Poll: Teen Shot dead after attempting to mug man

[Ledan]

Baker is in the right. His shooting of 8 shots was also justified, because he does not get into such a situation everyday he is bound to be terrified.
The kid was in the wrong, for god's sake he tried to mug someone!

 

[Fawcks]

Without warning? He was randomly assaulted by 2 thugs for no apparent reason. In such a situation you better assume the absolute worst.

They were at striking range, so giving out warnings is simply not an option. You don't wanna present them a change at disarming you, would you?

Lack of empathy? I have 0 tolerance when it comes to violent thugs attacking innocent civilians.

They engaged it and he ended it.

Hence why I stated he shouldn't be charged.

After a single punch to the face, though? Punches to the face aren't fun, but seriously, not even a warning shot? Eight bullets? He obviously panicked, and I can't hold that against him, but it's just not what I would want to do (Hence why I said in my first post "I'd like to think", because I can't say for sure what I would do in his shoes). Maybe I'd be hit more. Maybe I'd be shot. I don't know. But I don't think I could bring myself to shoot to kill someone.

Warning shots still have to go somewhere. Would you prefer that they hit an innocent bystander a mile off?

This might actually mean something, but yeah, the guy shot EIGHT TIMES and only FOUR HIT.

So, warning shots can go and hit civilians, but firing eight times at an unarmed individual is A-OK, no way will any of those bullets stray.

Troll SMARTER, not HARDER.

 

[Danpascooch]

Why do you need to physically knock an unarmed assailant on his ass? In what situation would having a gun fired at you and a bullet enter your body NOT cause you to stop attacking if you are completely unarmed? Even if he was armed, he's not going to draw a weapon AFTER being shot (he had no weapon drawn when the shots were fired), that's just insane.

Shot AT him 8 times. Only 4 connected.... You might wanna read the article again.

It was dark, his vision was blurry and he was on the ground. In such a situation it's about emptying your gun until the attacker goes down.

Why does it have to be? I would think it would be more about establishing the fact that you have a gun, one shot is enough for that, nobody who doesn't ALREADY have a weapon in hand is going to continue after a shot is fired.

Quite frankly that's false. For all you know it might panic him into pulling a knife or a gun. Someone shoots, you going to automatically feel like you can escape from them? Then add the possibility the attacker's on drugs.

Honestly, you'd think the police never had any trouble catching someone since all they needed to do was fire once if the suspect didn't already have something in their hand.

Yeah, it could very well panic them into pulling a knife, but the thing about that is, THEY HAVE TO PULL THE KNIFE. Whereas you already have a gun that is loaded, safety off, drawn, pointed at them, and ready to fire since you have already taken a shot, if they reach for something THEN fire the other seven times.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

As I said, when you're randomly assaulted by multiple thugs in the middle of the night you need to assume the absolute worst.

Single punch to the face? It busted up his lip and his vision became blurry. He assumed they were armed (Which is a safe assumption to make) and when you're in such a situation your body goes into survival mode. It's all about instincts and your instinct tell you cease the threat as quickly as possible.

By the way, warning shots are pure hollywood and not a viable option when you're in striking distance.

I can't do that. If you want to assume the absolute worst, go ahead. But I personally would not, and I would try my best to make sure everyone left alive. TO be honest, this is why I'll never carry a gun or a knife. Also why I'll never go JOGGING at NIGHT.

Might as well walk into a lions den after marinating yourself in barbecue sauce. But I digress.

I instantly throw away that "Vision blurry" bit because we can't know for sure, and he obviously panicked. His testimony on that is not credible as such.

If warning shots are out of the question, how about shooting once? Is that too much?

Shooting once? He could barely see and you want to make sure the attacker is no longer a threat. One shot is simply not enough, and when it comes to handguns it's all about emptying the magazine until the hostile(s) is no more.

Not that I'd expect a furry to understand such things, but when you're randomly assaulted by thugs who don't even make demands for your belongings, they will most likely kill you.

And when you know you're in a situation where you're aware you might get killed, your instincts take over you and you're completely hopped up on adrenaline.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

As I said, when you're randomly assaulted by multiple thugs in the middle of the night you need to assume the absolute worst.

Single punch to the face? It busted up his lip and his vision became blurry. He assumed they were armed (Which is a safe assumption to make) and when you're in such a situation your body goes into survival mode. It's all about instincts and your instinct tell you cease the threat as quickly as possible.

By the way, warning shots are pure hollywood and not a viable option when you're in striking distance.

I can't do that. If you want to assume the absolute worst, go ahead. But I personally would not, and I would try my best to make sure everyone left alive. TO be honest, this is why I'll never carry a gun or a knife. Also why I'll never go JOGGING at NIGHT.

Might as well walk into a lions den after marinating yourself in barbecue sauce. But I digress.

I instantly throw away that "Vision blurry" bit because we can't know for sure, and he obviously panicked. His testimony on that is not credible as such.

If warning shots are out of the question, how about shooting once? Is that too much?

Unless he was really lucky, shooting once won't stop him from attacking again. And its not hard at all to fire more than one shot.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Why do you need to physically knock an unarmed assailant on his ass? In what situation would having a gun fired at you and a bullet enter your body NOT cause you to stop attacking if you are completely unarmed? Even if he was armed, he's not going to draw a weapon AFTER being shot (he had no weapon drawn when the shots were fired), that's just insane.

Shot AT him 8 times. Only 4 connected.... You might wanna read the article again.

It was dark, his vision was blurry and he was on the ground. In such a situation it's about emptying your gun until the attacker goes down.

Why does it have to be? I would think it would be more about establishing the fact that you have a gun, one shot is enough for that, nobody who doesn't ALREADY have a weapon in hand is going to continue after a shot is fired.

Quite frankly that's false. For all you know it might panic him into pulling a knife or a gun. Someone shoots, you going to automatically feel like you can escape from them? Then add the possibility the attacker's on drugs.

Honestly, you'd think the police never had any trouble catching someone since all they needed to do was fire once if the suspect didn't already have something in their hand.

Yeah, it could very well panic them into pulling a knife, but the thing about that is, THEY HAVE TO PULL THE KNIFE. Whereas you already have a gun that is loaded, safety off, drawn, pointed at them, and ready to fire since you have already taken a shot, if they reach for something THEN fire the other seven times.

He couldn't see if the assailants were armed or reaching for a weapon (Remember, there were two of them and there wasn't a lot of light at the time of the indecent. From his position, he can't watch both to see if they draw a weapon or if they even have one drawn) , he was on the ground (Meaning he wasn't exactly in a position to keep them at a distance and his gun wasn't even drawn at the time.) and he was disoriented (Sucker punches usually do that to you.). Not to mention that he is an average Joe, not a member of your local police force or even the neighborhood watch. He didn't have training in firing a hand held weapon and I believe someone said earlier that it is very easy to fire 8 shots in a small amount of time. Given the circumstances, I'm not surprised he lost control of the weapon and I don't blame him for it.

 

[Fawcks]

As I said, when you're randomly assaulted by multiple thugs in the middle of the night you need to assume the absolute worst.

Single punch to the face? It busted up his lip and his vision became blurry. He assumed they were armed (Which is a safe assumption to make) and when you're in such a situation your body goes into survival mode. It's all about instincts and your instinct tell you cease the threat as quickly as possible.

By the way, warning shots are pure hollywood and not a viable option when you're in striking distance.

I can't do that. If you want to assume the absolute worst, go ahead. But I personally would not, and I would try my best to make sure everyone left alive. TO be honest, this is why I'll never carry a gun or a knife. Also why I'll never go JOGGING at NIGHT.

Might as well walk into a lions den after marinating yourself in barbecue sauce. But I digress.

I instantly throw away that "Vision blurry" bit because we can't know for sure, and he obviously panicked. His testimony on that is not credible as such.

If warning shots are out of the question, how about shooting once? Is that too much?

He missed 50% of the time. Shooting once in conditions where he can only manage 50% accuracy at point blank range with a laser sight seems like a rather bad idea.

Bad case scenario: He hits, and they cease their attack due to injuries.

Worst case scenario, he misses, and they continue their attack.

Most likely scenario: The shot hits or does not hit, and they cease attacking because either they're unarmed, or they were merely surprised at the sound of a gunshot, not knowing immediately if they've been hit, OR they fall over in a heap and die. The second or two of initial confusion might be enough time to get further away, aim better for a shot, etc.

I love how you say, "He missed 50% of the time" as if that was a statistic he was contemplating in his head at the time. He PANICKED, plain and simple. He fired eight shots because he PANICKED.

 

[Daddy Go Bot]

Why do you need to physically knock an unarmed assailant on his ass? In what situation would having a gun fired at you and a bullet enter your body NOT cause you to stop attacking if you are completely unarmed? Even if he was armed, he's not going to draw a weapon AFTER being shot (he had no weapon drawn when the shots were fired), that's just insane.

Shot AT him 8 times. Only 4 connected.... You might wanna read the article again.

It was dark, his vision was blurry and he was on the ground. In such a situation it's about emptying your gun until the attacker goes down.

Why does it have to be? I would think it would be more about establishing the fact that you have a gun, one shot is enough for that, nobody who doesn't ALREADY have a weapon in hand is going to continue after a shot is fired.

Quite frankly that's false. For all you know it might panic him into pulling a knife or a gun. Someone shoots, you going to automatically feel like you can escape from them? Then add the possibility the attacker's on drugs.

Honestly, you'd think the police never had any trouble catching someone since all they needed to do was fire once if the suspect didn't already have something in their hand.

Yeah, it could very well panic them into pulling a knife, but the thing about that is, THEY HAVE TO PULL THE KNIFE. Whereas you already have a gun that is loaded, safety off, drawn, pointed at them, and ready to fire since you have already taken a shot, if they reach for something THEN fire the other seven times.

Given that it is dark and the guy's vision is blurred, what makes you think he'll notice in time?

And why would you even consider giving them the opportunity to do so?

 

[Fawcks]

Shooting once? He could barely see and you want to make sure the attacker is no longer a threat. One shot is simply not enough, and when it comes to handguns it's all about emptying the magazine until the hostile(s) is no more.

Not that I'd expect a furry to understand such things, but when you're randomly assaulted by thugs who don't even make demands for your belongings, they will most likely kill you.

And when you know you're in a situation where you're aware you might get killed, your instincts take over you and you're completely hopped up on adrenaline.

I'd expect someone like you to strive to do no better than to satisfy your innate, instinctual bloodlust, so I suppose I'll leave it at that.

You want to kill anyone who poses a threat, I want to make sure everyone leaves alive. The fact that you said you would even empty your magazine shows that you clearly have no regard for his live, which is something I find to be terrible. But that's my view. You have yours. They're incomparable. So leave it be.

I would much rather die than kill someone if it could at all be prevented.

 

[Fawcks]

As I said, when you're randomly assaulted by multiple thugs in the middle of the night you need to assume the absolute worst.

Single punch to the face? It busted up his lip and his vision became blurry. He assumed they were armed (Which is a safe assumption to make) and when you're in such a situation your body goes into survival mode. It's all about instincts and your instinct tell you cease the threat as quickly as possible.

By the way, warning shots are pure hollywood and not a viable option when you're in striking distance.

I can't do that. If you want to assume the absolute worst, go ahead. But I personally would not, and I would try my best to make sure everyone left alive. TO be honest, this is why I'll never carry a gun or a knife. Also why I'll never go JOGGING at NIGHT.

Might as well walk into a lions den after marinating yourself in barbecue sauce. But I digress.

I instantly throw away that "Vision blurry" bit because we can't know for sure, and he obviously panicked. His testimony on that is not credible as such.

If warning shots are out of the question, how about shooting once? Is that too much?

Unless he was really lucky, shooting once won't stop him from attacking again. And its not hard at all to fire more than one shot.

Really lucky? Looking at the facts, it has a very good chance. At least a 50% chance he hits one, considering his accuracy. Then you add in the fact that they were NOT armed. Then you add in the fact that they're likely scared witless because they were JUST SHOT AT, and in that first second, they likely don't know if they were hit or not.

 

[TNPspectre]

Why do you need to physically knock an unarmed assailant on his ass? In what situation would having a gun fired at you and a bullet enter your body NOT cause you to stop attacking if you are completely unarmed? Even if he was armed, he's not going to draw a weapon AFTER being shot (he had no weapon drawn when the shots were fired), that's just insane.

Shot AT him 8 times. Only 4 connected.... You might wanna read the article again.

It was dark, his vision was blurry and he was on the ground. In such a situation it's about emptying your gun until the attacker goes down.

Why does it have to be? I would think it would be more about establishing the fact that you have a gun, one shot is enough for that, nobody who doesn't ALREADY have a weapon in hand is going to continue after a shot is fired.

Quite frankly that's false. For all you know it might panic him into pulling a knife or a gun. Someone shoots, you going to automatically feel like you can escape from them? Then add the possibility the attacker's on drugs.

Honestly, you'd think the police never had any trouble catching someone since all they needed to do was fire once if the suspect didn't already have something in their hand.

Yeah, it could very well panic them into pulling a knife, but the thing about that is, THEY HAVE TO PULL THE KNIFE. Whereas you already have a gun that is loaded, safety off, drawn, pointed at them, and ready to fire since you have already taken a shot, if they reach for something THEN fire the other seven times.

I'm new so forgive me for not doing the snip thing. But alot of the things you are saying are pretty out there with a compact ccw the barrel length is very very short so you wouldn't be pressing it against any one also with a .45 acp going of close to your face at night you'll be hard pressed to get a good sight picture and finally in all self defense and law enforcement scenarios you are not taught to shoot assess then shoot as others have said because it doesn't take long for someone even untrained to become a serious threat also if the muggers friend had time to run away the other one must have stuck around for some reason.

 

[superdude22]

you attack someone and you deserve what you get. If he tried to mug me and I had a gun I would have shot him too

 

[FiveSpeedf150]

Stupid Hurts. In this case, it really hurt. So long, sucker.

For the people talking about "overkill", there have been many accounts of trained officers as well as civilians only remembering a couple rounds fired when they actually emptied the magazine. It's called adrenaline, and it happens to appear in large quantities when you in a situation like... oh, I dunno... getting mugged?

People should be able to jog at night if they damn well please. If the muggers tend to develop nasty cases of acute lead poisoning when they fuck with people who are just trying to live their life, well boo fucking hoo.

fuck 'em.

 

[Danpascooch]

Why do you need to physically knock an unarmed assailant on his ass? In what situation would having a gun fired at you and a bullet enter your body NOT cause you to stop attacking if you are completely unarmed? Even if he was armed, he's not going to draw a weapon AFTER being shot (he had no weapon drawn when the shots were fired), that's just insane.

Shot AT him 8 times. Only 4 connected.... You might wanna read the article again.

It was dark, his vision was blurry and he was on the ground. In such a situation it's about emptying your gun until the attacker goes down.

Why does it have to be? I would think it would be more about establishing the fact that you have a gun, one shot is enough for that, nobody who doesn't ALREADY have a weapon in hand is going to continue after a shot is fired.

Quite frankly that's false. For all you know it might panic him into pulling a knife or a gun. Someone shoots, you going to automatically feel like you can escape from them? Then add the possibility the attacker's on drugs.

Honestly, you'd think the police never had any trouble catching someone since all they needed to do was fire once if the suspect didn't already have something in their hand.

Yeah, it could very well panic them into pulling a knife, but the thing about that is, THEY HAVE TO PULL THE KNIFE. Whereas you already have a gun that is loaded, safety off, drawn, pointed at them, and ready to fire since you have already taken a shot, if they reach for something THEN fire the other seven times.

I'm new so forgive me for not doing the snip thing. But alot of the things you are saying are pretty out there with a compact ccw the barrel length is very very short so you wouldn't be pressing it against any one also with a .45 acp going of close to your face at night you'll be hard pressed to get a good sight picture and finally in all self defense and law enforcement scenarios you are not taught to shoot assess then shoot as others have said because it doesn't take long for someone even untrained to become a serious threat also if the muggers friend had time to run away the other one must have stuck around for some reason.

First off, when I said "press the barrel" I didn't mean literally, I meant at that range how could anyone need a sight? Think about how close the two of them must have been.

Second, it doesn't take long for him to become a threat, but I bet he can't do it in the time it takes to pull the trigger a second time (like, 0.2 seconds I'm guessing?) he was unarmed, so why fire the second shot before even seeing what he does? It's obvious he's not some master of hand to hand combat who is going to instantly kill you, if that was the case he wouldn't have been able to draw the gun.

 

[Danpascooch]

Why do you need to physically knock an unarmed assailant on his ass? In what situation would having a gun fired at you and a bullet enter your body NOT cause you to stop attacking if you are completely unarmed? Even if he was armed, he's not going to draw a weapon AFTER being shot (he had no weapon drawn when the shots were fired), that's just insane.

Shot AT him 8 times. Only 4 connected.... You might wanna read the article again.

It was dark, his vision was blurry and he was on the ground. In such a situation it's about emptying your gun until the attacker goes down.

Why does it have to be? I would think it would be more about establishing the fact that you have a gun, one shot is enough for that, nobody who doesn't ALREADY have a weapon in hand is going to continue after a shot is fired.

Quite frankly that's false. For all you know it might panic him into pulling a knife or a gun. Someone shoots, you going to automatically feel like you can escape from them? Then add the possibility the attacker's on drugs.

Honestly, you'd think the police never had any trouble catching someone since all they needed to do was fire once if the suspect didn't already have something in their hand.

Yeah, it could very well panic them into pulling a knife, but the thing about that is, THEY HAVE TO PULL THE KNIFE. Whereas you already have a gun that is loaded, safety off, drawn, pointed at them, and ready to fire since you have already taken a shot, if they reach for something THEN fire the other seven times.

He couldn't see if the assailants were armed or reaching for a weapon (Remember, there were two of them and there wasn't a lot of light at the time of the indecent. From his position, he can't watch both to see if they draw a weapon or if they even have one drawn) , he was on the ground (Meaning he wasn't exactly in a position to keep them at a distance and his gun wasn't even drawn at the time.) and he was disoriented (Sucker punches usually do that to you.). Not to mention that he is an average Joe, not a member of your local police force or even the neighborhood watch. He didn't have training in firing a hand held weapon and I believe someone said earlier that it is very easy to fire 8 shots in a small amount of time. Given the circumstances, I'm not surprised he lost control of the weapon and I don't blame him for it.

That's kind of my point, he didn't have training firing a hand weapon.

This is a deadly weapon, he shouldn't carry it around without proper training, and if he does carry it around without proper training, he should be responsible for his actions, that's like hitting someone with a bus and then saying "but I didn't know how to drive"

 

[Evil Alpaca]

For the people crying "one shot is enough" you should probably know that bullets in real life don't work the same as Hollywood shots. If you are shot in Hollywood, even a pistol bullet will send you flying through the air. In real life, in an adrenaline charged situation, a person may not register that they are hit unless it severely immobilizes them.

Second, aiming for a arm or leg on the fly is an almost impossible shot. Next time one of you play Call of Duty or a similar game online, aim for a guy's appendages and not his torso. Yes, the jogger panicked, he had just been struck without warning and there were two people threatening him. Even if they were unarmed, how was he supposed to know? There seems to be a lot of expectation for the jogger to instantly know the correct action.