Senate "Race" Relations (was "U.S. Society and Black Men")

KW, what in the world are you talking about? What refutes what? And how in the world do you think it applies? If you have such a knowledge on the physiological effects of handgun bullets, tell me why KK providing the ballistic chart for the Federal Tactical HST 180 grain round matters so much, especially since he even prefaced with -"I haven't found information on the specifics of the round he used (brand, weight, etc) so I'm making this assumption....?" If you think it matters so much, I want you to post here and now why you think bullet velocity and caliber has anything to do with this situation?

My point was that the type of bullet matters only in a limited technical/academic setting, it's stupid to even get wrapped up in debating it. But by all means, impress everyone in the thread with your apparent knowledge of guns and bullets. You made the post, you back up your claim. Otherwise, your post there is just beyond silly.

And plus, waaaaaaaayyyyy to go in ignoring everything else I mentioned in my post in order to focus on ballistic charts from a bullet manufacturer, because you know, you showed me.

 

Edit: I should know better.

 

Lol'd... Love the thought that when cops are scared, they should lock themselves in their patrol cars. I can't figure out if that's a serious strategy devised by you, or sarcasm.

 

No, KW, you all but called me out for something you have absolutely no idea about. There was no reason for it and it didn't further the discussion. So yeah, own it. Back up what you claimed. Now that you did:

1) Tell us all why you think KK's ballistic table, which may or may not even be the bullet used in this, refutes anything.
2)Once you do that, tell us all why you think it matters to the situation.
3)Once you do that, tell us all why flooding the discussion with technical information answers any of the questions that have been asked.

If you think I'm ignoring KK's manufacturing data because I can't debate it, you are sorely mistaken. It's just that KK's manufacturing data has nothing to do with anything that matters. It would be a 2 page discussion on velocity vs weight vs energy transfer vs offset impact, vs temporary cavities and hydrostatic shock, none of which matters at all to what Brown or Wilson did in this situation. I mean, you have at least a rudimentary knowledge of firearms and bullets, right? Tell me you just didn't blindly take what someone else posted in a ham handed attempt to prove someone else wrong just for its own sake? If that's the case, trust me, I have a pretty good deal on a bridge I want to sell you. You can even send me payments.

 

deathraygun: What's so outrageous about the suggestion? Is the wound to their pride irreparable? Police officers are charged with upholding the law. That's it. Not being the most macho or bravest or coolest. If they can best keep the peace, enforce the law, and keep everyone safe by locking themselves in a car, then waiting till help comes to arrest someone, that's absolutely what I expect them to do. I find your suggestion that we should prefer killing other human beings to looking wimpy to be wholly unacceptable.

44: I never said that what I offered was the definitive version of events. I said it seemed simple and more plausible then the scenario that you outlined. You tried to refute it by saying that the force of the bullets should have knocked Brown backwards. In pointing out that this isn't really the case, KK's comments addressed our discussion quite directly.

 

wocky you're not going to get anywhere. why bother?

 

First off all, I agree with your first sentence. Neither of our guestimates represent the definitive version of events. However, this post of yours is was what I was specifically addressing with my reply:

Mine was a specific reply to your specific post, not a dissertation on the mechanics of bullet design. My point was to illustrate the more plausible scenario based on the evidence that's known, and the plausible outcome isn't what you described. I pointed out that it makes no sense for Brown to be stumbling forward, as you said, (for whatever reason), get shot again, and then just fall over without change. Because there would be an effect from getting shot. I even pointed out in my post that this doesn't happen like in the movies. Your fault was you kept characterizing Brown as simply "falling or keeling over." But I didn't even go into the obvious inconsistency with your post. What is it? Well, if Brown was already leaning forward or already falling toward Wilson before he was shot the second time, then witnesses wouldn't have been confused about him standing and surrendering. How could it look like Brown was standing and surrendering if he was off balance and his head was already falling forward, lower than it would normally be? (your words, not mine.) Your scenario actually removes all doubt that he could be standing. Was Brown standing and surrendering, or was Brown already falling forward, as you said? Because you can't have it both ways.

KK then came in, posted manufacturing data for a bullet that he randomly picked and which we don't even know was used, and pretended like it meant something. Both Merk and KW, without having any kind of firearm knowledge, then jumped in because it supposedly refuted something, they just didn't know what. But the point wasn't to examine the type of bullet used in the first place, it was to focus on the behavior and responses carried out by both people involved. Of course, in typical form, after being held accountable for his own post that no one asked for, KW replies with "I'm not going to bother." Yeah, he's not going to bother because he can dish it out, he just can't take it back.

 

Oh, Merk. If that's what you want. When we end up with 2 pages of pointless debate about the differences between 180 grain handgun bullets, don't say I didn't warn you.

First off all, KK's table only covers a small portion of the physiological effect of handgun bullets. Yes, there is bullet weight and bullet velocity. Generally, there is a trade off. A heavier bullet will have more initial mass, but will travel at a slower velocity. A lighter grain bullet will have less initial mass, but will be propelled at a higher velocity. Generally speaking, you want a lighter bullet travelling at faster velocity, assuming other factors apply.

However, there are other factors involved in determining how a bullet reacts when it hits a human body. The most important factor is energy transfer. A completely jacketed bullet is not effective at transferring its energy into a target, and will have a negligible effect on the body. Expanding bullets will be most effective at transferring their energy into a target, but at the expense of penetration. Oh, have I not gone into the protocols which measure penetration yet? We'll have to save that. Some bullet designs, like the Cor-Bon DPX, are designed to massively expand and transfer all of their energy into a target. However, you also have to factor in retained bullet weight. Bullets sometimes break apart when they contact tissue, and this also causes a loss of energy transfer. Then there is the location of the entry wound, also called shot placement. A center mass hit transfers more energy into the target, but is also dispersed over a wider area. When a bullet hits non-center mass, also called an offset shot, the energy transfer is applied unevenly, and it will have differing effects on the body such as spinning the person around or knocking them in unintended directions.

Since we don't know what bullet Wilson used to shoot Brown, all of this is simply a guess, and is the main reason why KK's table for the one specific bullet he randomly picked off the internet is meaningless. But we also don't know what specific movements Brown was making, so that's a guess as well. However, in general terms, we can conclude that if Brown was moving in a certain direction and got shot, there would be some sort of reactive effect on the body. He, wouldn't, as Wocky asserted, simply continue to fall in the same manner.

Now, if you have any problem with anything I posted above, you can correct me. But I'm not dodging the issue or being silent because I'm worried about being proven wrong. I was trying to give you guys the benefit of the doubt because the bullet debate is meaningless. I don't know why you and KW are singularly focused on it, despite the fact that both of you have said that you don't know anything about guns or bullets. But because you can't counter anything else I've said, if you think you've got me on this issue, then I will be more than happy to put school in session. Hey, have at it.

Now, can you be kind as to explain what you think KK's bullet table proves, and why you think it is important? After all, you wouldn't want to remain silent because you don't know what you're talking about, or are otherwise trying to dodge the issue, right?

 

I think that when an officer's life in danger, use of deadly force is authorized. In this case, since the facts are still being weighed in on, it's hard to say what was going in either Wilson's or Brown's mind. While the incident brings up a lot of questions (why not use a taser), I still wouldn't recommend "enforce" or "protect" by means of hiding. Officers are trained to deal with situations like this, and locking himself in the car might have put others at risk. Hard to tell, since the officer presumably could only infer what MB's mindset was based on his actions.

 

I made both of those posts to respond to your claim that:

What I posted had nothing to do with physiological effects, because the specific comment I was replying to addressed the physics, not the physiological effect. You made a specific claim that people don't fall towards the impact of a bullet, because it pushes them away from the impact. The data I provided you demonstrates that your assumption there is false, because the net impulse imparted by a representative sample of bullets in various calibers is negligible compared to other elements of a person's motion.

As for my using Federal HST Tactical, it was a representative example. We know that Wilson used a .40 S&W. If you look at the ballistics table I linked to, all of the weight options are within about 10-20% of each other for velocity, with the lighter bullets traveling faster (which mostly cancels out the differences in momentum). If a 180 grain bullet traveling at 1010 feet per second pushes someone back at a rate of about 1 inch per second, a lighter bullet traveling slightly faster isn't going to suddenly push the same person back at a significantly higher rate.

An average person who is walking casually can easily move around 2-3 feet per second. Someone running will be moving even faster than that. An impact that imparts a total impulse around 1 inch per second isn't going to significantly push back someone casually walking along, let alone charging. 1 inch per second is about the rate at which a person standing still sways back and forth as their balance shifts. It is negligible, unless you are talking about a steady stream of impulses.

I just threw together another spreadsheet to re-run the data for a variety of .40 S&W rounds from that chart. I started at the top and worked my way down through the Federal HST Tactical rounds I used earlier (a total of 41 different ones). The greatest impulse (1.237 inches per second) came from the heaviest bullet (200 grain, traveling at 1050 feet per second). The weakest impulse (0.854 inches per second) came from the lightest bullet at the fastest velocity (100 grain at 1450 feet per second). The exemplar round I gave previously (180 grain at 1010 feet per second with a net impulse of 1.071 inches per second) falls almost exactly at the midpoint between the min and the max.

Generally you do want a lighter bullet (to a point) traveling at higher speed. The reason for that is that it will tend to penetrate deeper, thereby causing more damage to the tissue. However, that is irrelevant for the example I was giving because I specifically stated that I was assuming that all of the energy was transferred to the target (to demonstrate the maximum possible impulse that would push the target back). In this instance (looking at momentum), the mass is the driving variable that dominates the equation more than the velocity. (When talking about total kinetic energy, velocity is usually the driving force.)

Mr44, you really like to get technical and nitpick other people's arguments. If you want to live by the technicality, then your arguments also will die by the technicality. Your argument there simply doesn't hold up to the reality of physics.

 

And here it goes. The pointless distraction from any real examination. First off, I want Merk or KK, in plain language, and without a dodge to explain why they think this matters in the slightest. They made the claims, at least they should be able to back up why they think this matters. Otherwise, they're blindly supporting something that they have no idea about.

KK, your data may work in the laboratory, maybe with two weights of equal size hooked to a pulley where the force is equally applied. But that's not how things work in the real world. To continue your example, even if a average person was casually walking at your calculated 2-3 feet per second and gets shot, that person simply isn't pushed back X number of inches and then continues in the same direction, that is, unless they are Superman. Out of a person's total weight, how much do you think their arm weighs? 10lbs? Let's say a 180lb person is shot in the arm. The force of a bullet isn't distributed equally across the person's entire body, it's concentrated unequally to that arm. So it's not a matter of "equal and opposite reaction," it's a matter of unequally applied force. Effectively, a bullet isn't countering that 180lb person in a controlled manner, but it's acting against a concentrated point. As a result, if someone is shot in the left arm, they spin backwards from the left. If someone is shot in the right leg, the leg will buckle and be pushed away from that direction. Even if they are shot in the head, the head snaps backward away from the impact, it doesn't move toward it.

This is what is collectively known as wound dynamics. In real word situations, this accounts for instances where someone may have wounds in different parts of their body. Maybe they were initially shot in the left side, started to spin around, and so the following bullet actually impacts the opposite side of their body. Right now, as you're reading this, take your finger and push on your forehead. Your head moves away from your finger, it doesn't move toward it, and your entire body isn't equally pushed back X amount of inches. But I know, even after pushing on your own forehead, you'll come in and supply a figure which shows that X bullet moves X ft per sec, which is supposed to refute something, and for some reason, Merk and KK will get on board with your calculations.

Wocky's original claim that I responded to was that if Brown was "falling or leaning forward" and got shot the second time, he would simply continue to fall in the same direction. Wocky said that to him, it was the "most plausible scenario." (in his words) But that's not how wound dynamics work though, and that assessment would actually be the least likely scenario. In general terms, there would be an effect transferred to his body. For whatever reason, you thought that it would be necessary to supply a bunch of random velocity calculations. But the least important factor to consider is what the velocity of a .40 caliber bullet is. Your net impulse calculations are meaningless. But by all means, continue to supply random bullet velocity and mass calculations. Apparently, the fancy looking numbers impress some people here. That is unless they just take a minute to realize that the numbers don't matter with regards to the situation.

After all, your experimental claims should be easy to verify. We all know you keep lots of guns around. So go to your backyard and start walking at a leisurely pace of 2-3 feet per second. Have your brother shoot you with any firearm of your choice. According to your argument, you should only be pushed back a negligible distance, maybe 1-2 inches tops, right? After you measure the effect, come back here and post your findings. But hold on. I wouldn't recommend that you attempt that experiment. Why? Because getting shot isn't just a matter of calculating mass and velocity on paper. There are effects that are imparted onto the human body. You're doing nothing but taking hypothetical data from a lab setting, which has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Your figures and controlled results have nothing to do with what I claimed, and you're not accurately reflecting how a body reacts when it gets shot.

 

mr44... complaining about pointless distractions from meaningful examination... i cant... i just cant

 

What in the actual ****?

 

44, look at this motley crew you've assembled-- me, Rogue_Ten, KK, Souderwan, Jedi_Merkurian. This is not a group that often agrees with each other. You may want to take note of that.

 

Here's something I've always thought. It seems as if the Wilson supporters think proving their version of the events was right will make all the other concerns in Ferguson null and void. Michael Brown's death was a catalyst that sparked long standing tensions to boil over against that police department that had a history of racially profiling.

 

can we have a team name and secret handshake?

 

Do you accept new members?

 

Done.

 

You can't just wave it all away that easily. Quite simply, your appeal to physics was flat-out wrong, and you are compounding it more with each post. In the post that I was responding to, you claimed that the bullet would push the target back and cause it to fall away. That is a separate issue entirely from talking about wound dynamics.

Even if the bullet were to only hit an area of smaller mass, that doesn't change the overall physics. An arm or even a head might fly back, but the body as a whole would not be thrown back in an appreciable manner. There's simply too much mass and momentum in that body, and nowhere near enough in a bullet, even traveling at thousands of feet per second. The 132 kilogram body's inertial is orders of magnitude larger than the 10 gram bullet's inertia.

A long time ago, I posted a YouTube video that showed someone standing still, being shot and doubling over as a result. The force of the bullet's impact didn't cause the individual to fall backwards, but instead triggered a muscular reaction that propelled him forward (bending over so his head moved towards the front) before he collapsed. His reflexes caused the movement, not the impact of the bullet. The problem with your argument is that you claimed that the bullet pushes the individual backwards, not their own reflexive actions. While it is technically true that the impact of the bullet slightly nudges the target backwards, the fact is that the nudge is so small in and of itself that it is negligible in the presence of other momentum.

Consider what happens when you shoot a deer with a hunting rifle. An average buck in North America weighs around 60-130 kg (depending on what region you are in), while an average doe usually runs around 40-90 kg. Using a fairly common hunting round (180 grain 30-06 traveling 2700 feet per second) and hitting a 90 kg animal gives a net impulse of 4.199 inches per second. By your argument, any deer hit by that round would be expected to fall away from the impact. Except, that's not how it works in real life. In real life, if you get a "kill shot" on a deer (i.e. hitting the heart or disrupting the central nervous system), the deer just drops more or less in place. If it was walking, it falls in the direction it was traveling, not necessarily in the direction of the flight of the bullet. The momentum of the bullet is insignificant compared to the momentum of the seer, that the effect is virtually negligible. It becomes essentially a rounding error.

Your claim was false, and you can't nitpick that away, nor dismiss it by saying that it's irrelevant. My response is no more irrelevant than the numerous posts that you have made harping on a technicality in someone else's argument. As I said before, if you live by the technicality, then your argument will die by the technicality.

 

It's a myth that a stationary target always falls back and away when it is shot. Sometimes it does. But other times it falls forward or even to the side.

 

Well, this I can accept, but it's also kind of my point as well.

What you just said does make more sense than KW and you, two people who have already said that you know nothing about guns, completely throwing your hat into the ring of random velocity tables copied & pasted from the internet for some reason that you can't describe.

 

Psssst, Bill Maher recently referred to Michael Brown as the "T" word. *gasp!*

Is it ok to say "thug" again or is that still politically incorrect on this forum?