pacers shooter gets charged!

Actually, "charged" does not automatically translate to "found guilty of...."

I'll wait to see the outcome before making any judgment.

Springmom
 
Actually, "charged" does not automatically translate to "found guilty of...."
Click to expand...

nobody said it did. he admits he shot five times into the air, multiple winesses. so it is a simple case of is it illegal or not to shoot five times into the air. he clearly wasn't defending himself from aircraft.

i think there are probably some threads on here where the majority condemn warning shots as irresponsible. in this case i think illegal fits. but he has some things in his favor which might hinder any conviction whether is is guilty or not.

the point is some people were implying this guy wasn't guilty or he would have been charged. (my opinion of course) now he is charged.
 
jeff_troop said:
but he has some things in his favor which might hinder any conviction whether is is guilty or not.
Click to expand...

I can think of two right off the bat but I figure I might get a whoopin if I post them here!:rolleyes: :D
Like has been said before, If it had been me in Atlanta at a strip club showin my redneck a$$ and fired my 45 in the air five times becuase I let my mouth get the best of me I'd be sittin in the pokey! Then when they found the mary jane stashed in my car OOOOHHHHBOY! The difference here is I'm a po boy from GA.
 
Such crap...

"Those bullets, once they come up, have to come down, and they come down at least 90 miles per hour, and they do absolutely have the ability to take someone's life."

What is he talking about? Shots fired straight up in the air would come down at terminal velocity (when velocity is maxed out by wind resistance). This speed is way under 90 MPH. Ever watch myth busters?
 
The point that the bullets have to come down is not a point at all. The point is that Jackson fired his pistol RECKLESSLY five times FOR NO REASON! The driver of the car was not fired upon, there was absolutely no reason to pull his pistol, other than to make some noise.
 
A sky diver falls that fast.I would think the weight to air resistance ratio of a chunk of lead would be higher than a human body.Terminal velocity of a skydiver is 124 MPH
 
If memory serves (and it likeky doesn't), I think terminal velocity of the bullets used in the test were around 200 fps--somewhere in the 140 to 160 mph range anyway. However, this is after fired straight up, peaking out to a stall, and then falling again. On angle, the round would retain MUCH more of its initial velocity as it arched over to come back down--that's where deadly impact velocities can happen. We had this entire discussion last spring.

On topic, I've been in or at least witness to more than a few little "tiffs" in the bar that went outside. Harsh language isn't exactly what I'd consider being in fear of one's life. Along with that, what in the hell was he doing carrying in a bar anyway??? If I remember my laws, most or all carry states have a little something to say about carrying in a place that sells alcohol for on-premesis consumption . Besides the illegal carry location, it would be brandishing, assult with a deadly weapon, illegal discharge of a firearm, and wreckless endangerment at the very least in my honest guess-timation.
 
you can't really be using myth busters as a ballisitics source can you? an entertaiment show, the show that claimed the colored tip of a tracer round was what burned in flight and made the round visible. :rolleyes:

read the news every year around halloween and you will see where someone in detroit or new orleans is killed by a round fired up intio the air. i also read where a woman in south carolina was killed by a 7mm round fired up into the air about 1/2 mile away.
 
Jeff>> there is a difference in scenerios here. A bullet that stalls out and then falls back down under the force of gravity alone will not build back enough velocity to become lethal. HOWEVER, a bullet fired on a steep angle doesn't stall out. Therefore, it does retain some of its original energy as it arcs over and impacts with a much higher velocity--that's where lethal impact can occur. A bullet traveling under gravity alone has barely enough energy to break the skin, if that much. It will give you a nasty whelt, but not kill you. That being said, a gun fired into the air has much more chance of being fired on angle, thus risking a dangerous arc path. for the sake of making the point, just snap your arm up like you're firing in the air without thinking about trying to go straight up. I'll bet it's between 60 and 75 degrees. THAT is where the wreckless endangerment part fits in.
 
Jeff>> there is a difference in scenerios here.
Click to expand...

i have no idea why you made that point to me. i never stated or implied otherwise.

someone else made the assumption that the gun was fired straight up. something that i doubt would ever happen without measuring equipment.

my point is... people have been killed by bullets fired up into the air. myth busters is an entertaiment show and the truth is secondary at best.
 
A bullet traveling under gravity alone has barely enough energy to break the skin, if that much. It will give you a nasty whelt, but not kill you.
Click to expand...

i believe you are incorrect in a sense. the weight of the bullet would be crucial in determining a fatality or a bruise. in nam .50 cal bullets were dropped from aircraft as is by the thousands at a time and they destroyed native structures and killed people purely by weight and momentum.
 
If a bullet fired "in the air" hits someone 1/2 mile away, it was not pointed anywhere near straight up and that's the real problem with lighting off rounds into the sky. If you do not launch them really close to a 90 degree angle to the ground, they will retain their ballistic trajectory and come to earth with considerable remaining velocity.
 
f a bullet fired "in the air" hits someone 1/2 mile away, it was not pointed anywhere near straight up
Click to expand...

of course it wasn't. and i did not say it was. but i don't think it would have taken much of an angle to go 1/2 mile. that really is not very far.


why the fixation on firing straight up. do you guys think the bb player actually fired his weapon STRAIGHT UP and therefore no one was at risk. and if he did fire his weapon STRAIGHT UP are you (generalized you intended) telling me no one could have been injured. is it only reckless/criminal when someone gets killed?
 
Yep. Shooting into the air for any reason is pretty stupid. Unless, of course, you live in a part of the world where "happy fire" is considered a normal and safe expression of merriment.

When in Rome...
 
Hopefully the ends justified his means. Maybe he defended himself with non lethal means and nobody got hurt from raining bullets-hind sight 20/20 ....lol
 
Ahhh, the joys of a political prosecution.:D For those not in the know, after IPD cleared Jackson and said no crime was committed, the Marion County Prosecuting Attorney, Brizzi, filed charges (grand juries not required in Indiana). Carl Brizzi is in a dog fight for his job this November and doing whatever he can to get re-elected.

Here's the local story: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061011/SPORTS04/610110528/-1/ZONES04

jeff, I would gladly defend Mr. Jackson. This is a smelly political prosecution and he is getting a royal screw job from a Prosecuting Attorney that is up for re-election and driven by a hostile news media. Jackson was made a scapegoat for Brizzi's political career. That is not just.
 
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. If anyone is confused as to why Jackson is being prosecuted now, on Sunday, during a debate, Brizzi's opponent, Ms. Kennedy, stated that this case show preferential treatment to "celebrities" regardless of the fact that the police said that it was self-defense.

And . . . what do you know, charges get filed on a Wednesday to maximize media exposure and ensure Brizzi gets his perp walk before the weekend newscoverage. I . . . am . . . shocked, shocked that politics has entered the criminal justice system.:rolleyes:
 
KS, why don't you explain to me why it is you think jackson firing into the air was justified? We all know why most think he wasn't justified, I can't imagine a possible reasonable argument to say he was justifed, but I could be wrong for the first time in my life:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top