Woman shoots at airplane

Good grief. I have heard horror stories of cropdusters coming back after being peppered by a shotgun, but never saw it first hand.

A shotgun is one thing - short lethal range - but a .22 could do some damage I would think. Not enough force to go in one side and out the other, only enough to get through the aluminum and bounce around a couple of times inside the cockpit, hopefully missing human tissue.

Isn't shooting at an airplane a federal offense!? Not to mention 'attempted murder'!
 
Nimrod News Reporter said:
[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]KRCG News reached out to Judy Davis for her side of the story. Phone calls were not returned. Davis did not answer the door at her home.
Click to expand...


I'm interested in what "side" of a story could somehow justify discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle.

Could you imagine if police caught some mutt shooting at passing cars, the local paper contacting the shooter for "his side of the story"?
[/FONT]
 
SCCutler said:
I'm interested in what "side" of a story could somehow justify discharging a firearm at an occupied vehicle.

Could you imagine if police caught some mutt shooting at passing cars, the local paper contacting the shooter for "his side of the story"?
[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Well, they do have a responsibility to try, but you're right, it would certainly be worded differently.
 
CJones said:
Good grief. I have heard horror stories of cropdusters coming back after being peppered by a shotgun, but never saw it first hand.

A shotgun is one thing - short lethal range - but a .22 could do some damage I would think. Not enough force to go in one side and out the other, only enough to get through the aluminum and bounce around a couple of times inside the cockpit, hopefully missing human tissue.

Isn't shooting at an airplane a federal offense!? Not to mention 'attempted murder'!
Click to expand...

IF the story is correct ("loaded .22 calibur" sic), the likelihood of a deranged 69 old woman hitting anything but trees or grass with a .22 launched from a handgun is very small.

A .22 fired from a handgun is inaccurate and relatively low velocity. IF she hit aluminum, the round would have very little energy left and wouldn't have penetrated much else.

That said, this woman needs to spend time in lock up, and then be stripped of all gun ownership privileges.



 
dmccormack said:
IF the story is correct ("loaded .22 calibur" sic), the likelihood of a deranged 69 old woman hitting anything but trees or grass with a .22 launched from a handgun is very small.

A .22 fired from a handgun is inaccurate and relatively low velocity. IF she hit aluminum, the round would have very little energy left and wouldn't have penetrated much else.

That said, this woman needs to spend time in lock up, and then be stripped of all gun ownership privileges.
Click to expand...

You are correct. I was thinking 'worst case scenario' (I must be getting old - my wife told me I am getting to be very cynical lately ;))
 
Out of jail after posting bond on a weekend. Hmmm. I wonder if that would have been the case if she went to the intersection near her house and started shooting at cars.

Too bad we don't have things like P-51's with real guns onboard nowadays...
 
CJones said:
(I must be getting old - my wife told me I am getting to be very cynical lately ;))
Click to expand...

I hear ya -- this was our first official "empty nest" weekend and it was ridiculously quiet around the house. We did yard work last night and I kept checking to make sure I wasn't wearing black dress socks with my shorts.

Now if those kids could just play that newfangled dangummed noise they call "music" somewhere else...
 
Back when I was doing mapping I remember people telling me to watch out during hunting season because some hunters were rumored to be less than thrilled with airplanes loitering over their hunting area. I don't know how true this was although it was plausible. I didn't think about it too much because I figured an airplane is a pretty small moving target and there was nothing I could do about it anyway.

I know of another case when a Hawker (the one I used to fly) was going through a prebuy and they found a bullet lodged in the top of the cabin. Who knows how long it had been there. It had not pierced the pressure vessel but they had to do some repairs. No one could figure out what happened there unless the bullet had dropped from the sky at the end of its trajectory.
 
fgcason said:
Out of jail after posting bond on a weekend. Hmmm. I wonder if that would have been the case if she went to the intersection near her house and started shooting at cars.

....
Click to expand...

Unless there's something showing that you're a legitimate flight risk or so serious a danger to the public that you shouldn't be anywhere but in jail, you have a right to a reasonable bond pending trial. It's just how it is.

I doubt there's anything showing the former, and shooting a .22 pistol at an airplane doesn't really demonstrate the latter. So, my bet is that bond was set somewhere between $5,000 and $50,000 (a reasonable bond is generally defined as something sufficient to guarantee your continued appearances before the court). Keep in mind that, for a DUI, where there is a repeatedly demonstrated threat of not only very real harm but repeated behavior of the same pattern, defendants are frequently released on their own recognizance.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Unless there's something showing that you're a legitimate flight risk or so serious a danger to the public that you shouldn't be anywhere but in jail, you have a right to a reasonable bond pending trial. It's just how it is.

I doubt there's anything showing the former, and shooting a .22 pistol at an airplane doesn't really demonstrate the latter. So, my bet is that bond was set somewhere between $5,000 and $50,000 (a reasonable bond is generally defined as something sufficient to guarantee your continued appearances before the court). Keep in mind that, for a DUI, where there is a repeatedly demonstrated threat of not only very real harm but repeated behavior of the same pattern, defendants are frequently released on their own recognizance.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't there then also be, in a case like this, where firearms were allegedly used improperly a temporary confiscation of any weapons in her home or possession?
 
smigaldi said:
Shouldn't there then also be, in a case like this, where firearms were allegedly used improperly a temporary confiscation of any weapons in her home or possession?
Click to expand...

Yes. That's probably a condition of bond. There are terms and conditions for bond, such as no alcohol consumption, don't commit any other crimes, surrender all firearms to the local sheriff's office, etc.
 
smigaldi said:
Shouldn't there then also be, in a case like this, where firearms were allegedly used improperly a temporary confiscation of any weapons in her home or possession?
Click to expand...

I suspect they would have that requirement Scott. I've seen it as a condition of bail numerous times.
 
CJones said:
A shotgun is one thing - short lethal range - but a .22 could do some damage I would think. Not enough force to go in one side and out the other, only enough to get through the aluminum and bounce around a couple of times inside the cockpit, hopefully missing human tissue.
Click to expand...

Just ask Jim Brady how much damage a .22 can do!
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Yes. That's probably a condition of bond. There are terms and conditions for bond, such as no alcohol consumption, don't commit any other crimes, surrender all firearms to the local sheriff's office, etc.
Click to expand...

AdamZ said:
I suspect they would have that requirement Scott. I've seen it as a condition of bail numerous times.
Click to expand...
I thought that would be the norm.

So unless she was deemed dangerous there really is no reason to hold her? She is unlike the DC sniper who had and was actively killing people.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Unless there's something showing that you're a legitimate flight risk or so serious a danger to the public that you shouldn't be anywhere but in jail, you have a right to a reasonable bond pending trial. It's just how it is.
Click to expand...

Ah. I understand now. As long as someone is randomly targeting vehicles and not the occupants specifically (assuming occupants is not considered the public) it's all ok.

I still hope she doesn't go home and pull out her 30.06 this week and get a lucky shot into the cabin though... I'd hate to hear about the headlines saying "Plane crashes into kindergarten playground during recess. No flight plan was filed. Shooter released on bond for illegal discharge of firearm within city limits, no other charges filed. Dangerous little airplanes need more restrictions."

Nevermind. I just have a twisted way out of line sense of justice and right vs wrong.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
I thought that would be the norm.

So unless she was deemed dangerous there really is no reason to hold her? She is unlike the DC sniper who had and was actively killing people.
Click to expand...

They can actually add tons of conditions to bail including obviously surrender all weapons ( not just firearms), Turn in passports, dont' leave the state, No contact with certain people or classes of people, No computer or internet use, I've had clients been required to get counseling or even check themselves into Psychiatric facilities.
 
fgcason said:
I still hope she doesn't go home and pull out her 30.06 this week and get a lucky shot into the cabin though...
Click to expand...
That is why I asked can they get her to turn in all weapons as a condition of bail. The answer was yes, but what we do not know is what are the actual conditions.

Is there anyway to look that up?
 
Happened here, guy shooting at cars off the freeway. Just got 27 years in the slammer for his efforts. Wasn't anybody particularly interested in his side of the story, either.
 
smigaldi said:
That is why I asked can they get her to turn in all weapons as a condition of bail. The answer was yes, but what we do not know is what are the actual conditions.

Is there anyway to look that up?
Click to expand...

Scott it all depends on the County and if they post that information on line. Some do Some don't. It should however be public information that one could obtain directly from the Court, if you can figure out the court via FOIA request.
 
fgcason said:
Ah. I understand now. As long as someone is randomly targeting vehicles and not the occupants specifically (assuming occupants is not considered the public) it's all ok.

I still hope she doesn't go home and pull out her 30.06 this week and get a lucky shot into the cabin though... I'd hate to hear about the headlines saying "Plane crashes into kindergarten playground during recess. No flight plan was filed. Shooter released on bond for illegal discharge of firearm within city limits, no other charges filed. Dangerous little airplanes need more restrictions."

Nevermind. I just have a twisted way out of line sense of justice and right vs wrong.
Click to expand...

I see why you say it, but our system presumes innocence absent - and until - a conviction. And, in such a system, you can't very well keep people locked up pending a conviction - you're then incarcerating innocent people.

At the same time, it's pretty well-known that people are runners - facing jail, who wouldn't run if they had the opportunity?

Bond bridges the gap nicely between the two - it allows us to pay more than lip service to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," but also allows us to lock up people who need to be locked up either because of flight risk or danger to the community.
 
There was a woman who lived under the traffic pattern used by Embry Riddle flight students in Prescott who used to shoot up at planes flying above her house.

The traffic pattern was ultimately extended outside her property boundaries, and she was banned form owning or possessing any weapons on her property.

I can't recall if she was a decent enough shot to actually hit any of the aircraft.
 
Wow...so now we can classify murderous intent by caliber.

Cool!
 
CJones said:
A shotgun is one thing - short lethal range - but a .22 could do some damage I would think. Not enough force to go in one side and out the other, only enough to get through the aluminum and bounce around a couple of times inside the cockpit, hopefully missing human tissue.
Click to expand...

Well, I know a .22 short will penetrate a 1x pine board and a steel garage door. Dunno where it went after that.
 
dmccormack said:
IF the story is correct ("loaded .22 calibur" sic), the likelihood of a deranged 69 old woman hitting anything but trees or grass with a .22 launched from a handgun is very small.

A .22 fired from a handgun is inaccurate and relatively low velocity. IF she hit aluminum, the round would have very little energy left and wouldn't have penetrated much else.

That said, this woman needs to spend time in lock up, and then be stripped of all gun ownership privileges.
Click to expand...
I wonder whether a breath-alyzer test would have registered anything.
 
Everskyward said:
Back when I was doing mapping I remember people telling me to watch out during hunting season because some hunters were rumored to be less than thrilled with airplanes loitering over their hunting area. I don't know how true this was although it was plausible. I didn't think about it too much because I figured an airplane is a pretty small moving target and there was nothing I could do about it anyway.
Click to expand...

I'd think it wouldn't be all that hard to hit a plane flying between 500 and 1500 AGL with a scoped rifle. Seems to me the airplane would make a reasonably large and stable target if it was just flying in circles. A little knowledge about the likely speed of the plane coupled with the ability to judge the proper lead and it doesn't sound too difficult.

I know of another case when a Hawker (the one I used to fly) was going through a prebuy and they found a bullet lodged in the top of the cabin. Who knows how long it had been there. It had not pierced the pressure vessel but they had to do some repairs. No one could figure out what happened there unless the bullet had dropped from the sky at the end of its trajectory.
Click to expand...

Maybe the plane had been used for drug running and was shot while flying at a very low level from someone up higher on a ridge? Your theory of the round coming back down from a high trajectory sounds plausible assuming the jet was on or near the ground at the time though. A long time ago I was standing on a raft near the shore of a small lake and a rifle round passed within inches of my head and dropped into the water at what seemed like a lethally high rate of speed. The shot came from so far away that I didn't hear the discharge and the angle of descent was between 45 and 60 degrees from horizontal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gismo said:
I'd think it wouldn't be all that hard to hit a plane flying between 500 and 1500 AGL with a scoped rifle. Seems to me the airplane would make a reasonably large and stable target if it was just flying in circles. A little knowledge about the likely speed of the plane coupled with the ability to judge the proper lead and it doesn't sound too difficult.

Maybe the plane had been used for drug running and was shot while flying at a very low level from someone up higher on a ridge? Your theory of the round coming back down from a high trajectory sounds plausible assuming the jet was on or near the ground at the time though. A long time ago I was standing on a raft near the shore of a small lake and a rifle round passed within inches of my head and dropped into the water at what seemed like a lethally high rate of speed. The shot came from so far away that I didn't hear the discharge and the angle of descent was between 45 and 60 degrees from horizontal.
Click to expand...

I dunno. We had some pretty nice scopes and calibers in tanks and scout vehicles but our antiaircraft drill was "put as much lead about where the airplane will be as possoble -- you might hit it..."

The bullet drop at angles much more than 10 degree up elevation is pretty steep.
 
Dean said:
Most people can't hit a target standing still, more less one moving at 100 MPH:D
Click to expand...

I've been shot at in an airplane before. Unless it's at night and you see the muzzle flash, you really can't tell you're being shot at (unless you get hit of course).

I think it's actually very difficult to hit one. Even at pattern altitude it's still over 300yrds away and as you say moving around 100mph or more. If the target were moving towards or away from you it would still not be easy. Even with a long gun it would take a lot of skill to hit such a target. You'd have to lead it and follow through. With a pistol it would be just dumb luck if you could hit it at all.
 
Everskyward said:
I know of another case when a Hawker (the one I used to fly) was going through a prebuy and they found a bullet lodged in the top of the cabin. Who knows how long it had been there. It had not pierced the pressure vessel but they had to do some repairs. No one could figure out what happened there unless the bullet had dropped from the sky at the end of its trajectory.
Click to expand...

In San Antonio they have a real problem every year with people getting injured by gunfire on New Years and certain other holidays. Seems there is a "tradition" among some groups/neighborhoods that the holiday is celebrated by shooting guns up into the air. The bullets come back down at terminal velocity... and injuries are common.

The CDC did a study of the practice in Puerto Rico, and there is plenty of "evidence" in the news media of injuries caused in places like San Antonio, Laredo, and Puerto Rico.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear of damage caused by bullets returning to earth from such an event.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I see why you say it, but our system presumes innocence absent - and until - a conviction. And, in such a system, you can't very well keep people locked up pending a conviction - you're then incarcerating innocent people.
Click to expand...

I understand that. I mean it would be unrealistic and unfair to lock everyone up for minor nothings especially if there was no conviction process within a reasonable amount of time. I just see a difference between a minor playground brawl and deliberately picking up a gun and going out of one's way to take pot shots at vehicles with people in them for no rationally justifiable reason. While I'm not the smartest rock in the box, I'm pretty sure shooting at airplanes doing T&G's isn't a case of self defense unless the plane is doing strafing runs on final.

What constitues community or public? Thousands of people or more than two or three individuals? Individual people in airplanes are not part of community or public and thus exempt especially considering the target was the plane, not the individuals inside?

Someone being caught in the act of deliberately shooting at an airplane one day then being out on bond the next day screams shennagians to me. That doesn't even sound like enough time to verify the individual isn't going to go on a shooting frenzy the next day.
 
fgcason said:
I understand that. I mean it would be unrealistic and unfair to lock everyone up for minor nothings especially if there was no conviction process within a reasonable amount of time. I just see a difference between a minor playground brawl and deliberately picking up a gun and going out of one's way to take pot shots at vehicles with people in them for no rationally justifiable reason. While I'm not the smartest rock in the box, I'm pretty sure shooting at airplanes doing T&G's isn't a case of self defense unless the plane is doing strafing runs on final.

What constitues community or public? Thousands of people or more than two or three individuals? Individual people in airplanes are not part of community or public and thus exempt especially considering the target was the plane, not the individuals inside?

Someone being caught in the act of deliberately shooting at an airplane one day then being out on bond the next day screams shennagians to me. That doesn't even sound like enough time to verify the individual isn't going to go on a shooting frenzy the next day.
Click to expand...

All good points.

In the end, it's pretty much discretionary on the part of the judge - kind of a "whatever feels right" type analysis.
 
wsuffa said:
In San Antonio they have a real problem every year with people getting injured by gunfire on New Years and certain other holidays. Seems there is a "tradition" among some groups/neighborhoods that the holiday is celebrated by shooting guns up into the air. The bullets come back down at terminal velocity... and injuries are common.

The CDC did a study of the practice in Puerto Rico, and there is plenty of "evidence" in the news media of injuries caused in places like San Antonio, Laredo, and Puerto Rico.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear of damage caused by bullets returning to earth from such an event.
Click to expand...

The likelihood of a bullet striking a person rather than pavement, grass, buildings, or vehicles is very small.

The few that did strike a person would not be fatal. In fact, it's unlikely the average bullet would even cause an injury.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...-into-the-air-kill-someone-when-it-comes-down
 
dmccormack said:
The likelihood of a bullet striking a person rather than pavement, grass, buildings, or vehicles is very small.

The few that did strike a person would not be fatal. In fact, it's unlikely the average bullet would even cause an injury.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns...-into-the-air-kill-someone-when-it-comes-down
Click to expand...

CDC disputes that:

CDC said:
Bullets fired into the air during celebrations fall with sufficient
force to cause injury and death (1). However, few data
exist regarding the epidemiology of injuries related to
celebratory gunfire. In Puerto Rico, where such celebratory
actions are common, news media reports have indicated that
approximately two persons die and an estimated 25 more are
injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year’s Eve.

The Puerto Rico Department of Health (PRDOH) invited
CDC and local law enforcement agencies to assist in the
investigation of injuries resulting from celebratory gunfire that
occurred during December 31, 2003–January 1, 2004. This
report summarizes the findings of that investigation, which
determined that 1) bullets from probable celebratory gunfire
caused 19 injuries, including one death and 2) such injuries
affected a higher percentage of women and children aged
<15 years than injuries from noncelebratory gunfire, with the
majority occurring in certain public housing areas in densely
populated, metropolitan San Juan. Education and enforcement
of existing laws are needed to prevent these injuries.
Click to expand...

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5350.pdf

As does this report: http://airwolf.lmtonline.com/news/archive/010202/pagea1.pdf

I don't recall what the Mythbusters determined...
 
wsuffa said:
I don't recall what the Mythbusters determined...
Click to expand...

I quit watching that one when they shot the rifle in the air in the middle of the desert and then went looking to see where the bullet landed. :sosp:
 
dmccormack said:
The few that did strike a person would not be fatal. In fact, it's unlikely the average bullet would even cause an injury.
Click to expand...
Shot straight up -- they aren't that huge of a risk (still not pleasant). A bit of an angle though and they can come down with a lot of damn energy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top