Checksum: 03385
Path: utzoo!utgpu!sarathy
From: sarathy@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Rajiv Sarathy)
Date: Thu, 26-Jan-89 11:29:04 EST
Message-ID: <1989Jan26.112904.22906@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu>
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Services
Newsgroups: tor.general
Subject: Re: Toronto Police
References: <157@aimed.UUCP> <4674@hcr.UUCP> <89Jan23.093655est.38021@neat.ai.toronto.edu> <4742@hcr.UUCP> <1989Jan24.133658.23930@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <4761@hcr.UUCP>
Reply-To: sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy)
Distribution: tor

In article <4761@hcr.UUCP> john@hcrvax.UUCP (John R. MacMillan) writes:
>In article <1989Jan24.133658.23930@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> sarathy@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Rajiv Sarathy) writes:
>|In article <4742@hcr.UUCP> paulg@hcrvax.UUCP (Paul Gooderham) writes:
>|>In my understanding, the police shot at the *tires* of the stolen car
>|>and that a ricocheted bullet struck the young driver.
>|
>|Somehow, I doubt that a bullet can hit a car tire and ricochet up about 3 feet
>|and forward (if the back tire was shot) or backward (if the front tire was
>|shot), go through the window (or metal) and hit the driver anywhere near the
>|head.
>
>Note that Paul said "shot *at*" (emphasis mine), not "hit".  Hitting
>the tire of a moving vehicle from behind is no mean feat.

I've never tried shooting the tires of a moving vehicle myself, and I believe
you if you say that it "is no mean feat".

However, policemen often practice shooting at stationary and moving targets in
their shooting ranges, from what I've seen on TV (I'm no Toronto Police expert).
So if they were aiming at the tire, how did they hit the driver at the back of
the head?

I seriously doubt that the bullet richocheted off something and then hit him.
You took out the line I had in my original posting saying that the bullet was
HOLLOW-TIPPED.  I've read that these bullets do VERY LITTLE damage once they
hit something because their velocity diminishes to relatively VERY LOW once
they hit something, and their mass is much less than a regular bullet.  Hence,
if you know anything about physics, you know that their kinetic energy will
be even lower than the ratio of differences between the velocity and mass,
since they're being multiplied (the product of two small fractions is a smaller
fraction).

CONCLUSION:  THE BULLET WENT STRAIGHT THROUGH THE GLASS AND INTO THE DRIVER'S
		HEAD.  THIS IMPLIES THAT THE COP WAS EITHER A VERY POOR SHOOTER
		OR HE AIMED AT THE DRIVER.

Of course, this is based on absolutely no legal evidence, and is very
circumstantial.  But it's fuel to the fire.

-- 
 _____________________________________________________________________________
| Disclaimer:  I'm just an undergrad.                                         |
| All views and opinions are therefore my own.                                |
|                                                                             |
| Rajiv Partha Sarathy                   sarathy@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca         |
|_____________________________________________________________________________|