Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Housebroken Lunatic]

That said, it's a damn shame people don't carry tasers instead. You can't recall a bullet, but a taser is perfectly proportional force in that vast in-between stage when violent or criminal intent is merely intimated, and you can't be sure that your life is in danger. You can't very well kill people just for moving towards you and appearing threatening, and lots of criminals are high enough to wager that you won't fire.

A taser isn't a reliable weapon since some people barely feel the effects of it (especially during situations where the target is under the influence of narcotics).

If you get a weapon to use in situations of self-defense where your very life is threatened, why would you go for a weapon that is only LIKELY to work? Because that's what tasers are. LIKELY to have the intended effect. They don't GUARARNTEE it.

Shooting someone with a gun in the centre of mass however will drop the target.

 

[sockdrama]

Let me just try to examine the mugee's thought process.
Guy punch me in face
I have a gun
I am scared
what if they have a knife?
What if they have a gun too?
shoot
shoot
keep shooting
all of this in what? a few seconds? This was primal instinct, he valued the possibility that he would get killed or severely injured over his attacker's well-being. Sometimes, you just got to look out for yours truly.

 

[wandererbkb]

The mugger is the one responsible for his death. He chose to attack a total stranger without warning, for no reason other than his own greed. Something I would bet he has done many times before and always gotten away with it. Because most of the time people who are suddenly punched in the face are unable to put up much resistance, which is why that's his opening move when he robs someone.

When you fear for your life, that is think you may be about to die, you don't take chances. You don't fire a warning shot, or shoot them in the leg, you unload on them to make sure they cannot harm you anymore. As heartless as this may sound this is what the police do and this is what you should do if you want to live.

Because when someone runs up to you and assaults you you don't take chances with your life, you ensure your survival and if the other guy doesn't survive then thats too bad for them. They are the person responsible, they created the situation, they suffer the consequenses. Hopefully there will be some other young muggers out there who decide maybe beating people up isn't such a great thing to do anymore and they stop.

 

[McNinja]

The kid deserved to be shot, not killed. Baker is in the right, but just barely. You don't pull the trigger eight times because you got mugged by a couple teenagers, you shoot them once and call the police.

 

[DuctTapeJedi]

I don't think lethal force is ever justified. He could have shot him in the leg, or arm, or something.

 

[butteforce]

he had the right of self defense but to shoot a kid dead 8 times?!? he should of shot a warning shot or shoot the leg

Yes! Let's discharge a firearm at no target thus injuring an innocent random civilian and/or causing property damage. Let's also go to jail afterwards because there was clearly no reason to discharge a firearm if you could fire a warning shot. Also, hitting a leg isn't easy, nor is it anything that people train for. Military and police don't train to shoot people in the legs. Do you think that a regular civilian should?

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Hmmmm... Eight times? Seems a bit much. Granted, he panicked, but if you're going to panic in those situations you shouldn't have a damned license. I think he should get some form of punishment, although not a large one.

Here's the thing though. Do you want to just fire one shot and learn you missed when he stabs you, or would you rather keep shooting in order to increase the odds that the threat is neutralized?

Yeah but eight shots? That seems a bit over the line to me.

And how many shots would have been enough? 4 out of 8 missed.

Two? If you're going to and miss wildly you should have a license. If America must let it's citizens have guns, at least make sure they're competent.

Oh, so they train you to shoot in the dark after being hit in the head and take down a target with two shots?

Yes but I would have thought that a competent gun user would manage better than 50% accuracy in that situation.

Oh, so you expect him to take down the person in a single shot? I think your expectations of what people need to be able to do with a gun to even carry one are a bit high.

No, I don't. That's not what I said. I said he should be able to manage better than 50% accuracy. Now, I'm not going to turn into Barney The Dinosaur here but I'm guessing you know that 4 is 50% of 8. Hence, I think he could have done better than that anyway.

And besides, any sensible person would just give them the damned money and not walk around with that much anyway. Over here that's what the police tell you to do.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Rule number one:
You are not supposed to rob people.

Tree number one:
The Larch

The Larch...

THE... LARCH.

 

[Littlee300]

If the mugger didn't punch him yet: no
How it is: Yes
The baker must of been in shock and his fist instinct is to protect himself.

 

[Slycne]

You were beaten to it pal, A short enough time for panicked firing, seems legit to me.

No problem, I just wanted to demonstrate to a few of the "omg eight rounds is excessive" that we are talking about the potential amount of time of only a few seconds.

Ultimately I think the fixation on the number of rounds fired is superfluous to the situation. If he had fired only a single round and killed him, that would somehow be a better? Or say if he had a knife instead and stabbed him once and he bled out? Or if he simply hit him back and managed to break his neck? The outcome is exactly the same.

The discussion really should focus on whether you think there is just cause in using deadly force to defend yourself against a perceived threat of death.

 

[Azulito]

All you people saying he deserved it?

Yeah, I'm embarrassed for you. Of course he didn't deserve it for fuck's sake! Death for a mugging, hardly a fair trade.

Note that I'm not defending the mugging, or attacking the shooter, but saying he deserved it is utterly ludicrous.

Get a fucking sense of proportionality.

I am with this 100%. It is disgusting how many of you are saying the mugger deserved it. Especially when you don't know the motives and the things he had to endure. Hell, how do you know that he didn't spend most of his time working for charities and the whole incident was him trying to impress the 16 year old kid who was with him?

What if a stay bullet hit some guy on his way to work, everyones first instict would be "HE DIDNT DESERVE THAT!!!!", then you find he was infact a serial rapist?

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't judge until you know all the facts. It says in the article his intentions are worst were to knock baker out. Frankly, I feel sorry for the kid who was shot.

Saying that though, I think baker fully justified to do what he did. He was in danger and most likely shot the 8 round out of pure panic, given in a state of panic you're not likely to think logically and are likely to act on instinct.

 

[probunk]

Deserved it fully. Initiate force, and expect it returned.

 

[Numachuka]

The kid deserved to be shot, not killed. Baker is in the right, but just barely. You don't pull the trigger eight times because you got mugged by a couple teenagers, you shoot them once and call the police.

Like EVERYONE else in the thread has said, if you fear for your life your not going to just shoot one bullet and think "Well that must have hit him, I'll have plenty of time to check", you keep shooting until you are sure you're safe.

Why does the number of bullets even matter? He could have got killed from one bullet, or 3 bullets. The end result is exactly the same.

 

[Sexy Street]

He was being mugged and didn't know whether or not the people mugging him were armed, so he shot the mugger in self defence. So he doesn't deserve to be prosecuted.

 

[GreyKnight3445]

...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.

I think he was panicking a little and that was the result of the 4 shots.

 

[Littlee300]

I don't think lethal force is ever justified. He could have shot him in the leg, or arm, or something.

You need to understand that this is a civilian not a trained police man or military unit.

 

[twistedmic]

I think Baker was in the right to shoot. He had a legitimate fear for his personal safety. Even if the attackers didn't have weapons (gun, knife, pipe etc.) they could still have beaten him to death.
As for him firing eight shots, it's possible (I'm pretty sure) to fire that many shots, using a semi-automatic, in less than five seconds, so it's not like he had to take his time or reload (like with a revolver).