Indianapolis postman shot in the eye with a .38


PDA






dom1104
July 8, 2009, 09:16 PM
Huh, shot in the FACE with a 38 revolver, it glances off his cheekbone and ends up in his neck, and he is fine. well, reasonably fine.

The mailmans quote in the paper was "If that bullet was any bigger, I'd be dead."


38 is somewhere between 380 and 9mm in power yes?

Well if you shoot someone point blank in the FACE and they can still call their wives on a cell phone....

suddenly I am thinking maybe a j frame isnt such a hot idea.

It was going to be my next purchase.

I mean people say " shot placement shot placement" I would think in the cheek would be pretty decent shot placement.

Either way, this was about 4 miles from my house. wowzers.


video link = http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/crime/Postal_worker_shot_in_SE_side_robbery_20090702



A mailman who was shot in the eye Thursday after a Southeastside bank robbery said he was trying to get the suspectís license plate number and vehicle description when he bumped into the suspect.

Bob Norman, 54, Franklin, spoke about his experience today at Methodist Hospital, where he is recovering and awaiting surgery on Tuesday.



The right side of his face is swollen from a shattered cheek and jawbone fractured in eight places, and though the tissue around his right eye is a deep shade of purple, he can see out of it.

The suspect in the robbery, Brook Abebe, is being held on a long list of charges that include attempted murder, robbery, criminal confinement, felon in possession of a handgun, pointing a firearm and criminal recklessness. Det. Sgt. Kevin Wethington of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department said local authorities will screen his case Monday, and Abebe, a resident alien, will face a federal arraignment later this week.

Norman, a 30-year mailman who is assigned to the Wanamaker Branch, said he stopped at the Chase at Southeastern and Northeastern avenues about 3 p.m. Thursday to get lunch money. He was eating late, he said, because earlier that day, he had discovered that one of his patrons, an elderly woman whom he checked on occasionally because she was a shut-in, had died at her home.

Inside the bank, Abebe fired a shot, and Norman said he could see debris falling from the ceiling. Abebe had told Norman and about five other customers who were in the bank at the time to get down on the ground. Norman got down on one knee and kept his hand on his cell phone.

When he left the bank after the robbery, he called 911 and went around to the back of the bank, where he figured Abebe had parked his car, to get his vehicle information. He came face-to-face with Abebe and struggled to turn the gun, a .38 revolver, away from him. The shot was fired and struck Norman in the eye.

Norman collapsed to the ground, grasping his eye as he saw the blood gushing from his face. He thought he might die, so someone handed him his phone that he had dropped. He called his wife, Deb, to tell her that he loved her, and they talked until the paramedics arrived.

As he was being transported to the hospital, he joked with paramedics about being stuck with needles, and he prayed.

ďI would do the same thing again,Ē Norman said. ďIím not a chicken soul. Iím not afraid to die. I did what I had to do.Ē

Normanís jaw will be wired shut for six to eight weeks while he recovers. He said he anticipated going back to work.

If you enjoyed reading about "Indianapolis postman shot in the eye with a .38" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
j21blackjack
July 8, 2009, 10:03 PM
All I've got to say is that someone up there is looking out for that guy.

JoeMal
July 8, 2009, 10:16 PM
Yeah, it just wasn't this guys time to die

riverrat373
July 8, 2009, 10:18 PM
Don't give up on a J frame. The man was very lucky indeed!

lions
July 8, 2009, 10:23 PM
It doesn't say it was straight into his face, it may have been a glancing blow for all we know. Nothing wrong with a J frame, a shot glancing off a bone is much different than straight into the eye.

longdayjake
July 8, 2009, 10:25 PM
I bet it stopped him as it would anyone else shot in the face.

Snowdog
July 8, 2009, 10:27 PM
a shattered cheek and jawbone fractured in eight places

Sounds like it delivered a good deal of energy to me. Yeah, I know you said people would likely point out the importance of placement, but it really is crucial.
This fellow was just lucky. Not all people are.

Officers'Wife
July 8, 2009, 11:03 PM
If you are looking for a 'one shot' killer under all circumstances of hits you need to move away from firearms to ordnance. And even then you are going to find those one in a million times when the target just refuses to die.

Better still, let's thank a merciful God that a good man wasn't taken from us before his time. And let's further pray the State of Indiana will bring justice to the scum that attacked him.

danbrew
July 9, 2009, 08:13 AM
Sounds like the guy was a moron. It's the banks money - they have insurance, they have video cameras, what was the rush to go get the guys tag number?

Pleeeeasssse. Had I been sitting in line at the bank and been carrying and the events transpired as indicated in the article above, I'da been home having a cold one an hour later instead of sitting in the hospital.

He's not afraid of dying? Good for him. I'd prefer to die for a good reason if I have a choice.

Double Naught Spy
July 9, 2009, 08:49 AM
Well if you shoot someone point blank in the FACE and they can still call their wives on a cell phone....

suddenly I am thinking maybe a j frame isnt such a hot idea.

It was going to be my next purchase.

I mean people say " shot placement shot placement" I would think in the cheek would be pretty decent shot placement.


It is counterintuitive, but head shots often fail. Something like 60% of the head is non-vital structures and of the via CNS structures, most have a pretty good shield. People get shot in the skull but the rounds sometimes bounce, deflect, or otherwise fail to do the proper damage.

You think shooting somebody in the cheek would be a good shot? Sure, if you want to hit the head, but you are also have to realize that there just aren't all that many critical structures in the face.

You seem very confused. You note that shot placement is critical and then think that maybe a J-frame isn't a good idea. Had the shot placement been correct, the J-frame would have done fine.

m_kirk2001
July 9, 2009, 09:27 AM
I don't see a problem with the .38 spl, especially since we have no bullet or gun information. The bottom line is that a "shattered" cheek bone and a jaw broken in EIGHT places sounds like the bullet had plenty of energy to get the job done if it hadn't spent its entire course of travel in solid bone. It also did the job the robber wanted it to...the guy stopped trying to get his license plate number.

m_kirk2001
July 9, 2009, 09:41 AM
Sounds like the guy was a moron. It's the banks money - they have insurance, they have video cameras, what was the rush to go get the guys tag number?

Pleeeeasssse. Had I been sitting in line at the bank and been carrying and the events transpired as indicated in the article above, I'da been home having a cold one an hour later instead of sitting in the hospital.

He's not afraid of dying? Good for him. I'd prefer to die for a good reason if I have a choice.

danbrew, I hope you aren't my neighbor! I'm assuming that since you are on a forum like this one you are a gun owner. I'm also assuming that if someone breaks into your house you would be willing to take care of business with the understanding that if you call 911, your life could be ended by the time LE gets there.

This mail man is a hero! His concern wasn't that the bank had lost the cash that he needed for his lunch money, it was that he knew that if all he did was call 911 with no vehicle information it would only lessen the chance that the guy would be immediately apprehended. Citizens have a social responsibility to be proactive about fighting crime, that is why we promote the right to bear arms, not to make sure that they can go home and have a cold one while a violent criminal goes out to blow his money and then find another victim.

If a police officer had been responding and had been shot in the face and died would you have deemed it a "good reason" to die?

Disclaimer: I am not advocating untrained citizens to put themselves in life threatening situations as a matter of civic duty, only to do what they can to aid in the apprehension of criminals. (If the mail man knew he would be shot in the face when he went outside, obviously he shouldn't/wouldn't go.) I am also not advocating that you dress up for a Bank of Los Angeles shootout whenever you want to go and get lunch money.

Yo Mama
July 9, 2009, 09:52 AM
If more folks watched over their fellow man as this mail man did, our country would be in much better shape. He had some balls to do this.

dom1104
July 9, 2009, 10:55 AM
You seem very confused. You note that shot placement is critical and then think that maybe a J-frame isn't a good idea. Had the shot placement been correct, the J-frame would have done fine.

well you are right about confused thats my normal state.

I guess what I am confused about is, he was shot upwards into the cheek bone, it TURNED the bullet around and it ended up in his neck.

Would a heavier bullet or a bullet moving faster have continued on without being deflected?

if he was shot with say a 44 mag or a 357 or .45 would the result have been different?

this is what i am wondering.

granted .38 special has a large range of power levels, and there is no bullet info.


I guess I am just amazed that a bullet can be turned around by a cheek bone. The last few deer I have shot ribs, backbone, even shoulder blades didnt severly deflect the shot.

Maybe thats the diference between a 44 mag and a 38. not sure. so yeah I am confused. I would have thought the 38 would have the oomph.

dom1104
July 9, 2009, 11:00 AM
and I agree, danbrew is incorrect. A real man does what he can to help protect his hometown. Not sits like a wimp and 'has a cold one'. There are names for that, and its not "Man".

I am thankful, since its MY community that this postman was protecting.

maskedman504
July 9, 2009, 11:24 AM
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

raskolnikov_22
July 9, 2009, 11:31 AM
Definitely the exception, not the rule!

BP Hunter
July 9, 2009, 11:38 AM
What makes this country great is its people. People like our hero who tried to help out in a crime. If some of us don't give a #*it about our community then sorry for them.

Deltaboy
July 9, 2009, 11:42 AM
It just wasn't the postmans day to die. I pray he heals up and is back to work soon!

Madcap_Magician
July 9, 2009, 12:03 PM
There's no guarantees. The only consistent thing about handgun ammo is that it's inconsistent. There was a police officer killed a few years ago when a perp being pulled over shot him with a .22 derringer. First shot hit him in the vest. Perp then took five .357 magnum rounds, three in the torso, while the police officer retreated to his car. Perp then fired his last .22, which hit the officer in the armpit, pierced his heart, and killed him nearly instantly. Perp survived his multiple major gunshot wounds.

BBQLS1
July 9, 2009, 01:10 PM
The J-Frame is probably the best carry gun ever.

danbrew
July 9, 2009, 08:10 PM
I've thought about this thread on and off all day and I must say I am baffled by those of you who think the postman is a hero.

Let's review the facts...

* Bad guy comes into a bank and robs it and displays his willingness to use his gun by shooting it off in the air
* Bad guy gets his money and is on the way out the door without any injuries
* Postman could have just stayed there and said "daaayyyyaaammmm - do you believe that?"
* Instead he runs out and confronts a bad guy and gets shot

This particular "hero" will probably not suffer too much economically as a result of being a federal employee (are postal employees even federal employees? I thought that the postal service was a private entity, but am too lazy to go look it up). Assuming he is a federal employee, or his employer has to follow some of the federal employee rules, the government (you and me pal) will pay for his medical and he'll probably get some time off for work based upon his accrued sick leave. If he has any remaining. I know for a fact that when a federal employee runs out of sick leave, he's outta luck. What if he hadn't been a postal employee? What if he had been a self-employed businessman? He would be screwed from medical expenses that will likely run to the tens of thousands of dollars. Those of you that believe he was acting as a hero are sorely misguided if you believe the bank will fork over one dime for his trouble.

It would be a completely different situation if the bad guy were preparing to execute someone, although the postman has already demonstrated that he was ill equipped to intervene in such a situation. Had I been in the bank packing, I would have calmly watched until I believed that my life or that of another was in imminent danger of death or serious injury.

The bank has insurance and would rather the bad guy take the few grand and hit the road. The bank *might* be on the hook from a media relationship perspective if the robber came in and executed a few customers, although most of you will agree that the bank has no obligation to protect its customers (or employees) from unlawful acts. The light fixture is held together with scotch tape and it falls and smacks somebody upside the head? Yeah, the bank is on the hook for that. The bank is being robbed and a bad guy shoots a customer that is either standing by passively or intervenes? Well, gee, the bank had no way of knowing that would happen and it's not the bank on the hook to make you well.

Those of you that imply that to stand by idly is tantamount to being an uncaring citizen with no concern for others really worry me. Are you seriously suggesting that an unarmed citizen should confront an armed robber? M_Kirk2001, you say that this is not what you advocate; yet you chastise me for suggesting that one should not escalate the situation? Please. The fact of the matter is that very few bank robbers get away with it. There are silent alarms, there is video inside and outside of the bank, and the only objective of the bank is to ensure that no one is injured in a robbery. Some believe that it is not manly or that one has abdicated his civic responsibility to stand by in such a situation. I advocate that it's better to be a live witness instead of a dead or shot in the face guy lying in the hospital as a result of unconsidered or hasty action.

I'd feel completely different about the situation if the responder in this case was a law enforcement officer. That individual would have the training, the firearm, and the color of authority to back up his actions. We'd like to hope that he'd also have some common sense and not stumble into getting shot. It's difficult to Monday-morning the actions of the postman (or a law enforcement officer) after all is said and done, but the fact remains that if the postman hadn't tried to become involved he wouldn't have gotten shot.

Also a different story if the bad guy is in my house. I'd argue that it's best to get the guy to scram rather than shooting him. A good friend shot and killed a 17-year-old armed robber in 1982 and while he was completely justified and the prosecutor ended up not filing charges, he spent about $60,000 that I'm sure he didn't have to stay out of jail and to deal with the resulting civil suit.

If I am ever faced with a situation outside of my domain, I'm watching. If I'm ever unfortunate enough to be in a situation where I could shoot, I'm offering every opportunity for the guy to vamoose. I'd think that most of us would choose self defense if it came right down to it, but it is very disturbing that there are those amongst us (the pro second amendment types) that would advocate putting yourself into a situation where you could shoot. What kind of person wants that? If you ask me, that's not really in keeping with the principles and the charter of "The High Road".

Cards81fan
July 9, 2009, 08:24 PM
I am with you danbrew. If I am unarmed, you will not see me confronting a criminal that has already made it clear he is fleeing the scene.

I am not sure what the victim accomplished in this scenario besides adding more charges to the perp's rapsheet.

danprkr
July 9, 2009, 08:47 PM
A good friend shot and killed a 17-year-old armed robber in 1982 and while he was completely justified and the prosecutor ended up not filing charges, he spent about $60,000 that I'm sure he didn't have to stay out of jail and to deal with the resulting civil suit.


Money is NOT the criteria you should be using to decide shoot/noshoot!

Also, I have say that all in all I align myself withA real man does what he can to help protect his hometown. Not sits like a wimp and 'has a cold one'. There are names for that, and its not "Man".

And it wasn't my community the guys was protecting!

Cards81fan
July 9, 2009, 09:02 PM
A real man does what he can to help protect his hometown. Not sits like a wimp and 'has a cold one'. There are names for that, and its not "Man".
And it wasn't my community the guys was protecting!

Can someone please tell me what this postman did to protect his hometown? Did he somehow detain the perp until police arrived? What did he do that changed the likelyhood the perp was captured?

I am sure the perp fled after the shooting, and was later apprehended. I suspect this would have happened regardless of the intervention. I mean, it appears as if he attempted to sieze the weapon of the perp. Did he get the license plate information after being shot in the face, leading to the capture?

Seriously, did he engage the armed perp with nothing but his hands? Or was the perp aiming and shooting before the victim grabbed at him? I intend this as a serious queston.

danbrew
July 9, 2009, 09:53 PM
Well, I'll keep it civil, fellas, but name calling isn't really helping your argument. A wimp? Less that a man? Perhaps - but I will be the man going home to my family this evening and going off to the salt mines tomorrow to earn a living for my family. I'm not sure that the postman will be doing that for some time.

I don't actually disagree with the principles that some here are espousing - everybody likes the idea of catching the bad guy and kicking his butt, sending him to prison, etc. I'm simply saying that the postman didn't have to get shot. I'd bet you a buck that the video camera outside the bank got a dandy shot of the car.

We can agree to disagree, but the actions portrayed by the postman (ironic, I know, good enough movie, though...) were quite foolish.

I hope that none of us ever have to discover that our actions are judged after the fact as that of a fool. Also, it must be nice to not have to worry about the financial devastation likely to be experienced after any shooting. Does anyone here really believe that the bank will pay the medical bills for the postman? Or that the postman is independently wealthy and can easily pay those bills? I don't.


(and, btw, what the heck is a "chicken soul"?)

mongo4567
July 9, 2009, 11:38 PM
I'm with danbrew and others on this. There is nothing heroic in my mind about chasing down a fleeing robber when no one was hurt and you are unarmed. It just sounds dumb and unnecessarily risky to me. Stepping in during the escalation of such a crime in progress, that would be heroic. Risking your life to protect someone else, that would be heroic.

danprkr
July 10, 2009, 07:44 AM
I suspect this would have happened regardless of the intervention.


"Suspect" is the key word in that sentence. It is always far easier for the cops to get the bad guy if they KNOW what he's driving than if they don't. Which is why he went to the back of the bank. If you'd read a little more closely you'd have read the sentence that ended:

...to get his vehicle information.

Then it turns out that he was either a bit to fast, or our BG was attempting to flee without a car. Instead of being in a car and ready to go the BG was still in the open so our hero:

...came face-to-face with Abebe and struggled to turn the gun, a .38 revolver, away from him.

Which means that he rounded the corner, surprised the BG, got a .38 pointed at him, and then had to struggle with the BG to get out of the line of fire. Which he sadly did not do with total success. I will admit that the literary styling of the article does take a murky turn here. But, that's what it says. My bet is that the author had cut x many inches from the article for an ad but maybe he's just a bad writer. There are certainly enough of them in the news business now a days.


But, the point here is that all citizens have a duty to protect the community, and he discharged his with great courage and deserves praise.

chuckusaret
July 10, 2009, 09:13 AM
There are alot of positive and negative comments about what should have or should not have been done. I don't believe any of you know what you would or would not do in the same situation until you have been placed in a situation like this. In the heat of battle everyone reacts differently, no matter how intensive their training has been, some retreat as cowards and others continue the attack.

dom1104
July 10, 2009, 09:16 AM
Cards, as I understand it, the perp ran out the back door, the postman ran out the front to try to get his liscense, and they collided with each other as the perp rounded the corner of the building.

chuckusaret
July 10, 2009, 09:21 AM
There are alot of positive and negative comments about what should have or should not have been done. I don't believe any of you know what you would or would not do in the same situation until you have been placed in a situation like this. In the heat of battle everyone reacts differently, no matter how intensive their training has been, some retreat as cowards and others continue the attack. This guy continued the attack and should be complimented for his actions. If we do not stand up to the BG, crime will only get worse. IMO danbrew is a person, based on his input, that always thinks of himself first.

runrabbitrun
July 10, 2009, 09:29 AM
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Amen.

Yo Mama
July 10, 2009, 10:01 AM
I am with you danbrew. If I am unarmed, you will not see me confronting a criminal that has already made it clear he is fleeing the scene.


Those of you that imply that to stand by idly is tantamount to being an uncaring citizen with no concern for others really worry me. Are you seriously suggesting that an unarmed citizen should confront an armed robber?

No one is telling you what you should have done. You've already decided your actions. The fact that the postman made the decision shows the courage against all odds. He was shot for this, and we should show the respect this person deserves.

Double Naught Spy
July 10, 2009, 10:42 AM
There's no guarantees. The only consistent thing about handgun ammo is that it's inconsistent. There was a police officer killed a few years ago when a perp being pulled over shot him with a .22 derringer. First shot hit him in the vest. Perp then took five .357 magnum rounds, three in the torso, while the police officer retreated to his car. Perp then fired his last .22, which hit the officer in the armpit, pierced his heart, and killed him nearly instantly. Perp survived his multiple major gunshot wounds.

That was SC Trooper Mark Coates. The perp didn't use a derringer, but a NAA Mini Revolver. Coates died fairly quickly, but it was not "almost instantly." As I recall from the video, he was able to finish his radio call for help and staggered around before the loss of blood pressure resulted in his collapse.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

Yeah, sure. Then again, all that is necessary evil to triumph over good men is for unarmed, situationally naive, and combat inexperienced good men to force encounters with armed evil men.

The postman performed with heroism, but quite naively. Putting oneself in danger so as to save the money of an insured business entity when the danger had already passed and to do so without body armor, firearms, and/or careful use of cover just isn't a good idea. The postman went to where he expected the robber to be - not good.

Officers'Wife
July 10, 2009, 12:02 PM
Yeah, sure. Then again, all that is necessary evil to triumph over good men is for unarmed, situationally naive, and combat inexperienced good men to force encounters with armed evil men.

You are very right, trying to collect evidence was foolish. After all, the police, though absent and therefore unavailable, are the sole seekers of such evidence and should not have to have their absolute authority challenged by such idiotic civilians. The postman should be condemned for having such counter-productive ideals of civic responsibility. Shame on him, the robber should get a pass for having his God given rights to threaten, rob and kill violated.

danbrew
July 10, 2009, 10:07 PM
I almost feel a little misogynistic asking this question, Officers'Wife, but what does your husband think?

Nobody was slamming cops here btw, nor suggesting the bad guy get a pass. The fact remains that somebody is paying the medical bills for this guy. Note I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, I get that some folks agree with me and some do not. But I couldn't help myself asking the question in light of post #35.

Officers'Wife
July 10, 2009, 10:47 PM
Hi Danbrew,

I apologize if you found that post offensive. I come from an area where neighbors look after neighbor and get most annoyed to hear people that put themselves on the line criticized for following their duty in insuring a peaceful society.

Yes, someone is paying his medical bills, by the same token someone is paying for the capital stolen. Since that someone is federal banking insurance that someone is you and me. By trying to get that plate number the postman was attempting to help insure a peaceful society by gathering evidence that would have helped put a dangerously violent person behind bars. Two generations ago this sort of act would have been the norm, the generation of 'peace and love' would rather this violence stay on the street in order to mind their own business and let the better trained albeit absent professional handle the paperwork after. Post #35 was pure sarcasm in response to statements I interpreted as less than civic minded. This postman strikes me as the sort that saddles his own horse and shines his own boots, a quality both my husband and I admire.

Selena

fireflyfather
July 11, 2009, 12:27 AM
Back to the original question:

Those deer that you shot probably had the bullet strike the bone in such a way that the bullet was penetrating a very thin cross-section of bone, rather than, say the bullet entering the top of the femur, and traveling down the inside of it the long way. Anything over a 45 degree angle when dealing with thick bone, using a handgun cartridge (especially with less than optimal ammo) is a crap shoot. Bullets do funny things.

Don't hesitate to get your j-frame. Load it properly (not cowboy style 125 grain round nose soft lead) with a decent personal defense round, and practice with it.

Odds are the perp just bough crappy practice ammo, fired upwards into the jaw during a struggle, and the bullet traveled length-wise through several inches of bone. If it had been an inch or two off, or a few degrees off, there are all kind of vitals it could have hit. The guy was just lucky.

scythefwd
July 11, 2009, 01:21 AM
38 is somewhere between 380 and 9mm in power yes?

Yes and no. A standard .38 sp is just a hair shy of 9mm. Then again, a .38 bullet is actually a .358 projectile, the same that is used in a ..... get this.... .357. Was the gun recovered or are they guessing the caliber of it based on the bullet? A small .357 looks an awfully lot like a .38. The .38 +P can get into light .357 velocities and weight if you reload it. The man who was shot is lucky that he isn't dead. There is nothing wrong with the ammo he was shot with.

zxcvbob
July 11, 2009, 01:34 AM
I've only read about 1/3 of this thread.

No cartridge is 100% effective, not even your favorite .50 caliber. Mailman was lucky (or blessed). A .357 or a 9mm might have killed him (or might not), or on another day a .25ACP might have done what the .38 failed to this time.

MAURICE
July 11, 2009, 10:04 PM
A j frame loaded with good +p SD ammo is nothing to sneeze at, even if(thankfully) this guy lived. I have never felt out gunned with a .38.

Elvishead
July 12, 2009, 03:02 AM
I know for a fact of a guy getting shot in the head with a .357 magnum. It ricocheted of his skull and went through many walls, and the worst thing it did was pop his ear drumbs.

earlthegoat2
July 12, 2009, 07:23 AM
I have all the faith in the world that shooting someone anywhere in the face with a 38 is going to stop the fight.

The Lone Haranguer
July 12, 2009, 09:01 AM
Here is the problem with taking head shots in combat. The bullet must strike at an exact spot, not just any old place on the head, or the risk of the bullet skidding off like that is greatly increased.

If you read Jim Cirillo's Guns, Bullets and Gunfights, he writes that in one of his shootings he hit the "perp" multiple times in the head with .38 Spl. LRN and the bullets glanced off the skull and tunneled through the flesh. :eek: Only one penetrated and stopped the fight. We have better ammo today, but at the time he had to make his own.

doc2rn
July 12, 2009, 09:25 AM
Quote:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

+1 He was doing what he could, getting the tag #!

rainbowbob
July 12, 2009, 05:12 PM
I took a self-defense class from an officer that was shot in the face with a 9mm. That shot "stopped" him (for about a year) - just like the .38 "stopped" the postman.

No caliber is the ultimate magic bullet - but either one will ruin your day if shot into your face or COM.

The whole "hero" vs "chicken" argument is off-topic and usually ends in thread-lock.

Highwayman
July 12, 2009, 05:14 PM
Any bullet to any face is going to stop the fight.. I'll have to agree.

Elvishead
July 16, 2009, 04:38 AM
Highwayman:

Any bullet to any face is going to stop the fight.. I'll have to agree.

Ohh really? Back it up with fact's.

c919
July 16, 2009, 01:09 PM
OK First of all.... +10 danbrew.

Seriously, is there anything more elementary than "Don't confront an armed aggressor when unarmed"?

For those of you who think he's a hero,

Did he stop anything? Save anyone?

.....NO, He went and got himself shot in the face. Period.

I feel for the guy, I mean, that sucks. But you better be ready for that when you confront a criminal with a gun.

Yeah, he lived. We can all be thankful that he was amazingly lucky and/or blessed. But he's going to walk around with a deformed face forever because of a really stupid decision.



And in regards to shot placement...... If you hit thick bone at a tangential angle, you can pretty well expect poor results.

61chalk
July 16, 2009, 01:31 PM
From what I read, he did not intend to take on the armed man, so why is he being judged that way? If he wanted to do that he would of done that in the bank. I suppose someday some pervert will kidnap a child from off the street, an some postman will run up an try an get the plate number, the pervert stops, backs up, gets out an shoots the postman....an some bonehead will say the postman should of known better, what did he prove, he should of known better an let the police handle it.
Big guns might only wound, little guns might kill, its tooo much mathmatics for me to figure out.

SSN Vet
July 16, 2009, 03:21 PM
I think it's pretty obvious that the guy didn't intend to confront the armed perp.. but rather, he was attempting to be an effective witness and get a plate number as the car sped off.

What someone is intending to do with their actions, makes a big difference in how others should evaluate those actions. (i.e. he wasn't running up to the guy to fight him for the money he just stole..... which might have the exact same outcome... but for a very different reason). If people are going to judge the actions of others... they need to be responsible and thoughtful and wise enough to make a right judgment)

Unfortunately for him, he wound up in the wrong place at the wrong time.....

"Chicken soul" or not, he was hurt badly while trying to do something good.

Were his actions wise? I personally don't think so. If anyone has a responsibility to stop a bank robber it would be an officer of the bank (i.e. the branch manager)... yet we all know exactly what the banks tell their employees... "just give them the money and don't get yourself or anyone else hurt". And they tell them this with a significant measure of experience and wisdom.

The real tragedy is that the armed robber who attempted to kill a witness to his crime by shooting him in the face, is going to get a tax payer funded attorney, is going to burn tens of thousands of dollars of our resources in a trial and then is going to get three hots and a cot, cable t.v., free education and the best health care money can buy for the next 7 to 10 years. Where as he should get a "speedy trial" followed by a long jump off a public stage with a short rope around his neck. Done!

Mr. Postman may well be a contractor.... in which case he will not get squat.... if a contractor, he probably doesn't even have health insurance, in which case he's got a whopper of a bill coming from the hospital. The hospital won't push him into bankruptcy to pay his surgery bills, so they'll do what they do whenever someone can't pay their bill... they pass on the cost to you and me.

If he is a full time employee of the USPS, they he will have good health insurance and his medical bills will get paid.

If the guy was on his lunch break and in the bank on personal business, the USPS will likely (and probably has every right to) deny a workers comp claim. If that's the case... he's out a couple months pay. If the bank was a stop on his assigned route.... he'll be covered by workers comp and the USPS will just pass the cost on to us the next time they hike their rates.

Honestly guys... this is all pretty basic stuff.... If you ever have to ask yourself "who's paying for all of this cr@#" the answer is most likely "I AM"

As for obligation to community goes... the first building block of any community is the nuclear family (despite Hillary's rainbow village myths) and in my personal case... I am responsible (not the state, not the bank, not the insurance company, etc...) for the feeding, sheltering and care of four other souls. I will think very carefully B4 risking my life. If the guy was taking a teenage teller with him as a hostage/victim I would (Lord help me) do the right thing and risk my life to save her. However, I would not risk my life for the $500 dollars the guy likely got from the bank.

KBintheSLC
July 16, 2009, 03:33 PM
Well if you shoot someone point blank in the FACE and they can still call their wives on a cell phone....

suddenly I am thinking maybe a j frame isnt such a hot idea.

Well, according to the story it looks like it did the poor guy a good bit of damage. Maybe not fatal, but jeeze...


The right side of his face is swollen from a shattered cheek and jawbone fractured in eight places, and though the tissue around his right eye is a deep shade of purple, he can see out of it.

Also, it immediately put him down... out of the fight. The bullet may have grazed rather than hit directly too... they were struggling for the gun after all.

I feel bad for the mail man, but I would say the 38 spl performed as well as could be expected.

Yo Mama
July 17, 2009, 09:46 AM
Highwayman:

Any bullet to any face is going to stop the fight.. I'll have to agree.

Ohh really? Back it up with fact's.

Stopped the mailman didn't it?



Buddy of mine said it best. "I don't care who you are, you don't want to get shot in the face with anything, even a pellet gun."

If anyone has a responsibility to stop a bank robber it would be an officer of the bank

Not sure if you're referring to an armed guard, or actual officer, but there is no legal requirement for police to protect you in any way shape or form. This leads to the idea that everyone needs to be armed, and should be.

Carl Levitian
July 17, 2009, 01:03 PM
Quote:
Well if you shoot someone point blank in the FACE and they can still call their wives on a cell phone....

suddenly I am thinking maybe a j frame isnt such a hot idea.

Well, according to the story it looks like it did the poor guy a good bit of damage. Maybe not fatal, but jeeze...


Quote:
The right side of his face is swollen from a shattered cheek and jawbone fractured in eight places, and though the tissue around his right eye is a deep shade of purple, he can see out of it.

Also, it immediately put him down... out of the fight. The bullet may have grazed rather than hit directly too... they were struggling for the gun after all.

I feel bad for the mail man, but I would say the 38 spl performed as well as could be expected.

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

Any bullet in the face stops the fight. Anyone in any doubt, please get Frank Serpico's book by his name, and in the first chapter he starts right off with a very vivid description of his experiance being shot in the face from a few feet away with a .22 pistol. He was in an ardeniline charge breaking down a door to a suspects apartment, and he was halfway through the door when he got shot. It knocked him down to the floor where he lay stunned, wondering if he was going to die. He was 100% out of action. The .22 bullet bounced off his jaw and down into his neck.

The had to carry him out of that apartment building.

Getting shot with anything in the face is serious hurt.

krs
July 17, 2009, 03:58 PM
That 'postman' may get fired.

If he's a letter carrier he left his route to go do personal business in the bank and compounded that by running around chasing bank robbers.

If he is fired he won't be the first postal service employee fired for good samaritan acts while on duty.

If the guy has 30 years in he should have seen things like this resulting in employee firings or suspensions and known better.

In this one it'll be up to his supervisor and postmaster if the story doesn't spread too far.

If it gains national attention then the local managers are going to answer for their employees running around doing other than what they're paid to do while on the clock, and those managers will be forced to take a corrective action even if they don't think it's warranted.

the Postal Service has demonstrated it's heartlessness many times in situations like this.

Yo Mama
July 17, 2009, 08:08 PM
^ And it they do let him go, I hope we find out. :D

LRaccuracy
July 18, 2009, 10:14 AM
Someone I knew was murdered with a .38 Special last year. The guard at the Holocaust museum was killed with a .22 LR. A OSP officer was killed with a .22 short. I remember that a child in Marietta, GA was killed with a BB gun. If you are going to shoot me with something, make it a toy water gun............... unloaded.

krs
July 18, 2009, 02:15 PM
Any gunshot can be fatal.

It's useless to use this as an example of the effectiveness of .38 Special, or of the ineffectiveness of the caliber.

Examples of survival after being shot by any caliber named can no doubt be found, just as examples of fatal results after being shot by any caliber named can no doubt be found.

Nothing about either type of example can be a predictor of the result of the next gunshot episode.

The postman is lucky.

SHusky57
July 19, 2009, 12:48 AM
That 'postman' may get fired.

If he's a letter carrier he left his route to go do personal business in the bank and compounded that by running around chasing bank robbers.

If he is fired he won't be the first postal service employee fired for good samaritan acts while on duty.

If the guy has 30 years in he should have seen things like this resulting in employee firings or suspensions and known better.

In this one it'll be up to his supervisor and postmaster if the story doesn't spread too far.

If it gains national attention then the local managers are going to answer for their employees running around doing other than what they're paid to do while on the clock, and those managers will be forced to take a corrective action even if they don't think it's warranted.

the Postal Service has demonstrated it's heartlessness many times in situations like this.



Norman, a 30-year mailman who is assigned to the Wanamaker Branch, said he stopped at the Chase at Southeastern and Northeastern avenues about 3 p.m. Thursday to get lunch money. He was eating late, he said, because earlier that day, he had discovered that one of his patrons, an elderly woman whom he checked on occasionally because she was a shut-in, had died at her home.

Dude, really. He has to be a local hero. No way they the USPS would want to hurt his career. He was late to lunch because a patron on his route that he regularly checked on had died. I barely know my neighbors. This guy went out of his way to check on an elderly lady. Then he goes to play superman, but unfortunately has no super powers or government issue Sig-sauer. Maybe postal carriers should just be armed.... it would cut down on vicious dogs and mail thiefs?

If you enjoyed reading about "Indianapolis postman shot in the eye with a .38" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!