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

VIPAM wrote:

2. I can understand carrying a weapon but whats the purpose of Hollow Points (which in some states is a crime)? You shoot someone with one hollow point and that person is no longer a threat to do you any harm.

I'm not an expert so someone with more knowledge can chime in, but I believe that hollow points are used because regular bullets can pass through the intended target and harm others while hollow points stay in the person and do not cause the same risk of collateral damage. Sounds like a responsible choice.

VIPAM wrote:

2. I can understand carrying a weapon but whats the purpose of Hollow Points (which in some states is a crime)? You shoot someone with one hollow point and that person is no longer a threat to do you any harm.

Sounds to me like that is the purpose.

Just an FYI, many people who have a gun for self-defense keep hollow points for it because they are less likely to go through a wall and hit an innocent bystander (e.g. another family member).

good one! wrote:

VIPAM wrote:

2. I can understand carrying a weapon but whats the purpose of Hollow Points (which in some states is a crime)? You shoot someone with one hollow point and that person is no longer a threat to do you any harm.

I'm not an expert so someone with more knowledge can chime in, but I believe that hollow points are used because regular bullets can pass through the intended target and harm others while hollow points stay in the person and do not cause the same risk of collateral damage. Sounds like a responsible choice.

................

A hollow point is an expanding bullet that has a pit or hollowed out shape in its tip, generally intended to cause the bullet to expand upon entering a target in order to decrease penetration and disrupt more tissue as it travels through the target. It is also used for controlled penetration, where over-penetration could cause collateral damage (such as on an aircraft). In essence, the hollow point bullet has TWO INTERRELATED PURPOSES

1.): to increase its size once within the target, thus maximizing tissue damage and blood loss or shock,

2.) and by remaining in the target to expend all of its kinetic energy in the target, some of which will be lost if the bullet continues through the target.

Whats the purpose of shooting someone 4 times in the chest and as they flee shoot them TWO more times in the butt and BACK? He was no longer a threat as he was attempting to flee!!!!!!!!!!!!!

VIPAM wrote:

4. The shooter's family stated, "he regularly jogs at night and always carries a gun."

Honestly it seems this person knew the law, armed himself, and routinely put himself in a situation he hoped would occur. He wanted someone to attack him so he could do just what he did- kill someone and not go to jail.

Or, his best opportunity to run regularly was at night and possibly through some sketchy neighborhoods, so he took prudent precautions to protect himself.

1) he's a baller

2) not if they are on PCP or if you hit them in the arm or something, plus you don't want to shoot into a random house and kill some family member

3) dead checking

4) good for him, looks like it finally paid off

1. Carrying cash is a crime?

2. Enough people have answered your question regarding hollow points and while it may be illegal in some states I don't think they are in FL.

3. He was attacked, he did what was allowable by law...he doesn't need to justify what he did, it's already justified.

4. The family knew he regularly carried a gun? Not real smart attacking someone that "regularly" carries a gun.

He will lose the civil suit because its clearly excessive use of force. You have the right in Florida to use deadly force if you feel you are being harmed; however, you cannot continue the force once the attacker is no longer a threat. The moment the attacker attempted to disengage the assault and leave the deadly force should have been halted. The very moment the jogger fired the gun at the victim's back he became the attacker as he was no longer in danger.

I read the article and the only thing the dead kid's family has a gripe with is how many times he was shot....that's it?

How many shots would have been acceptable to the family?

Good riddance, one drain on society gone and hopefully the 16 year old buddy learned a valuable lesson. I see this as win/win.

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.

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.

The jogger was young and hoping to join the military. They can issue a trillion dollar settlement if they want--collecting is a whole other matter. Hard to see an attorney pursuing this hard on a contingency basis.

The person who was shot is really, really not a victim.

Whether he will lose the suit or not, comes down to the jury, the judge, and the facts of the case.

Mr. Obvious Moron and other heartless low lives

Shut up you guys are some of the stupidest posters on the entire internet. Have any of you ever been a jogger or runner? I'm pretty sure the lot of you spend all their time on the computer visiting numerous websites littering them with your stupidity.

The mugger was a victim at the very moment he stop the attack and attempted to leave and then was shot twice in the back!

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.

Really, it's going to be easy? And who are they going to get the multi-millions from, the guy protecting 500 bucks getting ready to go into the military? Punk punches jogger in face after proclaiming "I'm going to knock this guy out, jogger is disoriented, vision blurred, it's night. He shot 8 times, missed 4. Can you prove the first two shots hit the assailant? Maybe it was the 5th - 8th shot? Think the 16 year old is going to make a strong witness?

JustFacts wrote:

Mr. Obvious Moron and other heartless low lives

Shut up you guys are some of the stupidest posters on the entire internet. Have any of you ever been a jogger or runner? I'm pretty sure the lot of you spend all their time on the computer visiting numerous websites littering them with your stupidity.

The mugger was a victim at the very moment he stop the attack and attempted to leave and then was shot twice in the back!

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Nothing in the article says the mugger tried to leave. Nothing said he was shot in the back.

You are welcome to feel however you want about the mugger, I will personally save my sympathy for persons who are attacked. I am glad the runner had a gun and a concealed carry permit. He may be dead otherwise.

wow, i love you man. I'm going to go bust some innocent persons chops tonight and rely on you to defend me in court, ok? thanks bro...that is, if i don't get shot first like i'll deserve.

JustFacts wrote:The mugger was a victim.....

Mr. Obviously Stupid

I honestly wish it was you that was shot. Do you ever read an entire article or do any research before you start your blatant idiotic ramblings.

-------------------------

You stated, "Nothing said he was shot in the back."

When the first article posted on Letsrun concerning the incident was only a few sentences long and ended with:

TAMPA, Fla. – A pistol-packing jogger in Florida won't be charged for shooting and killing a teenager who attacked him during a midnight run.

Prosecutors said Tuesday they are convinced Thomas Baker acted in self defense when he fired eight shots at 18-year-old Carlos Mustelier near Tampa in November .

Prosecutors say Florida's "stand-your-ground" law was a factor in their decision. The law, passed in 2005, gives people the right to use deadly force as long as they "reasonably believe" it is necessary to stop another person from hurting them.

Baker told police he reached for his gun when the teen punched him in the face. Baker has a concealed weapons permit.

>>>THE TEEN WAS HIT FOUR TIMES IN THE CHEST, BACK, and buttocks! He died at the scene.

--------------------------

There are others who see the abnormalities in the jogger true motive and it had nothing to do with getting in shape.

The kids was up to no good by attempting to rob Mr. Baker, but who goes jogging at midnight carrying $500 and a gun loaded with hollow point bullets? That makes absolutely no sense. Sounds like there's more to the story than what has been revealed.

- Tristan, St.Louis, MO USA, 13/1/2011 19:44

My turn!

1. It doesn't matter if it was $1 or $1000, no amount gives you the right to try and take it from me.

2. Hollow points, well, because they do a great job in getting the job done! Why would I shoot someone to keep them alive? I shoot someone to kill them because I am in danger (or perceived danger)

3. It was dark, if that little bastard is still moving, he's a threat. How am I to know he's not going to pull out a gun and shoot me? Being wounded doesn't prevent that, being dead does!

4. I can run anytime and anywhere the law allows. Just because you're wearing a short skirt doesn't mean you want to be raped.

I would rather be alive to testify in court why I protected myself instead of being mentally retarded or dead because I didn't. One punch CAN kill you.

JustFacts wrote:

The mugger was a victim at the very moment he stop the attack and attempted to leave and then was shot twice in the back!

it would have been great if the shooter let the poor victim go to attack other joggers. maybe even rape a few female joggers. society should tolerate the fact that it's dangerous to run in the dark in many place now. because after all, the criminals who attack people are only crying out for help. poor guys.

Yup, I read the whole article. Nowhere does it say the mugger disengaged, tried to run away, or anything else. It just says where the bullets hit him. There are a huge number of scenarios that could have happened. Some of those may have included the mugger still being engaged with his victim but twisting around, etc. Which one it was, we really don't know. Depending on the gun you can discharge 8 rounds very quickly.

I have run at midnight and even later. There is nothing wrong with running at any time of night.

I have carried money when I have run. I haven't carried as much as $500, but that is really irrelevant. No way from the known facts that the mugger could have known he had any money at all. Carrying money is not illegal and doesn't mean anything.

I have never run with a gun but I do own a pistol and a concealed weapons permit. If I was going to run in a place where I was not sure of my safety then I would carry.

Although you have wished me dead I do not see any reason for personal invective. I wish you a good evening.

1st page