TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 8b02c.html

Neighbor, 77, shoots teen robber, police say

08:03 AM CDT on Wednesday, April 4, 2007


HOUSTON – A teen was expected to survive after being shot while breaking into his 77-year-old neighbor's home early Tuesday, police said. The elderly man, Bob Manross, was in his southeast Houston home when his neighbor broke in around 1:45 a.m. The 18-year-old, carrying a pistol, demanded all the man's cash, police said. Mr. Manross said he recognized the teen and told the youth he would get the money from the next room but got a rifle instead and shot the youth in the chest. The teen ran out the back door and jumped several fences before collapsing. The youth, who was not identified, was facing a charge of second-degree robbery by threat, police said.

Good move Mr. Manross!

"...jumped several fences..."
What did he hit him with, a .22?

Well, at least maybe the kid will learn something from this, and have the scar to remind him later.

I hope the kid doesn't go back for revenge.

kauboy wrote:"...jumped several fences..."
What did he hit him with, a .22?

Well, at least maybe the kid will learn something from this, and have the scar to remind him later.

I am not surprised. I have seen people shot with just about everything be able to run quite a ways before bleeding out enough to cause collapse.

Just think about this, in 1986 a criminal (Platt) in Florida took multiple hits from different calibers, including a shotgun. He was eventually stopped by shots from a .38 from near point blank range. In the process he murdered 2 FBI agents and wounded 5 others.

It is believed that the first shot that man, Platt, suffered was unsurvivable. Platt had a total of 12 gunshot wounds.

Here is a fascinating read on this incident.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs7.htm

Platt was a unique situation I think.

The guy should of had a shotgun to shoot this teen. I wouldn't want the teen surviving after this.

Geister wrote:Platt was a unique situation I think.

The guy should of had a shotgun to shoot this teen. I wouldn't want the teen surviving after this.

Not so much unusual in shootings.


Our justified use of deadly force is to STOP the aggressor, not to kill. I NEVER want to have to take a life. I will never use deadly force with the intent to kill. I am fully prepared that a person whom I use DF against could well die; however, I simply want him/her to stop.


That is MY belief, and not incumbent on ANYONE else.

txinvestigator wrote:

Geister wrote:Platt was a unique situation I think.

The guy should of had a shotgun to shoot this teen. I wouldn't want the teen surviving after this.

Not so much unusual in shootings.


Our justified use of deadly force is to STOP the aggressor, not to kill. I NEVER want to have to take a life. I will never use deadly force with the intent to kill. I am fully prepared that a person whom I use DF against could well die; however, I simply want him/her to stop.


That is MY belief, and not incumbent on ANYONE else.

I have to agree with you here, Tx inv. Even in a justifiable shooting, the survivor often goes through grief for having to do it.
I just hope this kid doesn't come back for revenge on this poor old guy when he's well.

The "use enough gun" lesson here is in no way related to and desire or intent to kill the intruder.

It's merely based on the thought that if the guy could jump several fences after being shot, he could have just as easily charged at the old man and killed him before becoming incapacitated himself.

txinvestigator is right on. You just want the attacker to stop. But almost by definition, if the use of deadly force is justified at all, it usually means that you need for the attacker to stop doing what he is doing (attacking you) RIGHT NOW.

Having him bleed out 10 minutes later leaves him plenty of time to finish killing you first.

Hence, "Use enough gun."

View from a deer hunter

100 pound deer hit in the vitals area with high power rifle rounds often run 100 yards or more.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:The "use enough gun" lesson here is in no way related to and desire or intent to kill the intruder.

It's merely based on the thought that if the guy could jump several fences after being shot, he could have just as easily charged at the old man and killed him before becoming incapacitated himself.

My only additional thought is that had he not run, and instead charged, more shots could have been put on him.

I think the homeowner handled it quite well.

txinvestigator is right on. You just want the attacker to stop. But almost by definition, if the use of deadly force is justified at all, it usually means that you need for the attacker to stop doing what he is doing (attacking you) RIGHT NOW.

I agree, only the law requires that your need to use deadly force be immediate.

txinvestigator wrote:

Geister wrote:Platt was a unique situation I think.

The guy should of had a shotgun to shoot this teen. I wouldn't want the teen surviving after this.

Not so much unusual in shootings.


Our justified use of deadly force is to STOP the aggressor, not to kill. I NEVER want to have to take a life. I will never use deadly force with the intent to kill. I am fully prepared that a person whom I use DF against could well die; however, I simply want him/her to stop.


That is MY belief, and not incumbent on ANYONE else.

I think it turned out all right. The teen survived and who knows, maby he learned a lesson and will turn out to be a responsible
citizen. If he were dead he wouldn't have that second chance.

I hope you're right, Tote. I hope this kid learns his lesson and makes a new start.
I teach teens. Most are great; they're a trip to be around. But when you get a mean one, look out. I hope this kiddo isn't a meanie, and that he turns his life over to God. (God has a way with people.)

I think its worth noting that, most handguns with personal defense rounds have more stopping power at the extreme close range than a lot of rifles. The rifle may just punch a clean hole clear through, while the personal defense round is designed to make large ugly holes.

Liberty wrote:I think its worth noting that, most handguns with personal defense rounds have more stopping power at the extreme close range than a lot of rifles. The rifle may just punch a clean hole clear through, while the personal defense round is designed to make large ugly holes.

note: the URL below keeps getting changed by the language filter for some reason. please replace "mix-up" with Sierra November Alpha Foxtrot Uniform. Looking at the dictionary.com entry for the word, I guess I can see why, though I will have to admit, I didn't know it was an acronym let alone the original meaning until I looked it up just now. There's nothing objectionable there, and since it's the name of an ISP in Germany, I don't think it's the same word as what it would be considered here in English. Anyway, on to my reply:


That really depends on what loads and caliber you're using. While looking for ballistics info, I came upon this page that has gelatin ballistics data and images for all sorts of guns and loads. Take a look at the 30-06 Soft Point image and commentary (http://home.mix-up.de/l.moeller/Zielwirkung/Frog.html - 5th from the bottom). If I were to use a rifle in a home defense situation, it would be my Mosin-Nagant M44. Not only does it have an integrated 14" bayonet that would be very useful for home defense, but the ballistics of 7.62x54R are very similar to 30-06. In comparison to the handgun wound channels, that 30-06 is devastating. The permanent channel is HUGE. As the author put it - "Not something you want to get shot with."

The actual link still works just fine just click and go.

While I really enjoy long guns. I've yet to figure out a place for a rifle for home defense. Maybe Ive been in the city to long.