Expert testifies that a single round from an AR-15 can sever the upper body from the lower body

All the defense has to do (to their own detriment) us showe pictures of injuries/deaths.
Other than that, present the science and history of barrel rifling just to show that he's full of shit. Show youtube videos of tests of these rounds penetrating ballistic gel.
 
240Geezer said:
Retired Colonel.
Yup we're screwed with f***ers like that.
Click to expand...
KFC must be missing their's![smile]

I hate these ex-military guys flat out lying to get their ten minutes of fame.
Not everyone in the military are good guys.
But these f-tards in positions of authority know better and what a walking piece of sh_t!

Does he still suffer from PTSD from firing the M16 that first time?[rofl2]
I've had some young adults shoot my AR-15 without any fear and they had a better understanding of one than he did!

Know it all can't even read or do a quick google search. There are plenty of pictures of people shot with a 5.56mm round on the interwebs.
Not one of them were cut in half!

A barrel manufacturer takes the stand and says "rifling imparts a spin on the projectile to stabilize it, for a more accurate flight". That is the sole purpose of it.
Maybe it's time the military issue it's officers muskets again. So they don't look like complete fools when they talk about their "expertise" in a court of law...

News flash you and that Navy Seal from Texas must think freedom is only afforded to the military. Everyone else is just a civilian unworthy of it.
He should join the boys in blue that feel the same way..

You join the military so Everyone can enjoy freedom at home and abroad.
The police join to keep their communities safe and to uphold the law by example.
How far from those things have we come...

Go crawl back under the rock you came from and leave our guns alone. Just as the constitution you swore to uphold intended!
 
Last edited:
paul73 said:
Defense could do that, but when they don’t - what does that mean?
Click to expand...
Generally it means the client was either using a public defender with no budget for an expert witness, or if using private counsel, the defendant could not afford an expert witness.

My wife works cheap in her expert witness business - $150/hour to review a case, no increase in rate for deposition or courtroom appearances. Chances of getting a deal like that are slim if you need an expert witness - general practice is a minimum of $5K up front to even look at a case, payable in advance.
 
Just to make things a bit clearer, this guy is the expert for the defense. The plaintiffs are a group of people trying to overturn the California AWB. The state is the defendant.
 
Boghog1 said:
This is why when people say the military will never fire on its own people I call bullshit
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt some would, though I still have faith that the .Mil by and large are honorable people who love the country and are trying to do the right thing. I’d hazard a guess that 3/4 of them would revolt at some point and join the rebellion.

I think a scenario like that is, unfortunately, more likely set in motion by some scared shitless person (civilian or N. Guardsman) in some police type action during a riot or violent protest, or a plant sent in to purposely kick it off the same way.

All it takes is one shot from either side of an undisciplined, poorly trained and frightened mob and all hell will break loose. Word will travel immediately like a Boston Massacre event and lines will quickly be drawn in the town square.

Ambushes and targeted attacks will begin on uniformed forces and add to the fuel from both sides, who will respond in kind out of fear and anger, and who also sadly probably want the same thing but have been moved into place like chess pieces by TPTB and set in motion exactly how they planned it.

It will be hard to come back from that once the anger and shock of the first few deaths (accidental or not) starts to make its way thru the lines and word spreads. Hatred and fear in young men armed with rifles or rocks is a dangerous thing and the blur of right and wrong goes out the window.

That’s a much more likely T+0 event as opposed to some commander engaging in a direct assault against the citizenry IMO because we voted R or something.
 
snax said:
All the defense has to do (to their own detriment) us showe pictures of injuries/deaths.
Other than that, present the science and history of barrel rifling just to show that he's full of shit. Show youtube videos of tests of these rounds penetrating ballistic gel.
Click to expand...
It is not as simple as defense counsel offering a counter-explanation.

Defense counsel can make an argument as to the theory of the case, argue the defendant was with his momma helping her bake girl scout cookies* etc. but cannot generally offer technical testimony. For example, if Comm2a had been allowed a trial in the Glock loaded chamber indicator case, the Comm2A attorney would not have been able to explain how one tells if the chamber is occupied to the jury, but would have to elicit testimony either from someone involved in the case or an individual recognized as an expert by the court.

As to the videos of ballistic gell - using a Youtube is tricky. How does one prove the ballistic jell in a video was standard; the bullet loading within commerically accepted velocity an bullet weight limits, etc., all the scenes in the video from a single test, etc. Answer - you hire an expert to perform the te$t, or hire the person who made the video to testify and hope the court accepts him/her as an expert and hope (s) does not get Dauberted.

It it a problem when position (Ex military officer, ex police, etc.) is used to establish expertise rather than actual work and expertise in the matter of the the testimony. The most convincing tellers on non-truth are those who believe what they are saying.


* - Yeah, I know.....
 
Last edited:
...and filing and arguing a Daubert motion of course costs money too, if you really want to take the legs out from under their guy. It comes down to pocket depth and how important it is to completely discredit the opposing expert in that specific situation.
 
Rob Boudrie said:
For example, if Comm2a had been allowed a trial in the Glock loaded chamber indicator case, the Comm2A attorney would not have been able to explain how one tells if the chamber is occupied to the jury, but would have to elicit testimony either from someone involved in the case or an individual recognized as an expert by the court.
Click to expand...
That's effectively the case here. This guy is the defense expert, with the defendent being the state of California. The plaintiffs are attempting to get the CA AWB ban tossed. The state is trying to play the same game as in the Glock LCI case, trying to get their point in without the plaintiffs having a means to say it's bull.
 
"I've been on the receiving end of hundreds of AK-47 rounds"...

Ok there rock star. I guess that make you a totally qualified weapons expert.

"blah, blah, blah efficiently"

So civilians shouldn't be equipped with efficient stuff?

"my whole squad was pinned down by some dude with an AK for 15 minutes before we were rescued by a LAV"

So much for the super killy mega efficient death rifles that can cut people in half with one shot y'all were equipped with.
 
Last edited:
Mesatchornug said:
Like, personally? I'd think such a bullet sponge would be pulled from action long before taking hundreds of rounds.
Click to expand...
LonelySlushyGalapagostortoise-size_restricted.gif
 
Toast said:
Just to make things a bit clearer, this guy is the expert for the defense. The plaintiffs are a group of people trying to overturn the California AWB. The state is the defendant.
Click to expand...
So he is a communist traitor as well. May he return to his communist homeland of China!

He also said a collapsible stock makes a rifle more dangerous to shoot.[slap]
Yeah, just like the driver's side seat does in a car...Moron...
 
Last edited:
That's probably how they got him to testify. Maybe the "sever the body" quote was effectively a signal that he was testifying under duress.
 
Libratards seem to completely miss the idea that slugs and pump shotguns are legal everywhere.
 
One thing the "expert" said was that a .223 round "is designed to kill, not wound".

Are there any commonly used rounds that are designed to wound as opposed to kill?
 
Toast said:
One thing the "expert" said was that a .223 round "is designed to kill, not wound".

Are there any commonly used rounds that are designed to wound as opposed to kill?
Click to expand...
Some US cities and some countries thought that using .22 rimfire rounds as less-lethal riot control was a good idea. Yeah, I don't think anyone is doing that anymore.
 

Similar threads

Pool Pump info needed from the brain trust
Replies
5
Views
201
n1oty
n1oty
How To: Individual Importing a Shotgun from Europe?
Replies
9
Views
301
greencobra
greencobra
We lost one of the good ones... Mike from Blown deadline has passed
Replies
2
Views
363
Pistolay
Pistolay
It must be the influence of the drugs that gives lefties the creative ability to come up with these terms.
Replies
5
Views
190
murphcc1
M
who hunts the big bears in the u.s. and canada?
Replies
26
Views
416
chris_1001
chris_1001
Back
Top Bottom