back to article Two Arkansas dipsticks nicked after allegedly taking turns to shoot each other while wearing bulletproof vests

You have in your possession a bulletproof vest, a firearm, and some beer. As the brews weave their magic, of course you have to make sure the armour works. Right? It sounds like the setting for a Jackass stunt, but cops claim two Arkansas, US blokes did just that while drinking on their deck. The pair – 50-year-old Charles …

  1. trevorde

    Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

    Next up, they'll be testing fall arrest harnesses, snake bite anti-venom and reserve parachutes

    1. Fatman Silver badge

      Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

      You beat me to it.......

      1. Sebastian.Q.Ostragoth

        Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

        I thought the rules were you only qualify for a Darwin award if you haven't yet contributed to the gene pool by breeding? If you have it's too late and you no longer qualify.

    2. macjules Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

      Alternatively, they could sign up to Über to test crossing the road in front of an autonomous car.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

        No way. They were only stupid, not daft. The vests were only bullet-proof, not car-proof.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

          "They were only stupid, not daft."

          Upvote for the Granny Weatherwax semi-quote.

    3. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      Alert

      All you need to know about Arkansas

      It was the model for Idiocracy (e.g. Clevon).

      1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: All you need to know about Arkansas

        Nice to know that there are places more backward than Alabama!

        1. Mike Moyle Silver badge

          Re: All you need to know about Arkansas

          While it's not too big a shock that this took place in Arkansas, it *IS* somewhat surprising that they got around to it before Florida Man did.

          1. DougS Silver badge

            Nope, Florida Man was still first

            https://www.huffpost.com/entry/florida-man-bulletproof-vest_n_57d64286e4b06a74c9f557c7

            1. BebopWeBop Silver badge

              Re: Nope, Florida Man was still first

              Well this is one of the reasons, being a largely humanitarian society (with exception in the Conservative party) we attempt to limit bozos access to both.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Nope, Florida Man was still first

                Humanitarian society? I don't see it...

                We limiting access to guns but instead its knife crime we have to worry about...

                If we were a humanitarian society we would be dealing with the issues that cause the violence.

                The police and CPS are a joke, they are only interested in conviction rates, not helping victims of crime or crime prevention. I used to trust the police, after experiencing how flawed the system is (as a victim) I certainly would think twice before calling them for help.

                1. Martin-73 Silver badge

                  Re: Nope, Florida Man was still first

                  Sadly you're right. They're also no longer politically neutral. They enforce policy, not law. The individual police constables and officers... i support. The overarching structure is corrupt as all hell

        2. a_yank_lurker Silver badge

          Re: All you need to know about Arkansas

          The phrase is "The God for Mississippi" in the South. It sounds like Arkansas is trying to displace Mississippi.

    4. Korev Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

      I can't believe they didn't try Thoughts And Prayers?

    5. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

      this sounds like a lot of fun (as long as beer is involved)

      1. Version 1.0 Silver badge

        Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

        It's only a 22 - so there was no real risk unless their aim was bad ... "Hey buddy, hold my beer while I shoot you"

    6. Ian Michael Gumby Silver badge

      Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

      There's a couple of movies where people gamble by taking shots. One is based on a dual and speed, the other that I remember they had different odds/payouts based on the caliber of the round and if they could still get up.

      So this isn't new.

      As to the vest... they don't say what type.

      And there are several different .22 rounds. Lets assume .22lr.

      If you get hit in the right area, you can actually die from a .22lr (e.g. back of the skull, or pericardium)

      If the vest was Kevlar, two shots in the same area, depending on the size of the caliber and round, the vest could fail.

      And yes it would leave a welt.

      Less Darwin but more idiot redneck.

      1. fajensen Silver badge

        Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

        Yep. When I was shooting rifles as a kid at the rage, we used the .22lr.

        Sometimes one would drop the heavy rifle out of the stand onto the shooting bench in front of us and it would go off. The bullet from that misfire could easily blow through the 50 mm (2") of low oak-board walling installed at 25 meters and smash the fluorescent lighting for the targets.

        I.O.W: That round sounds and feels wimpy when fired from a rifle but it is not a joke, it will kill someone easily enough.

        1. Imsimil Berati-Lahn

          Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

          .22"LR has approx 140 Joules muzzle energy.

          In a "real world" context that's similar energy to a 10lb bowling ball dropped from a first floor window. Added to which it is concentrated to a point as sharp as a dog's tooth and spinning like a food blender. BPV or no, I don't want to be downrange of that if I can possibly help it, thanks.

    7. LucreLout Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

      Next up, they'll be testing fall arrest harnesses, snake bite anti-venom and reserve parachutes

      Ok, perhaps they're not the sharpest tools in the box, but full marks for effort: Things like this are why I love that rednecks exist. Have a beer on me chaps... best lunchtime laugh I've had all week.

    8. thegroucho
      Coat

      Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

      IDK, I think (not 100%) basejumpers don't have reserve as there is no altitude left to pull reserve.

    9. John Geek

      Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

      you can only be a candidate for the Darwin Award if you actually die.

      1. Big_Boomer

        Re: Definite Darwin Award winner in the making

        Correct, AND only if you die having not reproduced and thus removed your genetic code from Homo Sapiens.

  2. STOP_FORTH
    Trollface

    Testing in the real world

    OK, how do you test them then? Asking for a friend.

    1. defiler Silver badge

      Re: Testing in the real world

      Well, obviously you have to have multiple tests, with the conditions as similar as possible, so you'll need a bunch of drunken mates around the same size, and a number of new, undamaged vests.

      Then you need a control group to test if it was actually the vest that stopped the bullet.

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: Testing in the real world

        "Then you need a control group to test if it was actually the vest that stopped the bullet."

        If you take notes, it's science.

    2. chivo243 Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Testing in the real world

      I just saw a photo from the days of bullet proof vest development the other day, and read this story *ahem* elsewhere

      check out the photo!

      https://youtu.be/GFcvlWydAX0?t=73

      1. Remy Redert

        Re: Testing in the real world

        It is important to note of course that in the picture in question, the bulletproof vest wasn't getting tested.

        They had tested the vests extensively and so were certain that they would work. The people they were trying to sell them to however were unconvinced, so they decided to have a very convincing demonstration.

      2. Mycho Silver badge

        Re: Testing in the real world

        Almost certainly that's from a sales demonstration. That kind of thing happens when selling safety.

        For comparison, the JCB demonstration staff often perform crazy stunts in diggers. This goes back to Joe Cyril Bamford himself having arranged for several to lift themselves up with their rear shovels and then driving his car underneath them.

    3. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Re: Testing in the real world

      Using the equipment available, I would put the beer cans in the vest, put the vest against a thick mud bank and then shoot it, whilst making sure my mate was stood behind me.

      I'd expect the beer cans to be burst, but you should be able to discern if one has been punctured.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Testing in the real world

        "I would put the beer cans in the vest, put the vest against a thick mud bank and then shoot it"

        Why would you risk ruining perfectly good beers when there's a stupid mate around ?

        1. vtcodger Silver badge

          Re: Testing in the real world

          My bet is that even in Arkansas, they'd have sufficient sense to drink the beers before shooting at the containers. Now in Florida ...

          1. Borg.King

            Re: Testing in the real world

            In Florida they'd try to put the vest on a passing 'gator. . . . .

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Testing in the real world

          >Why would you risk ruining perfectly good beers when there's a stupid mate around ?

          I assumed they would use American beer

          1. lglethal Silver badge
            Trollface

            Re: Testing in the real world

            "I assumed they would use American beer"

            Shooting is too good for it...

          2. 10forcash Bronze badge

            Re: Testing in the real world

            That's not beer, it's an oxymoron

            1. Tigra 07 Silver badge
              Trollface

              Re: Testing in the real world

              It's not beer, it's homeopathic

        3. Mark 85 Silver badge

          Re: Testing in the real world

          Why would you risk ruining perfectly good beers when there's a stupid mate around ?

          Who said anything about perfectly good beer? Where this happened it would probably be Budwiser.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Testing in the real world

            “Where this happened it would probably be Budwiser.”

            Well Judge, we finished off all the other alcohol except the Bud and Charlie said “I guess we can either drink that or shoot each other”

        4. Ken 16 Silver badge
          Thumb Up

          Re: Testing in the real world

          Beer costs money, stupidity comes for free.

    4. phuzz Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Testing in the real world

      Either wrap it around a big chunk of ballistics gel, or failing that, just use a dead pig or something.

      Oh, and probably best not to mix alcohol and firearms, but hey, just think of it as evolution in action.

      Of course, once you've shot it, it's now useless, so you're going to have to buy a new one.

      1. Fatman Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: Testing in the real world

        <quote>Oh, and probably best not to mix alcohol and firearms, but hey, just think of it as Devolution in action.</quote>

        FTFY,

        Note the CHANGE.

      2. theModge

        Re: Testing in the real world

        Oh, and probably best not to mix alcohol and firearms, but hey, just think of it as evolution in action.

        Why shooting estates also give you shit-tons of alcohol then?

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          Re: Testing in the real world

          Like phuzz said - evolution in action.

        2. rg287 Bronze badge

          Re: Testing in the real world

          Why shooting estates also give you shit-tons of alcohol then?

          Well, it's why shooting estates have a stone-cold-sober loader/ghillie behind each "gun" keeping them in their arc and making sure they don't do anything silly (whether down to drink or plain negligence).

        3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: Testing in the real world

          Oh, and probably best not to mix alcohol and firearms,

          Then why is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives if you aren't supposed to combine them ?

          1. Mark 85 Silver badge

            Re: Testing in the real world

            Then why is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives if you aren't supposed to combine them ?

            Maybe they should be renamed "The Department of Fun Stuff"?

            1. J. Cook Silver badge
              Alien

              Re: Testing in the real world

              That would require the agents to actually have a sense of humor, which is (usually) surgically removed during their induction period.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Testing in the real world

            I love the way Alcohol is first, it's not even alphabetical. Maybe it's have few beers and smokes then start shooting, if that doesn't work it's explosives time.

    5. Tigra 07 Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Testing in the real world

      "OK, how do you test them then? Asking for a friend."

      You aim for the head

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: Testing in the real world

        >You aim for the head

        There used to be an ad for shop safety glasses with a shotgun fired at a polystyrene manikin head wearing the safety glasses - obviously turned to dust except for the eyes.

        Seemed like an obvious flaw if the accident still took the rest of your head off.

        1. Tigra 07 Silver badge
          Devil

          Re: Testing in the real world

          The eyes can be donated after death for donors with eye problems and cancers. No one needs your brain though.

          1. Antron Argaiv Silver badge
            Thumb Up

            Re: Testing in the real world

            No one needs your brain though.

            Not if you're dumb enough to do something like this.

            // why bother the police?

            // seems like the problem would solve itself, given enough time...

    6. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Testing in the real world

      a) make torso out of ballistic gel

      b) strap vest onto it

      c) ready on the right, ready on the left, ready on the firing line

      d) commence shooting!

      e) examine ballistic gel torso afterwards

  3. Trollslayer Silver badge

    Evolution

    didn't win this time.

  4. Neil Barnes Silver badge
    Facepalm

    It's hard to think of anything more boneheadedly stupid...

    Nope, it's easy.

    Wearing the vest yourself and getting your mate to shoot you.

    Oh, wait...

    1. FrogsAndChips Bronze badge

      Re: It's hard to think of anything more boneheadedly stupid...

      IIRC, a guy won a Darwin Award some time ago by getting his mate to test a bulletproof vest on him... with a knife.

      Yep, there it is:

      https://www.think.cz/en/67-culture/266-what-a-year-it-was-the-1999-darwin-award-winners

      And a few years later, another guy did it all by himself:

      https://darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin2006-10.html

      (Actually Google returns a depressingly high number of similar incidents)

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Unhappy

        Re: It's hard to think of anything more boneheadedly stupid...

        at least he didn't toss gunpowder into a BBQ and light it (repeatedly) until, the final time, a heated coal remained and sparked the powder while dumping it into the BBQ, blowing up into the face of one of the 2 men, and severely burning the other. Yeah, this really happened, from what I've read. And considering that one of them was (quite possibly) a competent engineer at a well known software company (or perhaps both of them), it doesn't take Arkansas or Hillbillies to win a Darwin award...

        (And I don't know if alcohol was involved, but it probably was)

      2. A Nonny Moose

        Re: It's hard to think of anything more boneheadedly stupid...

        My favourite is the guy who got his wife to shoot him with a Desert Eagle, while he held an encyclopedia.

        https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43410816

        Sadly, he doesn't qualify for a Darwin on account of having already bred.

    2. JonP

      Re: It's hard to think of anything more boneheadedly stupid...

      Getting your mate to wear the vest and then shoot you...

      I guess i'm just proving your point though!

    3. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: It's hard to think of anything more boneheadedly stupid...

      Testing helmets the same way is also "more boneheadedly stupid", both literally and metaphorically, and it took me about 5 seconds to come up with it. Come on, Gareth, raise your game!

  5. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

    While this is incredibly stupid, I don't see how it's anybody's business unless somebody died.

    I mean, these two shouldn't be trusted to be in charge of a frying pan never mind firearms, but still.

    1. FrogsAndChips Bronze badge

      Discharging firearms while drunk probably violates a number of laws, even in Arkansas.

      Note that the article says that no charges have been filed yet, but it was only logical for the cops to interrogate the guys after one's wife called them upon hearing the shots.

      1. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Outlaw drunken operation of a firearm... that's an interesting point.

        I wouldn't consider that to be "infringement". It might improve gun safety.

        1. Ken 16 Silver badge
          Trollface

          The US Constitution guarantees "the Right to Keep and Bear Arms" and doesn't say anything about "while sober". Yee Har!

    2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      I was thinking the same...

      The article says they were arrested "on suspicion of aggravated assault". However, if they both consented, was such an offence actually committed (other than against common sense)?

      Of course, there may well be other statutes that they have violated, but then that's what they should be arrested for...

      1. FrogsAndChips Bronze badge

        Re: I was thinking the same...

        Maybe the cops felt they had to put an end to this and came up with this reason for lack of a better one. And it still makes sense to speak of "suspicion of aggravated assault": when you encounter someone with multiple bullet shots in their vest, you wouldn't expect that they put themselves voluntarily in this situation.

        1. Mike Moyle Silver badge

          Re: I was thinking the same...

          Also, the second fellow emptying the magazine into the first shooter's back because -- Quelle surprise! -- getting shot once hurt probably veers into "aggravated assault" territory.

          1. Mephistro Silver badge
            Devil

            Re: I was thinking the same...

            ...probably veers blitzkriegs into "aggravated assault" territory.

            Fixed!.

        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: I was thinking the same...

          Maybe the cops felt they had to put an end to this and came up with this reason for lack of a better one.

          There is no "being completely fscking stupid" on the statute books in Arkansas ?

          1. Mad Chaz

            Re: I was thinking the same...

            There is no "being completely fscking stupid" on the statute books in Arkansas ?

            It's only required if you're trying to get elected

          2. Global Colder

            Re: I was thinking the same...

            They could have charged them with mopery.

            It is a vague, informal name for minor offences and has occasionally been put into use by police as a charge to bring when no other legitimate charge seems appropriate at the time.

            Used to be used on vagrants as a sort of get out of town hint.

      2. nichomach

        Re: I was thinking the same...

        Don't know how it is in the US, but with certain exceptions for sports in the UK you can't consent to battery.

        1. lglethal Silver badge
          Joke

          Re: I was thinking the same...

          Ahhhhh!!!! You've just discovered the reason for Apple making it all but impossible to replace the battery! I never would have guessed it was a consent problem...

        2. Shadow Systems Silver badge

          At nichomach, re: consenting to battery.

          That's what your Dominatrix is for at the local BDSM club!

      3. rg287 Bronze badge

        Re: I was thinking the same...

        In the case of the Spanner Trials (albeit in the UK), the cops claimed they had no choice, since the law did not provide a mechanism by which someone could consent to assault. The offence was complete and absolute.

        Given that the basis/structure of US law is largely cribbed from British (Constitution & BoR borrowing from Magna Carta, etc), it's quite probable that in the same way the British Government never bothered to exempt a defence of "I consented to being assaulted", the US Gov and Arksansas State Legislatures probably haven't either.

        That being said - even if they have, assault is probably an easy charge under the "Ways and Means Act" that they could use to make timely arrests pending interview and leafing through the book to see what other (more relevant) charges might better suit.

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: I was thinking the same...

          Pity they were white, otherwise the Police could have just shot both of them without getting out of their patrol car.

          1. DiViDeD Silver badge

            Re: I was thinking the same...

            "Pity they were white"

            I don't know, The US police seem to manage OK when there's an unarmed white Australian girl in her jim jams calling for help.

            Justine Diamond

            1. GBE

              Re: I was thinking the same...

              Justine Diamond

              Jury selection is in progress for the cop's trail (he's charged with 2nd degree murder).

          2. MachDiamond Silver badge

            Re: I was thinking the same...

            Sorry, downvote on that one. According to FBI statistics on police shootings, Caucasians are shot in greater numbers and percentages than those "of color" by law enforcement. Those just don't make international news. I am going to attract my very own downvotes by adding; "Unarmed" is a finding after the fact. If somebody the police are involved with won't show their hands, keeps fishing around their waistband or back, depending on situation, waiting until they show a weapon is a recipe for the cop to get injured or killed.

        2. MonkeyCee Silver badge

          Re: I was thinking the same...

          "since the law did not provide a mechanism by which someone could consent to assault"

          Well, not for homosexual acts. IIRC it was the ABH rather than the assault that you couldn't consent to.

          The Spanner case involved gay BDSM, and started with the cops finding evidence that they believed showed people being tortured and killed. But the victims turned out to be alive, and had consented.

          In the linked wiki it even mentions the various cases where straight BDSM of the identical acts (branding) in the Spanner case have been considered to be legal if consent is given.

          They also charged the male victims of the assault, whereas the female victims weren't.

      4. DiViDeD Silver badge

        Re: I was thinking the same...

        It could simply be a case of "Shit! JimBob and BillyJoe are at it again. We gotta get those loons locked up safe before they kill each other!"

    3. hammarbtyp Silver badge

      The saddest thing is, that after all this, they are probably still legally allowed to own as many firearms as their little arms can carry.

      This is where the stupidity of US gun laws is writ large.

      1. GrumpyKiwi Silver badge

        Assault is a felony. Felons don't have the right to own arms.

        So if they're convicted then they lose their right to own firearms.

        Not that complicated.

        1. TomG

          In some states, the right to own firearms is restored after the sentence is completed and a specified time has elapsed.

      2. TomG

        Different states have different laws regarding who can own firearms and the number and type of firearms that can be owned.

    4. jmch Silver badge
      Happy

      , I don't see how it's anybody's business

      It's our business to point and laugh

    5. DougS Silver badge

      Discharging a firearm in city limits?

      Don't know if they were in a city, but if they are it is almost certainly illegal from that standpoint.

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge

        @Doug S -- Re: Discharging a firearm in city limits?

        Depends on the city actually or maybe "town" is a better word. Then again, this was in Arkansas.

        1. DougS Silver badge

          Re: @Doug S -- Discharging a firearm in city limits?

          Even in the south most incorporated areas large enough to have a mayor ban discharge of firearms.

  6. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Silver badge

    They don't raise em' bright...

    They don't raise em' too bright in the South...

    1. TomG

      Re: They don't raise em' bright...

      you should change the word "South" to "everywhere".

  7. GruntyMcPugh Silver badge

    Ferris and Hicks?

    Odd, sounds more like a pair of Hicks,....

    1. My other car WAS an IAV Stryker
      Coat

      Re: Ferris and Hicks?

      From the sticks, gettin' their kicks (and a few licks)...

      Okay, I'll stop.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Ferris and Hicks?

      Ferris and Collier would have been too Unlikely. Whatever happened to....?

      1. Aladdin Sane Silver badge
        Coat

        Re: Ferris and Hicks?

        #SaveFerris

    3. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Ferris and Hicks?

      A clear case of nomen est omen.

      When is Bubba going to get in on the act? Presumably after a row with Mary-Ellen-Sue…

    4. hplasm Silver badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Ferris and Hicks?

      In the distance a banjo plays...

      Subreddit /r/hellnocletus should be a thing!

      At least it wasn't just a thick book...

      1. Uncle Slacky Silver badge

        Re: Ferris and Hicks?

        There is /r/ANormalDayInAmerica though...

      2. Spasticus Autisticus
        Happy

        Re: Ferris and Hicks?

        @hplasm

        I hear a pair of banjos

        diddle, ding, ding, dinggg.

  8. Gideon 1

    Willy Waving

    "At least these bozos allegedly only used a .22 rather than something more potent which could have penetrated the thing. These vests are only really intended to stop low-energy pistol shots, not high-velocity rifle ammunition."

    Cue the calibre vs lethality debate. Shooting at someone with any firearm is dangerous.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Willy Waving

      Yeah, and semi-automatics at that.

      Maybe next time they'll do us a favour of streaming it live so we can all take notes.

      1. Mephistro Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Re: Willy Waving

        Mmmmhhh...

        That would probably originate a YouTube "Bulletproof Vest Challenge" and also drastically improve Mankind's gene pool. I say, go for it!

  9. seven of five

    only .22?!?

    only? Don´t -> DON´T <- bloody underestimate a fucking .22LR, these little bastards have almost as much energy as a 9x19para (given their smaller projectile, they are probably even more penetrating) and are definitly more powerful than a .38

    And this is before we talk about energy transfer *through* the vest...

    1. Dal90

      Re: only .22?!?

      >bloody underestimate a fucking .22LR, these little bastards have almost as much energy as a 9x19para

      If you define "almost" as "60% at best when comparing an upper end .22LR fired from a rifle to a lower end 9x19para fired from a handgun when measured in joules"

      Look, I don't want to get shot be either but if you had to be shot by one I'm preferring the odds of surviving a .22LR.

      1. seven of five

        Re: only .22?!?

        sorry, mixup with 9x18 marakov.

      2. Wellyboot Silver badge

        Re: only .22?!?

        .22 is 5.56mm in metric & I'm guessing they used a AR15 type rifle.

        If the Ammo had been military load FMJ they'd be nursing broken ribs at best with the short distance involved.

        1. dfsmith

          Re: only .22?!?

          Doubtful that it was an AR15 style rifle. They're typically chambered for 0.223 (same external dimensions as 5.56 NATO) rounds (up to about 29 grains of powder) whereas a .22 is shorthand for .22LR cartridge (up to 2 grains of powder). That said, there are some modified AR15s chambered for .22LR for silent or cheaper target practice. The energy of .22LR from a rifle (10" barrel) is about 60% more than that from a handgun (3" barrel).

          1. Daedalus Silver badge

            Re: only .22?!?

            Yep. I have shot 22LR or its equivalent from a modded FN rifle (normally 7.62mm NATO). On a British Army firing range. With a hangover. Quite the end to quite the party.

        2. GrumpyKiwi Silver badge

          Re: only .22?!?

          Unlikely. .223 / 5.56 would have ignored a vest at that range, not "left a red mark".

    2. S4qFBxkFFg

      Re: only .22?!?

      "...a fucking .22LR, these little bastards have almost as much energy as a 9x19para..."

      Source? Most of the numbers I can see with a quick google show that that's a very generous "almost".

      (Not arguing about the fact that .22LR is deadly, and underestimated.)

      1. seven of five

        Re: only .22?!?

        yes, lost the column in the table. 9x18, not 9x19.

        1. cklammer

          Re: only .22?!?

          The one time I used freshly felled pine as a bullet back stop for target practice using .22lr the projectiles penetrated 55-60 cm into the fresh pine wood.

          That was a single-shot .22lr rifle with something like a barrel length of 50 cm - 60 cm from 50 m away from target.

          Makes you think.

  10. naive

    real men test bullet proof vests

    While the rest of the world living under leftist tyranny moans about US gun laws.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: real men test bullet proof vests

      Indeed, we should be grateful to them for it!

      (I think some people may have missed the irony on this).

    2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Re: real men test bullet proof vests

      FWIW, it's spelt naïve, which is exactly what that sort of comment is...

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: real men test bullet proof vests

        Obviously we need to ban bullet proof vests

        1. Ken 16 Silver badge
          Headmaster

          Re: real men test bullet proof vests

          Allow bullet-PROOF vest but ban bullet-RETARDANT vests.

      2. MachDiamond Silver badge

        Re: real men test bullet proof vests

        "FWIW, it's spelt naïve, which is exactly what that sort of comment is..."

        FWIW, it's spelt spelled naïve, which is exactly what that sort of comment is...

        1. dajames Silver badge
          Headmaster

          Re: real men test bullet proof vests

          FWIW, it's spelt spelled naïve, which is exactly what that sort of comment is...

          "Spelt" is a perfectly valid alternative spelling of "spelled" in most of the world except North America (and even then I'm not sure about Canada).

          See, for example, grammarly.

  11. Suricou Raven

    Huh.

    ... the vest actually worked. Didn't expect that against even a small rifle at close range.

    1. rg287 Bronze badge

      Re: Huh.

      ... the vest actually worked. Didn't expect that against even a small rifle at close range.

      The vest is going to be specced to make shots from a 9x19 or .38Special survivable (though it's not going to stop them hurting!).

      .22lr - whether from a rifle or pistol is barely going to hit 50-60% of the muzzle energy of centre-fire pistol rounds. .22lr should not be underestimated, but by the same token a vest which can be penetrated by .22lr has no real business calling itself "bullet proof", because all that's really left below .22lr is .22short.

      And if you're relying on your attacker using an archaic round like .22short, then you're in trouble!

    2. Brian Miller

      Re: Huh.

      Yes, the vest worked. Years ago there was a "news bloopers" reel that featured a TV reporter who wanted to demonstrate the efficacy of the then-new police bullet-proof vests. On live camera, he had an officer shoot him in the sternum with a .22 pistol while wearing the vest. The next minute or so was him prancing about in pain, uttering bleeped profanities, while a dozen cops laughed their asses off.

      There's also a YouTube video of some young rednecks testing the efficacy of a vest vs a 9mm pistol. Yes, the idiot wearing the vest survived just fine. The bullet deformed the Kevlar, and made at least a 1/2-inch deep wound on his chest. It didn't penetrate his rib cage, but he was certainly bleeding, and his friends hauled him to the ER. ("I fee fine," he said. Yes, he actually said that.)

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge

        Re: Huh.

        There in is the problem with he 'vests". I would think that there should be a hard shell between the Kevlar and the wearer. Something solid to spread the impact energy. But then, the last time I wore a vest was bullet bouncer in Vietnam.

  12. joed

    do what was the brand and model of that quality vest

    just asking;)

  13. Sgt_Oddball Silver badge

    On the plus side..

    At least they managed to shoot the vest. Bullet proof vests (a misnomer if ever there was one) only cover bits of you. Get the shot wrong and you hit something more vital like a head or a leg artery, or maybe side on where the vest doesn't cover.

    And that's before you see the damage a tumbling bullet can do.

    1. Jay 2

      Re: On the plus side..

      Indeed, I was thinking just that. The greater the level of drunkeness, the greater the chance of missing the intended target...

      1. Simon B-52

        Re: On the plus side..

        Just for fun:

        A certain amount of drunkeness might actually help here, by spreading the grouping of the multiple shots. At this sort of point blank range, using a rifle, a sober shooter of modest ability could probably put all five one on top of another.

        That would very likely achieve penetration.

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: On the plus side..

      "hit something more vital like a head"

      Not too much to damage there if they had.

  14. juice Bronze badge

    Sounds like the muppets who tried to test a book's bullet-stopping capabilities...

    Spoiler: it didn't work.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/12/20/he-thought-a-book-would-stop-a-bullet-now-his-girlfriend-is-going-to-jail-for-killing-him/?utm_term=.25e62b5add53

    To give them some small amount of credit, they did allegedly test the theory on another book, but equally, they used a Desert Eagle .50-caliber pistol and it doesn't take much clickity to find videos of the bullets from these things merrily smashing bricks into powder...

    (and yes: different materials, yadda yadda. Still dumb. Don't try this at home, kids...)

    1. disgruntled yank Silver badge

      Re: Sounds like the muppets who tried to test a book's bullet-stopping capabilities...

      As I recall, a passage The Unix-Hater's Guide, established that the O'Reilly book on sendmail would stop a pellet from an air pistol. The message indicated that the writer would try a .22 on the weekend, but I don't there was an update.

      1. technos

        Re: Sounds like the muppets who tried to test a book's bullet-stopping capabilities...

        I've seen .22LR (from a cheap rifle, at distance) stopped by a copy of Larry Wall's 'Programming Perl'.

        The O'Reilly Sendmail book is longer, so...

      2. Mephistro Silver badge
        Joke

        Re: Sounds like the muppets who tried to test a book's bullet-stopping capabilities...

        Here, for all those who say that IT books are useless!

        ;^)

    2. David 132 Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      Re: Sounds like the muppets who tried to test a book's bullet-stopping capabilities...

      Ah but was it Bullet-tooth Tony's Desert Eagle .50, or one with Replica written down the side?

  15. Ima Ballsy
    Facepalm

    Even ....

    To some of us in the VERY deep south, these guys are idiots.

    That;s why we keep them in trailer parks so we can keep an eye on them !!!

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Even ....

      To some of us in the VERY deep south, these guys are idiots.

      And potential voters… as long as they can produce id, or are white.

  16. OrneryRedGuy

    Doesn't this destroy the vest?

    Okay, I'm lucky enough not to have ever found this out first hand, but doesn't shooting a bullet 'proof' vest ruin the vest, at least at the point of impact and maybe the surrounding area?

    I mean, great, this not inexpensive piece of kit would have saved you had you been accidentally shot while out hunting or whatever. Not now, though. But at least you'll have confidence in the next one you buy.

    I also don't get why, if you absolutely have to test it, you have to put a human being inside it. A watermelon would do nicely. But that's been covered above.

    1. JetSetJim Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Doesn't this destroy the vest?

      They may well be constructed with kevlar plates, and perhaps you can replace the damaged/impacted one and patch the hole in the material, rather than buy an entirely new vest.

      Mine's the one with lots of kevlar in the pockets

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Doesn't this destroy the vest?

      "I also don't get why, if you absolutely have to test it, you have to put a human being inside it. A watermelon would do nicely. But that's been covered above."

      Considering the implications that these things are not cheap, I'm just wondering what sort of warped world these guys live in where they feel the need to buy one in the first place.

      1. sprograms

        Re: Doesn't this destroy the vest?

        If a person bought a stab-resistant vest to wear in London, would that mean he was living in a warped world?

        1. John Bailey

          Re: Doesn't this destroy the vest?

          "If a person bought a stab-resistant vest to wear in London, would that mean he was living in a warped world?"

          Yes. Indeed you are.

        2. ibmalone Silver badge

          Re: Doesn't this destroy the vest?

          Or a car proof vest? https://visionzerolondon.wordpress.com/latest-pedestrians-and-cyclists-deaths-in-london/

          (Over 8 million people live in London, deaths are tragic and we must get knife crime under control, but don't let the news cycle fool you into thinking it's a war zone.)

    3. JJKing Bronze badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Doesn't this destroy the vest?

      Did they really have a human being wearing it, really?

  17. Simon B-52

    Old Hat, done on UK TV years ago.

    The BBC TV programme, Tomorrow's World, once featured a demonstration of a bulletproof vest where it's inventor wore it while being fired at by an accomplice, under the bemused gaze of presenter (and ex fighter pilot) Raymond Baxter.

    No-one was drunk and there wasn't a banjo in sight.

    1. This post has been deleted by a moderator

    2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Old Hat, done on UK TV years ago.

      The accomplice was presumably a trained marksman*, wasn't using a semi-automatic and the inventor had signed a waiver.

      * In America this can be done while having a burger, because "Burgers and Bullets" is a real company and who cares if 9-year olds shoot people when given automatic rifles?

      1. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

        Re: Old Hat, done on UK TV years ago.

        My sister went to visit the gun range where the 9 year old went on a killing spree the week after it happened.

        My thinking was that if there is a best time to go to a place like that, it's immediately after some kid kills loads of people. Everybody is going to be extra careful.

    3. David 132 Silver badge
      Coffee/keyboard

      Re: Old Hat, done on UK TV years ago.

      Now I have an unshakeable mental image of a drunk Raymond Baxter playing the banjo.

      Very, very strange.

  18. Stevie Silver badge

    Bah!

    Well, it's been a quiet week here at lake Drunken Fucktard.

    1. David 132 Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Bah!

      That’s the local name. “Bala” to the tourists.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    bullet-resistant vest

    interesting, I thought they're generally called -proof, althought I realize that it's all relative, the callibre, distance, etc, etc. But, given the red mark, it gave good resistance, right?

    1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      Re: bullet-resistant vest

      "I thought they're generally called -proof"

      I doubt neither their makers' legal department nor insurers would have accepted "proof".

    2. sprograms

      Re: bullet-resistant vest

      "-proof" is in the description of their booze, not their vest.

      1. David 132 Silver badge

        Re: bullet-resistant vest

        And even the booze has "no proof, only circumstantial evidence"

        (h/t Terry Pratchett)

    3. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: bullet-resistant vest

      As I understand it and Google backed it up... both "proof" and "resistant" are interchangeable. The reality is, none of the vests are bullet proof.

      Ref: https://www.tssbulletproof.com/blog/bulletproof-or-bullet-resistant/ and here: https://www.tssbulletproof.com/blog/bulletproof-or-bullet-resistant/

  20. Jemma Silver badge

    Arkensas...

    "We're so inbred, even the pharaohs are sayin'" oh, hell no!""

    Or

    "Quick, someone go find the 50-cal"

    Im imagining something of a Bert Gummer character, just without the brains or the looks. Could have been worse for the wife, they might have decided to go with a Soreass Hill re-enactment. "But when I look at him, all I see is him getting rammed on the porch..."

    1. Mephistro Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Arkensas...

      "...Soreass Hill re-enactment."

      Is that legal in Arkansas???

      ;^)

  21. bussdriver

    And you were shocked Trump won?

    I live here and not in the south I was not shocked.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Arkansas Man

    Florida Man's brother-cousin-son

  23. Alan Mackenzie
    WTF?

    How come it's assault?

    The two idiots _consented_ to be shot by eachother. Just as in a boxing match, the two contestants consent to being punched in the face.

    So how come they're being charged with assault?

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: How come it's assault?

      Consent, even if it can be demonstrated, does not mean something isn't a crime. For an example, consider statutory rape of minors. But also, what would have happened if things had gone wrong and the demonstration had led to severe injuries or death?

      The police were called out and had a duty to enforce the law as they see it. Note, just that they've been charged doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a trial.

  24. Will Godfrey Silver badge
    Unhappy

    There's no hope

    Numpties like this are out-breeding the rest of us.

    (it takes no intelligence to do so)

  25. Dedobot

    Perfect example of testing environment as close as possible to the production one :-)

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This article is an excellent use

    Of bullet points.

    (expect to be downvoted back to the late Permian Era for this)

    1. Stevie Silver badge

      Re: This article is an excellent use

      Quite. We expect jokes of a higher calibre around here.

      1. Will Godfrey Silver badge

        Re: This article is an excellent use

        Should we take that as a shot across the bows?

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Stevie Silver badge

          Re: This article is an excellent use

          Well, someone should get fired.

      2. DiViDeD Silver badge

        Re: This article is an excellent use

        "We expect jokes of a higher calibre around here."

        You're new round here, aren't you?

        1. Mephistro Silver badge
          Coffee/keyboard

          Re: This article is an excellent use

          To all of you, well spotted!

        2. Stevie Silver badge

          Re: New Around Here

          8o)

  27. John 209

    So, who's going to press charges?

    My guess is that neither of the perps, nor the wife, will do so, and so they'll probably only get a "ticket" for an "administrative infraction", like disturbing the peace, get a fine, and be let off.

  28. AdamWill

    this comment thread is sick to death of "experts"

    Alleged Expert: "It's hard to think of anything more boneheadedly stupid than testing a bulletproof vest by putting one on your mate and then shooting him."

    Drunk Russians: "HOLD MY VODKA"

    1. James O'Shea Silver badge

      Re: this comment thread is sick to death of "experts"

      Oy! Russians never tell anyone, especially other Russians, to hold their vodka. In the first place, they tend to drink the entire bottle at one gulp. In the second place, they're afraid that whoever holds it will drink the entire bottle at one gulp and they'll never get their vodka back.

  29. Herby Silver badge

    Firearms and Alcohol

    When mixed rarely make for good news.

    I suspect that there are other examples, but this one is a good one.

    When it goes bad, there is usually a Darwin Award in the wings.

    1. Swarthy Silver badge

      Re: Firearms and Alcohol

      One of my favorite Heinlein quotes: "Be wary of strong drink. It can make you shoot at tax collectors... and miss."

  30. Anonymous South African Coward Silver badge

    hillbillies eh?

    1. WolfFan Silver badge

      Nah. Hillbillies would be from Tennessee, Kentucky, and, especially, West Virginia (which is north of Virginia...). Arkansas is full of hillbilly _cousins_. Hillbillies wouldn't waste ammo firing at a bullet-proof vest, not when there are better targets, such as traffic signs.

  31. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What color is the sky on your planet? The .22 is nowhere in the neighborhood of "high velocity". You can also get .22 short and .22 long rifle cartridges both of which can be fired from pistols. Then, of course, there are a multitude of rifles capable of firing 9mm, .357/.44 magnum, and .45 ACP rounds and pistols capable of firing .223/5.56NATO and .308. Your "firearms expert" needs some retraining.

    Now, these jackasses should have eliminated themselves from the gene pool with this stunt. Now listen well, kiddies. Rule #3; firearms and alcohol, in any combination, do not mix.

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      "Now, these jackasses should have eliminated themselves from the gene pool with this stunt."

      Welll, the wife doesn't seem like she's too happy so he's probably not getting any for a while. It may also be the final straw for the divorce filing and with a reputation for putting on a bulletproof vest and letting his buddy shot at him, chances may not be good that he'll get another date in that area that isn't paid for in advance and by the hour.

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Meh

    Can't hold a candle to guys like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stapp

  33. ATeal

    To be fair you would want to try it.

    I'd want to go first and have to go afterwards ;)

  34. Potemkine! Silver badge

    Just a question: what did these guys is stupid, but how is it illegal?

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      The prison system in Arkansas is privately contracted so the company that runs those prisons got the legislature to pass a law to make stupidity illegal. Pure gold for the company, they'll be getting paid for "housing" over half the state.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019