Errant Bullet Travels 1.5 Miles, Kills Amish Girl

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's all semantics and technical if you want to call it "accidental" or "negligence" on some report. In real life this was negligence plain and simple. He broke the rule of not knowing his target and what was beyond. "Golly gee this was an accident" does not excuse this legally, morally, or even in terms of common sense.

If he fired the rifle at a back stop that was secure and it ricocheted, I could buy "accident" but he obviously elevated the barrel for some reason to give the round that type of distance. He should have to answer for this.

Manslaughter, he'll plea it down to something else unless he is connected with the sheriff's office and/or DA. :(
 
SharpsDressedMan

Anyone care to calculate the odds of a random shot hitting a slow moving target, sight unseen, from a mile and half away, in the dark, where very few people might be at the time (a back country road at 10:00 at night)? My guess is that God could have easily intervened, as could fate, and that that young girl is with God now. Had that horse been one step ahead, or behind, the bullet would have missed. '
Click to expand...

Yeah, I tried to make a start on that and discovered there were too many assumptions that had to be made.

I started out on a linear basis,where the circumference of a one mile circle was divided by the length of the human head from nose to back of the head, which gave me odds of about 44,000 to one for the one mile circle and about 66,000 to one for a 1-1/2 mile circle.

Sample calculation on that aspect of it that I did last night:

-------

Figuring the head is about 0.75 feet in length, nose-to-occipital bone, and the circumference of a one mile radius circle is 33,175 feet, that makes the odds of hitting someone's head anywhere on that circle by a random shot are 44,234 to one, if it is known that the bullet will impact the ground at that range with some given elevation.

33,175 / 0.75 = 44,234 ( P = 2.3e-5)

For a 1-1/2 mile circle, it's 66,350 to one. ( P = 1.5e-5)

(Note that I did not actually post that.)

-------

The assumption there was that the gun was fired at an known elevation to have the bullet come down exactly one mile from the firing point and exactly 1-1/2 miles from the firing point respectively, but fired in a random direction.

The next step would have been to figure the odds of the gun being fired at a random elevation to have the bullet land in the vertical dimensions of the human head at those distances and then multiply the two probabilities, that is:

The odds (1 / Probability 1) of firing in the exact direction required.

multiplied by

The odds (1 / Probability 2) of firing at exactly the right elevation required.

With both random elevations and directions, this would have given the probability of hitting the area of the human head at those respective distances.

I think.

We can ignore the movement of the "target," since this all occurs in one instant of time and it was not an aimed shot for which "target" movement during the bullet flight would have been relevant.

I think.

However, this ignores the fact that the "random elevation" can't be truly random, since it is known that a bullet fired either straight up or absolutely horizontally would not reach those ranges. Thus, this "random elevation" must actually be restricted to elevations which might give ranges like that, say between 25 and 35 degrees-ish.

I think.

Note the "ish."

I gave up and went to bed at that point and decided to leave it to the actuaries among us.

Terry, 230RN
 
Last edited:
Captain33036 said:
Interesting find:

http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/March01.htm

This paper states that a 30-06 shot straight up in the air, perpendicular to the ground, will reach its terminal velocity while falling, which is approx 300fps. The resulting energy is approx 30ft lbs. [note added: a heavier bullet should return at a somewhat higher velocity with higher energy]


J
Click to expand...


A 150gr bullet will fall at the same velocity as a 300gr bullet, when all other variables (wind drag, etc) are ignored. Heavier objects do not fall "faster" than lighter objects. Heavier objects, do however, have a higher kinetic energy potential that they may transfer to the ground on impact. But one will not fall faster than the other simply due to weight.
 
SharpsDressedMan:
Anyone care to calculate the odds of a random shot hitting a slow moving target, sight unseen, from a mile and half away, in the dark, where very few people might be at the time (a back country road at 10:00 at night)?
Click to expand...

This was not an aimed shot so the contemplation of the visibility and motion of a target (there was no target) is not actually relevant to an analysis of the odds. One could calculate the odds of a round fired with a random muzzle orientation from any given point and time striking a person within a region.

Given the infinite number of very unlikely but possible events in the universe, some of them are certain to occur.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Bobson, it was not an accident.
The guy intentionally fired into the air which is a big no-no as we all know.

I would be surprised if he were NOT charged with negligent homicide, it was in Ohio after all. I would also expect it to get pleaded to manslaughter with a 5 year term or thereabouts.
 
animator:
A 150gr bullet will fall at the same velocity as a 300gr bullet, when all other variables (wind drag, etc) are ignored. Heavier objects do not fall "faster" than lighter objects. Heavier objects, do however, have a higher kinetic energy potential that they may transfer to the ground on impact. But one will not fall faster than the other simply due to weight.
Click to expand...
The assertion you quoted is correct in general terms, given the context of external ballistics in the earth's atmosphere. It makes no sense to ignore "all other variables." The significant factor is not the mass of the bullet, but rather its ballistic coefficient. Within the set of bullets of any caliber, the heavier bullets tend to be longer and exhibit a higher ballistic coefficient. The higher B.C. makes them fall faster than a bullet with a lower B.C.. Perhaps the note would've been clearer if it had said:

A heavier bullet should possess a higher B.C. and, thus, will return at a somewhat higher velocity with higher energy.

Similarly, the greater length requires a faster rifling twist for stabilization.
 
Last edited:
calinb said:
The assertion you quoted is correct in general terms, given the context of external ballistics in the earth's atmosphere. It makes no sense to ignore "all other variables." The significant factor is not the mass of the bullet, but rather its ballistic coefficient. Within the set of bullets of any caliber, the heavier bullets tend to be longer and exhibit a higher ballistic coefficient. The higher B.C. makes them fall faster than a bullet with a lower B.C.. Perhaps the note would've been clearer if it had said:

A heavier bullet should possess a higher B.C. and, thus, will return at a somewhat higher velocity with higher energy.

Similarly, the greater length requires a faster rifling twist for stabilization.
Click to expand...
Ballistic coefficients only come into play when the bullet is traveling along a ballistic trajectory. Bullets fired fired perfectly straight up (as was the quoted reference) will not travel in a ballistic trajectory, and will fall back to earth at an equal terminal velocity, regardless of weight. Therefore, BC is irrelevant in this regard.
 
animator:

I thought we were talking about maximum / near maximum range trajectories here. Assuming the bullet remains stable and does not tumble, the BC is very significant.

If the bullet is launched vertically, I assmue it will tumble back to earth, not regain stable flight, and the conventional B.C. is not useful. However, I'm certain that drag varies with bullet shape in tumbling flight, nonetheless, though probably not as significantly as it does in stable flight. I will not speculation how it varies.
 
Just to add some data to the above conversation regarding projectile weight, speed of terminal velocity and energy, I have the below quote from the same source. This makes sense in physics. A greater mass with the same or proportionally smaller cross section should be able to overcome friction to a greater degree than a lighter object of similar size. This is why ballistic missiles work so well.


"Major Julian Hatcher in his book Hatcher’s Notebook estimates that a 12 inch shell weighing 1000 pounds and fired straight up would return with a speed of 1,300 to 1,400 feet per second and over 28 million foot pounds of striking energy."

From:

http://www.loadammo.com/Topics/March01.htm

At any rate, all this really means is that a heavy .45 or .50 bullet shot in the air is dangerous and thus shooting such a round, or any round in the air is reckless and irresponsible.

Respectfully

J
 
I would have thought a projectile going straight up and straight back down was pretty ballistic. A parabola with zero x value. The 300 fps terminal velocity was derived from actual firing tests, although with a good deal of laborious pre-Mac computation.

I recall that a falling human - ok, let's give him a parachute to open after the experiment - reaches a terminal velocity in air of 125 mph = 183 fps.
A perigrine falcon is stooping vertically at 180 mph = 264 fps... with an occasional twitch of a feather to keep the BC high, but no propulsion.
 
He should get charged. Firing into the air and not knowing where the bullet is going? Are you kidding me? This is basic firearms safety! I recall a similar event happened back in the late '90's in New Orleans I think it was, somebody discharged a .45 into the air and the bullet came almost straight down into the girls head. They thought she had a seizure or a heart attack at first, didn't hear a gunshot at all. I think that guy got charged. They even used it as a premise for a Law and Order episode.

Around here on the 4th and New Years some criminals down the road obviously fire their rounds in the air recklessly. Considering we have two nice outdoor ranges real close by, I really appreciate it.

If you shoot, shoot into a safe backstop or impact area and have a reasonable account of where all your rounds are impacting at all times, or don't shoot. If you can't resist, perhaps shooting isn't for you. It isn't only reckless and negligent, it is stupid. You can't claim ignorance on this one, it is stupid. That girl didn't need to die.
 
If the bullet is launched vertically, I assmue it will tumble back to earth, not regain stable flight,
Click to expand...

Actually, Hatcher found that bullets of some designs fired vertically would sort out into two distinct times of flight. One for nose down, one for base down. Some tumbled but a bullet stable in normal shooting normally fell straight down stably, too.

One could calculate the odds of a round fired with a random muzzle orientation from any given point and time striking a person within a region.
Click to expand...

Yes, but as one mathematician said, it is meaningless to speak of probabilities after the event.
 
You are responsible for what result your actions cause. I don't know what the debate is about on this. He caused it, he has to suffer the consequenses.
 
Seems far too early to determine "fault", IMO ! Let's wait to see if forensic evidence supports the news stories. Regardless, its yet another tragedy visited upon one Amish family ! >MW
 
hso said:
Negligence and therefore it warrants prosecution.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. Perhaps a prison term is what he deserves. Or have the judge order him to give some kind of lecture, once a week, for the rest of his life, on how a young life was ended because he was negligent, arrogant, and thought he could get away with ignoring a basic gun safety rule.
Also, it is well known that in the Middle East it is common for men to fire their rifles into the air (celebratory gunfire) at weddings and other occasions. There must be a long, corresponding history of people falling over dead, quietly, with bullet wounds. Do they not understand the cause-and-effect relationship here, or is this more of a fatalistic attitude, as in, if Allah wants you to get hit by a stray bullet, nothing will stop it, but if Allah wants to protect you, then you will be okay?
 
Good point about Galileo.

It is a misunderstanding that he actually dropped balls of different masses from the Tower of Pisa. It is now generally understood that this was a thought experiment on his part. He later revised and refined his theory that objects of different masses would fall at the same rate, to: objects of different masses fall at the same rate...in a vacuum.

Newtonian mechanics would be more relevant here.

Thanks

J
 
The laws of probability and physics notwithstanding, there's still a lot about this story that smells fishy.

How did anyone ever connect a gunshot victim to a shot fired over a mile away? No one at the site where the victim was hit would have more than a vague notion about where the shot came from. The only scenario I can imagine is that the shooter heard the news and volunteered to the Sheriff that he had fired a shot at about that time. But that seems farfetched.

And, assuming that they can't find another shooter who was in closer proximity, how can they ever be sure the bullet came from this guy's gun. A sabot round has no rifling marks on it, and I can't think of any other forensics tests that would connect rifle to bullet.

The best I think a prosecutor could come up with is a "probably", and no jury is going to convict on that.
 
In my youth, my neighborhood would erupt in gunfire every new years eve with the local geniuses firing up in the air for their version of the mad minute. A bullet came down through our roof (granted it was tar paper and plywood basically) and penetrated the seat of a wood chair in the kitchen. Yosemite Sam did a great disservice to gun safety.
 
...No one at the site where the victim was hit would have more than a vague notion about where the shot came from. The only scenario I can imagine is that the shooter heard the news and volunteered to the Sheriff that he had fired a shot at about that time. But that seems farfetched.

And, assuming that they can't find another shooter who was in closer proximity, how can they ever be sure the bullet came from this guy's gun. A sabot round has no rifling marks on it, and I can't think of any other forensics tests that would connect rifle to bullet.
Click to expand...
If it was a projectile from a muzzle-loader, that should narrow it down a lot. And, if gunfire was heard from a particular area at 10PM at night(!), that narrows it down further. Probably wouldn't be hard to figure out who in that area had a muzzle-loader.
 
The laws of probability and physics notwithstanding, there's still a lot about this story that smells fishy.
Click to expand...
\
I guess I shoud have taken the 300 yard shot I had on an Elk a few years ago with my 54 Hawken.

This incident is tragic indeed and we should be thinking about the girl’s family with thoughts and prayers. I'm sure the gentleman involved woke up that morning and decided to snipe the young lady in her buggy as she traveled down the road. Discharging a muzzle loader in order to clean or refresh the powder charge has been done since the invention of the muzzle loader. Discharging into the air is not wise but using a known back stop is and I think we all agree on that. For those who say they would have unloaded the muzzle loader in a different manner than discharge, the red “baloney” flag comes up.
Some years back while I was still in the Navy, we had a A-7 Vulcan go off and fired 17 rounds. (20mm Gatling gun) while sitting on the ground with the engine turning at 70%. The gun would be elevated at an angle a few degrees. Our OIC did the math based on aircraft angle, weight and velocity of the projectile. We Walked out to the OIC’s calculations and found blue paint in some trees. (Practice rounds are painted blue) The distance was less than 1.5 miles from the aircraft. We also know a simple box of .22 rim fire has a warning (or used to) that the bullet could travel 1.5 miles.

I would expect if charges were to come about, the math would be done and the bullet alloy checked against any remaining bullets alloy at the man’s residence. I’m positive the muzzle loader owner feels terribly bad about the incident. But I have to tell you some are ready to convict on a newspaper article? It took my local newspaper 12 years before they got my 4 letter last name right after being told time after time.

I need more information and lab results before I would say he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You cannot assume anything in cases like this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Magic bullets and other oddities
2
Replies
47
Views
3K
rbernie
rbernie
Back
Top