Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Girl With One Eye]

Sorry but I have to disagree with a lot of people here. It was just a couple of kids and the guy shot him eight times. He could have fired a warning shot, I mean hes clearly capable of handling himself if hes applying for the military and keeps fit. The kid had his whole life to turn around, but now he won't get that chance. People who do bad things can change, and I don't think it was necessary to shot him eight times so he was sure he would be dead.

The guy shot 8 times, only hit 4. The doesn't seem to be a crack shot or really trained because 50% is pretty bad, especially at close range. One could wager that the guy got punched in the face, pulled the gun, and started firing randomly in the general direction of his attackers. And considering he only aimed and didn't shoot at the other kid who ran away showed that he actually did have some constraint.
It would be pretty silly to chide someone for reacting in the way he did, if someone starts beating on me, it doesn't make sense to try and run back, pull a gun, and try to get the attackers to surrender. Another fist could easily hit you in the back of the head or temple and knock you out, the attackers are close enough and possibly stupid enough that when you're pulling the gun and not firing they could try to take it. And who knows the story could've gone much differently if the guy didn't come out with his gun firing, he could've ended up with the gun turned against him and him dead on the ground and two teens at large with money in their pocket laughing it up.

I understand what you are saying, and it was a difficult situation. I just don't think the kid "deserved" to die like a lot of people here are saying.

 

[moretimethansense]

i hate to use the "slippery slope" fallacy, but well... it is. where do you draw the line? in Montana, where i live, a Wal-mart employee recently shot another when they got in an argument. the state had recently passed a law similar to Florida's "stand your ground" law, and he claimed he felt his life was in danger (even though they were both at work, in Wal-mart...). who's to say if he was right or wrong? all i know is someone got shot at Wal-mart over a stupid disagreement and a potentially dangerous law, setting an even more dangerous precedent.

granted, in Baker's case, his life was more clearly in danger, but shooting him 4 times seems excessive. idk... not gonna pass judgement here. on one hand the mugger deserved it, but i just see this leading to bad things.

I agree. What if the shooter simply pulled out his gun? Would the mugger have fled upon realising the danger to his life? Or even just a bullet to the leg. I don't think the shooter should be punished but this is a case of excessive force.

According to the article it looks like they jumped him by surprise. In those situations you don't have time to think things through. Besides those teens could have still killed him or caused permanent injury.

Agreed, it just seems like that is the only aspect of this story a pro-gun control debater could actually use, though given the situation, I feel like most of here would fire more then one bullet.

Edit: Oh crap, I quoted the wrong person.

He fired eight times though, I agree he had the right to use the weapon in self defence, but eight?
It's a 45 semi auto, how many seconds does it take to fire that many?
How long does it normally take muggers to run?

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Well, wouldn't the chances of that improve of half the civilian population wasn't carrying lethal weapons?

I'd rather have a bunch of dead muggers in situations of self-defense, rather than having a mugger/killer put on trial with a dead victim because the victim was completely unable to defend him/herself and the mugger decided that it would be best not to leave any witnesses.

The mugger broke the law, and a law concerning violence to boot. Thus he or she should be forced to accept the risk of getting killed because of it.

Couldn't the money and time spent on arming citizens from criminals be better spent looking for and addressing the root of the problem (Why they feel the need to mug someone)?

That is impossible. Mainly since there are no universal reasons for muggings/assaults of this kind. It isn't normal or acceptable to let people assault total strangers like that, and the motivations for doing it is irrelevant.

It is more beneficient if these deviants die due to their own folly than wasting resources in trying to determine what kind of warped logic their degenerate brains follow.

Believing that killing criminals will somehow "deplete" the number of criminals, is the same vein of thought as ethnic cleansing.

So your best argument is trying to use the logical fallacy of guilt by association? How very clever of you.

Time to stretch the logicl-muscles a bit: Just because something might be construed as being in "the same vain" as something else, it doesn't prove that it is just as bad.

 

[butteforce]

Four to five rounds to center mass will put someone down. So if your hit probability isn't that good, you're going to fire more rounds than that. It's likely to kill them, but the point here is to make sure that they stop. Someone hopped up on drugs, or just enough adrenaline may not stop if you only hit them once. And if you only shot once, do you know that you hit them once?

You can't say that he was right to fire a weapon but that the number of rounds fired was excessive unless you don't know anything about firearms and shooting.

As for hollow points, the reason you would use them is two-fold:
Control. An expanding round is less likely to ricochet from a hard surface like brick or stone. Depending on velocity and distance, they're less likely to go all the way through a person or wood, hitting an unintended target.

Ensuring that a target you hit will have to get medical attention in the event that they escape the scene. Because someone is going to have to remove the bullet(s).

If you tried to do something ridiculous like shooting them in the leg or the arm, you're going to run into other problems outside from the possibility of not stopping them from what they're doing. "You weren't shooting to kill, so clearly you weren't in the kind of mortal peril that would dictate the discharge of a firearm." And then the guy testifies against you saying that he just bumped into you and you pulled out a gun and shot him in the arm for no good reason.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

It's a 45 semi auto, how many seconds does it take to fire that many?

Somewhere between 3-5 seconds depending on how quick you are and how stressful the situation is. Most shots will miss though unless they are at really close range.

 

[badgersprite]

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.

Are you me? Because these are my thoughts exactly.

One thing I do dislike about Australian and English law is that it blames the person defending themselves if they use an excessive or lethal amount of force. Someone explain to me how you're supposed to gauge the appropriate amount of force when you're being attacked, you think you might be killed and instinct and adrenaline are flooding your system? Makes no sense to me.

I actually covered something like this at university. We use the objective test of 'what would a reasonable person' deem as 'reasonable' force, but this is flawed system, because people come in so many shapes and sizes. For instance, a 5ft women deems less of a threat than a massive 6ft man, so it goes without question that more force is needed for the latter? But in the eyes of law, if for instance, the man happens to have brittle bone disease, a normal punch to the face could cause massive damage or even death, that force would be excessive and the defender may be punished.

Also, from a practical perspective, say you are that 5ft woman being attacked by a 6ft unarmed man. It seems perfectly logical to me that she is not physically strong enough to hurt her assailant long enough to get away. Grabbing some kind of implement to hit him with seems perfectly reasonable and like smart self defense for me. But, in the eyes of the law here, that's a crime if she hits him with it because she a) was armed when he wasn't, making that amount of force excessive and b) premeditated an attack with a weapon, even an improvised one.

If I carry mace with me in this country (not that I would, but just go with me here) for protection, I am breaking the law, because it is considered the same as carrying a concealed weapon and using it on an attacker is considered a premeditated attack.

Tell me how this makes sense? What the heck are people supposed to do if they can't even use safe, non-lethal means like peppery spray to facilitate an escape from an attacker?

 

[The Funslinger]

I wouldn't say muggers deserve to get shot, but it was his own fault. You don't get to just screw with people and take their belongings. (I'm not saying you get to kill people) The guy thought his life was in danger, and reacted accordingly. The mugger was just stupid, it's like saying "hey, I bet you can jump from this train platform to the next" *crack* broken ankle, gets flattened because the train couldn't stop. You just don't do it, because you don't have the right, and you can get either physically or legally messed up.

 

[anthony87]

I'm pretty surprised to see that some people voted "No"

Either he defended himself, or he got mugged, hell there was always the possibility of him being killed.

He sure as hell made the right call.

 

[DanielDeFig]

A) who the hell carries a revolver (with hollow point and a laser sight he must think hes a hit man or something..) going out on a late night run..? And its was a concealed weapon, who other than the police and the army carry licenses for a pistol and to also conceal it..?

B) who goes out on late night runs, just ludicrous..

C) if you have a license for said concealed gun then why isn't he trained to use it properly and knee-cap his attacker instead of shooting them, 4 times, in the chest..

D) these muggers were unarmed and posed a seriously limited effect to his life and so fatal force was unnecessary.

E) also carrying $500 in cash whilst on a run.. this seems extremely fishy to me, more fishy than fishy, McFish..

F) death is not a suitable punishment for battery, if it was then the death rate by state execution would amount to something like several hundred thousand per year whereas its only about 100 or more currently..

Overall, stupid that people are allowed to go around carrying guns like that and also that he has been let off for murder (or at least manslaughter) he has intent to harm and possibly kill and also he has killed someone so I would charge him guilty of manslaughter.. or at least if it had been in the UK that would have been the verdict.

It is the mail though so they probably over exaggerated the information..

EDIT: also soldiers, are always told to inform any civilians that they will open fire if said civilian does not surrender. Kinda proves that no-one outside of law-enforcement and the army should be allowed a gun, and these groups having guns is debatable as well..

Agreed. To jog at night, with $500 in cash, in what might have been a fishy neighborhood (or at least somewhere you don't frequent at night), doesn't fit with the common sense i thought most people were taught.
And for a former military man to do so with a powerful weapon, clearly ready to use it in an emergency, to be unable to use said weapon responsibly (8 shots in a daze is NOT responsible, but how i expect an untrained terrified civilian to act) seems strange. Maybe he was old, and it's been a while. But why keep such a powerful weapon if you are not sure you can handle such a situation calmly?

 

[xXDeMoNiCXx]

Baker had every right to do what he did, it's the teen's fault that he decided to be a punk and got himself killed for it. One less piece of trash infesting the streets.

 

[Missing SHODAN]

A) who the hell carries a revolver (with hollow point and a laser sight he must think hes a hit man or something..) going out on a late night run..? And its was a concealed weapon, who other than the police and the army carry licenses for a pistol and to also conceal it..?

In the US, pretty much anyone can get a handgun and a concealed carry permit, so long as they aren't a felon. State laws can make it easier or harder (some states require you be able to demonstrate you were educated in basic firearm safety before they'll let you sneak your revolver into Starbucks for good reason).

Hollow points are actually pretty much what you want in this situation. You do not want the bullets exiting the guy you're shooting at and entering someone else, like a bystander.

The laser sight might be excessive, but on the other hand he's only hitting 50% of the time at close range, maybe he knew he was a bad shot and wanted to ensure that if he was shooting at someone, he had a pretty good idea where the bullet was going to go?

B) who goes out on late night runs, just ludicrous..

Blaming the jogger for going jogging is ridiculous. Perhaps he works during daylight hours and only has time to jog when it's dark? Maybe he jogs from work to his home? Without knowing the details of his everyday life, there are no grounds to judge his jogging schedule.

C) if you have a license for said concealed gun then why isn't he trained to use it properly and knee-cap his attacker instead of shooting them, 4 times, in the chest..

Most self-defense courses teach you to shoot for the torso. It's a large target that is less likely to be moving around. And he fired eight times and only hit the torso half of the time - he might not have hit the knees at all, and if his attacker was armed as he thought, he'd be dead. In hindsight, we know the kid probably would have run away if he'd been missed eight times, but at that exact moment, the jogger did not believe that was the case.

D) these muggers were unarmed and posed a seriously limited effect to his life and so fatal force was unnecessary.

How exactly would the jogger have known how the muggers were armed? It's dark and they just hit him in the head, likely clouding his judgement. In hindsight, yes, it's obvious that they weren't going to shoot him with the gun they did not have, but it is all too easy to say how things should have gone well after the time has passed.

E) also carrying $500 in cash whilst on a run.. this seems extremely fishy to me, more fishy than fishy, McFish..

Yeah, that may have been stupid, although maybe he jogs after work to his home. Again, we don't know his situation, and in any case, it's still illegal to mug people regardless of how ill-chosen their actions are.

F) death is not a suitable punishment for battery, if it was then the death rate by state execution would amount to something like several hundred thousand per year whereas its only about 100 or more currently..

Agreed. Of course, the jogger thought this was going to be a murder during a robbery, and reacted accordingly. Perhaps the muggers should have first let the guy know that they were planning to rob him and were unarmed, rather than leaving the jogger's imagination to decide the scenario?

Or they could have not mugged him, so he didn't think his life was in danger and didn't open fire on them.

Overall, stupid that people are allowed to go around carrying guns like that and also that he has been let off for murder (or at least manslaughter) he has intent to harm and possibly kill and also he has killed someone so I would charge him guilty of manslaughter.. or at least if it had been in the UK that would have been the verdict.

It is the mail though so they probably over exaggerated the information..

It's the United States. We have much more relaxed gun control laws than the UK. Also, not sure you could get him on intent to anything besides not be killed, which turns out to be exactly why there was a law allowing for self-defense in the first place. Note that the kid who ran away wasn't shot (or shot at), because the guy was defending himself, not trying to rack up a kill count.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

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.

Are you me? Because these are my thoughts exactly.

One thing I do dislike about Australian and English law is that it blames the person defending themselves if they use an excessive or lethal amount of force. Someone explain to me how you're supposed to gauge the appropriate amount of force when you're being attacked, you think you might be killed and instinct and adrenaline are flooding your system? Makes no sense to me.

I actually covered something like this at university. We use the objective test of 'what would a reasonable person' deem as 'reasonable' force, but this is flawed system, because people come in so many shapes and sizes. For instance, a 5ft women deems less of a threat than a massive 6ft man, so it goes without question that more force is needed for the latter? But in the eyes of law, if for instance, the man happens to have brittle bone disease, a normal punch to the face could cause massive damage or even death, that force would be excessive and the defender may be punished.

Also, from a practical perspective, say you are that 5ft woman being attacked by a 6ft unarmed man. It seems perfectly logical to me that she is not physically strong enough to hurt her assailant long enough to get away. Grabbing some kind of implement to hit him with seems perfectly reasonable and like smart self defense for me. But, in the eyes of the law here, that's a crime if she hits him with it because she a) was armed when he wasn't, making that amount of force excessive and b) premeditated an attack with a weapon, even an improvised one.

If I carry mace with me in this country (not that I would, but just go with me here) for protection, I am breaking the law, because it is considered the same as carrying a concealed weapon and using it on an attacker is considered a premeditated attack.

Tell me how this makes sense? What the heck are people supposed to do if they can't even use safe, non-lethal means like peppery spray to facilitate an escape from an attacker?

Sometimes the law is just obviously flawed, yet governments do nothing about it. It sucks.

 

[moretimethansense]

It's a 45 semi auto, how many seconds does it take to fire that many?

Somewhere between 3-5 seconds depending on how quick you are and how stressful the situation is. Most shots will miss though unless they are at really close range.

Fair enough, if it takes that small an amout of time, I doubt they'd have reacted that quickly, plus if you panic it might not be obvious they're retreating for a second or two.
I call reasonable use of force.

 

[drwow]

Fucking ridiculous, you got two people who are willing to beat the shit out of you for your money. You don't fucking don't pull out a gun and hope they run, what if they had guns? You don't know they don't, they already punched the guy in the face, he knows their willing to harm him.

Also, who the fuck carries a laser sighted 45 and 500 euro while jogging?

 

[Lord Kloo]

Agreed. To jog at night, with $500 in cash, in what might have been a fishy neighborhood (or at least somewhere you don't frequent at night), doesn't fit with the common sense i thought most people were taught.
And for a former military man to do so with a powerful weapon, clearly ready to use it in an emergency, to be unable to use said weapon responsibly (8 shots in a daze is NOT responsible, but how i expect an untrained terrified civilian to act) seems strange. Maybe he was old, and it's been a while. But why keep such a powerful weapon if you are not sure you can handle such a situation calmly?

Hmm you make a good point, it would have been perfectly acceptable to carry a stun taser around to knock out or just stun the assailants. Its also quite a powerful pistol, surely a smaller caliber and less destructive ammunition should have been used.

 

[Slycne]

He fired eight times though, I agree he had the right to use the weapon in self defence, but eight?
It's a 45 semi auto, how many seconds does it take to fire that many?
How long does it normally take muggers to run?

I couldn't find the actual facts, but it's at least less than 3 seconds. One of the FBI handgun training tests has a segment requiring "The shooter will fire 4 strings of 2 rounds in 3 seconds, decocking and returning to low ready after each string."

We are not given a lot of the specifics, but I can completely see someone in the heat of the moment firing off 8 rounds in rapid succession to fend off an attacker.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Killing someone for mugging is an overreaction, and that people defend it as being perfectly valid is a sick reflection of society.

How the hell are you supposed to know that it's ONLY a mugging? Would a mugger seem like a trustworthy person to you? How do you trust a person not to kill or seriously hurt you when that same person is basically threatening your life in order to get his hands on your money?

Also, if you read the article, those punks assaulted the guy FIRST. They just started hitting him for no reason at all. And you find it surprising that he does what he has to do to protect his life from aggressors of superior numbers?

What planet do you live on?

Why bother building a society free of muggers when it's easier to just shoot the lot of them?

We're never going to have a society free of muggers, that's a utopian fantasy. So rather than pursuing utopian fantasies we can show the muggers that we won't stand for their shit if they try to pull it and they will run the risk of getting gunned down if they try.

 

[PoliceBox63]

Shooting 8 times (hit 4 times) is unnecessary but a panicked person would do this.
The survival instinct and fear of being harmed would have caused Baker to panic and make sure his attacker was in no way able to continue attacking.

I notice how they have a lovely smiling picture of the teen and a deranged looking police shot of Baker!

While it is a terrible tragedy, being attacked and punched in the face at night is a terrifying and shocking experience for someone. How Baker could have shot at the teen 8 times is understandable yet unfortunate.