more bullets from above
David Lesher
Err.. how does this one get explained???
ATLANTA, Jan. 5 (UPI) -- A spectator at the New Year's Eve
Peach Bowl at Atlanta's Georgia Dome was hit by a stray bullet that
ripped though the fiberglass roof.
Merritt Tidwell, 18, who was sitting four rows up from the
10-yard line, initially thought she had cut her leg on a piece of
glass or a rogue nail jutting from the stadium seating, but an X-ray
at Fayette County hospital revealed a bullet from a 9mm round was
lodged just below her knee, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
reported.
The bullet was believed to have been shot into the air by a
partygoer reveling in the New Year. A similar incident was reported
at the Dome three years ago.
"It's a freak thing, and my God, if we could prevent it, we
would. But the roof of the Dome is like a great big thick canvas.
It's not like a regular roof," Dome spokeswoman Katy Pando said
Tuesday.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
JohnS
John Dean
> Err.. how does this one get explained???
>
>
>
> ATLANTA, Jan. 5 (UPI) -- A spectator at the New Year's Eve
> Peach Bowl at Atlanta's Georgia Dome was hit by a stray bullet that
> ripped though the fiberglass roof.
>
> Merritt Tidwell, 18, who was sitting four rows up from the
> 10-yard line, initially thought she had cut her leg on a piece of
> glass or a rogue nail jutting from the stadium seating, but an X-ray
> at Fayette County hospital revealed a bullet from a 9mm round was
> lodged just below her knee, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
> reported.
>
> The bullet was believed to have been shot into the air by a
> partygoer reveling in the New Year. A similar incident was reported
> at the Dome three years ago.
>
> "It's a freak thing, and my God, if we could prevent it, we
> would. But the roof of the Dome is like a great big thick canvas.
> It's not like a regular roof," Dome spokeswoman Katy Pando said
> Tuesday.
They found the rip in the canvas? And verified it was made by a bullet?
And verified the lady didn't have a pre-existing wound? Is she suing
anybody?
--
John Dean
Oxford
John Dean
> What goes up must come down. At 32 ft per second per second.
Only on this planet
--
John Dean
Oxford
Paul Cassel
> Err.. how does this one get explained???
>
>
300 mph which is easily enough to rip through canvas and then injure a
leg. Actually, considering that they are pointed objects, they probably
can cut or score a leg at a very low velocity.
Don Freeman
"John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:crjagv$o1o$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> JohnS wrote:
>> What goes up must come down. At 32 ft per second per second.
>
> Only on this planet
OK, but I gotta ask. What planet are you from?
Nathan
> They found the rip in the canvas? And verified it was made by a bullet?
> And verified the lady didn't have a pre-existing wound? Is she suing
> anybody?
This actually not an UNcommon event. The law has been made clear on it
so far, that no one is actually to blame, as long as the person firing
the gun did so within state and federal laws.
Of course, I could be wrong, I picked up that little tid-bit on some
show on Cable. Could have been the history channel, may have been CSI...
Hell, I don't know how accurate it is.
Don Freeman
"Nathan" <netobs...@gmail.compound> wrote in message
news:RkgDd.14926$7N4....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
>
> Of course, I could be wrong, I picked up that little tid-bit on some
> show on Cable. Could have been the history channel, may have been CSI...
> Hell, I don't know how accurate it is.
But what the hell, post it to AFU anyway...
Lee Ayrton
>> They found the rip in the canvas? And verified it was made by a bullet?
>> And verified the lady didn't have a pre-existing wound? Is she suing
>> anybody?
>
> This actually not an UNcommon event. The law has been made clear on it
> so far, that no one is actually to blame, as long as the person firing
> the gun did so within state and federal laws.
Blame, guilt and being the subject of a civil suit are not necessarily the
same things in the USofA, but beyond that point lies the BoP and we shall
not go there.
> Of course, I could be wrong, I picked up that little tid-bit on some
> show on Cable. Could have been the history channel, may have been CSI...
> Hell, I don't know how accurate it is.
The motto contest closed years ago.
Lee "This is your television we're talking about." Ayrton
--
"I defer to your plainly more vivid memories of topless women with
whips....r"
R. H. Draney recalls AFU in the Good Old Days.
John Dean
This one. But I read stuff.
--
John Dean
Oxford
John Dean
What are the odds of the pointy end reaching the canvas before the side
or blunt end and *then* reaching the leg with the pointy end still
downwards? And by how much does the canvas slow the velocity?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Don Freeman
Damn, I thought I had an interview for the National Enquirer nailed.
Jordan Abel
I would assume there's some aerodynamics at work here
Anthony McCafferty
<netobs...@gmail.compound> writes:
>John Dean wrote:
>
>> They found the rip in the canvas? And verified it was made by a bullet?
>> And verified the lady didn't have a pre-existing wound? Is she suing
>> anybody?
>
>This actually not an UNcommon event.
Um...no. See, that is the mollyfoggin' quod that we are trying to
demonstrandificate, you see. Simply assuming it to be true doesn't make it so.
Let's run through the known facts. We have eedjits shooting into the air,
we have bullets coming back down again. We know this happens. We also know
that some bullets come back down with enough force to hurt someone, and that
people do get hurt this way, sometimes. What we don't know id how common, or,
if you prefer, how UNcommon this is.
Some firearms injuries happen under circumstances that the injuree might
rather not have come before the eyes of cops, judges, neighbors or parents.
Or, come to think of it, insurers, spouses, or employers. Circumstances whose
description often begins "it seemed like a good idea at the time." In short,
circumstances that suggest liquor, pharmaceuticals, or simple brain-dead
idiocy.
People who hurt themselves in such circumstances, and even people who get
hurt by friends or family, are often quite reluctant to describe the
circumstances accurately. The fact that a stray bullet might, just might
concievably to blame is a Godsend.
I call this The Bullet-in-the-Bonfire Principle. Back when it was seriously
believed that cartridges left accidently in trash fires could send a bullet
firing at dangerous speed, people used to regularly report such accidents.
>The law has been made clear on it
"The law?" "Made clear?" To begin with, even if we stick with The Lower 48
(with its semi-attached Icebox amd detached Sauna), you've got enough seperate
legal systems to make a mockery of all but the most basic truisms about "the
law' in general. Next haven't you noticed your statement is a tautology? See
right down there, next couple of lines?
>so far, that no one is actually to blame, as long as the person firing
>the gun did so within state and federal laws.
...quite aside from leaving off town, township and county ordinances, which are
often a lot more restrictive on discharging firearms, this ignores the
difference between criminal culpability and legal responsibilty (you can lose a
lot of money for behavior that can't jail you).
>Of course, I could be wrong, I picked up that little tid-bit on some
>show on Cable. Could have been the history channel, may have been CSI...
>Hell, I don't know how accurate it is.
Anthony "The Motto Contest needs to be re-opened" McCafferty
John D. Goulden
> rows up
> from the 10 yard line.
...so a bullet dropped from rest from that height is traveling in the
general neighborhood of 100 feet /second. That would probably hurt.
--
John Goulden
John Dean
> "John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:crkkro$9n6$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Don Freeman wrote:
>>> "John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
>>> news:crjagv$o1o$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>>>> JohnS wrote:
>>>>> What goes up must come down. At 32 ft per second per second.
>>>>
>>>> Only on this planet
>>>
>>> OK, but I gotta ask. What planet are you from?
>>
>> This one. But I read stuff.
>
> Damn, I thought I had an interview for the National Enquirer nailed.
You want me to tell you how I recorded Heartbreak Hotel in 1956?
--
John "They'd publish that" Dean
Oxford
John Dean
Yep. Similar speed to a baseball. Would a bullet penetrate at 70 mph?
--
John Dean
Oxford
Don Freeman
know that. How about a story regarding your kidnapping by ETs? Since you
must have just been released by your alien abductors I hope you don't find
out who your daughter used to hang out with. Bummer dude.
Lon
Perhaps a fastbullet a bit closer to the speed range of a fastball
might?
Paul Cassel
I haven't a clue. I will say that a person can be scratched by an object
moving that fast if it struck her with its base too or if were tumbling.
The sharp edges aren't just the point, but the base as well.
-paul
Paul Cassel
I would think some of the damage capacity would be related to its mass.
Were it a blunt nosed .22 with a mass of 29 to 40 gr, I'd say the
chances are slight. Were it large bullet which can mass as much as 500
gr (over an oz) then that's a different thing.
Ray Heindl
> John Dean wrote:
>> What are the odds of the pointy end reaching the canvas before
>> the side or blunt end and *then* reaching the leg with the pointy
>> end still downwards? And by how much does the canvas slow the
>> velocity?
> I haven't a clue. I will say that a person can be scratched by an
> object moving that fast if it struck her with its base too or if
> were tumbling. The sharp edges aren't just the point, but the base
> as well.
The present case wasn't a scratch, though. It was a 9mm bullet (which
aren't very pointy, if Google's image search is to be believed) that
was "lodged just below her knee". So it must have hit hard enough to
penetrate the skin (as well as the jeans covering it), not merely
scratch it.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply to: xvortr...@yaxhoo.com)
Paul Cassel
facts.
TDKozan
It does seem odd but possible. Most common 9mm ammo is 115 grain.
Terminal velocity in air would be a bit under 200 MPH, maybe less,
depending on how much speed it retained after penetrating the canvas
roof. About the same pop as being hit with a high-powered BB gun.
_Hatcher's Notebook_ leads me to believe that the bullet would be in a
base-down attitude unless it was still tumbling from penetrating the roof.
TK
--
Cogito ergo bibo
Lon
That would be an extremely large bullet, as in for an elephant gun or
a black powder arm. More commonly available rifle bullets range from
about 80 grains on the low end to about 250 at the upper, with the
140-180 range being the sweet spot.
John Dean
So now we need data on what kind of bullets are typically fired into the
air at celebrations. My understanding was that it was commonly from
handguns.
--
John Dean
Oxford
John Dean
Ah. Then we now return to the last "bullet from the sky" that we
examined in depth. Purportedly, a KKK initiation ceremony involved a guy
tied to a tree while an existing member loosed off a few skywards.
Initial reports were that one of these had come down and hit the tree
guy on the top of his skull. Ignoring the long odds of establishing a
trajectory that would bring a falling bullet down within a few feet of
its point of departure, "bullets from the sky" aficionados claimed here
was proof. On examination, it turned out that the pistoleer had
stumbled, discharged his weapon nearer 45 degrees to the ground than 90
as the inductee was bending forward, exposing his nut to a direct hit.
So, an explanation for our Lady of the Ballpark is that someone *inside*
the stadium was goofing around (maybe showing his new Saturday Night
Special to the buddy in the next seat during a hiatus in the
proceedings) and inadvertently lit one off in the direction of our
victim.
Another option is that she got shot *outside* the stadium (by some
similar process of goofing around and accidental discharge) but had
herself assisted *into* the stadium so that (a) she could get hospital
treatment without having to give up a buddy to the cops or (b) so she
could sue someone for letting her be hit by a "falling bullet".
I have to admit I've defaulted into the position of disbelieving that
there are any genuine cases of people being hit by falling bullets.
While I admit the theoretical possibility, the odds are so long that I
can't believe it unless and until someone has hard proof. Which means I
tend to end up playing Devil's Advocate in these cases.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Anthony McCafferty
writes:
>_Hatcher's Notebook_ leads me to believe that the bullet would be in a
>base-down attitude unless it was still tumbling from penetrating the roof.
How does Hatcher lead you to this conclusion? If I recall correctly, the
base-down condition was for rifle rounds fired dead vertically. Could be quite
different for a pistol round at an angle.
Anthony
TDKozan
Angle the bullet was fired shouldn't make any difference when it's
falling as the drag on the bullet would (should? might?) cause it to
end up base first. Even a stubby little thing like a 115 gr 9mm has
the same features of a 150 gr .30 bullet: tapered end is going to end
up pointing up due to drag. Or so I guess. Gormed if I actually
/know/ but it seems a reasonable extrapolation. I sold off my last
9mm a couple of years back but if you've got the pistol, I'll be happy
to spring for a few hundred rounds for research purposes.
Paul Cassel
I am with you that this incident, as stated, defies explanation so I too
am cynical that the facts are as stated. IIRC, not too long ago, we had
this discussion (relating to New Year's eve) and one poster (Sam Kersh)
at tx.guns (IIRC) said there was an article about a girl in San Antonio
who died from this.
I have not searched for that article because it, IMO, proves little. A
bullet shot at a high trajectory (say launched at 60 degrees) would seem
to a newspaper as a bullet from the sky or a falling one, but in fact,
was just a long shot.
For those who wish some more reading:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1231/p02s02-ussc.html
(severe bias against personal weapons in this pub so don't get on me for it)
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a950414b.html
http://www.nennstiel-ruprecht.de/bullfly/index.htm
-paul
Lon
The ability of a bullet to remain pointy end first is not as simple as
that. If it were, it would be hard to explain the factual happening
of "keyholing" where a worn rifle barrel can cause the bullet to
tumble in its flight to a target. This on a round that is far more
aerodynamic than some of the pistol rounds that are not much longer
than they are wide.
Karen J. Cravens
news:34d1cgF...@individual.net:
> I have not searched for that article because it, IMO, proves little. A
> bullet shot at a high trajectory (say launched at 60 degrees) would
> seem to a newspaper as a bullet from the sky or a falling one, but in
> fact, was just a long shot.
I've cited (perhaps even with enough detail to find still-extant web
cites, but I wouldn't guarantee it) the local case where the paper
described it as a gun fired "into the air," but later in the article (and
its followups) it was clear that it wasn't close to vertical, since it was
deflected back down by a sign which wasn't particularly close to the
firer. I'm wanting to say the victim was a quarter mile away, and the
sign was only slightly closer to the firer than to her, but my memory
might be failing me there. Might've been the sign that was a quarter mile
away, come to that.
--
Karen J. Cravens
Paul Cassel
Lon's implied point is that the larger bullets, say over 400 gr., would
not be so fired. I agree. A very heavy handgun bullet today will go over
300 gr. as from a S&W 500 or similar, but I don't see them being fired
in the air. I would guess the 9 mm 38 spl, 32 class where the bullets
will be from 80 to about 120 gr - or rather small.
-paul
TDKozan
Perhaps I was unclear previously. The more aerodynamic a bullet is
the more likely, when it's falling, to end up base first, pointy-end
up. I don't know if a 9mm with its lousy BC is going to end up in
that attitude or not but I suspect it would.
Lee Ayrton
This, then, is an example that would explain why the CDC used "celebratory
gunshots" as their working definition in the Puerto Rico study rather than
"straight up into the air". Think Yosemite Sam and the angles of his guns
when he gets all excited-like.
Perhaps the statements "Bullets fired at an 90 degree angle to horizontal
can fall back to earth and kill random victim" and "Bullets fired at
various angles above horizontal can kill random victim" need to be
evaluated separately.
--
"I defer to your plainly more vivid memories of topless women with
whips....r"
R. H. Draney recalls AFU in the Good Old Days.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>
>Perhaps I was unclear previously. The more aerodynamic a bullet is
>the more likely, when it's falling, to end up base first, pointy-end
>up. I don't know if a 9mm with its lousy BC is going to end up in
>that attitude or not but I suspect it would.
>
>TK
BC?
How about a translation for the rest of the audience?
Before Christ?
British Columbia?
Don Freeman
"Bob Ward" <bob...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4h36u0ham8go14ipa...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:13:49 -0700, TDKozan <""sp ot\"@b e er.co m">
> wrote:
>
>>
>>Perhaps I was unclear previously. The more aerodynamic a bullet is
>>the more likely, when it's falling, to end up base first, pointy-end
>>up. I don't know if a 9mm with its lousy BC is going to end up in
>>that attitude or not but I suspect it would.
>
>
> How about a translation for the rest of the audience?
>
> Before Christ?
> British Columbia?
Ballistic Coefficient maybe.
TDKozan
Born Crazy?
Sorry.
Ballistic Coefficient. It is, to oversimplify: a measure of how well
a given projectile flies through the air due to being long, skinny,
and pointy. A BC of 1.0 would be a perfect projectile, a 9mm 115 gr
bullet is something like a .15, stubby with an overall length close to
twice the diameter (two calibers) and a 150 gr .30 caliber bullet is
in the neighborhood of .34, longer and more tapered with an overall
length close to three calibers.
The formula for BC is w/(i*d^2) or weight divided by the product of
coefficient of form and diameter of the bullet squared. If you want a
definition of coefficient of form, you'll have to ask someone else, I
just look at my reloading manuals and plug the numbers into an
exterior ballistics program.
Paul Cassel
> Bob Ward wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:13:49 -0700, TDKozan <""sp ot\"@b e er.co m">
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps I was unclear previously. The more aerodynamic a bullet is
>>> the more likely, when it's falling, to end up base first, pointy-end
>>> up. I don't know if a 9mm with its lousy BC is going to end up in
>>> that attitude or not but I suspect it would.
>>>
>>> TK
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> BC?
>>
>> How about a translation for the rest of the audience?
>>
>> Before Christ?
>> British Columbia?
>>
>>
>
> Born Crazy?
>
> Sorry.
> Ballistic Coefficient. It is, to oversimplify: a measure of how well a
> given projectile flies through the air due to being long, skinny, and
> pointy. A BC of 1.0 would be a perfect projectile,
Wrong. A B.C. of 1.0 is a standard based on an artillery shell. You can
have B.C.'s over 1.0.
Lon
No funny headers, no obvious shiny barbs...
?! Details? 155 Howitzer or some far more ancient standard where
the size of the artillery shell is defined in terms of some bodily
part of some thereby enfamoused muckitymuck?
Paul Cassel
>>
>> Wrong. A B.C. of 1.0 is a standard based on an artillery shell. You
>> can have B.C.'s over 1.0.
>
>
> No funny headers, no obvious shiny barbs...
>
> ?! Details? 155 Howitzer or some far more ancient standard where
> the size of the artillery shell is defined in terms of some bodily
> part of some thereby enfamoused muckitymuck?
>
Here is one cite of many:
http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reference/glossary.cfm
I don't know what an enfamoused muckitymuck is.
-paul
Lon
> Lon wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Wrong. A B.C. of 1.0 is a standard based on an artillery shell. You
>>> can have B.C.'s over 1.0.
>>
>>
>>
>> No funny headers, no obvious shiny barbs...
>>
>> ?! Details? 155 Howitzer or some far more ancient standard where
>> the size of the artillery shell is defined in terms of some bodily
>> part of some thereby enfamoused muckitymuck?
>>
>
> Here is one cite of many:
>
> http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reference/glossary.cfm
[quoth]
? Ballistic Coefficient: A mathematical expression of a bullets
ability to overcome atmospheric resistance (drag), as compared to a
specified “standard” reference projectile. Generally abbreviated as BC."
[/quoth]
Artillery?! Could equally apply to projectile vomiting.
>
> I don't know what an enfamoused muckitymuck is.
Why obviously the person of obviously significant social standing who
has become famous for being the source of a standard unit of
measurement. e.g. Mr. Smoot.
Lon
> Here is one cite of many:
>
> http://www.exteriorballistics.com/reference/glossary.cfm
>
> I don't know what an enfamoused muckitymuck is.
Roughly the language equivalent of the magical and mythical ballistic
coefficient, but far more useful in the real world, basically. i.e.
nonsense.