It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Boy killed by bullet 'fired three miles away'

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:31 PM
church roofs arent known to be in the best condition, who is to say what the roof was actually made out of? the location of the shot was probably no more than half a mile away and AK47 was just a guess due to its popularity, availability and power. it did make me think at first that the shot could have been taken from above but that itself seems highly unlikely. most of it adds up i just think it was a more powerful weapon that may have caused it.

[edit on 3/1/10 by RuledBySecrecy]

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:37 PM
I use to do roofing in Detroit area, and would find bullets in roofs, most would be stuck in wood.
I was also doing security work, nights at school, again Detroit, they would shoot all night long.
One night some ome pulled off some rounds with what sounded like a AK47, what was funny after a second or two I heard the bullets coming down and hitting the aluminum blechers across the rosd from school, pling, pling, pling.

I was there on forth of july it was like war zone, you couldn't tell if it was fire works or weapons fire.

To bad about kid, nothing like being in wrong place at wrong time.

Some thirty years ago a guy let go with his bowling ball on the new expressway, it killed young woman on oppisite lane, it took him 20 years to turn himself in.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by googolplex]

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:42 PM

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
What a tragedy, only the good die young though.

Proof positive religion will not save you! Did the gun kill the boy or his parents dragging a three year old to church?

Cause and effect.

I hope you are on Holiday and some sad sack stole your passwords.
I know you are a Brady buncher but the attack on the church
and the folks in it is TOTALLY un-American. A tragedy in itself.

Actually truth be known I suspect the OP who is from England not the U.S. and favors English Gun Control Laws will be wanting to turn this into a forum for the evils of gun ownership here in America.

I am shall we say, purposefully exploring alternative theories to this tragedy!

I feel terrible for the boy's parents.

It's a real tragedy, sadly some people on ATS have a way of exploiting tragedies to peddle agendas for America and a lot of them don't even live in America.

Go figure.

The Bradey Bunch? More like the Adams family!

Fine but you haven't addressed your attack on the church.
On another thread you said you do not own a gun but you
wanted others to do your Milita work for you.
You are great with history. You do know the history of guns in America
and the places they have been confiscated?
If anything I find those that have never had the right to use a gun
and those that have never had the need for one---quite lacking in the
Psychology of weapons and self protection. They are folks that carry an egg around for a
semester at college and equate it with the egg being a child. BA
I will go you one better and say a prayer for the parents.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by RuledBySecrecy

If it was a church out of town it could have been built with nothing more than a thin tin roof. I photograph a lot of remote buildings throughout the east coast.
A lot of these churches in the south are in the woods with nothing much around.
My guess is an untrained or inexperienced hunter. Sad

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by Donny 4 million

Actually Donny I believe Americans have the right to bear arms.

I believe I don't need to bear one or own one.

I have practiced to the point of proficiency at shooting ranges over the years with a wide variety of hand guns and rifles and know how to strip and clean them.

I have on occasion had armed body guards and drivers in my employ.

I have also on six different occasions taken guns from armed assailants while being unarmed my self.

You might find it hard to believe but at the moment bullets begin to fly the battle is already lost on both sides Donny.

I have never killed a human being and I hope I never have too.

I as a child did hunt and kill rabbits and fowl. I know what it is like to take the life of a creature with a weapon and don’t find any particular sport or joy in it.

Yet Americans do have a right and sometimes a need to protect themselves and some people can only do that with a gun.

I use my brain.

Your mind is the most deadly weapon Donny; after all it was the man’s decision to fire the gun that led to the accident now wasn’t it?


posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:54 PM
Reply to post by ken10

When fired straight up or straight down this is true. If fired at an angle there is an arc of flight. The projectile retains an awful lot of energy while descending the arc.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 08:54 PM
Look at that a delayed double post, I not taking blame for that,

[edit on 3-1-2010 by googolplex]

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:03 PM
Whoever fired that bullet should be tried for murder.

Causing death by indirect fire shouldn't make the gunman any less responsible.

It's not a freak occurence, keep in mind plenty of weapons use this principle, howitzers and mortars for example.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by SteveR

No need to bring man's law into this one. Let the universe be the judge, that or bring him to texas where i live and tack on another hash mark for the lethal injection club.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:33 PM
Pretty sure this is the same story that I have watch a clip from the news. If not then he wasn't the only one who was killed that night by a straight bullet.
Some times people need to stop and think what they are doing . Its all fun and games until someone gets hurt, and who suffers all the time? The Parents!

News Clip

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:46 PM

Originally posted by SteveR
Whoever fired that bullet should be tried for murder.

Causing death by indirect fire shouldn't make the gunman any less responsible.

It's not a freak occurence, keep in mind plenty of weapons use this principle, howitzers and mortars for example.

More likely the charge would be negligent homicide.

I'm reminded of the MythBusters episode where they tested this very thing. They fired bullets in the air and tested their penetration when they came down. They concluded that a bullet fired straight up into the air would not have enough velocity coming down to kill.

Of course, this wasn't a politically correct answer, so they had to cover their hides and say that a bullet fired at an angle would probably be lethal; they never tested this due to the possibility of controversy, but I'm skeptical of whether a bullet fired at a high enough angle to get the kinds of distances claimed could have enough momentum to be lethal.

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 11:57 PM
reply to post by john124

John, 40 m/s is 120 feet per second, about a third as fast as a slingshot projectile. 120 feet per second will not kill anyone, bruise yes, kill no.

Plus a bullet travels 1.5 miles per second and will likely travel up to 20 miles into the air before it reaches the apex and falls.

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:03 AM
Doc Velocity got here before I did, but I'm going to basically go with the same answer. Think about it, an AK round has about the same power as a 30-30. They say it came down at around 150fps. That's just over 100mph. they want me to believe I can throw a pitch and embed a baseball in someone's head? Through a roof, no less?

Strange it was the always evil, always demonized AK clone. I am surprised though that it was not the even more evil FiveseveN, PS90 or .50 cal.

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:04 AM
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

God does not interfere in the immutable laws of nature.

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:07 AM
reply to post by starwarsisreal

I believe there should be laws banning firearms from being fired up in the air.

I'm sure our feathered friends will thank you for this one...


Look, doo doo happens.


Don't make more out of it than it is.


posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:08 AM
Why did they name this story "Boy killed by bullet 'fired three miles away'" but when you read the article is clearly says ... most likely, the shooter was about a half mile away and the gun was tilted at about 30 or 40 degrees ...

Good reporting habits there IMO.

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:11 AM
reply to post by Doc Velocity

A .30 cal bullet traveling at half a mile per second would not need to reach a height of one mile. Probably could do it in under five hundred feet at the top of the arc.

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:13 AM
reply to post by nophun

Because then the story gets more hits. Never mind that an AK could not cover that distance on it's best day. Yes, I love AKs, my favorite rifle ever. No, I don't trust it to fly any further than maybe a mile.

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:14 AM
An innocent child has died.

An innocent child whose parents were trying to bring him up to be good.

People should grieve for that innocent child and his parents, before they start arguing as usual about churches and guns.

I do believe that most churches are misguided, and I do believe that firearms have caused a lot of mankind's problems, but this pales beside the death of an innocent little boy.

And to say that it was because he was in church is just ridiculous. It was a random, tragic event.

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 12:15 AM

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I don't believe the story, frankly.

How does a falling bullet gather enough energy to penetrate the roof of a building, for one thing? It has no energy, aside from its smallish mass under the force of gravity. The thing would have no more power to penetrate a church roof than would a bit of icy hail of the same mass.

If hail had the force to penetrate solid structures, there would be thousands (if not millions) of hail-related deaths annually of people struck inside protective structures.

For another thing, how the hell do they calculate a distance of "three miles away"??

In order to fall out of the sky and land on a target 3 miles away, a bullet would first have to achieve an altitude of over a mile on an arcing trajectory.

What gun is capable of firing a bullet upwards, against the force of gravity, to an altitude of over a mile? Well, a military anti-aircraft round could reach that high — but not any civilian firearm.

A bb gun probably can reach a mile in altitude if it leaves the barrel at 800 feet per second. Do the math. A .30 cal bullet fired straight up leaving the barrel at 3500 fps can reach the altitude of twenty miles, do the math.

Perhaps a 22 long rifle round could reach that altitude; but are you going to suggest that a tiny little 22 round could penetrate the roof of a building while falling out of the sky?

So, what landed on this kid's head in reality? An anti-aircraft round?? Perhaps an iron/nickel meteor?

— Doc Velocity

Doc Velocity, I suggest you pick up some knitting needles or a book on physics before posting any more on the velocity of weapons projectiles.

[edit on 1/3/2010 by Doc Velocity]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in