Florida Jogger Shoots Teenager Mugger Dead deserves to lose in Civil Suit

Surprised no one has mentioned this- pretty clear Baker was out buying/selling drugs.

en action avec ma bite wrote:

Surprised no one has mentioned this- pretty clear Baker was out buying/selling drugs.

Do you have any evidence of that?

To answer your questions generally:

1) He could be carrying $1000000 in cash on him...that does not justify a mugging.

2) This has already been answered

3) You get physically attacked, you have already crossed the line of pulling your weapon and firing it, adrenaline is pumping... you shoot and don't stop shooting until the guy stops moving. What if you didn't incapacitate him? What if he is still strong enough to grab your weapon as you approach his body? What if he has friends that live around the corner he can call for? What if he picks up a weapon to defend himself once you walk over to inspect him? Your goal isn't to preserve the life of your attacker, it is to protect your own.

4) Sounds like he knew he had the potential to be mugged and was ready for it. Why bring a knife to a gunfight (for all he knew, the mugger was armed, or someone nearby was)? From the article, there is the impression that his running route went through a rough neighborhood.

According to the article, the mugger made it very clear that he was physically attacking the jogger just to prove himself. He and all his friends now know what can happen when you act violently and unknowingly. His sister asks "why you gonna shoot someone 8 times in self defense?" What she should be asking is "why did my brother punch someone in the face for absolutely no reason?"

I have to side with the jogger, no question.

Cash is easier to carry than gold bars or cows.

The purpose is to defend yourself.

From what I understand, the victim fired 8 times, as 4 of the shots missed, and 4 of them hit the perpetrator. If the first 4 shots hit, then the next 4 shots missed. If the first 4 shots missed, then the next 4 shots were the only ones that stopped the perpetrator's attack. I don't have any idea of the sequence of the shots and either do you.

Was the attack a conspiracy by the family? It seems that way to me, as they are trying to defend the actions of the perpetrator. I am curious if the victim will be able to sue the perpetrator's family for damages.

If so, then I commend him. Hopefully his self defense actions will help to reduce the number of attacks on runners and other pedestrians.

Don't think the mugger's family can sue the shooter's family but the world should be able to sue your mother for producing such an absolute waste to society!

THERE IS MORE TO THE STORY THAN WHAT IT APPEARS.....

As a runner in the Tampa/St Pete area when this story appeared a day before Thanksgiving I followed it and it was the talk of last year's Turkey Trot.If a runner is assaulted or punched in the face then it is okay to use force to protect yourself.I STRONGLY BELIEVE that Thomas Baker is no jogger or runner like he claims to be.Let me explain..

1)He just started to run 10 DAYS prior to the event but heck everyone starts somewhere...

2)He was running at midnight but is unemployed.I ran late at night because I was working the overnight shift but Baker had all day to run.

3)He had on clothes that were similiar to the attackers but it was cold that week.He claimed he saw 2 people approach him with hoodies but he also had a hoodie and dark clothing on too.Runners at night have reflective vests and I have a blinking red light on because I want the traffic to see me for safety reasons.

4)He was smoking after the incident but I understand because seeing a kid die is not as glamorous as it is on T.V.

5)He ran with a .45 and hollow point bullets.I understand because it is getting rough out there.

6)Both parties approached each other.As a runner what would you do? I would create space by going to the other side of road and I have been running 20 years.Runners don't want confrontation they just want to get their training in.

7)Baker said a conversation then an argument broke out and the kid lunged towards him.As a runner do YOU stop and talk to people you DON'T KNOW after midnight?

8)The biggest reason that Baker is NOT A RUNNER is that Baker said he had 950 dollars on him...NO RUNNER CARRIES THAT MUCH CASH...PERIOD.

10)There are reports that Baker's younger brother had a clash with this kid and it was retaliation.

I am not really sure what exactly happened but I BELIEVE that Thomas Baker LIED about being a runner so what else did Baker lie about.Did he really get punched?

Why wasn't the other kid charged with attempted robbery?

Does 10 days make you a runner?I wonder if he still runs?

or was his mission accomplished?

I would applaud a runner standing up to an attacker but Thomas Baker is no runner! or jogger!

So what was Baker really doing out there after midnight?

Thomas Baker IS NOT A RUNNER...You can label him a gun-toting neighborhood watch vigilant citizen but HE IS NOT A RUNNER!!!

Correct, this is Florida. The law changed several years ago to disallow civil suits after it's been determined that it was a self defense shooting.

No payday for the scum's family.

One of the articles describes the gunman taunting the kid before he gunned him down. If you have time to say 2 sentence, you have time not to shoot.

Flarunner wrote:

THERE IS MORE TO THE STORY THAN WHAT IT APPEARS.....

Lots of good points in there, not sure I'd draw the same conclusions you do but I sure hope the cops are still asking questions about this bizarre incident.

JustFacts wrote:

So many heartless and stupid posters on Letsrun that it should be a crime. No the victim shouldn't have attacked the jogger but the jogger definitely had eliminated the threat with the first two shots the other four was excessive.

It will be alittle easier on the family once they recieve a multi-million dollar civil suit verdict.

HAHAHAHA......who's gonna pay that multi-million dollar civil suit verdict you idiot?? Sounds like he might only get $950 to me.

asdfasdfas wrote:

One of the articles describes the gunman taunting the kid before he gunned him down. If you have time to say 2 sentence, you have time not to shoot.

[/quote]

Can you link to that article? I think I have read 3 different articles but don't remember reading that particular detail.

A little research into Floriday law reveals that the deceased's family is unlikely to be able to recover based on the following language (note, this website said this act was an older legislative act, so the law may have changed in the meantime):

776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.--

(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.

Aggravated assault is a forcible felony and it seems undisputed that the deceased punched the guy in the mouth with forethought and malice.

I'm not all saying the mugger had the right to attack anyone and punch anyone; however, the shooter wasn't a jogger and was out with an agenda that had nothing to do with getting in shape!

......

THERE IS MORE TO THE STORY THAN WHAT IT APPEARS.....

As a runner in the Tampa/St Pete area when this story appeared a day before Thanksgiving I followed it and it was the talk of last year's Turkey Trot.If a runner is assaulted or punched in the face then it is okay to use force to protect yourself.I STRONGLY BELIEVE that Thomas Baker is no jogger or runner like he claims to be.Let me explain..

1)He just started to run 10 DAYS prior to the event but heck everyone starts somewhere...

2)He was running at midnight but is unemployed.I ran late at night because I was working the overnight shift but Baker had all day to run.

3)He had on clothes that were similiar to the attackers but it was cold that week.He claimed he saw 2 people approach him with hoodies but he also had a hoodie and dark clothing on too.Runners at night have reflective vests and I have a blinking red light on because I want the traffic to see me for safety reasons.

4)He was smoking after the incident but I understand because seeing a kid die is not as glamorous as it is on T.V.

5)He ran with a .45 and hollow point bullets.I understand because it is getting rough out there.

6)Both parties approached each other.As a runner what would you do? I would create space by going to the other side of road and I have been running 20 years.Runners don't want confrontation they just want to get their training in.

7)Baker said a conversation then an argument broke out and the kid lunged towards him.As a runner do YOU stop and talk to people you DON'T KNOW after midnight?

8)The biggest reason that Baker is NOT A RUNNER is that Baker said he had 950 dollars on him...NO RUNNER CARRIES THAT MUCH CASH...PERIOD.

10)There are reports that Baker's younger brother had a clash with this kid and it was retaliation.

I am not really sure what exactly happened but I BELIEVE that Thomas Baker LIED about being a runner so what else did Baker lie about.Did he really get punched?

Why wasn't the other kid charged with attempted robbery?

Does 10 days make you a runner?I wonder if he still runs?

or was his mission accomplished?

I would applaud a runner standing up to an attacker but Thomas Baker is no runner! or jogger!

So what was Baker really doing out there after midnight?

Thomas Baker IS NOT A RUNNER...You can label him a gun-toting neighborhood watch vigilant citizen but HE IS NOT A RUNNER!!!

SadCase wrote:

I'm not all saying the mugger had the right to attack anyone and punch anyone; however, the shooter wasn't a jogger and was out with an agenda that had nothing to do with getting in shape!

Let's say you're right, and he went out with the agenda to protect himself in case some idiot attacked him, tried to knock him out, rob and/or kill him.

So what.

In fact, all the better if everyone did this.

Do you have links to articles that talk about this? I have only read 2-3 brief articles. I see a lot of assertions in this thread that there is more to the story but I've asked a couple of times where people got their information and all I get are crickets chirping.

I'll give my perspective on your points, based only on the limited information that I have seen:

1) Being a new runner, or not a runner at all, does not in any way justify being attacked or prevent somebody from defending himself.

2) I've run after midnight on quite a few ocassions. Latest I've ever returned from a run is about 1:30. I have gone out to run as early as 3:30 AM, though. That's not really relevant, it is not illegal to run at any time of day or night.

3) Lots of runners, especially newer runners, do not run in reflective vests or with blinking lights. In fact I would advise a newer runner not to invest in these things until they had been running a while and just to run in what they had

4) He was smoking. OK. That's not illegal. Not very common among hardcore runners. I don't think anybody has claimed Baker was a hard core runner. He was a kid trying to do some jogging to get in shape to enlist. Anyway, irrelevant to whether somebody attacked him or if he had a right to defend himself.

5) Sometimes people run with guns. Baker had a concealed carry permit so I can in no way hold it against him that he was exercising his constitutional right. Seems like it was prudent considering what happened. I have a concealed carry permit. I've never run with a gun but I would do so if I thought it would make me safer. Hollow-point bullets are the ammunition of choice for people who carry for personal protection, nothing unusual about that.

6) I haven't seen that in the articles I've read. Do you have a link?

7) Again, I haven't seen that in any of the articles I've read.

8) I don't know any runners who have ever carried that much cash. Regardless it does not make Baker guilty of anything. It is not illegal to carry cash on you.

10) I'd like to read these reports. Do you mean police reports? Newspaper articles?

Baker's status as a real runner is irrelevant to me. From what I can tell (very limited articles) he has mostly been locked up since the attack happened so I doubt he did much running there. As far as I can see the other kid did not participate in the attack and should not be charged with something.

I will admit that if there is evidence that Baker provoked the attack then I would reconsider my position. I simply don't see any evidence for that at all. All I see is that he was attacked by a guy with premeditation and he defended himself from that attack.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

8) I don't know any runners who have ever carried that much cash. Regardless it does not make Baker guilty of anything. It is not illegal to carry cash on you.

That must be one hell of a fuel belt...

Mustelier lunged at Baker and took a swing. Baker backed up and said, "Wanna play games? You wanna play games?"Baker then reached behind his back. The friend told investigators he sensed a gun and started to run. Baker shot eight times, hitting Mustelier once in the chest, twice in the back and once just below the hip.http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/jan/11/112201/no-charges-for-jogger-in-town-n-country-fatal-shoo/news-metro/I would be curious if anyone has the official police report

Mr. Obvious wrote:

asdfasdfas wrote:

One of the articles describes the gunman taunting the kid before he gunned him down. If you have time to say 2 sentence, you have time not to shoot.

Can you link to that article? I think I have read 3 different articles but don't remember reading that particular detail.

A little research into Floriday law reveals that the deceased's family is unlikely to be able to recover based on the following language (note, this website said this act was an older legislative act, so the law may have changed in the meantime):

776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.--

(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.

Aggravated assault is a forcible felony and it seems undisputed that the deceased punched the guy in the mouth with forethought and malice.[/quote]

asdfasdfas wrote:

Mustelier lunged at Baker and took a swing. Baker backed up and said, "Wanna play games? You wanna play games?"

Baker then reached behind his back. The friend told investigators he sensed a gun and started to run. Baker shot eight times, hitting Mustelier once in the chest, twice in the back and once just below the hip.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2011/jan/11/112201/no-charges-for-jogger-in-town-n-country-fatal-shoo/news-metro/

I would be curious if anyone has the official police report

Thanks for the link. At least I know what information other people may have and where it is coming from. I'd like to see the official police report too.

From the article:

But Mustelier's family and friends said he was set up after having had an earlier altercation with Baker's younger brother. They are also angry that Mustelier was shot several times at close range.

Unless there is a lot more back story that somebody knows this is just an allegation by a bunch of people who weren't there. I wouldn't give any of that a lot of credibility.

The other statements you quoted earlier come from the boy who was with the mugger. Hard to know how much credibility to give that. Obviously the police did not give it a whole lot. The statements he made about meaning to rob Baker would have a lot more creibility because they were against his interests and happened at a time when he was not running away.

In either case, since it seems clear to me that the young man was engaged in a violent felony then Baker would be shielded from any claims to be able to recover as a wrongful death based on the FL statute I posted earlier.

Mr. Obnoxious

It seems in previous thread you asked for article/link that supported why some posters thought it wasn't simple self-defense. Someone provide you with a link to a news article and yet your immature mind decided you need something else- a police report.

WHY DON'T you hop, skip, and jump on over to Florida and visit the police dept and get yourself a copy; however, I think your closed mind is made up regardless of what evidence would be presented.

Things I find strange:

1.) How slow of jogger was he if they saw each other as the teens was walking to the store, store was closed, and they saw him again on the way back. (What was he doing running in circles?)

2.) The article stated the three "WALKED TOWARDS EACH OTHER" but wasn't he supposed to have been jogging.

3.) He was never hit as the attacker lunged and missed and the MURDERER had time to say, "You wanna play games, YOU WANNA PLAY GAMES" - THEN- reach behind him to remove the gun.

4.) It doesn't take a genius to see, after the 16 yr old ran, the shooter shot the other teen in the chest- he tired to flee thus getting hit TWICE in the back and once below the hip.

IF alledge robber WASN'T ATTEMPTING TO FLEE the majority of the shoots would have been to the front of his body instead of THREE (3) to rear of the body and ONE to the chest!

How much credibility can you give to the shooter? He can't say the guy pissed me off so I gunned him down. Eye witness testimony is horrible even without self interest. Seems like making up the guy saying something seems unlikely to me but figuring out what things like backed up and the distance between the 2 of them is very hard. I would have guessed that the police could tell if the victim was fleeing when shot in the back, the range (i.e. if the guy was 30 feet away it is hard to say there was an imminent threat) of the shooting, and so on. The police have very little interest in a case like this. It will be hard to prove intent and the victim isn't very sympathetic either. And trying to figure out anything from the information in media reports is nuts. Way too much stuff get filtered.