• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Culpeper shooting

Xulld

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
159
Location
Florida
As quoted on TV (DC channel 9 - CBS), I pointed out that a four thousand pound vehicle moving at five to ten miles per hour has a lot more kinetic energy than a bullet. When one of those hits you, you don't stand much of a chance. And she'd begun accelerating once she got out onto East Street.

Peter Nap's observation about firing enough to stop the threat is consistent with the officer's training. That's why there were still eight rounds in the magazine when the VSP took the gun.

Sawah's observation about the question of whether or not the officer's hand was actually and irretrievably pinned by the side window glass is interesting. Is that a crucial point for the entire episode, or only for the first part, prior to his having shot out the glass?

I have been following this thread for a while but have not really had anything of worth to respond to until now. The idea of comparing a vehicle's energy and a bullets energy without regard to the size of the contact point, ie pressure per square inch makes the comparison nonsensical when determining how deadly the impact would be.

ie, nonsense.

I have nothing else to argue with.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Sawa -

Have you noticed that just about everything you claim was "lighthearted" has been interpreted.by just about everyone as anything but?

stay safe
 

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
Sawa -

Have you noticed that just about everything you claim was "lighthearted" has been interpreted.by just about everyone as anything but?

stay safe

Why don't we go back to talking about the case instead of sniping at posters style?
 

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
Cause they aren't happy unless they are creating turmoil. :monkey:

medium_duhjj.gif
 

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
I have been following this thread for a while but have not really had anything of worth to respond to until now. The idea of comparing a vehicle's energy and a bullets energy without regard to the size of the contact point, ie pressure per square inch makes the comparison nonsensical when determining how deadly the impact would be.

ie, nonsense.

I have nothing else to argue with.
Both arguments are speaking to two different things. And neither are really accurate. The size of the object doesn't matter.

The kinetic energy and the potential energy are components of force. To compare two objects moving at different accelerations (this takes into account direction of travel as well) then one must compare the sum of the forces. Force gets boiled down to mass times accelaration so a small mass object moving fast can very easily have the same force as a large mass object moving slowly in the same direction.

The kinetic energy of the two objects is developed by examining the force applied over a distance. So the kinetic energy is the movement of the object over a specified distance (1/2 mass * velocity squared). This can be very easily compared. Notice that the size of the object does not matter in this example, although as a part of the sum of the forces the friction forces are greater for the larger object.

The part you are trying to compare is the transfer of this energy from one object to another or in the physics arena it would be the momentum. Which is how the energy transfer is more aptly described.


For a bullet the momentum is about 1.5 kg m/s and the kinetic energy is about 225 J. The momentum of the car 20000 kg m/s and the kinetic energy about 100000 J. In this case (note the size of the object doesn't matter) assuming that both objects strike an object of the same mass and energy the car will impart much more energy into the system, and its effect is seen in terms of momentum transfer which is also greater in this case.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Both arguments are speaking to two different things. And neither are really accurate. The size of the object doesn't matter.

The kinetic energy and the potential energy are components of force. To compare two objects moving at different accelerations (this takes into account direction of travel as well) then one must compare the sum of the forces. Force gets boiled down to mass times accelaration so a small mass object moving fast can very easily have the same force as a large mass object moving slowly in the same direction.

The kinetic energy of the two objects is developed by examining the force applied over a distance. So the kinetic energy is the movement of the object over a specified distance (1/2 mass * velocity squared). This can be very easily compared. Notice that the size of the object does not matter in this example, although as a part of the sum of the forces the friction forces are greater for the larger object.

The part you are trying to compare is the transfer of this energy from one object to another or in the physics arena it would be the momentum. Which is how the energy transfer is more aptly described.


For a bullet the momentum is about 1.5 kg m/s and the kinetic energy is about 225 J. The momentum of the car 20000 kg m/s and the kinetic energy about 100000 J. In this case (note the size of the object doesn't matter) assuming that both objects strike an object of the same mass and energy the car will impart much more energy into the system, and its effect is seen in terms of momentum transfer which is also greater in this case.

I have an idea. Why don't we find two volunteers of the same size. We shoot one in the pelvic region and drive a Jeep like the lady had at the same speed she was moving into the other's pelvic region. Then we asks them who hurts most before doing some X-rays.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
Both arguments are speaking to two different things. And neither are really accurate. The size of the object doesn't matter.
-snip--

OTH it's easier to hit your target with a 6' wide projectile.

Stand against a solid masonry wall and have someone drive into you at any speed above .0 MPH - distance traveled from point of contact to be at least 8" - any volunteers? :uhoh:
 

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
I have an idea. Why don't we find two volunteers of the same size. We shoot one in the pelvic region and drive a Jeep like the lady had at the same speed she was moving into the other's pelvic region. Then we asks them who hurts most before doing some X-rays.

That would be subjective and worthless for any purpose. The bullet will deposit all of its energy in a very small area in a mostly elastic collision. The car will deposit a small fraction of its energy over a larger area in an inelastic collision. There is no way to truly compare if one will cause more pain than the other.
 

sawah

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
436
Location
Virginia
Of course, Sawah, I don't mean to imply that you're not in your right mind, as you've already said you carry a gun merely to threaten and not to kill. Of course, that approach will probably end up in (1) your having been killed, yourself, or (2) charged with brandishing a firearm.

I don't believe I said if I did or did not carry a firearm. I did not say I carry a firearm to threaten and I've never threatened anyone in any form, stranger or family member. I would only use a firearm, if I had one at the time to stop a threat of the gravest extreme to myself and my loved one IF there was no other option (i.e. gravest extreme).

I did say that in a majority of cases, merely having a firearm seems to have stopped many threats. But I was recalling news articles and web info not referring to myself.

Note that in almost NONE of my posts do I talk about the other posters, use their names to call them on their postings, SPELL their name wrong or snipe at people. I wish other forum posters would engage in calm, if not exactly always correct, dialog about the case and offer scenarios and opinions and not snipe at other members. I'm just a person on a forum trying to offer commentary. If you don't like it just skip my posts or ignore me, please.

====
In this case we have a lot of emotion, a lot of parochial ideas about the law but fortunately we have a User who does know the law available to correct wrong ideas about how the law works. When I post mistaken beliefs about the process I prefer to be corrected and I will change my approach. I'm not here to stir up anything, so I'm going to back off on posting on this thread. Hope this soothes the crowd.

HTH
 
Last edited:

Sheriff

Regular Member
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
1,968
Location
Virginia, USA
I'm going to back off on posting on this thread. Hope this soothes the crowd.

HTH

Good idea. You can't really change anybody's mind here. They're not really backing or defending the cop, they're backing the attorney representing the cop. There's truth in this thread. And there's a lot of pure unadulterated fabrication as well. There's intelligent people in this thread. And there's a few less than intelligent here in the thread as well. I could convince a few of them that I owned a business called Hades Ice Company and sell stock to them.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
That would be subjective and worthless for any purpose. The bullet will deposit all of its energy in a very small area in a mostly elastic collision. The car will deposit a small fraction of its energy over a larger area in an inelastic collision. There is no way to truly compare if one will cause more pain than the other.

Alright... how 'bout a pick-em-up truck?

(I expected folks to see my touch of humor and sarcasm)
 

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
Alright... how 'bout a pick-em-up truck?

(I expected folks to see my touch of humor and sarcasm)

It doesn't matter what two different objects you use it is still comparing apples and oranges. Pain is relative because people are relative... or relatives are people... except for some relatives... and except for some people.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I don't know what was reported as the ex-perps get-away speed, but I'll betcha a dollar to a doughnut that most folks have a better chance of dodging a 'speeding' Jeep than a speeding bullet.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--snip-- Unlike the Culpepper incedent were the cop is the only one still alive that knows what was said to make the lady fear for her life that she had to run.

There is no evidence, testimony or factual report that the lady was in fear of her life. Fact of the matter is we don't know why she ran/drove away.
 

DocWalker

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Messages
1,922
Location
Mountain Home, Idaho, USA
There is no evidence, testimony or factual report that the lady was in fear of her life. Fact of the matter is we don't know why she ran/drove away.

This is my point as most people don't start driving away when they are talking to someone and that someone reaches into their vehicle UNLESS they are scared for their life. I'm sure it wasn't lets take this nice cop for a ride.....
 
Top