this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
736 points (98.8% liked)
People Twitter
6995 readers
2703 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, I understand that a bullet would have had to actually hit him for it to cause a bullet wound. Which he clearly did not have given how minor it was and quickly it healed. And that he hid the real doctor's report.
It grazed him. What is difficult to understand here?
This isn't Hollywood. A graze wound from a 5.56x45mm round at supersonic velocities doesn't leave a small, easily healed cut; it transfers a portion of the bullet's kinetic energy into the tissue, in a radiating pressure wave that tears, shatters, and emulsifies the surrounding tissue. Even the slightest amount of contact transfers enough energy to cause wounds that take a substantial amount of time to heal, even more so with an ear that is primarily cartilage, which doesn't, itself, heal.
A graze would have resulted in needing reconstructive surgery that would have taken months to heal and would have had visible bruising much longer than his ear bandage was worn. Graze from fragments or debris? Sure, that's a lot different than his claim. And it's at least equally likely that he cut his ear when tackled, which would be consistent with the seen wound as well as the lack of visible scarring or need for reconstructive surgery.
Then it wasn't a graze wound. What if the bullet is 0.1mm further out than would be needed for a "graze"?
You're playing with words. We have video of what happened.
Maybe you'd prefer it was a Sasquatch with a directed energy weapon.
I understand what they're claiming. That, however, is not what happened. You don't need to get a second doctor to "corroborate" the nature of your injury if your story is true. The first one would have been fine. But they hid that.
And the injury clearly wasn't bad enough to need actual extra consultation.