Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Chesterfield Gunowner stops robbery

  1. #1
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    "What do you want to bet that the Chesterfield cops raised hell about shooting.

    http://www.nbc12.com/global/story.asp?s=9044266




    Spike in street robberies in Chesterfield



    From NBC12 News
    CHESTERFIELD, VA (NBC12) - Chesterfield Police are hoping a recent spike in street robberies doesn't continue into this weekend.
    There've been several cases in the last couple of weeks.
    Three alone Thursday night.
    One of those happened here off Swineford Road and Jeff Davis Highway.
    Police say a man was riding his bike down the street when a car pulled up beside him.
    They say two men jumped out, beat him up, searched his pockets, then tried to get away after a neighbor nearby fired a gun in the air.
    One resident says he's not surprised.
    "I've noticed it myself certain people come up and look at the house and stare at the house and go slow past it but if they see me come out and watch them they usually move on," said resident Ed Washbon.
    Police believe many of these robberies could be connected.
    In most cases, it's three suspects using force to steal from their victim.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran Dutch Uncle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,715

    Post imported post

    This is a tough one. I'm not sure I wouldn't have fired a "warning shot" myself in this instance, but technically, the cops could give the shooter some grief for "brandishing" and "discharging a weapon in city limits". Self defense is an exception to these charges, but most of us agree that warning shots are a real grey area. The only justification for firing a weapon is to shoot at the perpetrator to stop him from killing/seriously injuring you or some other innocent party.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Warning shots can work, its just that there often can be negative outcomes to firing them.

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    I'm pretty sure the fellow being robbed thought it was a proper action to take.

  5. #5
    Regular Member TexasNative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    856

    Post imported post

    I prefer my warning shots to be aimed at the assailant.

  6. #6
    Gentleman Ranker
    Guest

    Post imported post

    +1 to TexasNative, though in this case it may have been that the distance from the neighbor to the robbery (and/or the neighbor's proficiency) may not have allowed the neighbor a clear shot. In that case, a warning shot might have been better than no shot.

    Just guessing about that of course.

    +10 to peter nap.

    regards,

    GR

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Richmond Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    636

    Post imported post

    Or, as one of the late Jerry Clower's characters once said, "just fire up in here amongest us, one of us has got to have some relief".

    Warning shots may have a serious side effect. At that point local discharge laws are the least of your worries.

  8. #8
    Regular Member richarcm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,182

    Post imported post

    1. Chesterfield should give the Jeff Davis area to Richmond. Its not fair for Chesterfield to be policing Richmond's problems.

    2. Yes there are potential negative results to firing warning shots. But there are potential negative results to having a gun period and to being robbed. Perhaps the neighbor would be better off firing the gun into the ground??

    3. I think brandishing and/or illegal discharge of a firearm would be a much more difficult thing to be found of in the Jeff Davis area. Who's going to complain to the police about either? The robber? The guy being robbed? Doubt either will. The other neighbors? Maybe but I would have to think that they are used to it and if they knew who it was might be glad that he was doing something to help keep their street a little safer.

    All in all maybe a shot shouldn't be fired to help save someone from being robbed. I think maybe a shot should be fired at the robber but all in all, at night, the safest least deadly thing to do would PROBABLY be to fire the warning shot. I think that the Jeff Davis area needs MORE people who would fire that warning shot to save their neighbors.

  9. #9
    Regular Member TexasNative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    856

    Post imported post

    For anyone who advocates firing a warning shot, whether it be into the air or the ground, I have a question for you:

    Where is that bullet going to end up?

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    TexasNative wrote:
    For anyone who advocates firing a warning shot, whether it be into the air or the ground, I have a question for you:

    Where is that bullet going to end up?
    If the angle is more than 50 Degrees, it doesn't matter!

    If you fire it into the ground....it winds up in the ...Ground?:shock:

  11. #11
    Regular Member TexasNative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    856

    Post imported post

    I'm a little slow, Peter, you're gonna hafta 'splain that one to me.

    I'm thinking back to when those cops shot at the snake in the tree, and killed that little boy fishing with his grandfather. It always matters where the bullet goes. You're responsible for where it ends up, and if it ends up inside another human being, it's not just an accident.

    Please point out the flaw in my reasoning here. As I said, I'm a little slow.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    TexasNative wrote:
    For anyone who advocates firing a warning shot, whether it be into the air or the ground, I have a question for you:

    Where is that bullet going to end up?
    In the ground shot, done STRAIGHT DOWN, even if it hit a rock most energy would be expended. If shot in the air STRAIGHT UP most energy would be expended before it puts a small dent in your car or head. If shot in the air or ground at an ANGLE, especially in the air, most energy will not be expended and could potentially be deadly or dangerous.

    The idea in the air shot is that ALL the muzzle energy is expended making the bullet go up. The only energy it has when it hits the ground is the energy it got from falling at most likely terminal speed. Not enough to kill but enough I imagine to put a lump on your head. The shot into the ground cannot ricochet, if shot straight down, anywhere but back up or further into the ground. If it does come back up most all energy will have been used. In fact I've never heard nor seen a lead bullet ricochet straight back. Steel core bullets hitting steel, yes. Lead no. The forces involved in making lead change direction that drastically just obliterates them.

    Now if you shoot into the air at an angle the horizontal component of the muzzle velocity will be maintained and not expended making the bullet go up. So if your shot is low enough to the horizon enough energy could be maintained to be dangerous. What exactly that angle is I don't know. The same is true for a shot into the ground. At a sufficiently small enough angle the "forward" component of speed will be maintained and could be dangerous. When shooting straight down all forward speed must be reversed and since lead has no elasticity it obliterates. Now if you were shooting rubber bullets into the ground that would be different :^).

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    TexasNative wrote:
    I'm a little slow, Peter, you're gonna hafta 'splain that one to me.

    I'm thinking back to when those cops shot at the snake in the tree, and killed that little boy fishing with his grandfather. It always matters where the bullet goes. You're responsible for where it ends up, and if it ends up inside another human being, it's not just an accident.

    Please point out the flaw in my reasoning here. As I said, I'm a little slow.
    The flaw it pretty simple. If you fire it at 50 degrees, it has spent all it's energy and is at terminal velocity by the time it hiys the ground.

    Don't know any thing about the police that shoot snakes in the tree. I suspect it;s the same family as the little boy that went fishing with the baby snakes.

  14. #14
    Regular Member TexasNative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    856

    Post imported post

    The story is here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292168,00.html

    So, what is the terminal velocity of, say, 185 gr bullet, Peter? You're saying that a bullet traveling at that speed will bounce off a human being, causing no harm?

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    TexasNative wrote:
    The story is here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292168,00.html

    So, what is the terminal velocity of, say, 185 gr bullet, Peter? You're saying that a bullet traveling at that speed will bounce off a human being, causing no harm?
    Terminal velocity of any free falling object less wind resistance is 120 mph. and yes....it will bounce off a human being. Just like the killer pennies from the Empire State building.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    TexasNative wrote:
    The story is here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292168,00.html

    So, what is the terminal velocity of, say, 185 gr bullet, Peter? You're saying that a bullet traveling at that speed will bounce off a human being, causing no harm?
    I'd say it'd be hard to guess. Most often you hear terminal velocities of 120 MPH which is around 170 FPS. But lead is very dense so you would think it would be faster, but then again it has a large surface area to volume ratio because it's so small, so you might think it to be slower :^).

    You'll have to find it on the net somewhere.........

  17. #17
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    TexasNative wrote:
    The story is here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292168,00.html

    So, what is the terminal velocity of, say, 185 gr bullet, Peter? You're saying that a bullet traveling at that speed will bounce off a human being, causing no harm?
    Terminal velocity of any free falling object less wind resistance is 120 mph. and yes....it will bounce off a human being. Just like the killer pennies from the Empire State building.
    Actually Peter, there is this thing called terminal velocity only *because* of wind resistance. TV is when the force of wind resistance equals the force of the weight of the object falling. Typically said to be around 120 MPH for a falling human parachutist.

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Neplusultra wrote:
    TexasNative wrote:
    The story is here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292168,00.html

    So, what is the terminal velocity of, say, 185 gr bullet, Peter? You're saying that a bullet traveling at that speed will bounce off a human being, causing no harm?
    I'd say it'd be hard to guess. Most often you hear terminal velocities of 120 MPH which is around 170 FPS. But lead is very dense so you would think it would be faster, but then again it has a large surface area to volume ratio because it's so small, so you might think it to be slower :^).

    You'll have to find it on the net somewhere.........
    Your righ Nep. The freefall shape of a bullet causes addition surface area for gravity to grab. It is around 200 MPH for a bullet.
    And the same terminal velocity is reached for a typical 150 g bullet travelling in the downward vertical direction — when it is returning to earth having been fired upwards, or perhaps just dropped from a tower — according to a 1920 U.S. Army Ordnance study.[3

    That's enough extra energy to calculate!

  19. #19
    Regular Member TexasNative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    856

    Post imported post

    I happened to be looking at the site referenced from the Wikipedia article you quoted, and I noticed that the Army has determined that 150 gr bullet falling at terminal velocity would have about 30 foot/pounds of energy, while they've determined that it takes 60 foot/pounds of energy to produce a disabling wound.

    Point taken. I still think I'd prefer to either 1) aim my warning shot at the assailant, or b) in the event I can't shoot safely in that direction, make sure the assailant knows I'm armed by some means other than firing a round.

    Then again, every situation is different, and it's impossible to predict all of the circumstances we might encounter and how we would react to them.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    Neplusultra wrote:
    TexasNative wrote:
    The story is here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292168,00.html

    So, what is the terminal velocity of, say, 185 gr bullet, Peter? You're saying that a bullet traveling at that speed will bounce off a human being, causing no harm?
    I'd say it'd be hard to guess. Most often you hear terminal velocities of 120 MPH which is around 170 FPS. But lead is very dense so you would think it would be faster, but then again it has a large surface area to volume ratio because it's so small, so you might think it to be slower :^).

    You'll have to find it on the net somewhere.........
    Your righ Nep. The freefall shape of a bullet causes addition surface area for gravity to grab. It is around 200 MPH for a bullet.
    And the same terminal velocity is reached for a typical 150 g bullet travelling in the downward vertical direction — when it is returning to earth having been fired upwards, or perhaps just dropped from a tower — according to a 1920 U.S. Army Ordnance study.[3

    That's enough extra energy to calculate!
    200 MPH was my guess, which works out to around 300 FPS. Certainly not enough to kill although it sure would hurt and no doubt draw some blood.

  21. #21
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    TexasNative wrote:
    I happened to be looking at the site referenced from the Wikipedia article you quoted, and I noticed that the Army has determined that 150 gr bullet falling at terminal velocity would have about 30 foot/pounds of energy, while they've determined that it takes 60 foot/pounds of energy to produce a disabling wound.

    Point taken. I still think I'd prefer to either 1) aim my warning shot at the assailant, or b) in the event I can't shoot safely in that direction, make sure the assailant knows I'm armed by some means other than firing a round.

    Then again, every situation is different, and it's impossible to predict all of the circumstances we might encounter and how we would react to them.
    I'm not saying it's a good idea, just clearing up a popular myth.

    What amazes me is the number of people who believe every shot in the air is a death sentence for someone in the world,,,,but,,,,think nothing of shooting an arrow in the air.

    That's a whole different thing:shock:

  22. #22
    Regular Member Neplusultra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Christiansburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,228

    Post imported post

    peter nap wrote:
    I'm not saying it's a good idea, just clearing up a popular myth.

    What amazes me is the number of people who believe every shot in the air is a death sentence for someone in the world,,,,but,,,,think nothing of shooting an arrow in the air.

    That's a whole different thing:shock:
    Exactly, unless you're on a crowded Manhatten street at 12 noon shooting straight up in the air is HIGHLY unlikely to hit anything of value. Then weigh that against the poor man getting the crap beat out of him.

  23. #23
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    Neplusultra wrote:
    peter nap wrote:
    I'm not saying it's a good idea, just clearing up a popular myth.

    What amazes me is the number of people who believe every shot in the air is a death sentence for someone in the world,,,,but,,,,think nothing of shooting an arrow in the air.

    That's a whole different thing:shock:
    Exactly, unless you're on a crowded Manhatten street at 12 noon shooting straight up in the air is HIGHLY unlikely to hit anything of value. Then weigh that against the poor man getting the crap beat out of him.
    In certain parts of the country (That I don't have to name), that would be considered a public service!

  24. #24
    Regular Member TexasNative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    856

    Post imported post

    I think it's extremely unlikely that a bullet fired into the air will fall to the Earth and actually strike someone, unless it's an extremely crowded location such as a concert or something like that.

    What bothers me is that it's just unlikely, not impossible. And my luck would have that person looking into the sky as my bullet fell to strike them right in the eye. Mr Murphy rules, and all that.

  25. #25
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580

    Post imported post

    TexasNative wrote:
    I think it's extremely unlikely that a bullet fired into the air will fall to the Earth and actually strike someone, unless it's an extremely crowded location such as a concert or something like that.

    What bothers me is that it's just unlikely, not impossible. And my luck would have that person looking into the sky as my bullet fell to strike them right in the eye. Mr Murphy rules, and all that.
    Have you ever fired a low powered BB gun at something unforgiving and had the thing bounce straight back. I have!

    I have named that type of accident, a Ralphie!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •