Monday, November 26, 2007

Yes, but...

Did he actually take the camera out, or did he just damage it? What caliber was he using? Scope brand and magnification?

God, this story leaves out all the important details...

(H/T to Unc.)

19 comments:

Dr. StrangeGun said...

WBIR had footage... that camera's definitely hosed.

Three rounds (4" group) through and through, and *something* came loose from the insides with enough force to shatter the front glass plates, 90 degrees off to the side of bullet travel.

They're charging him with a felony... no more guns.

Marko said...

Good argument for a suppressor.

Red(light) Hunter said...

First! They're good eating, if you fix them right.

B&N said...

I'm thinking he needed more range for this stunt.

600 yards or more should have done it, however, I'm kinda curious about violations of rule #4.

Any of you Knoxville types have any idea about what lies beyond said camera, assuming we can ascertain the shooter's position?

BobG said...

What, no mention of "high-powered assault rifle with a high capacity magazine"? I thought that was journalistic policy for any kind of illegal use of a firearm.

Tam said...

"Any of you Knoxville types have any idea about what lies beyond said camera, assuming we can ascertain the shooter's position?"

Well, they're saying he was in the Book Depository, but the angle of the shots look like they came from the grassy knoll...

BryanP said...

Dammit Marko, you beat me to it.

B&N said...

Tam,

I'm sending you a bill for the Kleenex that I had to use to wipe the spittle off of my keyboard.

Rabbit said...

...shoulda used C4 from the dark side of the camera housing...but on the other hand, Thermite would have just made the moment.


Regards,
Rabbit.

Who is..... Carteach0? said...

I don't hold with letting off rounds in downtown areas unless provoked in serious social encounter.

That said... there oughta be a reasonably safe bullet design for taking out targets like this. Maybe that weird rifle bullet designed to disintegrate on drywall...

Maybe a .300 whisper in a bolt gun with a suppressor, shooting a frangible projectile...

El Capitan said...

Oh, cripes... I think he might've been reading something I wrote...

TBeck said...

Ah, boring conversation anyway...

Gregg said...

Well, considering the time and location it is quite likely that there was no one near the bullet path.

What makes this a felony? No one was injured, no one was threatened with injury. All the poor guy did was express his disgust with his elected officials by shooting out equipment that he helped pay for.

Anonymous said...

"Felony vandalism?"...Hell, give him an involved citizen award!

Will said...

Me thinks the appropriate projectile in this case would be a beam of coherent light with sufficient energy density to fry the image collector. Oddly, you still have to worry about rule #4. Basically, ensure no planes within sight as a backdrop, in case you miss the entire box. (This level of output can damage eyes depending on distance and beam divergence.)

It's not the redlight cameras that need attention, it's those speed/radar setups that should be focused on.

No suppressor needed for a laser!

G said...

Still having a problem identifying the precise crime committed. Most "crimes" are balanced against the public good. Self-defense and all, right?

Of course, I started young. Shooting out streetlights that kept me awake. :)

deadcenter said...

Paint ball gun. Silent. Non-permanent. Cleaning costs would quickly outstrip revenue generated. But, begs the question, how soon would Knoxville follow the Houston model and go with unmanned aerial surveillance?

dc

OA said...

"Non-permanent. Cleaning costs would quickly outstrip revenue generated."

I don't know, I think permanent would be better in the long run. Paint balls would just have city officials grumbling about 'punk kids' and getting all sanctimonious. "We'll not give up our campaign to protect the citizens just because of a few punk kids" or some such, then mention how they're costing the city money.

The Duck said...

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/20/2088.asp

30.06