Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[UnwishedGunz]

if the banker was in danger and feared for his life then that is a legitimate reason to shot

 

[Toasted Nuts]

Asking whether or not this 18 year old kid deserved to die is something we cannot know just by reading this article. He was only 18 and yes he shouldn't have his life ended at such a young age.

HOWEVER... no matter what your upbringing you have to accept no matter how hard you think you are or how desperate you are if you try and mug someone there is a chance that you yourself will get hurt.

He will have known this and chose to try and mug Baker. He knew the risks and he paid for it. As such I feel absolutely no sympathy and he got exactly what he deserved.

Harsh?? Possibly, but if I was being mugged and some guy punch me in the face SHOWING that he was willing to resort to violence, how far would he have gone?? You can't know and so you have to react in self defence.

This Baker was punched so he was disorientated and knew he was in trouble as such he drew his gun and started shooting. You don't shoot once and go there that will do it, if you are paniced. Hence the family going "oh but he shot 8 times" holds no weight, he tried to mug someone and it went wrong, the details are no more than an irrelevance at this stage.

 

[Vohn_exel]

I don't believe the kid should've been shot eight times, but then he shouldn't have expected any less from going around punching someone and trying to rob them. I'm sad that someone lost their family member, but if my brother went out and punched someone and got killed, I'd probably be equally pissed at my brother as I was at the gunman.

I've never been in a fight before but I'm 26 and I don't think two more years would make a sixteen year old that threatening. It would've been nice if the guy was able to just wound the young kid instead of blasting him, but if the kid hadn't of assaulted the guy he wouldn't have had to worry about it in the first place.

 

[James Raynor]

He was right to defend himself, though shooting 4 times was excessive. I don't think he should be tried for defending himself.

 

[mexicola]

While he seems to have right in that state to use the gun to protect himself, firing 8 fucking shots at a person you didn't even see have a weapon is too excessive. He basically made sure he was dead before he stopped shooting.

 

[OmegaAlucard777]

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.

Okay then sir. Let us run down the points of what happened:

You are out after midnight, you are armed for defensive purposes because there are ruthless people out there. You look up and see two figures coming in your direction. No need to overreact, they could be out for a stroll. Suddenly you hear the following: "I am going to knock that guy up there out cold and rob him." You take a quick glance around to see if they mean someone else, when you look back towards the two figures then are right infront of you and the bigger of the two punches you in the face You are on the ground, eyes blurry and you got the cobwebs. You look up and see what looks like a gun on the figure who just punched you. Now you are going to sit there and claim that you are just going to pull your gun out and point it at them? Congratulations. You have just been disarmed and you will have a nice article in the obituaries the following day.

Everyone who claims "No no. You don't shoot. That is bad." You need to do two things.

First: Remember that Baker was ASSULTED FIRST. He didn't have time to pull out his gun and just aim it at Carlos. He was surging on adreneline. If he did just point, aim and didn't shoot. The title of the article/poll would be "Man Shot Dead Because He Failed To Protect Himself" instead.

Second: Get off the moral high road and stop trying to make yourself seem so damn noble. The people that are acting "noble" on this poll and voted "no" obviously do not like their life and would prefer to be killed instead. Are you all going to sit there with a straight face and say that when presented with a situation of Your life versus someone elses life. That you are going to choose the other person? No. You won't. Not in that split fraction of time. You will fight to survive.

It is easy to analyze this to death AFTER it happened. But in that fraction of time, with what you believe could be your very last moments on earth I bet you dollars to doughnuts that you will shoot just like him. Otherwise, I pray you don't find yourself in that situation because you are just going to sit there and get killed right?

 

[Spookimitsu]

I support the shooter. However it is a shame that the kid had to perish, as opposed to living through what would have probably changed his life around.

If he lived maybe he could've helped other youths before they do stupid stuff like this. That is the extent of my remorse. However I hope that his soul and his family can find peace.


But that article and the website is bs and biased. Why do they have the Mugger's photo there labeled "victim", and why the hell is there a picture of Jared Loughner labeled "accused". That case had nothing to do with Loughner.

 

[Scars Unseen]

After 40 pages (most of them being nearly identical in content), I just thought I'd say this to the outraged minority: I respect personal morals. I enjoy gaining the perspective of people that might hold a different world view than I. I also feel no need to persuade anyone that my own view is the correct one. But let's step things up a little.

Coming from a culture where gun ownership is not a right, some of your comments are being muddied by misconceptions spawned by popular media as well as simple ignorance of how guns are used. It's not your fault. I'm from the US, was taught how to hunt with a rifle as a child, and have served in the military, yet even I have learned some things about gun ownership and usage in this thread.

So please, in order to push this conversation beyond arguments over verifiable facts and into an honest philosophical debate, take the time to read at least the past couple of pages. Pay special attention to the "Pro-gun" side's explanation of guns, ammo and training. The knowledge you will gain will help us avoid this continual cycle of technical corrections.

After that, let's try to get into a mode of explaining our views and their source rather than simply attacking the "other side's" view. A meeting of unlike values does not have to be an unending argument.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Also, let's stop with the double posting. It's pissing me off.




And I mean that in the most non-hostile manner possible.

 

[macfluffers]

After 40 pages (most of them being nearly identical in content)

Yeah, I get the feeling that whenever I post, I'm making the same arguments over and over again. I should just copy and paste them.

 

[OmegaAlucard777]

After 40 pages (most of them being nearly identical in content)

Yeah, I get the feeling that whenever I post, I'm making the same arguments over and over again. I should just copy and paste them.

It reminds me of that Lamb Chop song. "This is the song that doesn't end..." Because I don't see this debate dying down unless a Mod says Enough and Locks it. Hehehe.

 

[Spookimitsu]

Asking whether or not this 18 year old kid deserved to die is something we cannot know just by reading this article. He was only 18 and yes he shouldn't have his life ended at such a young age.

OP wasnt asking if the teen deserved to die, he was asking if Baker was right. The court would view these as two very different circumstances.

Alot of people are confusing these two points. No the teen didnt deserve to die. But Yes, Baker was right to defend himself. And if you dont think that he was, imagine yourself of a family member in that joggers place when late night assailant try to mug them. Many victims of muggings have not been as lucky to live through the incident. This is a rare occasion that one of the perps got that hard justice.

However, I dont think that arming everyone with a handgun is the way to end crime. I'd prefer swords.

Maybe there needs to be better non-lethal firearms? I personally like the shotgun that shoots riot control beanball slugs (only if my swords are out of the question)

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Yes, I believe he was within his rights.

But, carrying a gun and $500 cash? Does that sound suspicious to anyone else?

 

[Vash108]

I don't think charges should be brought against him. It was self defense, and he was scared as hell after being hit in the head and knocked down. Fight or Flight kicks in and he has no idea what would happen if he didn't fight back. He was already assaulted and if they were armed and he tried to put up a fight he could have been hurt worse or even permanently damaged, he was the one being assaulted and robbed.

Yes, I believe he was within his rights.

But, carrying a gun and $500 cash? Does that sound suspicious to anyone else?

Nope, maybe he just cashed his check? Shouldn't matter with any amount of money you have on you, its your money.

 

[queenorivers]

[deleted]

 

[Vash108]

He was in shock, yes but perhaps the situation would have been dealt with better if he
a) made it clear he had a gun.
b) shot the kid in the leg instead.

It's a shame a life was wasted in this situaion.

I think you make it clear you have a gun, the robbers who already have the man down and dazed after hitting him will probably just do more damage to him.

 

[queenorivers]

[deleted]

 

[JohnnyChimpo]

The only reason his life was in danger was because he had a gun, the attacker could have taken his gun and shooted him in retaliation. Yes, there was no way Baker could have known what was gonna happen, and at that point fearing for his life is normal and shooting the guy 4 times doesn't make a diference. But in the end, if peopple were not allowed to carry guns this death could have been prevented, and many many others every year. Just becausse he made the same choice that everybody would have made, including me, that's not a reason to let people be on either side of a gun barrel

 

[mythicdawn12]

My general belief is if you attack someone innocent your life is forfeit. You can either live or die, but that moment of attempting to do something like that to someone else is utter chaos. How does the defendant know that the kid isn't going to stab him when he gets close? Especially since he already attacked.
The kid made a bad choice and suffered the consequences. I honestly would prefer that he survived because I agree, death for mugging is excessive. But at the time you must understand that it might not have been just a mugging if it continued. At all times it might not be "just a mugging." Around the world "just muggings" turn into rapes and murder. The more we do to prevent that, the better. Police don't protect people, they come after to write up the report. They in fact, have no duty to protect people in America.
And just in case this makes the second amendment look bad (I don't see how it could, the man rightfully defended himself) making laws to take away guns only take away guns from law abiding, honest citizens. The good guys. When Chicago enacted its handgun ban law, violent crime went up.
Finally, how do you react when a huge spider is on your chest in the morning? I freak out and slap the hell out of it and jump up, tear off my shirt and run the hell away. How do you think you would react if you thought you were going to die from some punk mugger? I'd shoot the hell out of him until he was on the ground.

 

[Hazard12]

Now, aware as I am I'm going to incur some backlash for this, I don't think he was right. Now, I believe people have the right to defend themselves. Lord knows I'd have hated anyone who tried to rob someone and got away with it. But there are many things about this article that make me think that shooting someone 8 times with a .45 gun filled with fucking hollow point bullets is not the sole recourse.