19-year-old shoots car prowler in head with Mosin-Nagant (Seattle)

[Irreverend IX]

And interesting and somewhat ambiguous defensive shooting case:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/383729_shooting17.html

"A 19-year-old man who fatally shot a car prowler last month outside his Northgate apartment told police he tried to aim for the man's legs when he thought the man reached for a gun, according to court documents.

As police officers arrived on the night of Sept. 24, the shooter dropped the bolt-action rifle and uttered to officers and a witness: "I didn't mean to kill him," court documents say.

The victim, identified as Jhovany J. Hernandez, 21, was found in the street with a gunshot wound to his head, according to a search warrant affidavit filed in King County Superior Court.

Not far from Hernandez's body were car speakers, apparently stolen from the shooter's 2001 Toyota Camry, parked in a carport under his apartment at 9700 Fifth Ave. N.E., court documents say."

The comments on the article are interesting as well.

[YOY]

1. I highly doubt he aimed for the legs...

Call me a skeptic...

[Ian David]

3. I dunno... COULD have been THIS guy...

[dmallind]

4. He would have been stupid to.

But it's highly plausible he was not aiming for the head either. Shooting is not so easy as people think and aiming for a small moving target at night is a tall order, so most would (And all SHOULD) go for center of mass if necessary in self defense.

[tburnsten]

7. And he was on a balcony above the carport

So he was shooting downwards, about 25 yards, at night, during a confrontation, and the man in his sights turned and appeared to be reaching into his waistband. It is entirely possible he could have tried to aim low and still shot the man in the head.

[amdezurik]

12. to bad he didn't call his insurance company

like he should have and choose instead to commit murder. Lurking in wait to kill anyone who looks funny at your car is not reasonable.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

20. Why should he call his insurance company when he catches someone breaking in to his car?

I think 911, so the police ("pigs" to you people) would come, is probably the best choice of parties to place a call to.

David

[amdezurik]

23. well he didn't even call 911

so after his kill he might not even have gotten the money to replace the speakers he ripped out afterwards to plant near his victim.


See I can fill in spots with suppositions and speculation just like you and spin a way to blame all those people with "mexican" names for being the bad guys in every case like you are trying to do.

Al you feebs pretending you know the facts and trying to assign blame in a case where you know NOTHING might just do well to recall Susan Smith and that guy who shot his pregnant wife and tried to blame someone else for it, or hell remeber O.J. and the "drug dealers" he tried to say killed Nicole. My fucking gawd people, you get a few lines in some paper and suddenly you're all fucking Clarence Darrow or some shit.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. What are you talking about?

I just asked you why he should call his insurance company. Jhovany doesn't sound "mexican" to me, I really wouldn't be able to place that names origin. Please quote one time where I said anything about the facts in this case, when you fail to do so, I'll gladly accept your apology.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

44. I'll take your lack of response as a concession of defeat.

[tburnsten]

28. That isn't what happened at all

He confronted the three men breaking into his car and they all ran. One of them turned back around and appeared to be reaching into his waistband, so the young man fired. If I confronted a group of people victimizing me while armed and one of them stopped running to face me and reach for something, I wouldn't wait to find out if it was a candy bar either. My first impression before I read the article was that the young man had done something very, very bad, but after reading it I realized that if he is lying about what happened it will be a very short time before the coroner determines what actually happened. If a criminal is confronted by a man with a rifle and stops fleeing to turn back towards him, what do you think he is up to? Offering him his stolen property back? Giving him an insurance card to cover the damage they caused? I don't think so. His two friends were able to escape in their car with no troubles, does that sound like an "ambush" to you? Doesn't to me, an "ambush" would entail shooting as many of them as possible before they realize whats going on, not confronting them and ordering them to leave.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. In fairness

We should be using the word 'allegedly' a little more often, as we don't know that guy turned around, or reached for anything. Also, just because he turned around, doesn't mean he wasn't perhaps surrendering. Generally, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the victim, but someone was shot and killed, so I think any and all questions about the nature of this incident should be investigated and answered.

I am a strong proponent of self defense, but there are laws, limits, and even interpretation by a grand jury, and court precedent that have to be considered.

[tburnsten]

41. You are right, allegedly would eliminate some of the confusion

I have just been using his story, since it is the only one available, no separate police account has come out yet. As far as the deceased thief turning in order to surrender, I don't know about that. His two friends kept running and made it into the car safely and escaped with no physical harm, the guy really should have just kept running. But the coroner and police will be able to easily determine if the shooter was telling stories about what really happened, so we can find out if his account was accurate fairly soon. Hopefully he is telling the truth, it is extremely unfortunate when someone dies because they chose petty crime over safety and productivity, and it is even more unfortunate when the person who fired didn't actually have a legitimate reason to.

[Retired AF Dem]

62. He didn't commit murder

just removed another scumbag from preying on society.

[jeepnstein]

29. It sounds familiar...

We just recently had a guy convicted of a crime that was just as dumb. He fired a "warning shot" at a kid who was stealing a bale of hay. Of course the bullet hit the kid in the back and he bled out from damage to the heart and lungs. The kid is dead, and he's going to prison for a long time. One life is snuffed out, his family devastated, and the shooter's family will likely loose their farm in the subsequent civil action. No good came from any of it.

I have a simple rule. If I value something so much that I feel compelled to defend it with deadly force, I keep it very close to me and in the house at night. I can count the things of true value to me on one hand. If it's left in the driveway, it's just stuff and not worth that much.

If our shooter didn't intend to kill the suspect, why did he draw down on him? Having a gun does not impart any control over a suspect or situation. If gun owners would spend less time watching TV and more time really thinking about what it is these things can do, we'd all be better off.

[tburnsten]

30. Having a gun did impart some control to this situation

He put three thieves on the run without doing anything wrong or firing a shot, and when he did fire, he claims that the thief he shot had turned towards him instead of continuing to flee and was reaching for something. Since he was released in the morning, I would guess that the police who responded seem to feel that his account is accurate enough that he should not be arbitrarily punished for being a crime victim while they investigate what happened. It should be very, very easy for the coroner to determine what direction the deceased thief was facing when he was shot, and since him and his two idiot buddies had been running away, it would be awfully hard for him to have been shot in the front of his head if he was facing away from the shooter. I think in a very short time there will be enough information to determine if the thief did actually turn back towards the shooter or not, and as far as I am concerned, that is all that matters. No one in their right mind stops running away from a guy who just stopped their crime by running them off with a rifle. No one, unless they want a lethal force conflict would turn back to face someone with a Mosin who is letting them escape unharmed.

[Butch350]

34. Were you there - you talk as if you were on the scene.

You do know what happened - and you surely don't know whether the defendent is lying or not.

[tburnsten]

36. I talk as if I read the article

The police recovered a 7.62x54R rifle casing from his balcony. To me that would strongly indicate that he was standing on, and fired from, his balcony. Of course I don't know if the defendant is lying or not, but the three thieves ran away, headed towards their car when he confronted them from the balcony. He says he fired at the deceased thief because the deceased thief turned back towards him and was reaching into his waistband. So the coroner and police are going to have an incredibly easy time figuring out how much truth is in his story, because if the thief was actually still fleeing when he fired and killed him, then he will have a .30 caliber hole somewhere in the back of his head, and an exit wound somewhere in the front of his head, not to mention that if he was running away and was shot in the head he would almost certainly fall forward, if he was turning or had turned toward the shooter and wasn't still running away from him his body would be splayed out very differently.


Think about it, his story is very, very easy to either corroborate or prove false. He very well might be lying, but I have a strong feeling that the young man will turn out to be telling the truth. And the people claiming he certainly just planted his speakers there to cover his ass are ridiculous.

[demigoddess]

32. the guy could not afford a garage, and what if he needed his car to get to his

job and would lose it if not there, and what if he could not afford insurance that would replace the car. You seem to think that everyone is above the poverty line in this country and that is just not so.

[Butch350]

33. Yeah Boy...that's a good reason to kill someone...

...if the guy is convicted of homicide - he's gonna miss a lot of work.

[jeepnstein]

47. "What if"....

What's going to happen to him now?

He'll likely get prosecuted for something and if his State has a gun specification he'll do time. His time will be in the penitentiary with hard-core convicts, not a nice place. He'll either learn to be hard like them or he'll be victimized. Most likely he'll keep a bit of the convict mentality when he gets out.

When he gets out, he'll probably be on parole for a few years. Try getting and holding a serious job while having to report to a parole officer with banker's hours. The courts will milk him for everything they can while they have him under their supervision.

How about applying for a job? "Ever been convicted of a crime, if so, what?" When the answer is some variety of homicide with a gun spec. there is a good chance he'll not be hired. Would you hire a murderer. Would you even be comfortable in the same room with him? Odds are he'll never do it again.

And then there's the toll it will take on him personally. I've known my share of folks who have killed someone. They carry that with them and it can really devour you from the inside-out if you let it. I know a guy who shot a guy who was holding a woman hostage after having killed another hostage and it still bothers him. Even though it was as righteous a shooting as ever was, he carries that around.

He killed someone and that's bad enough. Now he's going to have to live with it. All for a car stereo. Not worth it in my book.

[tburnsten]

48. What if...

He is telling the truth about the circumstances of the shooting, and hesitation would or could have resulted in his death? If he is telling the truth, and it will be easy for the investigators to figure out, then he did not kill anyone over a car stereo, he killed him because instead of fleeing like his two partners in crime, the dead thief stopped running and turned back towards him, apparently reaching into his waistband. That is justifiable homicide, not manslaughter or murder. No one serves time for justifiable homicide, because it is justifiable, they do not really have a better option. Waiting for the criminal he drove off to actually come out with a gun might have resulted in his death, and I hardly think that is an acceptable end to that situation.


In the end, the criminal in the story gave up his life for a car stereo, no matter what else happened. Even if the shooter shot him in the back of the head while he was running away, obviously not justified or righteous at all, it was still the deceased's choices and actions that resulted in his death, no one elses.

The young man who fired the shot very well might be lying about the deceased turning back around, but that will be an easy thing to figure out. If he is not lying, and the thief turned around instead of just continuing to run away, then I think that should be evidence enough not to charge him.

[jeepnstein]

49. He's on thin ice.

In my experience, the shooter will be charged with something. I'm not sure he'd even get off in Texas given the facts surrounding the shooting even though they're pretty forgiving about shooting criminals. He'll have a hard time making the case that given the distance and outright physical separation between the two that he was acting prudently much less in self-defense. I can see a charge that in Ohio would be called some type of manslaughter, if not outright murder. If he had sufficient time to prepare a plan, and then act on that plan, it is conceivable but not very likely that he could take a ride on the "Big One", straight up Aggravated Murder. He can say whatever he wants in his defense but his actions may speak louder than his words. It'll ultimately be up to a Grand Jury of his peers but I sure wouldn't want to be in his shoes.

That's the reality of shooting someone. You'll be scrutinized by a Grand Jury that has all the time in the world to second-guess your actions. The good thing is they do get it right most of the time. I've known guys who had righteous shoots in the line of duty who still had to undergo the scrutiny even though they did it by the book. That's why I stick by my assertion that it's always best to not shoot anyone unless you REALLY need to.

[tburnsten]

51. I think the deceased's skull

is going to be the most important piece of evidence either in his favor or not. If he did just shoot him while running away, then the wound should reflect that. A hit to the side or front of the head should reflect and fit in with his acocunt of events. I don't really think he came up with much of a plan, he probably just grabbed his Mosin and stepped out onto the balcony to interrupt the crime. I can picture him thinking he can shoot the thief in the legs to stop him from escaping, but just because I can imagine it and it isn't out of the question doesn't make it what happened.

[jeepnstein]

53. Probably not...

If they show a picture of the deceased to a jury, it will be bad, very bad. Things like time lines, phone calls to police, witness statements, his own statements, and relative positions of all the parties concerned will carry more weight than which direction the bullet took on it's way through his skull. He'll be put under more scrutiny for his actions than you'd care to imagine and they have all the time in the world to work on it now. He might beat the rap but he won't beat the ride.

Gun ownership can be a two-edged thing. The very thing our guy thought was going to keep him safe may come back to take away his freedom. You can't put the bullet back once you pull the trigger.

[tburnsten]

55. I wasn't suggesting they show a picture to the jury

if there is one. What sense would that make, unless the jury was composed entirely of coroners and traumatic injury specialist doctors? Medical doctors and Seattles' Homicide detectives should be able to quite easily put the shooters claimed position together with the wound and figure out exactly how much truth is in his story. What I don't think you are accepting is that if the deceased criminal was facing him, i.e. no longer running away, when he was shot then it is very unlikely that the young man is lying. If the deceased was shot while running away, then the young man is very clearly lying and a trial is abolutely neccessary.

I just think you are being very, very quick to hang the man out to dry, possibly your previous experiences with the farmer and others who have been involved in shootings have something to do with it, I know if I had known the people involved in the hay-bale incident I would also take a different look at things, but this happened at fairly close range at night, and at the victims home. It won't be a difficult scene to reconstruct and figure out, but with the amount of people who seem perfectly willing to pitch him into the fire already just because he shot someone I feel strangely compelled to be a strong voice of "let's wait and see". If the police had been able to release more information then I probably would be able to fully make up my mind, but I don't think being twenty yards away from someone somehow eliminates your right to stop them from shooting at you. I also have never been a proponent of waiting to see what exactly it is the other guy is reaching for once the situation is known to both parties. I don't think there were any witnesses to this incident.

[jeepnstein]

57. That's just my nature.

I question everything. Just because someone tells me what they want me to hear doesn't mean that's what I'm going to see. The truth usually is in there somewhere if you can just get at it.

Here's little bit to ponder.

A guy age 21 is showing a fourteen year old boy his new pistol. Nobody else is in the house. He points it directly at the kid's head and pulls the trigger. His story is the only one you're going to hear because the boy's head caught a round. The shooter swears up and down that he was just showing the kid the gun and he had the magazine out of it, thinking it was unloaded. He shows great remorse and quickly takes a plea bargain for involuntary manslaughter. Case closed.

Several years later the shooter is arrested for sexually assaulting and murdering hookers at truck stops in several states. Turns out our friend was a stone serial killer. Hmm.... makes you wonder what really happened with the kid, doesn't it?

Or this one...

A guy shoots his estranged wife's lover with a 12 gauge shotgun at her house. He then walks outside and prepares to shoot himself. He is successfully taken into custody. In the subsequent interview he says he was overcome with anger upon seeing the boyfriend giving him the finger as he drove by the house, grabbed a shotgun and killed him in a fit of rage. He takes a guilty plea with absolutely no negotiation on his part to a lesser charge of murder.

When he's being transported to prison, he makes the statement that he bought the shotgun the day he moved out of their house at which time she indicated she had a new love interest. This purchase was a week before the shooting. Is it a lesser charge? Did he get away with aggravated murder? He indicated that he, indeed, had intended to kill the boyfriend from the time the affair was revealed.

Any time you run across a potentially serious criminal act, you have to slow down and smell the flowers.

[amdezurik]

8. yeah to bad this was defense of property

not of himself. If you can pick up a gun and think you can do like in the movies and pick and choose where the bullet will go then you are too stupid to be aloowed to drive a car much less own a gun. It was not like the guy was in his house or attacking his family, at most he stole car radio parts, and even that is (at least as far as what has been presented) a possible CYA on the murderers part.

[Hangingon]

16. Sounds like self defense.

He did not fire to save the property. He fired when the perp made a threatening move. Too bad Hernandez did not weigh tye possible outcomes of a life of crime.

[amdezurik]

21. the same "threatening move" Abner Looima(sp?) made?

Or how about the 47 bullets through the guys shoes who "threatened" by pulling out his wallet. Or the grandmother who made a "threatening move" when cops smashed down her door and killed her. sorry but that is a tired old chestnut pulled out when you know you FU and got caught. Plus the FACT that this was a property crime that the "shooter" turned into a personal vendetta and commited murder over some stupid speakers (if that, still no proof the victim did anything besides be in the area).

[Hangingon]

24. According to the article, the "shooter" was released.

Apparently the situation here is a little different from your examples. First, the police must feel that the deadly force was in response to a threatening move. Second, I did not see that the "shooter" was a police officer who "FU" as in your examples. I think we will see how the jury decides.

[amdezurik]

25. you used the standard police "defense" so you brought that into it

if you have an issue with that then look in a mirror. But hey you keep on making definitive judgements based on press releases and only one side being presented. When McPalin loses i hope you cry your eyes out...

[Hangingon]

26. "the standard police "defense"?

No I did not introduce the "the standard police "defense". You brought that up by citing two examples that had nothing to do with this incident. I commented on the facts available and then said that we would have to wait for a jury to decide. You are the one who is viewing this incident - with the same information I have - through a cloudy lens. Or do you have first hand knowledge of the events in question here? Perhaps you share the same line of work as Hernandez?
You must have had a terrible experience with the police at some time.

"When McPalin loses i hope you cry your eyes out..." Where did that come from? You are sad little person to come up with that pathetic little comment. You certainly have a knack for coming up with wild statements without basis.

[JonQ]

63. So because some people have claimed self-defense

falsely that means everyone who claims it is lying? Wow, so I guess no criminal ever uses a weapon or otherwise threatens violence against his victim. This is wonderful news!

[Butch350]

35. So mister gun happy became cop, judge and jury, executioner.

[tburnsten]

37. He didn't shoot the guy over the theft

He shot him because he, unlike his two compatriots, stopped fleeing and turned back towards him, apparently reaching into his waistband for something. Do you think he was just going for his wallet, so he could pay the victim for the damage they caused?

[AtheistCrusader]

40. 'We hope'

Again, we don't KNOW for certain the events relayed to the media thus far are accurate. I suggest caution before proclaiming innocence or guilt in any case like this. The truth will out, eventually.

Keep in mind, I don't think the autopsy is done yet. Depending on where in the head the guy was shot, with a Dragunov or Mosin-Nagant, it's possible they haven't yet determined if he was shot in the back or the front, depending on how much was 'left'.


We don't have to champion this guy, or defend him. Let's see what facts come out.

[tburnsten]

42. I wouldn't feel the need to defend him

If it weren't for posts like some of the ones in this thread calling him a murderer. I don't know him personally, I have no dog in this fight, but it bothers me to see people accusing someone of being a murdering pig when the only account of the incident so far clearly indicates that the deceased was well on his way to safety before he turned and put the shooter in danger of being killed.


Hopefully the autopsy will come out quickly, because I don't want to stick up for someone any longer than I have to if he gratuitously shot the thief while he was fleeing.

[krispos42]

38. This was not about justice, it was about self-defense

It was not about righting wrongs, or meting out punishment, or making society safer. It was about a person, a person not in the process of doing anything wrong or illegal, protecting himself when a 2nd person that was in the process of doing something wrong or illegal made a potentially life-threatening move on the 1st person.

[Hangingon]

43. He did not become judge, jury and executioner.

He used deadly force in self defense. Read the story. The available facts indicate no shots were ffired until the fleeing perp turned and made a move that the property owner felt was threatening. Then the shooter fired.

[Tejas]

46. lesson to the stupid: thou shall not steal

But if you do, keep running.

[ORDagnabbit]

2. hmmm dont commit crime dont take a chance on dying....sounds pretty reasonable. n/t

[tburnsten]

5. "victim"?

An interesting term for someone who died as a direct result of their criminal actions VICTIMIZING someone else. I haven't read the article yet, will check it out in the morning, but it sounds like a badish shoot, meaning I feel it would have been perfectly appropriate to confront and detain him for the police, but


Never mind I just read the article. Out of four people who were involved in the situation (even if a bystander had witnessed it, and none did, they are notoriouly unreliable when it comes to witnessing shootings. People see all kinds of different things when they are not directly involved in a situation and don't notice it until shots have already been fired) one is in the coroner's office, one pulled the trigger, and two more should be held legally responsible for the death of their associate during a crime they committed against the shooter. I think it will be very easy for the police and medical examiner to figure out if the deceased criminal was facing the shooter or still running away, so his story will be very easy to confirm. Looks to me like he was doing the right thing and the deceased criminal made a very bad choice which resulted in his death. If the shooter had been out to kill the three criminals I kind of think he would have been a little more inclined to take another shot at the car.


And the comments are hilarious, people right and left leaning are all bashing each other while hearily agreeing on the topic at hand, which is that the young man was put in a very bad situation by the dead criminal and did a great service to the community while keeping himself alive.

[amdezurik]

11. nice way to make your mind up before all evidence is in

so what if the "shooter" might have been lurking on his balcony reay to shoot anyone who "looked funny" at his "hot" car, no proof of any break-in, just the "shooters" word and a couple of speakers that may,as far as we know, been planted after the shooting. Add to that the pig "defense" of "DUUUUUH I thought he had a gun" so he shoot him in the head. Fact is all we have is one article from a paper presenting what the pigs and the "shooter" want us to hear.

[Hangingon]

17. Pigs? Explains the mind set.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

19. Obviously your mind isn't made up at all.

You are clearly the most open minded person here and would never make presumptions about another group of people.

David

[tularetom]

6. How did you know it was a Mosin-Nagant?

That's an old Russian bolt action rifle from the pre Soviet days. They're readily available from sporting goods stores. The only thing I noticed was the refernce to the ammunition found in the car.

[Irreverend IX]

9. The story mentions he used a bolt-action rifle...

And that the police found 7.62x54R ammo in his apartment and a shell casing on his balcony (rare for reporters to name the specific round used). That makes it almost certain the gun used was a Mosin-Nagant, I don't think there are any other bolt-actions using that round that are common in the US.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. I think it's inferred from the comments.

I'm waiting for more details on this one. Could go either way. Curious what the autopsy shows, front or back of the head.

[fla nocount]

13. We can't all drive nails with a rifle... not at night.

It seems like he kept the center line true and the muzzle lifted on the trigger pull.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Might have been sighted in for 200+ yards too.

Similar effect. Add a little yank of the trigger, and you hit way high.


One problem I have with the shoot in the legs for less lethal effect, if you hit the femoral artery, your target will probably die. If you shatter the femur, you have just released a significant amount of the target's blood supply.

Aiming for the legs is not necessarily 'less lethal'. Firing a gun at someone is lethal force, period.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

15. If he was shooting an M44 I can see it. They kick like a mule

762X54 pretty well makes it a Mosin. That round would shoot high at 25 yards. It usually flattens out at about 100 then starts to drop.

Here is a pic of an M44 at night. You can roast marsh mellows on the bayonet.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0TgCwDq8Yet!n0szRDspkFrP7zWfkJikR9Pj4RWCGTpsClFYTL3P80ukPBMJOVqLndFMHBVd52PswjgAaqYco1l2!oH2w5xp76dI0!3jrsC7G1r1RSjYBtg/P?dc=4675550237007697120

Man, that guys head must have been an awful mess

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

18. Butters kept shooting people in the dick by accident.

I guess it could happen.

David

[slackmaster]

22. Poor kid may have permanent hearing damage from that

Those rifles are LOUD!

[aikoaiko]

31. There are no facts presented inthat article which lead me to think the shooter committed a crime.

If what the car owner says is true, I wish him luck.

I wonder how a Florida or GA "Stand Your Ground" law would benefit the shooter.

[virginia mountainman]

45. Holy cow! Went "Red Army" on his ass!

Those old Mosin's pack quite a wallop, and notice, they found a box of Winchester Ammo, that means a soft point bullet, instead of the much more common FMJ bullet.

For those that don't know what one of these full power, battle rifles, look like, I will show you.



For those of you that think so called assault rifles are so super powerful, and are "super dangerous", pull your head out of Sara Brady's ass, and I will SHOW you the truth

Take note, the top rifle in that photo is an Finnish, M24 Mosin Nagant rifle, the lower one is a 1941 Soviet M91-30 Mosin Nagant rifle, also their is a charger of 7.62x54R Military ammo between the rifles.

Compared to say, a AR15 or an semi auto AK Style rifle, those old mosins pack at least 3 TIMES the power, effective range, and penatration as the newer rifles do.

And they can be purchased for a bit more than $50 used

(But don't try to offer me that for that Finnish M24 Lotta rifle, I know what it is worth, and yes, it has the SIG sauer stepped barrel)

[Hangingon]

50. 7.62 x 54mm is still the caliber of Russian sniper rifles.

[tburnsten]

52. And medium machine guns!

[Hangingon]

54. Good point!

I guess the Russians never get rid of tooling. The 7.62 x 54mm is really a contemporary of the .30-40 Krag. Both still work pretty well.

[virginia mountainman]

58. Actully, not..

From Wiki..

The 7.62x54R is a very potent cartridge, in the same power class as the 30-06 Springfield. This round has excellent intrinsic accuracy as well. The spitzer bullets used in the military variants have a particularly elongated shape which results in a significantly high ballistic coefficent contributing to very good long range performance and high retained energy, close to a .300 Winchester Magnum round past 500 meters (550 yards). Data for the 12.0 g (185 gr) FMJ bullet boat tail fired from a Dragunov sniper rifle, shows a retained energy of circa 1,000 J (740 ft·lbf) at 1000 m (1100 yards). When used with modern hunting bullets, it is capable of easily taking large game. In Russia the 7.62x54R is commonly used for hunting purposes mostly in sporterized Mosin-Nagant rifles. In that country, widespread use of modern magnum cartridges is not common among hunters (in contrast to North America where magnum cartridges are commonly used) with the 7.62x54R even being considered a bit too powerful for moose. Great bears including polar bears are frequently hunted with it.

I have owned, and fire several 30-06's and 7.62x54r rifles, they are about the same. According to my sholder, the 7.62x54r is one of the strongest kicking rifles I have ever fired, but I belive that this may be due to poor stock angles that many of these rifles have

Check out this video, showing the strong recoil, and tremendoes muzzle blast these rifles have

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=324ShpcckPA

[OffWithTheirHeads]

60. Cool video

Every time I take my M44 to the range the folks on either side of me tend to move away. I love that gun. I like my 91/30 too but the M44 is really fun to let the unaware shoot.

[Endangered Specie]

56. hmm, well alot of mosins famously shoot high

but that high? The idea being to tell a soldier to aim at the stomach of the enemy, and they should hit somewhere in the chest at anywhere inside of 2-300 m.

[Jack_DeLeon]

59. Too bad this didnt happen in Texas, then it wouldnt be an issue...

our laws are such that after night time people are given alot more leeway to defend their property from criminals.

Just read the article he says that when he confronted the guys that the one who got shot apparently reached for something, so he claimed that it was a self defense situation. So hopefully he will get off using that defense.

I have no sympathy for criminals and we would all be better off if they were killed while attempting to victimize others.

[Testament]

61. Hopefully he comes to terms with this, and isn't found guilty even though he talked to the police...

Police are not your friend. Get a lawyer. However, the shot should be considered good because he thought the man was reaching for a gun, but you don't try to aim for the legs, and you certainly don't tell the police that you did that and you didn't mean to kill the man. UH...anyway.

[SweetStephanie]

64. Sad

sad, i hope someday they will be burn on hell

[aikoaiko]

65. Welcome to DU, on election day no less.

:hi:

[iverglas]

66. too quick on the draw ;)

I went looking, and in the time it took me ...

[tburnsten]

67. The young man who fired, or the young man who was robbing him?

I don't know if anything new has come out, but the way I read the story, the guy who was shot and killed was shot after he stopped running away and turned to face the shooter while reaching into his waistband. That is the shooter's story, and I think that should be a very easy story to prove true or false. If he was telling the truth, why should he be punished? The man who was killed obviously caused his own death. If the guy did just run away, and the shooter shot him while he was trying to escape, then the police will be able to discover the truth easily, and then he will rightly rot in jail for years to come.


Either way the event is the fault of the three young men who broke into his vehicle, he didn't go looking for trouble. Doesn't give him the right to kill them if they are running away, but it also doesn't mean he has to wait and see what kind of object the criminal was reaching for.

[iverglas]

68. uh

We'll never know. :(