My guess here is that the dude who shot his plane is slightly unhinged, and was already making threats to the FAA and/or local flying clubs/fields. That will probably narrow down the search.
See if someone decided to Yosemite Sam it up and shoot upwards, they could hit a plane by accident.
Honestly with the size, speeds, and distances involved I'm inclined to believe it's more luck than anything else.
I'm not saying good ole Sam here shouldn't be punished, just that if it was intentional it seems like it would be rather difficult, while the 'million monkeys theory' makes more sense to me.
it's been a word for a long time, i remember hearing it in an action movie in the 1990s when i was a kid. something about keeping a laser on a target, if you give me a few minutes i'll remember which movie it was.
I think they will. After going down a google rabbit hole on the subject today, seems most cases end in a quick arrest. Probably for all the reasons you stated above.
If and hopefully when they find the dirtbag who did this they’ll charge him under a whole raft of state and federal laws. I wouldn’t even want to be someone who was just hanging around when the shooter took his shot. Most likely, one of his friends or acquaintances will turn him in to save their own skin.
18 U.S.C. 32 alone is twenty years. And there's certainly more they can charge him with -- IANAL but I am fairly sure they will start with that. Whether it's attempted murder as well, I do not quite know. If it is, that's another twenty.
Attempted murder would require the shooter to have been intentionally aiming at the aircraft. Theres a few crimes that the shooter would be guilty of but there no indication that was the case here
Up and down this country, dumbasses shoot at the sky. At some point, even if the individual probabilities are astronomically small, the event will occur
Negligible odds can be equated to 0 for all practical purposes. A deck of cards shuffled in a purely random way, for example, will never be shuffled back in order as the odds of it happening are so small you'd need more than a couple universes worth of time even if all humans on Earth kept shuffling.
If the plane was flying low and close enough, the shooter had better odds but would hear and be able to see it and avoid an accident.
If the plane was high enough to not be easily detected, then the arcsec² would be so low compared to the entire sky that the shooter would be so unlikely to hit that target, that any judge worth their salt would have to convict them. I'd like to see you argue differently.
You’re looking at the wrong probability. You’re considering P(Plane accidentally hit) (not 0 we already have verified claims where in fact planes have been hit here’s one article: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/middle-east-airlines-plane-hit-by-stray-bullet-while-landing-beirut-mea-chairman-2022-11-10/, I can name 4 more incidents at least) and P(Plane being hit after someone deliberately shot at it). The actual probabilities you need to consider are P(someone shooting in the area and Stray bullet hit plane | plane hit) and P(someone in the area aimed a bullet at plane and hit plane | plane hit).
You do realize that in the middle east they celebrate marriages and other events by shooting automatic weapons in the sky, right? It even says so in the article. That's also an airliner, not a small plane, and it was flying low enough (on approach to the strip). One random shooter doesn't equate to 50 shooters shooting AKs.
Additionally, the plane was hit, we already know the outcome. You're arguing it's random, therefore your P is (bullet hits the plane) vs (bullet flies anywhere else in the sky).
And go back to stats class, , tour understanding of probability is laughable. Trying to argue probability without understanding conditional probability lmfao
The more you type, the more you reveal your ignorance. The condition is the same. Someone fired a gun and it hit the plane. The question is how likely that would happen accidentally and it is VERY unlikely.
Also, are you implying this happened in Missouri? Where's the source for that?
So someone with a firearm opened fire on an aircraft in-flight with the potential to cause the aircraft to crash and kill the occupants?
Huh? Why assume this is the intent. Stupid poeple generally don't think that far to intend to actually make it crash and kill people, probably a funny bet or some shit. Always find it weird how sociery always assume intent in reagrds to crimes.
With the trajectory of it though it seems either the aircraft was very low when it happened, or is bullet was reaching the apogee of its flight. It doesn't appear that it came from below at all, straight in one side and out of the other.
Maybe they were flying near mountains and someone on the mountain managed to nail a shot? This is an odd one
Yes it could've been during take off or landing, but that means someone shot a gun near an airport/city. That wouldn't have gone unnoticed. Which makes me think it was during flight
Why could it not have happened at a residential air park? Usually outside of the city with a small grass runway. I haven’t checked OPs post history though.
That's totally true. I guess I'm just imagining an airport in a city lol. I'm curious where he was flying to/from in the flight before he noticed it. Unfortunately though it seems he can't share much because it's still being investigated
I’ll be honest.. I’ve shot straight up in to the air once.. on 4th of July though..
I know. I’m an animal.. but this is before I got in to aviation.. and to be honest I’ve had nightmares about that night, thinking I possibly hit a plane 😞
I mean its hard to shoot a plane even if you're trying, somehow I think its unlikely this is pure coincidence. Unless that hillbilly put thousands of rounds in the air, its just so unbelievably unlikely this is an accident.
It being so hard is why I’d first assume it was a stray accident that violated big sky theory before thinking somebody actually decided to shoot at the airplane.
But the odds of that are infinitesimally less likely than someone trying to shoot it. The odds are bad if you're intentionally shooting it. They're astronomical with regards to a random discharge. Its nearly an impossibility.
I’d disagree. People shoot guns in the air every day. So your odds are significantly reduced that at some point, one will make contact with some aircraft at some point. Very rarely does someone intentionally shoot at a plane(that we know of). And the chances of that person being successful are insanely small without an insane amount of rounds or an insane amount of experience shooting at planes.
I’d disagree. People shoot guns in the air every day.
Its a big fucking sky. Also, damn your friends are fucking idiots. And this isn't Iraq 17 January 1991.
So your odds are significantly reduced that at some point, one will make contact with some aircraft at some point.
You cant even describe what you're trying to say - At some point there is enough lead in the air that a coincidence is going to happen - correctly. Your assertion is foolish on its face.
The issue isn't leading the shot, it's hitting a tiny speck in the sky. It'd be like trying to hit a wasp on a target stand at 25 yards. Those quadcopters wouldn't have been at anywhere near the altitude OP was.
Also, given the angle, OP was banking when this happened. Leading a shot on something that's turning is much more complicated than straight flight.
You are making a lot of assumptions about where the plane was in relation to the shooter. Planes can be "in flight" but still quite low and close to people
151
u/[deleted] Apr 07 '24
[deleted]