BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
166

Pa. bicyclist attacked, shoots teenagers

Saw this story and I thought I'd share it. There's a video at the link as well as the story.


Be careful out there!


Executive summary: On Wednesday, January 24, in Berks County, Pa., a 65-year-old man riding a bicycle was knocked off of his bike by three teenagers who then began assaulting him. The older gentleman presented a firearm and shot at the teens, killing one and wounding another. After questioning, the older fellow was released; the wounded surviving teenager is in surgery, and the uninjured one was sent to YDC.


http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-berks/Police-Man-shot-teens-in-self-defense/-/121418/8499682/-/12rwn9cz/-/index.html


jkp1187
2012-01-26 12:52:45

Castle doctrine in full effect.


bradq
2012-01-26 13:23:47

Glock of cyclists?


chinston
2012-01-26 14:27:17

whoa. he was on a trail too


erok
2012-01-26 14:33:14

I had this happen to me in Wilkinsburg, though the teenager that punched me off my bike walked back to his friends instead of joining in with them to continue to assault me, and I pulled my cellphone out of my bag and called the police instead of shooting them. Also, someone drove up and told the police the name of the kid who hit me. So, overall, I think this was a better result.


jonawebb
2012-01-26 15:13:11

"never did anything stupid as a kid"


I'm not sure that assault-and-battery counts under the umbrella of "stupid things we did as kids."


headloss
2012-01-26 15:16:14

No one wins in this story, the parents who failed to properly raise the kids, the kids, and the cyclist. The last thing I would want is the blood of a little kid on my hands, and as a father the last thing I want to hear is my child is out robbing people. I am all about self-defence but I don't know if I could shoot an unarmed kid. This is a sad story for everyone involved.


marvelousm3
2012-01-26 15:29:32

Bummer that one of them paid for their poor decision making with their life. Gloating over it isn't appropriate in the least, but those kids got what was (eventually) coming to them one way or another. The street crime life of assaulting innocent people typically doesn't end well. They asked for it, and they got it.


It doesn't sound like the guy was riding around looking for kids to shoot.


bradq
2012-01-26 15:30:36

Maybe timito was right. Maybe the u-lock defense would have been better. That kid would have a heckuva a sore head. But he'd be alive, and maybe he'd have learned his lesson. Getting what's "coming to them" need not be terminal.


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-01-26 15:33:33

The death penalty for assault and/or robbery seems a bit extreme.


marvelousm3
2012-01-26 15:37:48

Remember, we're talking about an elderly man being assaulted by three people. Juveniles, but not kids. 16 year olds can be pretty developed, I was 6 ft tall by that age. How was he supposed to know they were unarmed and were not trying to kill him?


Again, bummer that one of them had to pay with their life, but I can't second guess an elderly man being assaulted and outnumbered 3-1 getting out of the situation with his life any way possible.


bradq
2012-01-26 15:40:30

No doubt.


rsprake
2012-01-26 15:52:47

It's true when you are being robbed you think you are about to die, you don't know whats going to happen to you or what are the true intentions of the assailants. I've been robbed and it is awful.

I blame the kids parents more than anyone, at 16 I was a volunteer at the Rainbow Kitchen in Homestead not running the streets.


marvelousm3
2012-01-26 15:54:32

The area this happened in wasn't Wilkinsburg. It was suburban bordering on rural. Cumru Twp. is 94% white and the population is not terribly dense, so I'm not sure there's a whole lot of "street crime life" (Brad's term and implication, not mine) going on here.


We don't know what happened, and i'm not saying those young men were innocents, but it is worth second-guessing when people are dead.


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-01-26 15:54:35

A couple of my thoughts:


1. Unarmed? You consider them unarmed even though there were 2 kids punching and kicking a guy on the ground?


2. I dont see a u-lock scaring off a couple 16 year olds who were obviously out to do some serious harm. If anything if probably would have made things worse.


3. I agree with Headloss, never once in my teenage years did beating up an older man on a bicycle even come to mind. This is not typical of average kids just being kids.


boostuv
2012-01-26 16:03:14

Cumru looks to be a suburb of Reading. Reading is not a nice place.


eric
2012-01-26 16:03:38

But true, a perfect example of Castle Doctrine. I hope Daryl Metcalfe is happy, now that we have real blood on the ground.


But is this going to prevent stupid stuff like this from happening someplace else? Not likely.


stuinmccandless
2012-01-26 16:19:35

Well, this would have played out differently in Canada. What a sad waste of energy and life for everyone concerned. It is hard to tell from the story if the kids were trying to rob the cyclist or if they were beating him up for sport -- this kind of violence is popular for DIY teenage youtube bravado. I hope the cyclist is able to ride again, and I hope the 2 kids who survived will be able to transform their lives for the better.


pseudacris
2012-01-26 16:19:44

Hey Brad, I apologize. I was wrong. Just found a couple sites that indicates there is a history of people being jumped on that trail, and apparently the section this incident happened on is right adjacent to Reading, which apparently does have a pretty high crime rate. My bad.


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-01-26 16:20:15

But true, a perfect example of Castle Doctrine. I hope Daryl Metcalfe is happy, now that we have real blood on the ground.


i'm not a fan of the castle doctrine, but this event had nothing to do with it. one was always able to defend oneself with a firearm.


hiddenvariable
2012-01-26 16:35:51

this kind of violence is popular for DIY teenage youtube bravado


I can't express how truly horrifying I find that concept.


I do not defend or accept, but I can _understand_, robbing someone in order to get food, booze or drugs. It's wrong, but it makes sense.


The idea of assaulting someone for purposes of social status? That is a whole 'nother level of icky. From a societal standpoint, I find that significantly more dangerous.


reddan
2012-01-26 16:37:08

I agree with you reddan.


pseudacris
2012-01-26 16:38:36

I came here for CTC chatter but found this and figured I'd comment.


I live about 2 miles from where this happened and I'm really not that suprised. While it is a popular and fairly used bike path, it's also frequented by thugs/hood rats since it's a quiet, somewhat isolated spot along the river. The railroad bridge has been converted for peds/bikes and crosses the Schuylkill river connecting Reading and West Reading as part of the bike path is well tagged with gang graffiti. Reading is a rough place and the surrounding areas get a good bit of crime spill over; my neighborhood included. It sounds like the shooting occured on a tiny sliver of Cumru township but for all intents and purposes it's still the city.


Theres no easy way to get there in a police cruiser and people know it. I've seen and startled plenty of shady individuals as I've passed thru on my bike but never had a problem. I don't linger and keep moving at a good clip too. The city put up solar powered lights last year but I still stay away at night.


There's a good chance these kids were looking for trouble. 11am on a school day and they decide to jump an old dude... It's a tragic event that shouldn't have ever happened.


fxdwhl
2012-01-26 17:15:59

Castle doctrine should prevent a civil suit against the winning (or one who lost the least). He is also protected any place he has a legal right to be. I am uncertain how the duty to retreat was before, but a good lawyer for the dead kids family could have the attack victim behind bars or poor for the rest of his life. No one wins when force, of any kind is used, but more living good guys is always nice.


A U-lock might work well if you can get a good impact in, but 3v1 with the good guy starting at the wrong end of the reaction gap... Whistles and cell phones only do so much.


orionz06
2012-01-26 17:33:31

There will always be teenagers who beat up on random strangers for no reason other than excess aggression (possibly testosterone related), and boredom.


These three just happened to choose the wrong target.


chemicaldave
2012-01-26 17:49:15

Sad story.


The death penalty is, indeed, a very high price to pay for assault and battery. Far beyond the crime.


There is no indication that this was punitive, though. This seems to be cause and effect, not some penalty meted out by an agent of justice.


Three unarmed teenagers could easily kill a 65 year old. Not likely, but not farfetched either. A serious attack by them would be likely to do long-term damage, perhaps permanent and disabling. (IIRC, that has happened on Negley Ave to a man whose daughter posted here.)


I don't believe that the man who used the gun would need to justify it by a fear of the kids being armed: it was a life-threatening situation without that.


Sure, the kids families could sue him - but they would have a chance of ending up paying his legal fees and some other compensation.


Although it is also unlikely, you could kill a kid with a U-lock.


Sad situation.


The history that ALMKLM mentions of people being attacked on that trail might ease up some after this.


A friend of mine in DC-suburb Maryland has been attacked by kids and I understand it is not rare on some of the trails there.


It's a scary circumstance.


mick
2012-01-26 18:04:21

Sounds like this section of trail needs some bike police patrolling it.


ejwme
2012-01-26 19:04:56

I tend to stay away from debating on this site because i suck at it and i don't really care to get into it with others, but being cyclist/concealed gun carrier and someone who has also been jumped i figured i'd weigh in.


Could it have been prevented? Sure.

A u-lock stopping THREE teenagers? Not likely. Probably would've made them more angry and aggressive.

Could he have just shot in the air and maybe spooked them into running? Possibly.


Having said that, i have been jumped..Long story short..a bunch of us young kids in a small town went out to a deserted road and were racing cars.The other group of kids, decided to jump whoever was the last of our group leaving..So a friend and i got jumped by 5 people.It happened very very fast.So fast in fact that when blood was pouring out of my face, i thought i pissed myself..Haha. Funny to look back on, but in this mans defense..Out of instinct or fear of his life, he whipped a gun out and shot them.Who knows.


I don't think kids deserve to die for this kind of stuff,sure. But defending myself is something i won't hesitate to do if the chance occurred again.Also why i don't really care to carry concealed much.Having the power/ability to shoot someone can really shift a lot of things.Which is a whole different discussion to get into.I never want to HAVE to use a gun.It's a scary thought.


cpollack
2012-01-26 19:19:49

I only brought up my story too to say that, imagine riding down a trail..10-20mph and out of nowhere being knocked off of your bike,hitting the ground and being attacked.Some peoples first instinct would be to try to get up and run.But someone carrying concealed would more likely announce they have a gun and will use it, or just use it.I wouldn't think twice about pulling a gun on three people attacking me,but like i said, carrying i think would make more problems.What if they also have guns? What if you do shoot one? Etc etc etc.


cpollack
2012-01-26 19:24:34

I have had a gun in my face and there is no fear like that. I have also been jumped not nearly as scary. When I had a gun in my face I believed I was going to die. When I got jumped I focused on escape. Both happened years ago. I have decided against carrying a fire arm even if I legally can, do carry non-lethal defense items one example is pepper spray and I'm a fan of but have never owned the Kimber Pepper Blaster http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abIz1KZOOzg&lr=1 If I did kill a kid I would be with me for the rest of my life. I say 16 is a kid because if any of you are around a 16 yo or have one in your house you know despite their size they are still kids.


marvelousm3
2012-01-26 19:44:02

Exactly why i don't really carry.I will if i'm going out of town or something, but on a ride around the city? No thanks. I am all for home defense and defending myself and my property.But the thought of killing someone would def. weigh on my mind forever.


cpollack
2012-01-26 19:49:26

yeah, no doubt. kordite has a strikingly similar story about how he got out of getting jumped because he was armed. fortunately he was able to escape without having to use it.


erok
2012-01-26 19:53:13

Sounds like they messed with the wrong guy on the trail.


willie
2012-01-26 20:21:30

CPollack... Some reason your name sounds familiar, how would one know you? I am active in training and competing when possible.


orionz06
2012-01-26 23:25:24

^ I don't think that info had been released yet when the first link was posted here.


pseudacris
2012-01-27 00:40:40

I don't think anyone is surprised that they all had criminal records I expected it.


marvelousm3
2012-01-27 01:07:32

Remember that the assailants were 15-16 years old, and the victim was 65 years old. Second, this was a three-on-one fight.


Depending on the physical condition of the victim, and the strength of the attackers they could easily have killed the victim. In fact, it's possible that someone could be killed or seriously injured just by being knocked off his bike.


Based on the news reports so far, it appears that the victim used deadly force to combat deadly force that was being used against him -- in other words, he was reasonably in fear of death or grievous bodily injury being used against him. (Maybe he would have survived the assault, and would 'only' have been crippled or mentally disabled for life, for instance.)


Please keep these points in mind when evaluating this case.


jkp1187
2012-01-27 01:50:39

eh, they deserved to have someone fight back. assholes. i am not glad that anyone had to die because of this, but had this guy not had a gun, wouldn't it be a shame if the kids killed him instead? i feel like i should take some sort of self defense class or learn how to shoot a gun.


stefb
2012-01-27 03:03:56

I don't blame the cyclist for doing what he did, I agree that no charges should be filed agains him. For me personally I would like to look into more non lethal defense weapons. I do think that things must have become so dangerous along that path that cyclist started carrying weapons to protect themselves, and it took someones death for people to take notice. I wonder how many police reports were filed before cyclist started carrying weapons. Theses teens had police records yet their parents did not step in to take control. I hate to hear about a kid dying and there is nothing to celebrate but It's not the cyclist fault and no one wins from this.


marvelousm3
2012-01-27 12:02:59

I also think every woman should learn self defense, and learning weapons safety also a good idea. I would hate for someone to take a weapon away from a cyclist and use it agains them.


marvelousm3
2012-01-27 12:13:48

There's not too many non-lethal items you can legally carry as "self defense" items. Things like brass knuckles, collapsible batons, blackjacks, etc. are considered offensive weapons are expressly illegal. You're limited to OC pepper spray and pistols (with LTCF) as defensive items. Tasers are expensive and not too useful against more than one attacker, unless you carry a whole belt of them...


rice-rocket
2012-01-27 13:59:19

It's amazing that the police had actually caught the truancy of the now-dead kid that very morning, visited the home to put a monitoring device on him, and told his friends to go back to school.


pseudacris
2012-01-27 14:58:49

I don't get why brass knuckles and collapsible batons are illegal, but guns are legal. I don't get a lot of things about our laws, though.


ejwme
2012-01-27 15:06:51

I looked into collapsible batons at one point and also couldn't believe that more or less anything other than OC spray and a firearm was 100% illegal, and many times illegal not just to carry but to even own.


I don't have much interest in carrying a firearm, even if I can think of two specific instances on my bike over the past 10 years where I would have pulled it, and one instance in my own home that would have been ugly if I was armed as I am completely sure I would have pulled the trigger a few times.


bradq
2012-01-27 15:11:25

"Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun, firearm specially made or specially [**3] [*69] adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise, or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose."


eric
2012-01-27 15:18:01

so basically to defend yourself, unless you have a concealed fire arm (with appropriate license), you must improvise with what's around you, or spray yourself in the eyes with legal pepper spray (the #1 reason I'll never own it - not coordinated enough to use without making everything so much worse).


So why doesn't Reading have bike cops patrolling the trail?


ejwme
2012-01-27 15:29:56

Taking a step back, it takes two (well, four, in this case) to tango. Just exactly what's the story behind the kids not being in school in the first place?


Fix that problem, everything else solves itself by not happening.


stuinmccandless
2012-01-27 15:53:28

what's also striking is that this was the third assault of the day? so either the original victims didn't call the police or the police took a long time to get there?


we'll never recreate this on the internets


erok
2012-01-27 15:55:56

Only tangentially related, but I saw this again recently.




johnwheffner
2012-01-27 16:16:56

I was raised in Cumru township, right outside of Reading and have only ridden that section of bike trail literally twice... for a reason. Multiple mattresses line the trail as it is completely isolated and (to the best of my knowledge, unlit). Aside from summarizing a tragic situation, I think that this story indirectly highlights the gap between infrastructure and safe and usable infrastructure IMO.


raphael
2012-01-27 16:31:05

Stef, I'd be more than happy to take you and anyone else that wants to learn about firearms to the range. Even if you have zero interest in firearms everyone should know how to safely handle, unload, and clear one.


Those of you suggesting OC should listen to ejwme. There is pretty much no way to use OC spray without getting yourself as well.


boostuv
2012-01-27 17:36:15

@ejwme

The same reason why expansion bullet are banned by international law and .50 non hollow point are OK.


2012-01-27 18:14:39

Free self defense lesson:


Photobucket Pictures, Images and Photos


greasefoot
2012-01-27 18:29:33

When mrs. marvelous was in the Navy part of their training was to take a blast of pepper spray to the face then say her name rank, number and perform so sort of exercise before washing it off. She had to do the same with tear gas. So that if ever sprayed they would still have the ability to function, she offered to spray me to help build my tolerance, I declined.


marvelousm3
2012-01-27 18:40:33

I thought it was just me being uncoordinated...


Mikhail - I don't know what any of that means. I'm kind of glad I don't, but maybe that same sentiment is why I'm confused.


Some of the more entertaining self defense advice I've received over the years (I make no statements of veracity or lack there of, just that they entertain me):


1. High heels make good weapons.

2. Vomiting will deter a rapist due to a chemical reaction to the smell. (medical/chemistry people - is this true?)

3. Always look under your car and the neighboring cars before walking next to them. (just picture me crawling along the parkinglot, peering under all the cars, before one backs over me)

4. Wasp spray is a good pepper spray alternative.

5. Don't forget to scream. (simple, but I have done this, every time I needed to not do it)

6. Scream "fire" not "rape", because people are more likely to respond.

7. carry keys splayed between your fingers in a fist as a make shift brass knuckle thing. (I tried to do this once, I got a tiny and painful cut on the webbing on my fingers trying to sort it out)


ejwme
2012-01-27 18:52:11

Oh right, another little trick I learned from the PNBR trip: One of the ladies carried one of these.


stuinmccandless
2012-01-27 18:56:17

All theses suggestions would they work or just really tick someone off. I have sprayed pepper spray and got myself in the eye I couldn't see and could barley breath for an hour.


marvelousm3
2012-01-27 19:01:37

I have never taken self-defense lessons. My only formal training is surviving 12 years of recesses on the Catholic school playground. It’s true that all you really need to know you learned in kindergarten…


It’s very difficult for someone to put their hands on you when they can’t see and their balls are in their throat.


greasefoot
2012-01-27 19:27:50

"she offered to spray me to help build my tolerance, I declined."


Where's your sense of adventure? That was the best part in boot camp! :P


Also, my understanding was that it had more to do with knowing what was happening to you than it was trying to learn to function under the circumstances.


headloss
2012-01-27 19:58:43

@ejwme, the key thing does hurt and you're just as likely to cut yourself as an attacker... it really falls under the last ditch effort category.


Also, I keep a two foot long 3/4" Drive ratchet that weighs five pounds in the trunk of my car to... um... swap out tires. :P


headloss
2012-01-27 20:04:09

Slightly OT, but a few years ago my friends and I were on the VERY final leg of our PGH-DC Allegheny Passage ride and were on the paved trail about 1 mile from Georgetown (Wash, DC) and a female rec cyclist on a very rec bike was visible about 200 yards in front of us.


All of a sudden, a very large, aggressive man leaped from the siding/bushes of the trail knocked her from the bike (while she was at speed) and he promptly rode off on the bike. My group gave chase with pumps in hand (ala Breaking Away), unfortunately his knowledge of local side trails and swarmed streets of G-town (under the Key Bridge) - we did not apprehend him.


Overall, it was just shocking to us Pittsburghers that this would/could happen.


willie-p
2012-01-27 20:46:40

Oh right, another little trick I learned from the PNBR trip: One of the ladies carried one of these.


Pretty sure that falls under the "metal knuckles" category and are thus illegal in PA. You may be able to get around the law with a polymer version or something, but such a device still requires you to be within swinging distance of your assailant, which is less than desirable.


4. Wasp spray is a good pepper spray alternative.


Careful with this one. It's violating federal law to use it in a manner not deemed appropriate by the label... :/


I think we went over this earlier, but I carry OC spray, not only for people but for dogs as well. Don't get the cone spray version, get the stream one, and you'll reduce the likelihood of spraying yourself.


rice-rocket
2012-01-27 21:20:16

2. Vomiting will deter a rapist due to a chemical reaction to the smell.


Probably an effective defense, but who can vomit at will? Who are you, Brundlefly?


rzod
2012-01-27 21:30:10

Careful with this one. It's violating federal law to use it in a manner not deemed appropriate by the label.


"Your Honor, I thought my attacker was a bug."


(I could probably make another Brundlefly reference here but I won't.)


rzod
2012-01-27 21:38:03

Illegal? If you're defending yourself, and have an effective, non-lethal device on your person, then maybe the law is wrong. Beats hell out of funerals, regardless of how useless we might consider the perpetrator(s).


stuinmccandless
2012-01-27 22:09:56

@StuInMcCandless:


If you're going to have a non-lethal weapon, you'd better train to use it well. Regardless, unless you are a hardened and trained hand-to-hand fighting machine, I would not place my bet on you in a three-on-one situation without a firearm, nor in a situation where the other party brought a lethal weapon of his own to the fight.


I'm not saying that everyone should run out, buy, and begin carrying a handgun for personal self-defense. That decision is a highly personal one, should only be done after serious reflection, and (most importantly) should never be done unless one is also prepared to commit to training with it. There is a considerable amount of responsibility that must be assumed with that decision, and if you're not willing to shoulder it, please don't buy one.


But to imply that a non-lethal device can be equally effective for self defense is, in my judgment, not true.


jkp1187
2012-01-28 01:54:33

@ jkp1187 Non-lethal devices are being used more and more by law enforcement.


marvelousm3
2012-01-28 02:10:57

That's because they also have a lethal device they can transition to when Plan A doesn't work. And they have a leg up in the first place just by being dressed like a cop. People think twice before assaulting a cop because of stiff penalties, legal and extra legal.


mayhew
2012-01-28 02:33:51

@mr marvelous

1. They underwent training.

2. Police oficcers do not fully engage in the situation 3:1.


Surrounding awairness works much better then so called selfdefense female clases.


2012-01-28 04:36:03

@Mikhail, a competent female self defense also gives good information about surrounding awareness...


pseudacris
2012-01-28 16:35:03

here's a summery of PA's castle doctrine.


On Tuesday, June 28, 2011, Pennsylvania (PA) Governor Tom Corbitt (R) signed a bill extending that state's traditional castle doctrine protections to assaults outside the home. The new legislation passed both houses with overwhelming support and expands the state’s castle doctrine and stand-your-ground protections to allow the right to use a gun or other deadly force in self-defense in situations outside a person’s home or business.[28] It applies when "deadly force is immediately necessary to protect [...] against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat".[29]


It explicitly denies a duty to retreat and provides legislative protection from civil actions resulting from the use of deadly force in acts of self-defense. The PA General Assembly found that:


(1) It is proper for law-abiding people to protect themselves, their families and others from intruders and attackers without fear of prosecution or civil action for acting in defense of themselves and others.


(2) The Castle Doctrine is a common law doctrine of ancient origins which declares that a home is a person's castle.


(3) Section 21 of Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania guarantees that the "right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."


(4) Persons residing in or visiting this Commonwealth have a right to expect to remain unmolested within their homes or vehicles.

(5) No person should be required to surrender his or her personal safety to a criminal, nor should a person be required to needlessly retreat in the face of intrusion or attack outside the person's home or vehicle.[29]


While the findings specifically mention a defendant's home or vehicle, the amendments to state code enumerated by this legislation extend to any place that a person has a legal right to be, with a few notable exceptions (such as inside a prison).


from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine#Pennsylvania


nick
2012-01-29 19:11:53

@CMayhew


While the uniform may deter some people it does not deter them all.


I think the biggest thing would be some form of defense oriented class (that is not taught by someone at a YMCA) that will give people some options but more so get an idea of how they need to project themselves and so on. Taking a class on "self defense" from some lady who hasn't been raped yet is not what I would consider valuable. Finding a guy who has some experience in shitty situations and came out on top is probably who I would want. Quite frankly I think most of what is offered at local gymnasiums after hours is nothing but a scam designed to make people feel good as they hand over their money thinking they will never be harmed again. Much of the good stuff tends to be firearms-centric but there are a few local options that I know would be able to cater to a non-gun carrying group of people and fit a class into the limitations of a cyclist.


orionz06
2012-01-30 12:56:45

Taking a class on "self defense" from some lady who hasn't been raped yet is not what I would consider valuable. Finding a guy who has some experience in shitty situations and came out on top is probably who I would want.


[edit] comment redacted. This has to be one of the strangest things I have read on this board.


pseudacris
2012-01-30 13:22:06

Raped yet???? What does that imply?


marvelousm3
2012-01-30 13:33:30

While I agree that the guy should not be charged who shot those kids, I myself would not ever want to have to make that decision.


It makes me wonder what happened when he pulled out the gun in the first place... I mean — I would assume if the kids were unarmed and someone pulled out a gun that would make them see the error of their ways and cause them to run away at the very least!


But anyone who thinks calling the police and waiting for them to show up is the right thing to do is an idiot. I am not saying you SHOULDN'T — but you can't expect them to be there at a moment's notice and these things tend to happen so fast you don't have time to make a call and wait...


In the northside I was at a party back when I was in college, on the top floor of a house with a balcony and we literally saw a kid get shot across the street. WE CALLED the police immediately — and even though the GD police station was literally 4 blocks away it took 20 minutes for them to show up... NO JOKE...


There was another time I was mugged in broad daylight around noon in the middle of a street. Not one person bothered to help. They pulled a knife on me and I fought back, throwing one of them into the street in front of a car driving bar in the hopes of running the kid over and yes I was trying to kill him.


An off duty cop just happened to drive up and jump out of the car flashing his badge which scared them off. They had already robbed 3 people in the same place that same day and yet the cops STILL weren't watching. The off duty cop literally just happened to be driving through when he saw what was going on.


They still didn't catch the 2 pricks that did it.


If I had a gun on me that day I would have shot them the second the knife came out, but at the same time I would then have to live with having killed someone from that moment on regardless of whether it was self defense or not — I don't think you could find a sane person who actually enjoyed taking someones life even if it was self defense.


adam
2012-01-30 14:56:31

Really piss poor wording on that one line, my apologies. I had a certain direction I wanted to go with that and it didn't work.


Also, the wording above ("a guy") was not meant to be sexist in any way and I see that it could be interpreted that way.


My implication was that there are tons of people who have zero experience that wish to preach "self defense" that really sell nothing other than a false sense of security. If you want to find out how to deal with trailside/streetside issues the best place to go is someone with a history of success in doing so, not someone with an idea on what might work because they have never been attacked. They just might be lucky. Make sense?


If I wanna learn how to drive a golf ball really far the first person to ask is Tiger Woods (or insert good golfer name here), next would be the guy that taught him. If I wanna learn from someone else I would seek out someone who could actually drive the ball.


orionz06
2012-01-30 16:20:31

For those considering carrying a weapon of any type (whether it be a pistol or pepper spray), you have to be prepared to use it. A question I usually ask someone is; have you ever been in a fist fight as a kid? Who threw the first punch? If you (like me) have rarely thrown the first punch, then you are a poor candidate to carry a weapon because you will most likely deploy it too late. Sometimes there is literally only a split second to make a decision – should I pull my gun/ OC-spray or not. If your personality type is to give the other person ANY benefit of doubt, you run a good risk of having your weapon taken from you. In firearms training you are taught that you NEVER pull a gun just to threaten the other person. You only pull your gun when you are prepared to squeeze the trigger - i.e. to kill the other person. If you can’t throw the first punch in a fist fight, what makes you think you can pull that trigger first? That moment of hesitancy… is just something to think about. BTW, I have been robed at gunpoint. And had I been carrying a gun that day I think I would have drawn my weapon way too late. I love target shooting, and I will conceal carry in certain situations, but I am real glad that I didn’t have a gun on me the day I was robbed. YMMV


Edit: Since the subject of this thread was knocked off his bike and was being punched – I think he had a better chance of having his gun taken off of him the actually being able to use it. In this case he got lucky and got off a few shots. But he also could have been beaten to a pulp (or killed) - plus been responsible for some teenage thugs now owning a gun.


marko82
2012-01-30 16:30:43

+1 Marko


It's important to be sensible and real. Firearms seem to fire up macho fantasies in a lot of people.


mick
2012-01-30 16:33:40

I can say from experience that it happens so fast and typically when you least expect it (aka. broad daylight at noon in the middle of a busy street)... I blame myself becuase I was walking through a rough neighborhood in a suit and talking on my cell phone when 2 assholes came up behind me and pulled my ankles out from under me from behind knocking me to the pavement.


99% of the time i am paying attention and carrying myself in a way that 2 punks like that are just going to sit and wait for an easier target to come along. If I had a gun on me, I would have drawn it out before even getting off the ground. They only had a knife so in the battle of gun vs knife — gun wins…


However, the whole "you better be prepared to use it" worked in my favor. When the one kid pulled the knife on me, I went after him first and pushed him into the road in front of a car driving by and he didn't try and stab me. I assume he just thought I looked like someone who would just cave in to his demands. Adrenaline is a bitch. Since that was their 4th robbery in the exact same spot that day, they had grown accustomed to nobody fighting back at them.


I carry at least a neck knife with me 100% of the time now, even though it offers very little protection, it is something easy to have with you 100% of the time and it comes in handy in many non-defensive situations you'd never think of. As for carrying concealed, I plan on getting a permit to do so, but I've never felt so threatened that I need to carry one. I know plenty of people who do though.


Even a good cop will tell you that it is YOUR responsibility to protect yourself and that if you are going to rely on the police for your sole protection then sadly, the crime will be finished and the criminals gone before they show up 90% of the time. It is the police officer's job to find the criminals but it won't do much good after the fact.


I look at carrying a gun as a deterrent, its not something you ever want to use — but if more (sane) people carried it would be much harder for the lunatics who run around on shooting sprees etc to get away with what they do. In all these school massacres, the police usually show up too late to do anything other than clean up the mess.


adam
2012-01-30 16:46:41

@orizon - your clarification is much appreciated!


I, too have been robbed at gunpoint. It was at night on a busy, well-lit street, on an arterial frequented by cops, while walking with a friend. It was a long stretch of sidewalk adjacent to a chain link fence: no alleys or bushes for burglars to jump out of. Our "tactical error" was assuming it was safe to cross paths with the two elderly gentlemen (one overweight, one with a limp, both probably in their 50s) striding towards us. I did observe them coming--their pace and body language did not raise any alarms for me. When one guy pulled out his gun, he wasn't even that aggressive in his handling of it (maybe it was a toy!), but I am not one to argue with guns. My friend did respond by shoving them, but I handed over my purse and made us split the scene.


Moments later 2 cop cars drove by, neither of which responded to two distressed women in their 20s yelling and waving our arms in the middle of the street :-(


At no time did I think that rape was an intended outcome of this crime, although I suppose it could have been. The vast majority of rapes happen indoors and the perpetrator is someone you know. It can be a whole different set of "rules" to maintain "situational awareness" in the presence of someone you know well or are acquainted with, especially if alcohol is involved.


FWIW (and somewhat OT), there are a lot of rapes going on in the military right now, with both male and female victims--presumably all of them have been highly trained in situational awareness and self-defense. I hope the military is able to change this culture, as the work itself is already traumatic enough.


pseudacris
2012-01-30 17:29:51

+1 on Marco's comments


Carrying a guns or taking self-defense lessons can give a person a false sense of security…if you pull it you better use it is a cliché for a reason.


I was a bouncer at a club in a previous life and I had weapons pulled on me and punched in the head more times then I care to count. If someone gets the upper hand on you it’s difficult to recover and any training you may have goes out the window. Also individuals interpret the adrenalin rush of physical confrontations differently. It triggers a fight or flight (fright) response. Some people are hardwired for the fight, some are hardwired for flight, and some people are a coin flip.


greasefoot
2012-01-30 18:18:05

Adam touched on something that until he mentioned was going unstated in this discussion. IIRC there US Supreme Court cases that basically hold that the police have no duty to protect you as individual. As a member of the general public, yes, but as an individual, no. (I don't have the cites in front of me at the moment).


Common sense says why. You would have to have a cop on nearly every corner to do that. It's prohibitively expensive and impractical to do so, as well as raising the question whether you have created a literal police state to do so. This is why traditionally there has always been some kind of informal partnership between the public and police as to crime prevention and crime solving. Think tips, neighborhood crime watch, etc.


This basically means the cops AREN'T going to be interested in you until something happens to you. And then they're interested in you in terms of preventing what happened to you from happening to others in the general public.


So as Adam said, the cops will tell you that you ARE own your own and responsible to take care of yourself.


One other thing. There has been a split of opinion on the board about the Castle Doctrine. Whether or not you agree with the Castle Doctrine, Adam's last paragraph is the rationale for it.


It seems to me that generally that criminals all assume that they will get away with whatever they are doing and suffer no consequences for their actions. After all, what's the point of robbing you if they can't go spend the money or sell the property that they took from you? Unfortunately, pain is something they do understand and acquiring an extra hole they weren't born with hurts. If they don't know whether you can put that extra hole in them, then the thinking is it's a deterrent.


And I think Marko raises an important point. You never pull a gun unless you intend/are willing to use it. You never point a gun at someone or something unless you intend/are willing to shoot it, and you never put your finger on the trigger unless you intend/are willing to pull it.

If your not psychologically able to do that and deal with consequences of what you have done, then I think he's right -- you shouldn't own or carry a gun.


cdavey
2012-01-30 18:31:15

In that scary story that @headloss posted the original shooter was on meth.


pseudacris
2012-01-30 18:36:54

Also individuals interpret the adrenalin rush of physical confrontations differently. It triggers a fight or flight (fright) response. Some people are hardwired for the fight, some are hardwired for flight, and some people are a coin flip.


and some people, possibly me, just freeze up and don't know how to deal with that dump of adrenaline. the better self defense classes make this an important part of the curriculum.


hiddenvariable
2012-01-30 19:09:01

I would have to disagree with Marco... If you're the guy to throw the first punch, you're exactly the kind of person that should not have a firearm.


bradq
2012-01-30 19:19:05

I would have to disagree with Marco... If you're the guy to throw the first punch, you're exactly the kind of person that should not have a firearm.


i believe self defense classes teach you to throw the first punch. you just have to be sure that the other guy is going to do it if you don't, and it's a situation you can't get out of.


hiddenvariable
2012-01-30 19:20:37

Self defense and throwing the first punch seem like contradictory things to me.


bradq
2012-01-30 19:21:57

Per Wikipedia:


In some countries and U.S. states, the concept of "pre-emptive" self defense is limited by a requirement that the threat be imminent. Thus, lawful "pre-emptive" self defense is simply the act of landing the first-blow in a situation that has reached a point of no hope for de-escalation or escape. Many self-defense instructors and experts believe that if the situation is so clear-cut as to feel certain violence is unavoidable, the defender has a much better chance of surviving by landing the first blow (sucker punch) and gaining the immediate upper hand to quickly stop the risk to their person.


If Wikipedia says it, it must be true.


reddan
2012-01-30 19:38:26

Cool.


"The kind of person that throws the first punch" sounds like the kind of person that is the attacker. The kids that started fights in gradeschool and more than likely the adults that you need to protect yourself from.


bradq
2012-01-30 19:42:22

There are quite a few scenarios I can think of that would require throwing the first "punch" defensively in order to not become a victim.


Remember though, much of this is avoidable in the first place.


orionz06
2012-01-30 20:01:33

I look at it more-or-less as "you don't have to let the dog bite you before kicking it in the nose."


But it's still better to outrun Rover if at all possible, IMO.


reddan
2012-01-30 20:08:03

Reminds me of this episode of "The Sopranos" where someone told Tony about how the very first thing he did when he got to prison was walk up to the biggest guy in the joint and punch him as hard as he could to knock his ass out — then nobody messed with him anymore... So later on Tony went and knocked some kid on his ass in front of a bunch of people just to show them he wasn't soft!


adam
2012-01-30 20:13:34

I knew someone who fended off an oncoming mama bear by deploying a pop-up umbrella in its direction. I think the visual kind of blew the bear's mind and it retreated. I also know some people who've gotten out of jambs by "acting crazy." Food for thought.


pseudacris
2012-01-30 20:16:44

I wandered all over Dakar, Senegal, alone and at all times of day/night all by myself for five weeks before finding out that this is verboten by the organization at the behest of the embassy b/c of ridiculous crime statistics (esp against "foreigners"). I never even got approached by people trying to sell me anything. Figured out it was because I had a half-mouthful of broken and snaggly teeth, had a permanent pained grimace/sneer on my face, and wobbled while I stood still (really nice prescriptions).


"Acting crazy" is a seriously underrated form of self defense.


When I get that rush of adrenaline from the realization that extremely bad potentially life-ending things are about to happen to me, it actually physically hurts and I freeze up. It's only happened a few times (usually in a car, actually). Anybody else feel adrenaline as extreme pain?


ejwme
2012-01-30 21:53:56

I gather from the gun pulling advocates above that said weapon should only be used to kill. No "warning shot" even it that is to maim? Having no experience with handguns, I understand that their range with accuracy is fairly short.

Maybe another poll- have you been mugged/ attacked? Were weapons involved?


helen-s
2012-01-30 22:27:44

@helen s: I don't carry, as I've only been trained in bolt-action rifles (NOT terribly useful in an urban environment...); that said, part of my firearms training, and that of every reputable instructor of which I've ever heard, is to never ever even point a gun at something you are not willing to destroy.


Firing a warning shot, AKA deliberately shooting to miss, is a fine way to hurt someone else. Firing to maim is effectively trying for a trick shot...not recommended.


reddan
2012-01-30 23:42:06

I think some of my issue with carrying a gun comes from the few times I have had problems with hooligans. One example is a few teens jumped at me when I was riding my bike causing me to fall over out of fear. They stood over me pretending they wanted to fight then walked away. If I had a gun out of fear for my life I would have shot them all. Not having a gun resulted in me just being mad. If you think about it how many times have we all had problems that resulted at the worst in a stolen wallet but if we had a gun would result in dead teens.


Also self defense teaches you how to avoid conflict and recognize strange behavior from a potential assailant. Crossing the street multiple time, being aware of your surroundings, planning the routes you travel ahead of time, etc. self defense teaches you how to escape if grabbed. I think knowing how to avoid problems and safely ride is way more important than trying to out gun a robber.


marvelousm3
2012-01-31 00:43:15

Also the subject of rape is a sensitive subject and discretion should be used when discussing or using the word to make a point. I know victims of that crime and it's a wound that can easily re-open.


marvelousm3
2012-01-31 00:46:46

Back a couple of decades ago, there was a serious snow storm one night.


I was slowing struggling along Fifth Avenue the next day, just east of Negley. Earlier than I wanted to be up, but I had to give a presentation at the University. I was dressed in my best clothes.


Hiking over snow banks and along a single track path. Against traffic.


I saw a car coming along Fifth. The passenger pointed at me and grinned. The driver swerved towards the curb.


Magnificent puddle. About a gallon hit me. Certainly more than half a gallon.


M face got it. I tasted the salt. My legs were shocked by the cold, even through wool pants.


Frigid. Filthy. Slush.


The passenger was in rapturous glee. They hit me far worse than they could have predicted! What fun!


If I had a pistol with me right then, I would have used it.


Not to try to kill anyone or anything, you understand. Just maybe knock out the back window of that car. Hit a tire. Damage teh body. Whatever.


Of course, I could have hit one of those guys in the head. In the first 10 or 15 seconds after they slimed me, I would not have cared. Not what I aimed for, but...


I decided that it was a good idea for me NOT to carry a gun.


mick
2012-01-31 02:11:53

@Helen A warning shot is about the worst thing you can do. You just played your hand and let the other person decide what they want to do, including shoot you back. Nevermind the legalities of why did you pull a gun out but not need to hit someone with it and the issue of where that bullet is going to land.


Maiming is more or less a Hollywood thing. It's pretty hard to intentionally shoot that way. There are major arteries in the leg and upper chest. Not everyone who gets shot dies but it's not something you want to intentionally try for.


Handguns do have a somewhat limited engagement range (10 ish meters?) but outside of that range you really don't have a problem anyways. If they're that far away you have other options.


mayhew
2012-01-31 03:13:25

Warning shots aren't legal within the city limits. You are only granted the right to shoot in the city in self defense. Warning shots aren't defending anyone or anything, and there are plenty of stories of people inadvertently killed and wounded at great distances away from the point of discharge. Don't do it. You can choose to load less-than-lethal rounds if you wish to carry a firearm yet are afraid of killing the perp, but do really want to chance being outgunned?


Chris: 10 meters? You're being generous. Statistically, the hit rate at 10 meters is less than 10% in a shootout for a policeman with a handgun, and that's with mandatory firearms training. From 0-2 meters, it's still under 40%. You can only imagine what it is for the average American. Adrenaline can be a bitch.


http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf


rice-rocket
2012-01-31 08:29:47

Warning shots are stupid, as already mentioned. As far as I know there are no useful less-lethal handgun rounds and more so, none are available to civilians, ironically. The problem with carrying a gun (not owning) is that people think it is the solution to the problem. Most mugging situations described here are ones that would not warrant someone drawing their gun. As someone who carries 99.9% of the time when legally allowed I would just hand over the wallet. Everything in there can be replaced. Hell, maybe I could get a new debit card that swipes more than 50% of the time. The other problem is if you are not prepared to use it when you need to you should not bother carrying it. There is no shoot to wound. NYPD had an instance a few years ago where they were trained to "not kill" and it took 27 wounds on a criminal to "stop" him enough to arrest him. He survived. That being said, you are only legally allowed to shoot until the threat is stopped, if that means you aimed for the head and hit a foot but the guy stopped then you stop. The macho "no witness" BS is just that.


As for useful range, a study of footage from the FBI done by a well known trainer shows that it will likely be under 7 yards if anything happens. The hit rates listed above are not surprising. Cops are piss poor marksman. It is rare that any actually care about their proficiency and even more rare if they approach the capability of a well trained civilian. In short, I do not wish to be anywhere near a cop who has to shoot.


If the bad guy is far enough away that you can escape do it. No one wants to have to shoot. None of the stuff you have is worth your life or the potential loss of income and lawyer fees if you go to trial. Not to mention that whole life changing event when you do pull the trigger in defense.


orionz06
2012-01-31 12:56:50

this is a great discussion. gotta love a good debate among enlightened individuals. I know it's a little late but that dog bite metaphor reddan made yesterday is the way my feelings lean.


chefjohn
2012-01-31 16:51:55

@helen s:


A warning shot is absolutely the worst thing you could ever do with a firearm.


Assuming in the first place that you were justified in using lethal force to defend your life, all the warning shot will do is distract you from taking action (either by fighting or fleeting) that would negate or ameliorate the threat of death or grievous bodily harm that you were under.


Second, you are legally, morally, and financially responsible for the final resting place of any round you send downrange. Where's that warning shot going to land? You could end up injuring or killing a completely innocent person with that wild shot.


EDIT: Sorry - didn't see that several other people had said essentially the same thing before replying...


jkp1187
2012-02-01 05:04:46

@Mick: you have made a responsible decision, based on your own knowledge of yourself and your likely reactions. I respect that.


jkp1187
2012-02-01 05:09:55

the warning shot question brings to mind that part of The Mexican movie where at the festival, the bullets come back down and one hits the kid in the head, killing him. The movie is a comedy, but it's always made me wonder, like in Libya when people were celebrating by shooting into the air... why would they waste ammo like that? How many casualties were due to "celebrating"?


ejwme
2012-02-01 15:36:53

just from a physics perspective, i would be pretty surprised if a bullet shot straight up in the air would come down with anything approaching enough energy to kill someone. my suspicion (i haven't done the math) is that it wouldn't even have enough speed to cause major injury.


edited to add: looks like i was a bit off in my suspicion. the question isn't settled, but i'm still not convinced it would be likely to kill someone, or do significant damage to, say, a house, even supposing it happened to come down on someone or something.


hiddenvariable
2012-02-01 17:39:13

@Hidden variable -


I think that would likely be true for pistols -particularly small caliber pistols.


OTOH, There was pregant woman on the back of a motorcycle on I79 south of the Ohio that was hit by a man firing a rifle somewhere north of the Ohio. I belive he was She wasn't seriously injured (for a gun wound), but they surgically removed the bullet.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/highschool/s_663394.html


When she was hit, she was unaware that she was injured.


In Ohio, way the heck out in the country, a girl was instantly killed by a man cleaning his gun 1.5 miles away. I'm guessing the bullet would be moving fairly close to gavitational terminal velocity.:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/21/amish-girl-shooting-gun-cleaning_n_1162704.html


mick
2012-02-01 18:22:30

@ejwme when people were celebrating by shooting into the air... How many casualties were due to "celebrating"?


Thre are places where people are advised not to go outside on New Years Eve, because there are a few deaths each year. IIRC, New Orleans is like that.


mick
2012-02-01 18:26:23

that pregnant women was my friend Alisa. She's married to Larry from Thick Bikes (mechanic with the limp and tiger stripe forearm tattoos) and was pregnant with their first child at the time. If the gun had been of a higher caliber (it was a semi-auto .22) or she had been a few weeks further along in her pregnancy it could have killed Scarlett in the womb. She knew she was injured, but thought it was a rock or chip of road or glass or something.


cburch
2012-02-01 18:35:37

Has anyone considered firing a warning shot into the dirt?


chemicaldave
2012-02-01 18:49:08

whoa. small world alert.


I'd be concerned that the dirt I aimed at was really a surface off of which the bullet could ricochet (one of the best words ever) and shoot my eye out, a la Christmas Story, only worse.


In my uneducated opinion, there is no "safe" direction for a gun to go off.


ejwme
2012-02-01 19:05:44

Generally speaking, the warning shot is most useful when you are trying to get the attention of a crowd, say in a scene where everybody is arguing about what to do now that there's no hope and then, suddenly, the hero appears at the back of the room. The warning shot gets everybody's attention and prepares them for a dramatic speech.

In the situation we're talking about, dealing with thugs after you get knocked off a bike, I'm pretty sure you would already have their attention. So if you managed to draw your gun they would probably notice without a warning shot. It would probably be more than sufficient to draw a bead on the nearest one and say something like "Go ahead, make my day", real slow.


jonawebb
2012-02-01 19:38:23

@ cburch


It's true a larger caliber could have killed her.


News reports said it was a Russian wolf .223, though. That's assault rifle caliber. Although it isn't much larger *around* than a .22, it's a way different slug. Used by militaries to kill people.


Of course, if something like that happens to a person, they will spend a lot of time thinking about the "what if's."


It's wonderful that it wasn't worse.


mick
2012-02-01 19:41:01

News reports said it was a Russian wolf .223, though. That's assault rifle caliber. Although it isn't much larger *around* than a .22, it's a way different slug. Used by militaries to kill people.


i imagine the main difference between the two bullets is muzzle velocity. that doesn't mean a .223 doesn't weigh more than a .22, but it shouldn't weigh much more. and mass is the only consideration when discussing terminal velocity. the initial velocity is irrelevant.


hiddenvariable
2012-02-01 21:01:40

“I think every bullet should cost $5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystanders. “

-Chris Rock


greasefoot
2012-02-01 21:21:09

@hidden variable mass and shape would influence terminal velocity, I'm thinking


This comes from a site that claims its "actual size" (as they say)



Various part of the interweebs say the .223 slug is about 1.4 time heavier.


Not sure of the physics here. Does that make terminal velocity 1.4 times or 1.4 **2 = 1.96 times? Is the kinetic energy at terminal velocity 1.96 times or 3.84 times?


I'm not sure of the appropriate metric, but the .223 is gonna hurt a lot more.


mick
2012-02-01 21:30:36

screen resolution matters too.


man this thread is all over the place.


ejwme
2012-02-01 21:35:28

The first world war started with a .22 round - just ask Franz Ferdinand .


marko82
2012-02-01 21:46:31

@marko82 The first world war started with a .22 round - just ask Franz Ferdinand


Yeah, but that was a wimpy European aristocrat, not a strong Pittsburgh southside woman.


mick
2012-02-01 21:49:07

From wiki on the Google machine: "Princip had used the Browning .32 ACP cartridge,[22][23][24] a relatively low-power round, and a pocket-sized FN model 1910 pistol.[25"


atleastmykidsloveme
2012-02-01 21:50:47

Damn.


I just hate it when I try to start a world war and my bullet isn't big enough.


mick
2012-02-01 21:54:05

^^ Ouch, Anyway I knew it was a small round. Should'a done the research. thanks for putting me straight ALMKLM


marko82
2012-02-01 22:47:55

...and ended with a nuclear weapon. Talk about escalation.


stuinmccandless
2012-02-01 22:49:27

Various part of the interweebs say the .223 slug is about 1.4 time heavier.


Not sure of the physics here. Does that make terminal velocity 1.4 times or 1.4 **2 = 1.96 times? Is the kinetic energy at terminal velocity 1.96 times or 3.84 times?


I'm not sure of the appropriate metric, but the .223 is gonna hurt a lot more.


thanks, i couldn't find anything on the relative masses.


a linear increase in mass (and thus weight) will result in a linear increase in terminal velocity. however, the kinetic energy increases with the square of the velocity. so it gets kind of complicated. suffice to say, it would probably have more than 1.4 times the kinetic energy of a similarly shaped .22 slug. what that really means in terms of damage to tissue and/or property is anyone's guess.


the difference in shape is likely not going to matter. the slug could deform over its trajectory, and would probably be tumbling, or perhaps heavier (i.e. not-as-pointy) side down. even if the pointy side were facing the direction of fluid resistance, the difference between the terminal velocity of that and a sphere would probably be negligible.


all that said, i sure as hell wouldn't want to get hit with something like that. glad to hear nothing worse happened in this instance. and i don't mean for my interest in the physics of it to detract from event itself, which actually happened, and to a real person.


hiddenvariable
2012-02-01 23:01:59

For reference a .22 is about an inch long and a .223 is roughly 2.5"


boostuv
2012-02-02 00:53:41

@ejwme I prefer the more recent trajectory of the thread, if you will.


dmtroyer
2012-02-02 01:17:02

Mythbusters did an episode on bullets fired into the air.


http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50


**Bullets fired into the air maintain their lethal capability when they eventually fall back down.


In the case of a bullet fired at a precisely vertical angle (something extremely difficult for a human being to duplicate), the bullet would tumble, lose its spin, and fall at a much slower speed due to terminal velocity and is therefore rendered less than lethal on impact. However, if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact. Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most states, and even in the states that it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured. To date, this is the only myth to receive all three ratings at the same time.


marko82
2012-02-02 02:06:50

 Didn't mythbusters accidentally shoot a cannon ball thru someone's house recently?  I'm not sure I want to use their math as a point of reference for anything!


greasefoot
2012-02-02 02:43:56

For reference a .22 is about an inch long and a .223 is roughly 2.5"


this is the shell plus the slug. the shell is not fired from the the gun, and is not part of the thing that falls to the earth, and so for considerations of the terminal velocity, is not important.


hiddenvariable
2012-02-02 04:29:08

Haha, obviously. I was attempting to clear up the ambiguity of the picture as on my screen the .223 came out looking like a .50 round.


boostuv
2012-02-02 04:52:44

The .22lr projectile, on average, weight 36-40grains, the average 5.56mmx45/.223 weights 55-62gr. The big difference is velocity and therefore kinetic energy. Relatively speaking 5.56/.223 is a very weak cartridge. Much of the military today calls it anemic, the media calls it a thermonuclear weapon.


At the end of the day it matters where someone is hit, not always the round used. I don't know the current stats but the .22lr was responsible for the most fatalities or something like that as they are so prevalent. They are the first firearm generally used to teach safety and marksmanship.


orionz06
2012-02-02 13:04:34

Just to take this as far OT as possible, Archduke Franz Ferdinand was not a wimp. He was a trophy hunter (really outrageously so) and served in the army. Earlier in the day of his assassination he batted away a grenade that had been thrown at him. So he had some toughness. But getting shot at close range in the jugular is enough for anybody.


jonawebb
2012-02-02 16:52:56

dude survived an assasination by grenade? and then he thought it was a good idea to go for a ride in a convertible? the line between hard core and folly is so thin.


ejwme
2012-02-02 20:11:40

Well, he didn't have a lot of choice. That was the car he had. And there was a lot of security on the drive -- but the plans kept changing and his driver made a wrong turn, putting him right in front of Gavril Princip.

BTW, JFK conspiracy theories have nothing on the theories on this, but it seems to have just been a mistake.


jonawebb
2012-02-03 15:14:14

@jonawebb


The evidence of conspiracy in the Ferdinand assassination is indisputable.


For Kennedy, there is plenty of dispute. I don't know enough to argue about specifics, but it is inarguable that there is not agreement.


I've read that recent evidence (available after the fall of Yugoslavian and the Iron Curtain) is the Serbian government and secret service was, as the Austrians claimed, a major player in the Archduke's assassination conspiracy.


In any case, to me, that killing was just a spark. The real problems were excessive militarism and one inbred, mentally retarded ruling family for four empires.


The thing is if you have hereditary rule, if you don't follow the basic rules of consuanginity you're hosed. Starting about 1000 years ago, about half of all European royal marriages had to get Papal permission to to marry, due to how closely suitors were related.


Incredibly bad idea. Roughly the equivalent of letting the mafia manufacture voting machines.


Had the Ferdinand not been killed, there would have been some other spark.


mick
2012-02-03 18:06:44

I meant the wrong turn by the driver was a mistake. Pretty clearly, there was a conspiracy to assassinate the Archduke.


jonawebb
2012-02-03 19:10:29

"Roughly the equivalent of letting the mafia manufacture voting machines."

Wait, now we're talking about Diebold? This is a wide-ranging thread!


edmonds59
2012-02-03 19:13:54

Roughly the equivalent of letting the mafia manufacture voting machines.


So, do youse wanna go along wit the plan, or do youse wanna wake up with a horse's ass in office?


reddan
2012-02-03 19:22:01

BTW, Diebold sold off their voting machines division some time ago, due to the PR disaster. I don't know what happened to the executive who said something about helping Bush win. Except that it was probably something he regrets, which -- here comes the thread reconnect -- is probably something he has in common with the PA cyclist who shot those teenagers after getting attacked.


jonawebb
2012-02-03 19:27:41

So the guy should regret living? I'm not saying the solution is the best and that he shouldn't feel something, but regret is not likely one of those feelings he should have. If he has regret he did the wrong thing.


orionz06
2012-02-03 19:47:45

It's possible to regret doing something even when it was the only thing you could do to protect yourself.


jonawebb
2012-02-03 19:52:32

I suppose, I just have a hard time seeing that. It would imply that he wished he would have done things differently. Wishing he had done things differently implies there was a different solution, one that did not involve shooting someone. Not shooting is the *best* solution though. If that were the case you can see where I am going. One less bad guy and the good guy count remains the same in a justified action, should be no regrets.


orionz06
2012-02-03 20:01:14

I wouldn't find it difficult to believe that one could regret taking a life and also believe that it was necessary to do so to continue living. It would go hand in hand with the idea of wishing that things could have gone differently. Perhaps it is an impossible wish, but that's never stopped people from wishing before.


(be careful about "good" and "bad"... qualitative judgments in a gray world are tricky)


ejwme
2012-02-03 20:44:44

That kid could have grown up to be a doctor and save lives. Possible, but unlikely.


That kid could have killed half a dozen people in the next ten years. Possible and a good chance that he would have killed at least one person directly or indirectly due to lifestyle choices.


I might feel bad for taking a life, but it is human nature to rationalize those decisions and move forward. That said, you'd be a cold hearted person to not feel bad about taking a life regardless of the circumstance. Regret on the other hand, implies that you would undue your actions. I don't think anyone would regret protecting themselves.


headloss
2012-02-03 20:51:18

Headloss summed up my feelings nicely. I cant imagine ever regretting taking a life to save mine or someone I loved. Would I feel bad about the situation? Possibly but it certainly wouldnt be impossible to move on.


boostuv
2012-02-04 02:11:38

Agreed.


orionz06
2012-02-04 04:55:22

deleting this. it's not worth it. I know my opinion is going to be unpopular and unaccepted.


mrosswog
2012-02-06 18:33:52

mrosswog The law does not allow you to assault someone with your hands or any other object in an attempt at self defense


I believe this is untrue. Sounds insane.


Show me a law that says I'm not allowed defend myself with my (pitiful, weak) fists. I'd be delighted to by you a few beers.


Aside from this factual error, it strikes me that you've missed the point of the discussion.


@bike-pgh forum.

Please forgive me if I've just fed a troll.


mick
2012-02-06 18:46:32

not trolling. didn't put much thought into my post. was a gut reaction. promptly deleted. it's not my responsibility or of any interest to me to debate the laws of self defense on the bike board. no additional response necessary.


mrosswog
2012-02-06 19:06:35

mrosswog sorry you felt unwelcome. my reading of this thread has been that it spans a wide range of views on the subject.


dmtroyer
2012-02-06 19:19:50

We're all friends here, I mean not only are we friends of each other, but we reject nobody out of hand. Many have dealt with hands-on stupidity in one form or another. Go ahead and state your views. We've also discussed among ourselves some fairly outlandish suggestions over the years and somehow stayed friends.


stuinmccandless
2012-02-06 21:37:57

stu is correct we often agree and disagree. What I like about this message board is at the end of the day we are still family. I don't always agree with family but I alway care about, protect and cherish my time with them. I don't want anyone to feel unwelcome.


marvelousm3
2012-02-07 00:16:45

I don't know that I agree with the regret analysis... I can't imagine a scenario where my actions to take a life, no matter the benefit to myself or the world, would not be regretted. I'd rather live in the so-far perfect world I've inhabited where I've never (to my knowledge) directly caused another human being to cease living.


It's like the ol' MASH scenario - if you're hiding with a bunch of other people (friends, family, strangers, whoever, large number of people), and there's a sick baby (ok, make it a full grown sick adult if you like) that can't stop crying but you'll get found and all killed if s/he continues to cry, what do you do? I don't see a win there. I don't see a result without massive regret. Maybe I'm using the word incorrectly. Severe remorse and a longing that, through reacting to some aspect of a situation differently, different results could be achieved.


I'm not arguing that any better options existed or could have been preferred. Simply that one may find the options chosen to be... regrettable.


I think there's a fine line between assault and defense that mrosswog perhaps started to point out, but I didn't get to see the original post. Maybe if you figure out a way to reword it better to your liking you could post again? that's the kind of conversation my husband and his kung fu instructor get very involved in, I like to listen in when they think I'm napping on the mats but I admit I can't contribute to the arguments much.


ejwme
2012-02-07 17:53:51

I can't imagine a scenario where my actions to take a life, no matter the benefit to myself or the world, would not be regretted.


the argument stems from different ideas of the definition of the word "regret". which makes it, in my opinion anyway, not a very worthwhile argument. the moment you agree on a definition, there is nothing left to argue.


hiddenvariable
2012-02-07 18:41:37

I thought maybe that was the case. Words can be so slippery!


ejwme
2012-02-07 18:52:22

Well, also on whether feelings have to be logical. You can regret something even when it doesn't really make sense to do so. I think taking a young person's life to save yours would be one of those situations.


jonawebb
2012-02-07 19:53:57

Ej, if nothing else I would regret that I didnt take a different path home that day. So I guess I agree with you.


marko82
2012-02-07 19:56:44

I wasn't really arguing that feelings need be logical, I think the human mind is very capable of rationalizing a series of events whether we are aware of this rationalizing or not. The less you know about the dead youth, the more you can dehumanize him, the easier it is to move forward.


I concede that it becomes an issue of semantics, how we define regret. Also, how we measure regret on a scale.


@Marko, who is to say that if you choose another path the same event wouldn't have unfolded? I think the statistical odds of falling into that scenario reduces it to the simple choice of fight/flight. Assuming that your back is to a wall, there is little choice. Of course, you could very well evaluate the scenario a hundred different ways along the same lines as taking another path. So, I see your point.


headloss
2012-02-07 22:13:09

I had a friend who was in a life-altering car accident (head on with a speeding highway drunkard).


There was a time when my friend had to strugle with trying NOT to dwell on questions like "What if I had turned a block earlier?" "What if I stopped for a pack of smokes?" "Why didn't we stay at teh restaurant a couple more minutes?" (and on. infinitely)


I imagine the shooter might be considering questions like that.


mick
2012-02-07 22:19:35

Yeah Mick, that's what makes living after the fact sometimes hard for survivors. I hear stories on TV about combat vets that just can’t stop asking why their best friend died but they survived. I think if I had caused a death (regardless of how justified it might have been) I would carry that weight for a very long time. Maybe that’s what separates the good guys from the bad guys in the first place.


marko82
2012-02-08 01:21:52