that is funny
Comment on Why didn't he just call on his powers to stop the bullet?
Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
Funnily, I heard he was wearing a bulletproof vest and the bullet ricocheted up into his neck. If that’s true, his clothing did in fact get him killed.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 months ago
SSUPII@sopuli.xyz 6 months ago
“His neck just did that” is unironically more believable
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 6 months ago
must be high blood pressure causing a neck dissection of the artery, caused bya suspicious metal object.
criss_cross@lemmy.world 6 months ago
His neck just gave out feom funneling bullshit
magnetosphere@fedia.io 6 months ago
I appreciate that you used “I heard” and “if that’s true”. Word choice can be very important, and it’s frustrating when people don’t notice it.
SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 6 months ago
They’re still repeating bullshit.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 months ago
yeah its fun huh
magnetosphere@fedia.io 6 months ago
True, but they’re not trying to claim otherwise. It’s an honest statement of ignorance, and practically a question. Because it was brought up, anyone reading this who hadn’t heard the truth now has.
YoSoySnekBoi@kbin.earth 6 months ago
The world needs more of this type of thinking
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 6 months ago
He was not. This has already been categorically debunked over and over again by people who know literally the first thing about ballistics.
DBT@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Where can I find more information on this? I heard the same info from a right wing coworker I have conversations with occasionally.
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Firstly, the burden of proof says it’s their job to demonstrate that Kirk was wearing a bulletproof vest in the first place (let alone that the bullet struck him in it first), not yours to debunk it. We’ve really lost sight of how important this is in recent years.
- There’s zero evidence Kirk was wearing body armor whatsoever.
- I don’t think we’ve ever seen evidence of Kirk wearing body armor to debates elsewhere.
- A bullet would’ve left at minimum a noticeable mark on Kirk’s clothing.
- Neither journalists nor investigators mention anything about this even though there’s zero compelling reason for them not to and, for journalists, incentives to do so.
- The rounds were 7.62x63 mm fired from a bolt-action rifle.
- If that round strikes body armor, in order for it to stop (let alone ricochet rather than embed), the armor needs to be so thick that you cannot hide it under clothing. The armor would’ve been readily visible to everybody in attendance. Armor Kirk realistically could’ve been wearing would be a non-factor.
- Even if this magically happened, the improbably fucked-up physics required for a bullet to bounce from the torso into the cartoid artery seem vanishingly unlikely at best and implausible at worst.
While much of this just shows extreme unlikelihood, the thickness of the alleged body armor is impossible to reconcile with the round and the weapon it was fired from.
DBT@lemmy.world 6 months ago
His main points were that see the body armor bounce when slowing the video way down, and that the caliber used would’ve blown his neck open, not just pierce the skin leaving a small, clean hole.
I think I already mentioned that I don’t know shit about guns, so my reply to that was, “huh.”
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 6 months ago
If he’s right wing, he’s a fucking dipshit moron that NEVER knows what they’re talking about.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 6 months ago
i hear he was wearing a bulletproof neck and it ricocheted off his neck and then his vest just did that
PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 6 months ago
Its ok we can have a little misinformation. As a treat
MotoAsh@lemmy.world 6 months ago
No. Bullets that already hit something do not make a small, circular hole.