Tech student shot, killed in Tech Terrace neighborhood Options

[James]

Texas Tech student Ross Baker, 23, was shot and killed Saturday morning at a Tech Terrace home at 3006 24th St.

Baker was a senior construction engineering major from Weatherford.

The shooting occurred around 3:45 a.m., according to the police report. The homeowner, Charles Mire, told police he confronted Baker, and Mire said he then fired a warning shot into the ceiling above his head. Mire shot Baker after he did not leave following the warning shot.

He was then transported to the University Medical Center, where he later died, according to the police report.

Baker had no prior criminal record.

The Baker family was unable to be reached for comment Monday.

Meg Carroll, a senior accounting major from Houston and a close friend of Baker's, said Baker was always great company and a peaceful person.

"Nobody ever had any problems with him. (He was) very non-confrontational," Carroll said. "He would never wrong anybody. All he did was go hunting on the weekends or hang out with friends."

Carroll said Baker enjoyed anything having to do with the outdoors, such as fishing and hunting.

Sergeant John Gomez said the police department is still in the process of gathering information from several witnesses. He said Baker's autopsy and toxicology information will not be available for another two or three weeks.

Baker was a member of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity.

http://media.www.dailytoreador.com/media/s...d-2913940.shtml

If you need to log in, use the following:

e-mail: nunya@damn.biz
pass: blah

[impala454]

well yeah... hindsight is 20/20. if it's 3:45 AM, pitch black and someone comes into your house and doesn't heed your warnings, taking time to learn about the situation could get you and your family killed. if this situation happened 100 times, how many times is it a drunk kid in the wrong house vs a drugged up armed robber? two extra seconds to flip the light on? I'd have to say I'd never give the guy that much time, although like you said it's easy to armchair QB it.

[cupcake]

well yeah... hindsight is 20/20. if it's 3:45 AM, pitch black and someone comes into your house and doesn't heed your warnings, taking time to learn about the situation could get you and your family killed. if this situation happened 100 times, how many times is it a drunk kid in the wrong house vs a drugged up armed robber? two extra seconds to flip the light on? I'd have to say I'd never give the guy that much time, although like you said it's easy to armchair QB it.

well, ideally any gun owner either has a light rail or at least a surefire to ID the target and threat level.

you never fire at anything you haven't ID'd, and you always should know what is directly behind the target.

this guy obviously didn't...unless he's just hip to knowingly shoot unarmed kids.

to quote my main nig, Col Cooper:

1. All guns are always loaded. NO exceptions! Never treat a firearm as if it is empty and "safe."

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)

3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.

4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

I can't believe that a rational man followed rule 4 and decided it was a good idea to go ahead with the shot. He obviously didn't ID the threat well enough.

This is all conjecture of course, for if the kid was beligerant, angry, or came at him, all bets are off. I'm just going off the articles. I think if the kid was fighting him he would have reported that.

[impala454]

4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

I can't believe that a rational man followed rule 4 and decided it was a good idea to go ahead with the shot. He obviously didn't ID the threat well enough.

but this isn't the military. this is a private home. you know whether or not someone is supposed to be in your own house, and if you give someone verbal warning and still don't leave, it shouldn't matter if you can identify them. a real intruder would not follow your colonel's rule #4. many people would be too scared to flip on all the lights or put a flashlight on their gun (which immediately gives away their location to the intruder). and like I said, if this situation were repeated 100 times, how many of those do you think is a lost drunk kid vs a drugged up, armed intruder?

[cupcake]

but this isn't the military. this is a private home. you know whether or not someone is supposed to be in your own house, and if you give someone verbal warning and still don't leave, it shouldn't matter if you can identify them. a real intruder would not follow your colonel's rule #4. many people would be too scared to flip on all the lights or put a flashlight on their gun (which immediately gives away their location to the intruder). and like I said, if this situation were repeated 100 times, how many of those do you think is a lost drunk kid vs a drugged up, armed intruder?

These aren't military rules of gunplay. These are simply the rules.

You don't shoot at that which you haven't positively ID'd.