that nearly all handguns are illegal. The only way you can have a handgun licence is if you shoot for sport (target shooting and the like). Hand guns are limited to .38 and 9mm with a maximum of 10 rounds. .45 and above are illegal unless you have a permit to use such items in competition.

I'm sure security licences vary a bit from that, but that's the civilian licence in a nut shell.

Rimfire rifles, paint ball guns, air rifles and shotguns that aren't pump action or semi automatic all fall under the same category. It's probably the easiest licence to get however a "genuine" reason must be given to own the item - Home protection or keeping you safe as you jog at night are not classed as legitimate reasons.

 

[macfluffers]

Rimfire rifles, paint ball guns, air rifles and shotguns that aren't pump action or semi automatic all fall under the same category. It's probably the easiest licence to get however a "genuine" reason must be given to own the item - Home protection or keeping you safe as you jog at night are not classed as legitimate reasons.

I heard it's similar in the UK. That's one thing I never understood about some country's gun control laws: why are sporting and hunting considered acceptable reasons to own a gun, but self-defense isn't? If I were to only allow one reason for people to own weapons, it would be for defense, but clearly the law makers there disagree, and I don't see the reasoning.

 

[LondonBeer]

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.

Do you also realize that there is much more violent crime in Europe compared to America?

If your gonna use logic and truth in your arguement Mrhappyface it will all end in liberal halfwitted tears.

 

[TornadoADV]

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.

You sure love beating the tar out of that poor strawman, don't ya?

 

[Dwarfman]

I heard it's similar in the UK. That's one thing I never understood about some country's gun control laws: why are sporting and hunting considered acceptable reasons to own a gun, but self-defense isn't? If I were to only allow one reason for people to own weapons, it would be for defense, but clearly the law makers there disagree, and I don't see the reasoning.

I think my only real biff with the Australian gun laws is that at the time it bunddled a whole heap of people in categories that weren't similar at all and made them all effectively criminals.

Please remember the gun laws here virtually happened overnight. Unlike America we're not accustomed to random people losing it and going on a rampage, so when the Port Arthur massacre occured the public backlash over it was considerable. The then PM John Howard put together the gun laws despite the fact it was going to hurt him politically - although not as badly as 'work choices'. Most gun owners were either conservative or rural. In order to appease these people, Howard made sure that there would be special concessions. So the licenses go out of their way to do the right thing by farmers, hunters, sportsmen and such. Although why paint guns and air guns fall in the same category is beyond me.

According to what I looked up the laws against hand guns were tightened considerably after the incident at Monash University where a student marched into his class with five loaded hand guns, killing two and wounding five before being over powered. Apparently the student had aquired these guns legally so Howard went in and toughened the laws.

As for reasoning. I can't speak for the UK but Australia has a much smaller population and less violent crime than America, so firearms for self defence aren't as necesary - although we to have laws that protect people for defending themselves within reason.

I think the big thing the government looked at when they put together the laws was that both incidences were caused by seemingly 'normal' - I use the term losely for Martin Bryant of Port Arthur fame - people who purchased all their items legally. They weren't gangsters or muggers, just people who were having a bad run and decided that what they did was the only solution to their problems. This solution meant a lot of people who wouldn't do that had to hand in their rifles and pistols, however Australia has not had an incident of the likes of Port Arthur or Monash outside of the criminal underworld ever. So unreasonable, yes. Effective. Very yes.

 

[Thamous]

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.

So you would simply suggest he wait and figure out the threat level of his attackers? In the middle of the night after he was just punched in the face? When you've been attacked you don't have time to sit there and ponder who it was that attacked you or why. All you know is that someone has the intent to do physical harm to you and perhaps even kill you. You do whatever is in your power to protect your own well being before you worry about theirs.

It could have been a prank? Do you honestly believe that it is ever a good idea to attack someone in the middle of the night as a prank? Maybe I should break into my friend's house at 3:00 AM just for a little fun. People have to assume responsibility for their actions. When you physically assault someone in the dead of night you can't say that you were playing a prank. It doesn't work that way, your not innocent, your actions had consequences, deadly consequences, because you were to stupid you give your course of action any rational thought.

Do you think he knew who they were? Two unknown assailants attacked him and that is all he knew.He didn't know if they wanted his wallet or they wanted his life. In that situation you don't have the time to draw your weapon and hope they back down. They are two feet away from you and may posses a weapon and the intent to use it. You do what is necessary to ensure your own life.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

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.

So you would simply suggest he wait and figure out the threat level of his attackers? In the middle of the night after he was just punched in the face? When you've been attacked you don't have time to sit there and ponder who it was that attacked you or why. All you know is that someone has the intent to do physical harm to you and perhaps even kill you. You do whatever is in your power to protect your own well being before you worry about theirs.

It could have been a prank? Do you honestly believe that it is ever a good idea to attack someone in the middle of the night as a prank? Maybe I should break into my friend's house at 3:00 AM just for a little fun. People have to assume responsibility for their actions. When you physically assault someone in the dead of night you can't say that you were playing a prank. It doesn't work that way, your not innocent, your actions had consequences, deadly consequences, because you were to stupid you give your course of action any rational thought.

Do you think he knew who they were? Two unknown assailants attacked him and that is all he knew.He didn't know if they wanted his wallet or they wanted his life. In that situation you don't have the time to draw your weapon and hope they back down. They are two feet away from you and may posses a weapon and the intent to use it. You do what is necessary to ensure your own life.

good god this.

please people, you must live in the most safest of environments and have never encountered anything outside of a jump scare prank, when you are out alone in the street, especially in his case with wads of cash on him and 2 unknown assailants coming at him, i would not have hesitated after getting PUNCHED IN THE FACE to unload the clip at there direction. in my city (within the past year, can't remember exactly) some dumbass teenagers were trying to rob a walgreens (a pharmacy type store if you dont have one of those in your residency) and a retired marine had his pistol on him and ended up taking down both teens in the process (neither died, but both those teens had shotguns in their hands, which were both illegal, as they stole them) so i figure if your gonna start shit like that, then good riddance to whatever happens, stupid people need to think about their mistakes BEFORE they make them.

 

[Spade Lead]

With his lip cut and suffering blurred vision he said he pulled out a handgun that was fitted with a laser sight and fired eight times.
Mustelier was hit four times with hollow pointed bullets fired from the .45calibre weapon.

Bit of an overreaction, don't you think?
I don't think it's what I'd do

You don't think, but you can't know. If he was trained, as I am, his training says go for the center of mass, which is the quickest way to drop a target. In training we were told we had six seconds to shoot six shots as part of our speed/accuracy training. My adrenaline was so pumped that I cranked out all six shots in less than three seconds.(I checked the clock after I shot and there was still 3 seconds on it...) I watched ONE, one single shot, miss the target. Three of them were dead center. And let me tell you, when that slide racked back in the empty position I STILL squeezed it once more before I realized my pistol was empty. Chances are he was in the same adrenaline fueled frenzy I was that made me pull a trigger on a gun that I should have known had no bullets. Especially since he was under attack.

Do I think it was a good thing the kid died? No.

Would I have done the same thing in his place? Hell Yes.

Did the other kid learn his lesson about mugging? I sure as hell hope so.

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.

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

 

[GodofCider]

Sounds like it played out about right to me.

I mean, the entirety of it was terrible; but still, Baker was in the right.

As a side note, I've noticed a few comments about why he was carrying a firearm, etc, etc. Bear in mind his location, first and foremost: Florida. Now pause for a moment and think about the number of deadly animals that live there: alligators, crocodiles, massive snakes, poisonous snakes, panthers, etc.

I can't fathom why someone, deciding to go jogging out at night, which is a rather pleasant thing to do, would carry a handgun in such a situation. >_>

 

[Siege_TF]

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

Again, it wasn't four times with four shots, it was four times with eight point blank shots because he couldn't see very well, because he had taken damage to his head. You shoot your target until it goes down, you don't shoot then wait a few seconds to see if it keels over on it's own. Disagree? Good thing you aren't a judge.

 

[Spade Lead]

I am requesting that a moderator bans me. Reading this thread has literally made me appalled by the world views of a majority of people who have replied to this thread (and the poll).

Ban, please.

As a favor, I have reported you.

 

[Gindil]

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.

My name is Gindil and I approve this message.

I am requesting that a moderator bans me. Reading this thread has literally made me appalled by the world views of a majority of people who have replied to this thread (and the poll).

Ban, please.

Not trying to provoke anything but that literally explains nothing of why you should be appalled. Sad to see you react in such a negative manner in a debate but it would probably have been better if you left the thread quietly of your own accord rather than specifically request someone ban you.

 

[aPod]

With his lip cut and suffering blurred vision he said he pulled out a handgun that was fitted with a laser sight and fired eight times.
Mustelier was hit four times with hollow pointed bullets fired from the .45calibre weapon.

Bit of an overreaction, don't you think?
I don't think it's what I'd do

You don't think, but you can't know. If he was trained, as I am, his training says go for the center of mass, which is the quickest way to drop a target. In training we were told we had six seconds to shoot six shots as part of our speed/accuracy training. My adrenaline was so pumped that I cranked out all six shots in less than three seconds.(I checked the clock after I shot and there was still 3 seconds on it...) I watched ONE, one single shot, miss the target. Three of them were dead center. And let me tell you, when that slide racked back in the empty position I STILL squeezed it once more before I realized my pistol was empty. Chances are he was in the same adrenaline fueled frenzy I was that made me pull a trigger on a gun that I should have known had no bullets. Especially since he was under attack.

Do I think it was a good thing the kid died? No.

Would I have done the same thing in his place? Hell Yes.

Did the other kid learn his lesson about mugging? I sure as hell hope so.

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.

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

Thank you for saying this, I don't know how many people saying that firing 8 shots is a big deal. If you've ever fired a semi-automatic weapon you know how fast that clip goes empty. And full auto is nothing like the movie's kids. Fwap, and its gone in an instant. Even high capacity clips just go in a blur. I could easily fire off a clip if i was in shock, panicing, and scared shitless without feeling like a single second had passed.

Not even going to get into the second amendment argument because i don't have any respect for anyone who wants to take peoples rights away from them and thinks it's good for them.

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.

The first thing they teach you in gun safety is that if you pull your gun out you shoot to kill.

 

[RelexCryo]

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.

It is actually Europe itself which provides some of the best support for gun ownership. The countries in Europe that have the highest crime rates are the ones that refuse to let people carry guns. Britain and Luxembourg have very high crime rates by European standards, and the most violent cities in Europe have consistently been British/Irish cities, such as Gloucester and Limerick, which refuse to let people carry guns. By contrast, countries such as Switzerland and Finland, which let people carry guns, consistently have the lowest crime rates.

I agree with Liberals on many things- I support gay marriage, tight regulation of corporations and private bussiness, and helping the underpriviledged. However, while I do support some degree of gun control, the evidence has overwhelmingly shown that preventing law abiding adults from carrying guns makes things worse rather than better. Liberals tend to portray America as having very lax gun control, and blame crime on the lack of gun control, simply because they don't like guns. And they don't like guns because guns are explicitly designed for killing people. In reality, excessive gun control is far more responsible for our high crime rate, as the highest crime rate areas in America refuse to let people carry guns.

 

[P.Tsunami]

Wow, I'm in a depressing minority here. I most definitely think Baker was in the wrong. Someone punched him in the face, he took a life by means of firearms. This is an asymmetrical use of force. With that said, I don't really judge Baker, either. I imagine he probably panicked. In short, what he did was morally wrong, but he was likely not in a rational state of mind.

 

[Spade Lead]

Thank you for saying this, I don't know how many people saying that firing 8 shots is a big deal. If you've ever fired a semi-automatic weapon you know how fast that clip goes empty. And full auto is nothing like the movie's kids. Fwap, and its gone in an instant. Even high capacity clips just go in a blur. I could easily fire off a clip if i was in shock, panicing, and scared shitless without feeling like a single second had passed.

Well, it appeared that I was the only person with military experience to have an opinion on the matter.

I don't personally own a gun (I would, but I am bi-polar, and have been particularly suicidal these last two weeks, so I am glad I don't, for personal safety reasons, not that that NOT having a gun has stopped me from staring awfully hard at my Ambien, which is the method I would use if I WERE to choose suicide), but I hate anti-gun nuts running around spouting out falsehoods. Obviously no one on this thread who was speaking up was defending the use of eight shots, and my guess is he fired all eight shots in about three seconds, as I would if I were in that situation. The 50% accuracy rating makes me think he didn't stop to pull the gun back in line after every shot as I did in the aforementioned training scenario. The one shot I watched miss, I too pulled the trigger without realigning my sites. Blind instinct made me squeeze before I was ready. I was panicky even though I was shooting at a target, in a training scenario, surrounded by a bunch of armed military instructors.

I imagine for him, he was thinking "squeeze as fast as you can, even if you miss, the bang will make them flee."

And that he spared the life of, or at least missed, the second assailant, gives credence to that line of reasoning. He wasn't out to kill them in cold blood, he simply wanted them to go away.

 

[Spade Lead]

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.

No.

You do not shoot someone 4 times in self defence. There is no way he didn't go down after the first shot.

With his lip cut and suffering blurred vision he said he pulled out a handgun that was fitted with a laser sight and fired eight times.
Mustelier was hit four times with hollow pointed bullets fired from the .45calibre weapon.

Bit of an overreaction, don't you think?
I don't think it's what I'd do

You don't think, but you can't know. If he was trained, as I am, his training says go for the center of mass, which is the quickest way to drop a target. In training we were told we had six seconds to shoot six shots as part of our speed/accuracy training. My adrenaline was so pumped that I cranked out all six shots in less than three seconds.(I checked the clock after I shot and there was still 3 seconds on it...) I watched ONE, one single shot, miss the target. Three of them were dead center. And let me tell you, when that slide racked back in the empty position I STILL squeezed it once more before I realized my pistol was empty. Chances are he was in the same adrenaline fueled frenzy I was that made me pull a trigger on a gun that I should have known had no bullets. Especially since he was under attack.

Do I think it was a good thing the kid died? No.

Would I have done the same thing in his place? Hell Yes.

Did the other kid learn his lesson about mugging? I sure as hell hope so.

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.

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

And the post above this, too

 

[Seitou]

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.

No.

You do not shoot someone 4 times in self defence. There is no way he didn't go down after the first shot.

It's pretty clear you A) have no idea what you're talking about, B) have never fired a weapon in your life and C) have apparently never been in a life threatening situation.
I can't believe after having at least 40 people state this that it needs to be said again but a semi automatic clip can be emptied in less then 2 seconds easily. After being blind sided by a punch in the face, on your ass with blurry vision, adrenaline pumping I guarantee you he got all 8 of those shots out in about a second. If you've never fired a gun you can't understand how quickly a clip can go, combine that with adrenaline and anyone barring a cold blooded sociopath or a highly trained killer would empty the clip.