or he could have pointed his gun at him, didnt need to shoot, didnt need to have a gun in the first place, the american mentality about guns is crazy, omg someone got shot... lets decrease gun restrictions to battle it, crazy
Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man
- Thread starter RamirezDoEverything
- Start date
I wish people would read at least some of the thread before posting. Some of the previous posters are making arguments that have already been discussed several times, such as "It would have been fine without the gun", "8 times was too many", and "he should have shot the kid in the leg". They're all based on misunderstandings about gun handling and use.
honestly...no.EightGaugeHippo said:
i did a heap of yardwork for neighbor one time, and i mean i did 2 weeks worth of work in 19 hours (two days, from sunrise to night) and when i walked up to get paid (i had no idea how much i was getting paid) he opens up his wallet and he was walking around with at least 2 grand in 100/50 dollar bills in his pocket, in which he gave me 250 bucks so i was happy with it
point is, i've seen worse and that was just my random neighbor.
Anyone who says that Baker could have just waved his gun around are just naive stupid idiots who is banishing something they don't know nor understand. The real world and human reflexes do not work like your little fantasies of la-la land.
Fight-or-flight is a conditioned response to every sentient living thing in the world (with some exceptions of course, just putting this up since I don't have time to be politically correct). Baker was hit and knocked to the ground, activating his fight-or-flight, since he can't effectively run he can only fight like a rat trapped in a corner. This fight response lead to 8 rounds fired with 4 hits on the mark. The event from punched to the last bullet fired probably didn't even last 15 seconds.
To those who keeps saying the 'oh Baker was irresponsible for killing him. Why didn't he just pistol-whip the kid or just shoot him in the leg?' try this experiment: get one of the beer goggles used to simulate drunken vision and smear olive oil (the transparent kind) on it, then hit your head on a wooden wall (or any wall if you are stupid enough) as hard as you can. Now wear the oil streaked goggles immediately and have someone either try to punch you or something.
Or pick the less-painful option and have a over-energetic friend read a paragraph to you very quickly, fast enough that you to barely comprehend what s/he is saying while s/he punches you in the face.
In case you haven't figured it out yet it is supremely difficult to do any of them effectively. The same as Baker: he has little to no information of his attackers apart from the fact that they punched him and that he is on the ground. He has no idea if they will let him live or kill him so rather than take the chances that he will die he shoots in retaliation and fear. If he HAD enough info he wouldn't have shot but that was not the case.
He had the right to defend himself as he reasonably believed and at that point he believed that shooting the fuck out of his assailants (who he can't see) would protect him.
Can a mod just lock this thread please? This isn't going to end anytime soon, and people have unrealistic expectations on other people that I find irrational. Not that I don't respect their opinions, its just that this has gone far enough.
Fight-or-flight is a conditioned response to every sentient living thing in the world (with some exceptions of course, just putting this up since I don't have time to be politically correct). Baker was hit and knocked to the ground, activating his fight-or-flight, since he can't effectively run he can only fight like a rat trapped in a corner. This fight response lead to 8 rounds fired with 4 hits on the mark. The event from punched to the last bullet fired probably didn't even last 15 seconds.
To those who keeps saying the 'oh Baker was irresponsible for killing him. Why didn't he just pistol-whip the kid or just shoot him in the leg?' try this experiment: get one of the beer goggles used to simulate drunken vision and smear olive oil (the transparent kind) on it, then hit your head on a wooden wall (or any wall if you are stupid enough) as hard as you can. Now wear the oil streaked goggles immediately and have someone either try to punch you or something.
Or pick the less-painful option and have a over-energetic friend read a paragraph to you very quickly, fast enough that you to barely comprehend what s/he is saying while s/he punches you in the face.
In case you haven't figured it out yet it is supremely difficult to do any of them effectively. The same as Baker: he has little to no information of his attackers apart from the fact that they punched him and that he is on the ground. He has no idea if they will let him live or kill him so rather than take the chances that he will die he shoots in retaliation and fear. If he HAD enough info he wouldn't have shot but that was not the case.
He had the right to defend himself as he reasonably believed and at that point he believed that shooting the fuck out of his assailants (who he can't see) would protect him.
Can a mod just lock this thread please? This isn't going to end anytime soon, and people have unrealistic expectations on other people that I find irrational. Not that I don't respect their opinions, its just that this has gone far enough.
It depends on intelligence of the muggers. But then again if your life choice is assaulting and robbing others for their money then i don't feel intelligence plays that big of roll. I don't feel the "Just Kids" excuse applies, it's not like they are egging houses or rolling trees, they are causing physical harm and threatening another person at night 2 v 1. That isn't a "Just Kids" activity, that is scaring the hell out of someone to where they fear for their own life. You have crossed the "Just Kids" line and started sprinting.queenorivers said:
Threaten with the gun? Not an option.
A non-lethal shot? Not an option.
Seriously, go read some of the previous posts in this thread, because explaining all these things over and over again is tiring.
A non-lethal shot? Not an option.
Seriously, go read some of the previous posts in this thread, because explaining all these things over and over again is tiring.
It was ment to be sarcasm, but I guess that did'nt come of clearly enough in my post. My bad.gmaverick019 said:
oh i'm sorry then, sarcasm on the internet can be so hard to "read" sometimes =\EightGaugeHippo said:
Seeing as how I have an ex con in the family I can't say he really deserved to die, people can change after all. But Baker did have every right to defend himself deadly force or not.
I see people talking a lot about how many shots he fired, he fired eight shots and only hit four, I would say those were panic shots. I don't think the overall number of bullets fired should really be an issue considering the rpm of most modern firearms, combined with the adrenaline rush and natural human reflexes.
I see people talking a lot about how many shots he fired, he fired eight shots and only hit four, I would say those were panic shots. I don't think the overall number of bullets fired should really be an issue considering the rpm of most modern firearms, combined with the adrenaline rush and natural human reflexes.
Yeah, he was in the right. He was being mugged and feared for his life. 8 shots seems excessive to an observer but not to who's being mugged. Think about it: you get mugged, you're gonna be running on pure adrenaline. It's fight or flight, he chose fight, and he reacted as any other person would.
Granted, if he does join the military, he's gonna have to learn how to stop himself from doing that; wasted ammo and letting emotion take control when you should be thinking rationally instead.
Granted, if he does join the military, he's gonna have to learn how to stop himself from doing that; wasted ammo and letting emotion take control when you should be thinking rationally instead.
I've said it before. I'll say it again. Everyone of those 244+ people (So I can cover anyone other "Morally superior" people who vote no after this post.) is lying. I can understand how you want to seem all noble and pure. But when it comes down to it. EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN HERE WOULD DO THE EXACT SAME THING BAKER DID.
If you say no you wouldn't. Then sadly you might aswell remove yourself from the gene pool, or pray that you don't find yourself in a similar situation since you would allow the mugger to do it for you.
Now please. Can a Mod Lock this. Unless we are trying for the most replyed topic on the Escapist Forum? If thats the case then lets keep this going.
If you say no you wouldn't. Then sadly you might aswell remove yourself from the gene pool, or pray that you don't find yourself in a similar situation since you would allow the mugger to do it for you.
Now please. Can a Mod Lock this. Unless we are trying for the most replyed topic on the Escapist Forum? If thats the case then lets keep this going.
Yes, that's certainly true. I don't really see many factors that can properly mitigate shooting someone to death with a handgun because they assaulted you unarmed. Again, I don't blame the guy for doing it - likely due to fear - but I'm not about to trump it up as if he did the right thing, either.Mazty said:
I did not ignore anything. I acknowledged that yes, it's true that I overlook intention here. And I went on to say that I can't really see factors that make it morally acceptable. As to your next point (fight or flight), yes, of course. I've addressed this. That's why I've repeatedly said I do not blame the man. I just think that the right thing to do would've been to get out of the situation without loss of life. I'm confused as to why that's controversial. Maybe I've been unclear in my communication, and if so, I apologize.Mazty said:
I'll note, though, that demonizing the mugger, in my view of the world, isn't constructive to seeing the situation properly. I don't know him, I haven't walked in his shoes. Who knows what's led him to do the things he did? Either way, I mourn the man's death.
That's the price you play for trying to do something wrong sometimes. If the man felt his life was in jeopardy, than I don't blame him one bit for doing what he did. Too bad the teen, who could have turned his life around, was killed, but he's responsible for his death.
And see, I agree with all you're saying. Speculating on whether or not he was a good or bad man isn't particularly useful, since like you say, we don't know. I mourn the loss of life on principle. I need to get some sleep, so let's just say one of my personal heroes is Ghandi and leave it at that, shall we? You've been most courteous, and I appreciate being challenged a little.Mazty said:
well then by that logic i may as well shoot to kill with exploding round's because im shooting to kill.Daddy Go Bot said:
the fact is that hollow point's cause more damage to the person they hit, and you talk about collateral damage. The guy fired 8 bullets only 4 hit the target what if one of those other bullets hit an innocent, they'd be fucked where as they may have a chance if it's only a normal bullet.
There is no need for overkill a normal bullet would have been enough especially for self defence, if your so worried about collateral damage don't use a gun with such a large calibre, or firing power.