Ferguson Riots

#7,051
#7,051
MG1968 said:
uncharacteristic of you to be so quick to convict someone based solely on an admission of guilt without any other corroborating evidence. A 120 yard pistol shot, by an amateur, from an automobile? One hit strains credulity, but two hits borders on the impossible.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure he is no amateur, but they were pretty good shots.
 
#7,057
#7,057
MG1968 said:
uncharacteristic of you to be so quick to convict someone based solely on an admission of guilt without any other corroborating evidence. A 120 yard pistol shot, by an amateur, from an automobile? One hit strains credulity, but two hits borders on the impossible.
Click to expand...


They recovered the gun from him which matched and he confessed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,059
#7,059
lawgator1 said:
They recovered the gun from him which matched and he confessed.
Click to expand...

I understand they recovered the gun and matched the ballistics (which was kind of quick, even you would admit that) but at the same time, you don't find it just a little questionable that someone hit two targets from 120 yards away with a handgun in the dark from a vehicle and one of those being a head shot?

ETA: And missed the targets closer in that he was allegedly aiming at?

Common sense LG, let's use it. You claim to have fired a handgun before and know cops. Why don't you ask them tomorrow how easy that little feat would be.
 
Last edited:
#7,061
#7,061
Grand Vol said:
I understand they recovered the gun and matched the ballistics (which was kind of quick, even you would admit that) but at the same time, you don't find it just a little questionable that someone hit two targets from 120 yards away with a handgun in the dark from a vehicle and one of those being a head shot?

ETA: And missed the targets closer in that he was allegedly aiming at?

Common sense LG, let's use it. You claim to have fired a handgun before and know cops. Why don't you ask them tomorrow how easy that little feat would be.
Click to expand...



I'm not sure at all it was 120 yards. Is that official ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,064
#7,064
lawgator1 said:
Was that based on police observation or the protestors? No doubt a lot of confusion at the time.
Click to expand...

Police observation.

For crying out loud LG, do you know how hard it is to make a head shot for anything over 30 yards without practice? And how many gang-bangers routinely practice distance firing with anything?

Don't make this more complicated than it needs to be.
 
#7,065
#7,065
Grand Vol said:
Police observation.

For crying out loud LG, do you know how hard it is to make a head shot for anything over 30 yards without practice? And how many gang-bangers routinely practice distance firing with anything?

Don't make this more complicated than it needs to be.
Click to expand...


I'm not the one making it complicated. I think this guy was in the crowd and took the shots. I did quick search but did not find anything official indicating where the shells were found, just speculation.
 
#7,066
#7,066
lawgator1 said:
I'm not the one making it complicated. I think this guy was in the crowd and took the shots. I did quick search but did not find anything official indicating where the shells were found, just speculation.
Click to expand...

Then why didn't you say that to begin with?
 
#7,067
#7,067
Grand Vol said:
Then why didn't you say that to begin with?
Click to expand...


First I recall saying anything about it was that I said I didn't know. I said it was a handgun, and you and others said I was wrong because the shots came from 120 yards away.

I questioned, and still question, that distance, because I agree with you it seems highly unlikely someone, especially untrained, could accurately fire two shots from that distance with a handgun.

I feel like that distance was originally thrown out by protestors, who didn't want the shooter associated with them, and it just echoed in the media. But then I see you or others posting that was estimated by police, and I have to figure that they in turn made comments about that based on what the protestors said.

Obviously, key evidence is where the casings were found and their ejection pattern relative to, for example, being in a car.
 
#7,068
#7,068
lawgator1 said:
First I recall saying anything about it was that I said I didn't know. I said it was a handgun, and you and others said I was wrong because the shots came from 120 yards away.
Click to expand...

Because most of know how improbable it is to take shots at that distance and hit anything. Hence our first reaction of "rifle" as opposed to a handgun.

lawgator1 said:
I questioned, and still question, that distance, because I agree with you it seems highly unlikely someone, especially untrained, could accurately fire two shots from that distance with a handgun.
Click to expand...

Again, using what the police have said in their official statements. Now, this is minus a very important detail of how many total shots were fired and that information hasn't been released or nobody asked that question.

lawgator1 said:
I feel like that distance was originally thrown out by protestors, who didn't want the shooter associated with them, and it just echoed in the media. But then I see you or others posting that was estimated by police, and I have to figure that they in turn made comments about that based on what the protestors said.
Click to expand...

Police arrest Missouri man, 20, in shooting of two officers in Ferguson | Fox News

The shots were believed to come from a handgun across the street from the police department.

The gunman may have fired from up to 120 yards away, a distance longer than a football field. But with a line of roughly 20 officers standing in front of the building, the shooter did not have to be particularly accurate to hit two of them, Belmar said.
Click to expand...

Belmar being the St Louis County Police Chief. Although I disagree with his reasoning it was easy to hit the targets. It takes some talent to fire a handgun accurately. So it does give credibility to your theory it came from within the crowd.

lawgator1 said:
Obviously, key evidence is where the casings were found and their ejection pattern relative to, for example, being in a car.
Click to expand...

And the ballistics test that quickly matched the casings to the handgun in question. Which again was kind of quick IMO.

Oh great, I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist...
 
#7,069
#7,069
Grand Vol said:
And the ballistics test that quickly matched the casings to the handgun in question. Which again was kind of quick IMO.

Oh great, I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist...
Click to expand...


Well, first, I think the guy was arrested and it was at least a little bit of time before they announced it. Second, I am sure examining the shells was a priority for agency forensics.
 
#7,070
#7,070
lawgator1 said:
Well, first, I think the guy was arrested and it was at least a little bit of time before they announced it. Second, I am sure examining the shells was a priority for agency forensics.
Click to expand...

Still isn't as easy as NCIS makes it look.
 
#7,071
#7,071
Grand Vol said:
And the ballistics test that quickly matched the casings to the handgun in question. Which again was kind of quick IMO.

Oh great, I'm becoming a conspiracy theorist...
Click to expand...

Casings matching or not terminal ballistics at that distance should be pretty easy to discern. A .40 pistol bullet is going to have a BC of what, .20? To hit someone at that distance both the angle of impact and terminal velocity should be quite different than if fired from a much shorter distance.
 
#7,072
#7,072
hndog609 said:
Casings matching or not terminal ballistics at that distance should be pretty easy to discern. A .40 pistol bullet is going to have a BC of what, .20? To hit someone at that distance both the angle of impact and terminal velocity should be quite different than if fired from a much shorter distance.
Click to expand...


Again, the location of the shell casings should make if fairly clear. Unless you think someone picked them up off the street out front, then carried them and dropped them 100 yards away.

I really think if will turn out that this was much closer than press stories.
 
#7,073
#7,073
hndog609 said:
Casings matching or not terminal ballistics at that distance should be pretty easy to discern. A .40 pistol bullet is going to have a BC of what, .20? To hit someone at that distance both the angle of impact and terminal velocity should be quite different than if fired from a much shorter distance.
Click to expand...

Makeup of the bullet as well since one of them was a through and through. Likely FMJ if I was to guess.
 
#7,074
#7,074
lawgator1 said:
Again, the location of the shell casings should make if fairly clear. Unless you think someone picked them up off the street out front, then carried them and dropped them 100 yards away.

I really think if will turn out that this was much closer than press stories.
Click to expand...

I believe you are likely correct in that assumption.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top