Boy killed by bullet 'fired three miles away'

reply to post by lpowell0627


Actualy I have to agree with you ... school is psychologicaly damaging when you are an aware sentient being,and most everyone around you seeks to damage you some how. For me I will remember school as the place where I was attacked with knives, had to learn self defense on the fly , and got shot at for the first and only time. It was a damned health hazard.

reply to post by ken10


I guess that would depend on the building and what exactly is meant by "roof" in the report. Lord knows reporters love making stuff up, simplifying things, not understanding things, embellishing things etc...

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by starwarsisreal
Now folks chill this i not a religion related problem but a firearm problem. I believe there should be laws banning firearms from being fired up in the air.

Was anyone not attending this church struck by a bullet from a gun fired up in the air?

The religion did in fact build the church in the path of the bullet!

Very thoughtless of them if you ask me. Chances are it was way past the child's bedtime too!

I think both the church and the parents should be prosecuted for wreckless endangerment and manslaughter.

It is also entirely possible that some kind of black rite was taking place using the occult and socery that pulled the bullet down from the heavens into the church for the expressed purpose of sacrificing the child.

Lots of potential conspiracies here! Do we even know for certain that the person in question voluntarily opted to fire the gun or was he forced to through some black magic.

Very suspicious indeed.

yeah ... and capitalism built the road intersection where someone where someone was killed last week ... i tell you it is soooo evil ... and no ! I do not want a head examination !

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Folks that take a simple matter and try to make a FEDERAL CASE out of it. Use it as a platform for shrinking the gray globs in members heads. Using some strange mostly off topic unspoken riddles and ego to advance some agenda or prerogative, rings the BEWARE bell for me.
You owe us a link or proof the roof was substandard in the church.
If you have a beef with guns, gods, or parents man up and say it in real words. I think you have pissed your audience this time.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Folks that take a simple matter and try to make a FEDERAL CASE out of it. Use it as a platform for shrinking the gray globs in members heads. Using some strange mostly off topic unspoken riddles and ego to advance some agenda or prerogative, rings the BEWARE bell for me.
You owe us a link or proof the roof was substandard in the church.
If you have a beef with guns, gods, or parents man up and say it in real words. I think you have pissed your audience this time.

Actually Donny as usual I am not afraid to call it as I see it and speak my mind regardless of peer pressure.

People are free to disagree with what I have to say, just as I am free to say what I have to say.

You might notice that a lot of people on this thread are actually supporting what I have to say.

Whether that’s because they agree, or simply applaud my courage in daring to speak honestly to controversial topics is hard to say. Clearly though a number of people either appreciate or enjoy that effort.

You might want to ask yourself what you are angry at me for?

Did I fire the gun in question? No, I sure didn’t.

Did I take the child to the church? No, I sure didn’t.

Did I build the church’s roof? No, I sure didn’t.

In fact what some people are displaying is a desire to be angry at anyone and everyone but those who are most responsible for the boy’s safety and welfare and that would always be his parents.

Does it aggravate me that some parents show such willful lack of thought in protecting their children from the dangers of the world and then want it to be everyone else’s fault than their own for not exercising more common sense and caution? Yes it does.

Am I angry at anyone other than those negligent parents? No, I am not!

You see the person who fired that weapon as callous and foolish and derelict as they were, didn’t fire that weapon with that specific child in mind.

Who should have had that specific child in mind? The parents, the parents who chose to drag their small 3 year old child out to church on one of the most dangerous nights of the year.

But hey if it makes you feel better or helps that ulcer you are working on; feel free to be angry at me. I am a big boy I can take it and look out for me. Sadly the little boy in question couldn’t rely on his parents to do the same for him and now he is dead.

That’s a fact.


[edit on 4/1/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Wow. This thread has some very fuzzy math and reason??? Not typical of ATS at all?

Proto, you have been cracking me up, and I can't believe all the people arguing against you point! It makes perfect sense to me!

1. No hand held weapon will shoot 20 miles into the air! Not even close, not even remotely close!

2. Stray bullets are deadly as evidenced by the numerous accounts of this happening every year, and the aforementioned MythBusters episode. They did test the weapon fired at an angle, and they found that any type of angle was enough to keep the bullet "stable" in flight and maintain its rotation and its velocity. As long as the bullet maintains its spin, and remains in stable flight, the velocity will be deadly.

3. My brother in law happened to shoot someone just this year while hunting. A 30.06 round ricocheted off a small patch of concrete from an old road in the woods, the round missed dozens of trees, travelled about a mile, went back to the campsite, and hit someone in the hind in! They were out far enough, that it became a very serious situation, but the man survived! Police investigated, ballistics matched, it was what it was, a scary highly improbable accident!

4. Any hunting/sniper/assualt rifle (30/30, 30.06, .223, AK47, AR15, etc.) is capable of penetrating much much more than a windshield. I have personally seen these rounds go through layers of plywood and 2x4's and stay on track to not only hit their target, but also remain fairly accurate! I have seen these rounds explode a concrete block into mostly sand! So, it would surely have no problem penetrating a metal roof, or even a plywood roof.

5. A .22lr round is still embedded in a buddy of mine from a gang-related incident when we were teenagers. This very small round fired from a pistol, travelled up hill approximately 8 blocks, went through the metal of the trunk lid, the fabric of the back seat, and the fabric of the front seat and hit him in his spine! It didn't break the bone, but it lodged in a tiny area between the spine/heart/lungs, and the doctors decided to leave it there! It turned out to be a minor injury, but if a .22lr can travel at that distance through all that resistance, and still be millimeters from lethal, then I am sure a hunting round can get through a church roof without any problem!

6. More laws is never the answer. There is such a thing as an accident. Our Western litigious society where everything is someone else's fault will eventually be our downfall, and I can't wait! Sure it was irresponsible for someone to shoot a high velocity round into the air, and if it were my kid, I would want blood! That is unless it were my kid that made a microsecond lapse of judgement and fired that round up in the air as part of a celebration. Then I wouldn't be so quick to condemn him for making such a small lapse in judgement. I have been around guns my whole life, and I am quite a marksman, and I know all the safety rules, and yet a few years ago I fired my AK up into the air on New Year's Eve! Not just once, either, I popped off several quick rounds, and a millisecond later I started thinking about all the possible bad scenarios, and I flinched at every siren that I heard that night, and I felt like sh*t!

So why ruin more lives by condemning this irresponsible act, or by arguing against all guns (or against religion, lol)? Will ruining the shooter's life as well as his families' protect people in the future? Will more laws prevent accidents from happening?

Are we really at the nanny state stage to require kevlar helmets in church? Seatbelts, Carseats, FDA approved diet? Ban on fatty grease? Are we this helpless?

Actually what Protoplasmic traveller (certainly not proto thanks ) is saying makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You may know I'm an atheist, but I certainly wouldn't blame this poor kids, poor unfortunate parents for being Christian and celebrating New Years in their Church where they no doubt knew the congregation, had family members and friends seated around them and in no way expected their son to be in any danger.

The chances of the bullet coming through any roof of any congregated group of people, i.e. your choice of venue for seeing in the new year is the same, be it a house, a barn, a mosque, a synagogue or a church.

As for 'past his bedtime'. yeah sure, it's new years eve - my daughter, who is not yet 3, stayed up past midnight to see in the New Year with me... irresponsible? no, she caught up on her sleep the following day and is comfortably back into her sleep patterns.

I'll save my opinions on guns for another topic. But I will say I absolutely prefer the UK stance as I don't have to worry which lunatic has access to a pistol which is an all too easy weapon to kill with, far removing the need to look into your victims eyes.

I hope, sincerely, that I never read such ludicrous, inhumane and downright stupid comments as those made by Protoplasmic traveller here. But I'm sure I will. And as you speak your mind, I will continue to speak mine against all that is ridiculous and childish in derailed threads like this where the real angst should be toward the loss of an innocent, and not at the church - save that for the fundamentalist threads, where I'll happily join you in efforts to oust religion and the problems it creates.

For now, my thoughts go to the family members, friends and congregation who witnessed an appalling freak accident that should never have happened.

reply to post by Pr0t0

Actually what Protoplasmic traveller (certainly not proto thanks ) is saying makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Yes of course except for the fact that the child would still be alive based on my sage advice.

Did you have an argument how the bullet would have redirected itself to the child's home had they not gone out on the most dangerous night of the year?

I guess there in the U.K. the Nanny State tells you what is best and you just accept that though huh?

Common sense versus Nanny State, I will stick with the common sense thanks!

I'm no physicist, nor have I read all the previous responses to this post, so I'm just going from common sense when I ask the following rhetorical questions...

1. Can a bullet travel 3 miles ?
2. If so, can that same bullet travel 3 miles and have enough velocity to enter a building ?
3. If so, can that same bullet still have enough velocity to enter a human skull ?

I think that the child was killed by someone a lot closer than 3 miles away...sounds like someone's gun in the church accidentally went off.

My b.s. detector is indicating a "full brown" on this one...someone please prove me wrong.

reply to post by polychronopolis


a .22 the lowest velocity rifle round travels 1 mile. My hunting rifle (.300 Winchester mag) can travel 5 miles.

What goes up must come down, with gravity to accelerate in this case. The round would have made it a very nice distance into the air.

A pellet can penetrate a human skull.....

This is not the first time something like this has happened. This is why they tell you not to fire ammo into the air.

That should about cover it...


[edit on 4-1-2010 by DaMod]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Pr0t0

 

Actually what Protoplasmic traveller (certainly not proto thanks ) is saying makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Yes of course except for the fact that the child would still be alive based on my sage advice.

Did you have an argument how the bullet would have redirected itself to the child's home had they not gone out on the most dangerous night of the year?

I guess there in the U.K. the Nanny State tells you what is best and you just accept that though huh?

Common sense versus Nanny State, I will stick with the common sense thanks!

What sage advice? Don't go to church on "the most dangerous night of the year" which frankly is utter nonsense, I would wager there are just as many gun nuts firing into the air on 4th of July over there as on New Years.

Because I live in a Nanny State, as you are well prepared to point out, and I'm well prepared to admit, does not by any measure mean that I agree with many of the laws. You will find me to have a damn sight more common sense than any of your previous post's in this thread. It just so happens that the UK has much more knife crime than gun crime, but does that mean I condone either. It does stand testament however that the percentage of population killed each year by guns in the US is substantially... actually astronomically higher than the UK, and any other country in the westernized world for that matter.

The kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time but it wasn't a dangerous place... he didn't sit on a pue with a target marked out under his butt. Regardless of where the kid was, if he wasn't at the church that night somebody else may have taken his seat and their loss would have been an equal tragedy and yet you treat it as a joke, or an opportunity to jibe a religion.

Nonsensical and thoughtless.

reply to post by polychronopolis


It really was a blue moon that night and an important night for people into ritual sacrifice and the occult.

I don't think we can really safely rule out some kind of occult sacrifice or ceremony taking place here.

The people attending the church might not have been aware or a part of that if such a thing took place.

It could have been someone outside of the church who deliberately planned the child's murder in the church for some bizarre ritual.

It's a true tragedy that warrants asking all the questions in my humble opinion.

I live in Columbus Ohio and last year I think a young lady from here was at a celebration in our downtown area for July 4. She was hit by a bullet that lodged maybe in one of her lungs. They said it may have been fired clear from the Westside of Columbus from somebody just shooting off a gun for celebration.
Anyhow New Years Eve I went to bed early because I just don`t stay up anymore. About 12:06 I literally woke up to rounds going off outside my window, nearly fell out of the damn bed. Some A++hole was shooting off a gun, sounded like a revolver, maybe a .38 or .357 can`t be sure. Anyhow they put off three full barrels of what ever it was. I called my neighbor the next day to verify what I heard and she said her boyfriend said it was gunshots too. Wonder where the hell all those bullets went? Oh, and don`t bother ever trying to call the police at 12:00 on News Years Eve you will never get through, I did not.

reply to post by Iamherefornow


People firing bullets into the air is nothing put pure ignorance. This is why they require firearm safety classes but unfortunately these people don't care about firearm safety.

I have a feeling soon people like this are going to ruin things for responsible gun owners like me....

reply to post by DaMod


Yes I am a gun owner as well and thats how I knew it was gunshots and not firecrackers, but wanted to confirm with my neighbor.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

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.

The OP's title for this thread is inaccurate and misleading. The article he linked specifically states that it is most likely that the bullet was fired from a half a mile away.

I'm not a ballistics expert, but did read the article.

The argument of Protoplasm is very, very, very simple! If that child had not been occupying that volume of space at that time, it would not have been hit by that bullet! Simple!

Yes, he made the auxiliary arguments about the blue moon, ritual sacrifice, etc, etc, all of which seemed obviously sarcastic to me, but I guess others are more sensitive?

It is impossible to refute his argument! If that church had not been built, if that family had been there that night, if someone else had sat in that pew, blah blah, you can't refute it.

If you want to argue with Protoplasm in an equally sarcastic and creative manner, please argue that the child would have been much safer locked at home in a linen closet, or accompanying his parents on a pillage spree through the neighborhood, or riding along on the dashboard of their car as they sped through deserted streets shooting their own guns in the air! All of those scenarios would have moved the child the necessary inches away from that spot at that time!

Geesh! I hope that clears it up! I don't think he wants to see the Contractor that built the church up for Manslaughter charges and Civil Damages, just because [begin legalease]any reasonable person could have deducted that building a church on the edge of a sometimes violent city without adequate bullet proofing, and then inviting peace loving unarmed families and children to said church, and asking them to bring cash for the coffer, could at some point result in some type of secular violence that could end up with an injured or dead child. [end legalease]

!@!@!@ I would think anybody could have seen this potential, and surely there are multiple people ripe for suing!?!?!?

reply to post by Pr0t0

What sage advice? Don't go to church on "the most dangerous night of the year" which frankly is utter nonsense, I would wager there are just as many gun nuts firing into the air on 4th of July over there as on New Years.

The sage advice that I have said time and time again in this thread that you tempt fate by going out of your home on the 4th of July and New Years Eve in any major metropolitan area.

Where I live in Miami FL which is a very heavily armed portion of the States the news channels remind people for days leading up to the holidays to...

A. not shoot guns up in the air

and

B. do stay safely indoors if you possibly can

I follow that advice myself. By the time it's dark on those days I am in for the night. I don't believe in tempting fate simply for kicks.

I don't swim in the ocean at night or when the water is murky or there is a lot of sea weed either.

I don't drive on any holiday where drunk drivers are likely to be out.

That's all cautious common sense, and the fact is as emotional as you might like to make your arguments, you can't overcome the fact that had the child and his family stayed home the accident would not have occured to the child.

Frankly that is so obvious and common sense oriented and logical I can't imagine anyone except those thinking from purely emotional standpoints not being able to recognize the absolute truth in that.

The boy would still be alive had his family stayed home.

People can conversely pray at home by the way.

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.

Look I dislike religion as much as the next atheist but you're way out of line here. Religious or not this poor family lost their child and for you to try and make light of it and gain some anti-religious capital is just downright sick. You should be ashamed of yourself.

If anything is to blame it's that stupid 2nd amendment to the otherwise reasonable American constitution. Too many idiots with guns in America.

FACT.



[edit on 4/1/10 by sotp]

Originally posted by polychronopolis

I think that the child was killed by someone a lot closer than 3 miles away...sounds like someone's gun in the church accidentally went off.

My b.s. detector is indicating a "full brown" on this one...

I have read the entire article linked in the OP, and while many people seem to be focusing on the figure of a 3 mile bullet trajectory, few seem to have read the statement in the article that it was most likely that the bullet was fired from a gun a half a mile away.

I am wondering why this thread is titled inaccurately as evidenced by the content of the linked article.

[edit on 4-1-2010 by MKULTRA]