PDA

View Full Version : Be careful out there!!! Horrible accidents happen...


FrontSight
November 18, 2008, 04:14 PM
16 month old child killed in upstate NY...several news links on this site

http://www.mahalo.com/Edward_Taibi

hogdogs
November 18, 2008, 04:23 PM
I despise the flagrant use of the word *ACCIDENT*!!!:mad: That was not accidental in any way, shape or form!!! Purely NEGLIGENT!!! Some people should starve before being allowed to use a projectile emitting device to procure meat based food!:rolleyes:
Brent

FrontSight
November 18, 2008, 04:30 PM
Well, it was an accident in as much as he never meant to hurt anyone, and in that he probably didn't even realize there was a house over there.

A crazy thing is that had he been 100 feet further away I don't know if he would have been charged, and the child might still have been hit and died.

hogdogs
November 18, 2008, 04:37 PM
Accident is when your gun just goes off... If it was fine until you pull the trigger than accident is gone and negligent replaces it. Most of the fatality car crashes are not accidents since the person was either drunk, or eating, or lookin over their shoulder at the kids in back or talking on the cell phone...
Simply not intending to hurt someone does not an accident make... Failure to follow the rules of safe firearms use makes it negligent. Sorry but I am a hardnose about gun safety and the loose use of the word accident in general.
I also despise warning labels too:rolleyes: I have long said that warning labels are the life support for the terminally stupid.
Brent

Daryl
November 18, 2008, 04:41 PM
A crazy thing is that had he been 100 feet further away I don't know if he would have been charged, and the child might still have been hit and died.


Nope. He'd still be charged. When you shoot, you're responsible for any damage that bullet does, no matter the distance.

He just wouldn't have an additional charge of discharging a firearm within 500 feet of an occupied dwelling...if they bothered to charge him with that in this case. They didn 't mention it in the article.

'twas a poor decision on his part to shoot that direction, and he'll likely pay for it for the rest of his life...in more ways than prison time.

The child already paid the price of his negligence. He should have known his target AND backstop.

Daryl

FrontSight
November 18, 2008, 05:02 PM
Daryl, there are times when people are injured in hunting accidents (Hogdogs, we will have to agree to disagree maybe, as there are indeed hunting accidents that occur; you can't know 100% for sure what is behind your target 100% of the time, unless you have x-ray or infrared vision, such as when bird hunting and there's a camoflauged deer hunter up in a tree stand that you can't see - that HAS happened in real life) and no one is charged, because the state deems it to be an accident and that the hunter was not negligent.

Daryl
November 18, 2008, 08:38 PM
In this case, it doesn't sound like it was a tree stand, unless someone moved a mobile home into the woods to hunt from?

It was a residence, and it IS the hunter's responsibility to know where every residence is in the area they're hunting.

The guy was negligent, and his negligence cost a kid her life. He was charged accordingly.

I don't know the laws of that state, but in my state he'd most likely be charged no matter the distance, and Arizona dictates that hunters not discharge a firearm within 1/4 mile of an occupied structure. I can hit a deer at a quarter mile, so I've no doubt that a bullet will kill way farther than that.

It wouldn't excuse anyone if they negligently shot someone farther than that. If you don't know about a residence beyond your target, then you should have studied the area a bit more.

Daryl

fisherman66
November 18, 2008, 08:45 PM
If you don't know about a residence beyond your target, then you should have studied the area a bit more.

You normally see a backdrop. I'd never shoot over a crest. A dense wooded area is usually sufficient but requires greater knowledge of what lies beyond.

Devastating thing to happen to a family that has already faced what I'd find impossible to face. I wish feeling sorry for them did some good.

hogdogs
November 18, 2008, 08:52 PM
I would have to agree that to shoot a guy in a tree that is wearing full camo and no orange would be able to be called an accident. But short of that it is very few scenarios that could be accidental shots. If you shoot thru a deer and back yonder the bullet kills another deer and you have a one deer limit than the warden isn't gonna give a crap about a 2-fer claim... you poached deer number 2. But to put a bullet into civilization because you know not your back STOP is no excuse to claim accident over negligent. But we can agree to disagree or if you wish we can OFFICIALLY debate it via pm as gentlemen do. I have a tremendous arsenal of info, not all is gun related. Love a good debate;)
Brent

FrontSight
November 18, 2008, 09:26 PM
Oh, I did not mean that this case was not negligent more than accident; I do believe it to be negligent.

I just meant that there are indeed times when you pull the trigger and it is an accident, in response to your statement that:

If it was fine until you pull the trigger than accident is gone and negligent replaces it.

Also, I meant "accident" as in he did not know there was a house there when he shot and would not have shot if he had known, as opposed to knowing that a house was there and thinking to himself "oh, it will be fine; no one will get hurt, this deer is worth the tiny risk, etc etc."

jdscholer
November 19, 2008, 09:24 AM
Something we "experienced" hunters must realize is that there is much greater odds of a stray bullet striking someone or something that we don't want it to these days. There is simply tons more of us than there used to be. jd

Dallas Jack
November 19, 2008, 02:16 PM
After reading all the articles and watching the video I didn't learn enough about the "incident" to judge this man. I also didn't read anything that explains why he is being held without bail. That is usually done if the person is a flight risk.

In my opinion there is no way you can be 100% positive where your bullet will come to rest. You may be positive of your backstop but your control of that bullet ends when you fire that shot. When hunting you cannot be 100% sure of who or what may be in the bullets path.

Sounds like this guy was doing what most of us would do. Finish off the wounded game in a humanely manner. A bullet fired in a hunting situation may contact a number of objects (trees, rocks, water...) and be deflected in an unintended direction.

The one thing that all the articles made clear was he fired a gun to close to a dwelling. 400 feet instead of 500 feet.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Dallas Jack

Brian Pfleuger
November 19, 2008, 02:25 PM
The guy was within 400 feet of a house. That's negligence. The argument of "You can never be sure..." doesn't fly when the basic safety precaution have not been taken. Horrible freak accidents happen. The simple fact is that if he had been even 1 foot farther away this bullet has a 99.9% chance of missing this kid. If he had been at the LEGAL distance it's a virtual guarantee we'd never hear his name.

That said, the "discharge" was negligent. The death was "accidental". It's silly to say there was no accident only negligence here.

FrontSight
November 19, 2008, 02:29 PM
Dallas Jack, that sounds like it sums it up perfectly to me; I have not heard if there was a richochet or not, nor even if the second shot hit the deer or not.

And really, would it have made any difference if he was 100 feet further away than he was? Only by reviewing the forensic evidence/scene, etc could we MAYBE know the answer, and even then we still might not, especially if it was a ricochet. :confused:

Two additional things come to mind:

1) As a homeowner, how do you possibly protect yourself from something like this? Build only super thick brick houses with bomb proof windows?

2) As a hunter, how do you possibly survey all the land around where you are hunting, to know if / where there are homes within 2,000 yards (an acceptable danger zone I think most people would agree on). Homes get constructed almost overnight, faster than google earth can put up pictures, and we all have less and less time on our hands to scout.

With increased populations, I'm starting to feel that no shots at all are safe anymore except ones are sharp downward angles or with big hills behind the target...

FrontSight
November 19, 2008, 02:32 PM
peetzakilla: Why do you think that the extra 100 feet would have prevented this from happenning? I am not grilling you or being a jerk or anything; I am just wondering what you are basing that on. I.E. what would have made the bullet no longer a danger to anyone in that house if 100 feet was added? :confused:

Dallas Jack
November 19, 2008, 02:34 PM
peetzakilla, you assume he 1) knew the trailer was there and 2) has a better than average ability to judge distances. (if he could even see the trailer)

Dallas Jack

FrontSight
November 19, 2008, 02:42 PM
You would think his friend whose property it was would have told him "There is a house in that direction, so be careful." Maybe he did, maybe he forgot, maybe he lost his bearings, who knows....

Dallas Jack
November 19, 2008, 02:51 PM
Scrap5000, good point. We may learn the answer to that in the future.

Dallas Jack

Brian Pfleuger
November 19, 2008, 03:17 PM
peetzakilla: Why do you think that the extra 100 feet would have prevented this from happenning?

Like I said, there is an EXTREME probability that ONE more foot would have made this EXACT event not happen. The odds of a bullet hitting an unknown target at 400+ feet is ridiculously remote. Any change in this situation would have likely prevented the same outcome.


peetzakilla, you assume he 1) knew the trailer was there and 2) has a better than average ability to judge distances. (if he could even see the trailer)


Actually, I'm assuming he DID NOT know the trailer was there. If he did know and fired in that direction then he should be looking at 2nd degree murder or something similar. If he knew the trailer was there he wouldn't need to judge distances. Knowledge would have precluded a shot in that direction.
I'm also saying he had an ABSOLUTE RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW the trailer was there. I assume he didn't and that makes it negligence instead of murder. I will not hunt an area with which I am not intimately familiar. I look at Google maps and Yahoo and Microsoft Live maps to see where houses and other things are located. I drive around the nearby roads to make sure I know where things are. I print out maps and draw 500 foot circle to show myself where I can hunt. It's a very basic level of responsibility.
No, you cannot, unless you are God, guarantee with absolute certainty where a bullet will end up once you pull the trigger. What you can do is make the possibility of serious problems vanishingly small by taking basic precautions.

FrontSight
November 19, 2008, 03:31 PM
Like I said, there is an EXTREME probability that ONE more foot would have made this EXACT event not happen. The odds of a bullet hitting an unknown target at 400+ feet is ridiculously remote. Any change in this situation would have likely prevented the same outcome.

Oh, ok, I agree there, but the trailer was full of people; the family had gathered to watch a football game, and therefore odds are good that SOMEONE was gonna get hit. Too many possible outcomes to compute, but a high degree of possibility that someone was gonna get hit in some part of their body.

Brian Pfleuger
November 19, 2008, 03:37 PM
Oh, ok, I agree there, but the trailer was full of people; the family had gathered to watch a football game, and therefore odds are good that SOMEONE was gonna get hit. Too many possible outcomes to compute, but a high degree of possibility that someone was gonna get hit in some part of their body.

You're right. That's why I say he had the responsibility to know and not fire in that direction. If he did know and just thought "Well, it's probably OK..." he should be tried for negligent homicide or 2nd degree murder or some such thing. I'm no lawyer so I don't know the names necessarily but in that case it should be whatever is one step down from intentional premeditated murder.

FrontSight
November 19, 2008, 03:55 PM
Yep, I gotta agree with ya there, peetzakilla

Dallas Jack
November 19, 2008, 07:05 PM
This situation is based on what a reasonable person would do. We all have our level of confidence that we have taken all precautions to insure that no one is injured by our actions and yet it happens.

The police will draw a straight line from where is was standing to the trailer and call it good. What are the chances that you could shoot a bullet into the forest and it not be deflected? Have you ever passed up a shot because you didn't think you could thread the bullet/arrow thru the openings in the branches in front of a game animal? You couldn't be sure your bullet/arrow would not be deflected and miss the animal.

I'm just saying I need more info like maybe a view of what he saw and an idea of what he knew when he made the shot. Till then I will do the prudent thing and reserve judgment.

Was this shot made out of negligence or was he just a slob hunter with no regard for anyones safety.

This is a sad incident and even if he is tried and found not guilty his life is ruined and a little girl is dead. A lose/lose situation for all involved.

No, no rush to judgement for me. Be safe.

Dallas Jack

SWMAGMAN
November 20, 2008, 01:51 AM
Many good points made here, and much we can learn from, but I agree with Dallas Jack in that there is no way we have received enough information via this post to fully judge the individual. What if there was a ricochet, which can deflect a bullet's path by any possible degree? Very few of us can point to the place our hunting bullets come to lie.
Knowledge of the area and awareness of your situation are crucial, but do not absolutely prevent strange incidents from happening. Though I have heard no updates, a fan at a recent NASCAR race was hit by a bullet while sitting in an RV. Police were considering the possibility that the bullet was fired from up to 5 miles away by a guy target shooting with a .50 cal rifle. Many people lose their awareness of the background when looking through the limited FOV of a scope. In the last year or so in this area, a person was killed while driving their car down a highway by a deer hunter's bullet that somehow found its way out of a thick woods populated by many hunters...shooter never found, and who knows how convoluted a path that bullet followed to get where it got.

Double Naught Spy
November 20, 2008, 07:26 AM
Well, it was an accident in as much as he never meant to hurt anyone, and in that he probably didn't even realize there was a house over there.


How could he not realize such a thing? See the pics in the link below. I just don't buy it that he was oblivious to there being homes in the area.
http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/misc?url=/_flash/gallery/gallery.html&Avis=TH&Dato=20081117&Kategori=NEWS15&Lopenr=1117011&Ref=PH

It happened around 4:00 PM and there were people coming and going from that house during the day. The would have made a good bit of noise even if he had not visually seen the actual house. Never mind the fact that there are few roads in the area and he likely drove in on the road on which the house sits. Google the address of 1338 Horseshoe Lake Road, Swan Lake, NY on Google Maps.

Creature
November 20, 2008, 08:53 AM
In my opinion there is no way you can be 100% positive where your bullet will come to rest. You may be positive of your backstop but your control of that bullet ends when you fire that shot. When hunting you cannot be 100% sure of who or what may be in the bullets path.

Anyone who uses the word "accident" in any sense of the word here is WRONG. Period.

Any hunter worth his license WILL KNOW EXACTLY WHERE HE IS GEOGRAPHICALLY AND HIS FIREARM'S MAXIMUM AREA OF POSSIBLE IMPACT. While a hunter can not predict exactly where his bullet will end up inside that area of impact...or even predict his bullet's actual path of travel, he should already have taken the time to ensure that there is no possibility of his bullet impacting people or property.

That hunter was 100% negligent and should have the book thrown at him.

Dallas Jack
November 20, 2008, 11:31 AM
Double Naught Spy, Looking at a Google map I can see 2 roads (Davis and Briscoe) that he could have parked off of and never passed by the trailer. It was never stated where he parked or where his tree stand was except in general terms (off of Horseshoe Lake Rd) and that describes a large area. I am assuming his tree stand was not located by his vehicle. Just how far does the average hunter walk to get to his hunting location?

CreatureAny hunter worth his license WILL KNOW EXACTLY WHERE HE IS GEOGRAPHICALLY AND HIS FIREARM'S MAXIMUM AREA OF POSSIBLE IMPACT.

No where in any of the articles did I see any info about what he did or did not know about the area he was hunting.

Anyone who uses the word "accident" in any sense of the word here is WRONG. Period.


I never used the word "accident" in my post. My point is and has been there is not enough info available to judge this man and his actions. For those that have already found him Guilty, what sentence would you impose? Me, I am going to wait and let the courts sort it out when more is known about the "incident".

Surely you can tell from my post I am not defending this mans actions. Nor am I condeming him. I will just wait and see what may come of this.

Be safe.
Dallas Jack

Double Naught Spy
November 20, 2008, 12:12 PM
Double Naught Spy, Looking at a Google map I can see 2 roads (Davis and Briscoe) that he could have parked off of and never passed by the trailer. It was never stated where he parked or where his tree stand was except in general terms (off of Horseshoe Lake Rd) and that describes a large area. I am assuming his tree stand was not located by his vehicle. Just how far does the average hunter walk to get to his hunting location?

No, we don't know where he parked, but like I said, there aren't that many roads in the area.

Plus, I never said he drove by it, only that it was likely he did. Still, I would contend that being within 400 feet of a house occupied by several folks including guests, then he likely would have heard noises from that area and known people lived there even if he didn't see them.

If you do look at the pics, you can see that a LOT of that 400 feet isn't heavy forest, but open or mostly open terrain. The trees are not foliated.

Sportdog
November 20, 2008, 03:13 PM
From the tone of some posters, I'd say that we could save a lot of time and money by just stringing the guy up and be done with it.:rolleyes: None of us were there and none of us know enough details to make such hate filled opinions on what happened here. I say that it is a terrible tragedy and I will pray for the victim, her family, the hunter, and his family and let the criminal justice system play out and let God do the judging. As Jesus said: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

Double Naught Spy
November 20, 2008, 03:41 PM
If you are suggesting some form of self-imposed censorship because people have judgmental opinions of the shooter you deem inappropriate, then you might consider censoring yourself as your words about not passing judgment are exactly what you have done already.

After rereading the thread, I see no hatred reflected, just some high spirited opinion-based debate using the information that is available.

FYI, the first stone cast was a .300 Win Mag from 400 feet.

WWJMBD?

Brian Pfleuger
November 20, 2008, 03:51 PM
Anyone who uses the word "accident" in any sense of the word here is WRONG. Period.

Although I may agree with the sentiment that statement is a bit heavy handed. He clearly did not intend to shoot the girl, that makes it an accident. An accident brought on by negligence to be sure, but still an accident. Pulling the trigger was 100% negligence for the reasons I and others have stated. The end result was an accident.

FrontSight
November 20, 2008, 04:29 PM
peetzakilla: That is exactly what I've been saying, and I agree almost 100%.

I say almost, b/c it really certainly could have been a ricochet of a very steep angle that killed the girl.

I have personally shot a .45 handgun at an outdoor range where the bullet would hit the ground behind the targets they set out and then ricochet up and hit the back stop at about 60 feet in the air!

Who know what kind of an angle his bullet could have been deflected...maybe as much as 45 degrees or more?? He could have shot in what he "knew" to be a safe angle away from the house, yet the bullet got deflected in an angle he never imagined possible. The evidence will have to tell the story.

He IS, however, guilty of shooting less than 400 feet from the house, but that's another matter.

Sportdog
November 21, 2008, 02:49 PM
Sorry if I got your knickers in a twist. I didn't think that I was being judgemental. I thought that it was worth pointing out the excercise in trying and convicting the hunter on the internet as being a pure waste of time. What you call "spirited debate" I call venom. A little self imposed thought process of not being so quick to judge makes sense to me, especially since you don't have access to the facts. As I have dealt with people with your position many times in the past I guess that I should have stayed out of the thread. Instead of shooting the messenger, why not take a moment and reflect of what is really going on by some in this thread. :(

Creature
November 21, 2008, 03:59 PM
Dallas Jack wrote:
No where in any of the articles did I see any info about what he did or did not know about the area he was hunting.

If he didnt know anything, he SHOULD HAVE.

If he did, he is not only negligent, then he showed depraved indifference.

Either way, throw the book at him.

Scrap5000 wrote
He could have shot in what he "knew" to be a safe angle away from the house, yet the bullet got deflected in an angle he never imagined possible.

And that is EXACTLY why he should have known exactly where he was...as well as why he should have known the maximum distance his firearm's danger zone in ANY/ EVERY DIRECTION. It doesn't matter if his bullet took a turn. He should have imagined it. He is culpable PERIOD.

Ignorance is not an excuse.

FrontSight
November 21, 2008, 04:07 PM
Creature, you wrote:
And that is EXACTLY why he should have known exactly where he was...as well as why he should have known the maximum distance his firearm's danger zone in ANY/ EVERY DIRECTION.

Do you know the max danger zone of a 300 win magnum rifle (or any regular rifle outside of 30-30 win type power)? It's over 5 miles. There is almost no where in NYS that you can hunt where there are no houses within 5 miles of every direction.

Creature
November 21, 2008, 04:12 PM
Okay. If that is the case, then you shouldn't be able to shoot 300Win Mag anywhere in NY state other than a range that is fully bermed with a known backstop.

If there is even a remote possibility of hitting someone, why would want to shoot?

FrontSight
November 21, 2008, 04:18 PM
Okay. If that is the case, then you shouldn't be able to shoot 300Win Mag anywhere in NY state other than a range that is fully bermed with a known backstop.

But wherever rifles are allowed then you are allowed to...as well as 7mm, 30-06, 45-70, etc etc.

So maybe (JUST MAYBE) he was shooting in a safe direction but it got deflected at 45 degrees and went into the trailer...probablt not, but who knows until the investigation is complete?

hogdogs
November 21, 2008, 04:18 PM
Scrap, But with the knowledge of the magic 5 mile rule... we also know that is in an artillery type shot. If you can hit a softball at 20 yards and compensate to hit it at 400 yards you know how much drop to account for. So how much muzzle rise would you need to hit that softball (I will give you a basketball for this) at 26,400 feet? It is our job to know and account for all possible scenarios. I have never had a bullet deflect at 45 degrees off a tree trunk but I plan for that before I shoot. Yes it does have some risk to shoot in the woods but I must mitigate those risks.
Brent

Creature
November 21, 2008, 04:22 PM
Although I may agree with the sentiment that statement is a bit heavy handed. He clearly did not intend to shoot the girl, that makes it an accident. An accident brought on by negligence to be sure, but still an accident. Pulling the trigger was 100% negligence for the reasons I and others have stated. The end result was an accident.

You must be daft. No, it was NOT an accident!

It was pure negligence. And negligence is not an accident. It never was and it never will be.

This hunter failed to assess the potential for human injury and failed to employ all possible safety measures. He did not properly assess his location and he did not mitigate the risks.

This was NOT an accidental shooting. It was shooting that could and should have been avoided if the hunter had taken the time to fully reconnoiter the area he was hunting in before he ever pulled the trigger.

Creature
November 21, 2008, 04:23 PM
But wherever rifles are allowed then you are allowed to...as well as 7mm, 30-06, 45-70, etc etc.


Give me a break. If there is no area in NY where hunting is allowed that isnt within 5 miles of a habited area, perhaps then only shotguns should be allowed for hunting.

Fremmer
November 21, 2008, 04:47 PM
Or perhaps hunting should not be allowed at all, right?

FrontSight
November 21, 2008, 04:51 PM
Seriously, and while we're at it, perhaps no gunstores should be allowed within 1 mile of a school, right?

I see now how the antis win a little bit at a time....

Creature
November 21, 2008, 04:52 PM
Or perhaps hunting should not be allowed at all, right?

Seriously, and while we're at it, perhaps no gunstores should be allowed within 1 mile of a school, right?

Okay...there is no need to be smarmy.

But stop making excuses for a stupid hunter who pulled the trigger when he shouldn't have. He pulled it and he killed someone. It wasnt accidental, it was negligent.

If you cant shoot a rifle while hunting because people are just too close, then use a shot gun.

hogdogs
November 21, 2008, 05:12 PM
Creature.... SMARMY??? At first read I saw "SAMMY"... And thought, "How did he both of them had the same name???":D:D:D:D
Brent

Creature
November 21, 2008, 05:22 PM
I see now how the antis win a little bit at a time....

The killing a young girl because a hunter choose not to follow the basic safety tenants of firearms use is never going to "win" the antis over to our cause.

Brian Pfleuger
November 21, 2008, 05:34 PM
You must be daft. No, it was NOT an accident!


and with this I am out...


Yes, I concede, he did indeed intentionally shoot the girl.

He must have, otherwise it was a negligent act that caused an accidental death.

Creature
November 21, 2008, 05:49 PM
Good. Glad to see you go. Because your belief that negligence is as good as an accident really shows how you have no understanding of the levels of indifference this hunter showed when he pulled that trigger.

There was no equipment malfunction here. If there had been, then only then would this have been an accident.

Double Naught Spy
November 21, 2008, 06:28 PM
Funny how when we don't want to really assign responsibility, we call such events "accidents."

No, it was not an accident, not in regard to responsibility or behavior. The hunter fired intentionally in a manner that turned out to be terribly unsafe and apparently illegal.

No, he did not intentionally shoot the girl, otherwise, the charge would be murder.

So we have an intentional act in an attempt to cause death, performed illegally, that resulted in an unintentional wrongful death...hence the charge of manslaughter.

Creature
November 21, 2008, 06:45 PM
Well said, Double. The sooner some here realize this idea, the better.

Fremmer
November 21, 2008, 07:06 PM
You really shouldn't call someone else "daft" and then tell us there's no need to get smarmy. I'm not being "smarmy" at all. I'm trying to understand what legal basis exists for imposing strict liability on a hunter, which is what you are asserting. I am not aware of a case from any State Court holding that hunting with a firearm is an ultra-hazardous activity (which would justify the imposition of strict liability). If you have such a case citation, please provide it. I understand that the hunter may have been negligent. But this is a different standard than the absolute strict liability standard you are attempting to impose on hunters. And why is my suggestion that all hunting should not be allowed under your standard somehow "smarmy"? After all, you are the one asserting that if there is ANY chance whatsoever that a bullet might hit a person, then hunting should not be allowed. I presume you are implying that a shotgun slug (or a shot from a shotgun) should only be allowed. Or maybe you are asserting that only arrow hunting should be allowed. Or only spear hunting. But with all of these examples, there will always be a "remote possibility" that a hunter will unintentionally hit something other than a deer.

Creature
November 21, 2008, 07:09 PM
I am sure you would feel very differently if that was your daughter who was "accidentally" killed by a hunter's "stray" bullet.

You really shouldn't call someone else "daft" and then tell us there's no need to get smarmy.

By their statements, they were both.

After all, you are the one asserting that if there is ANY chance whatsoever that a bullet might hit a person, then hunting should not be allowed.

No, I am not. I am simply saying that any/every hunter is liable for the bullet he fires. Period.

Fremmer
November 21, 2008, 07:16 PM
I presume your response indicates that you lack actual case law to support your legally incorrect assertion of strict liability for hunters. Note that I'm not calling anyone daft or smarmy. But that's just me. :)

I am simply saying that any/every hunter is liable for the bullet he fires. Period.


Once again, you are legally incorrect. Your strick liability standard is not the law, and entirely devoid of logic in the real world.

Creature
November 21, 2008, 07:16 PM
Is that what you require in order to be convinced?

Fremmer
November 21, 2008, 07:28 PM
I require the correct legal standard to be applied to the hunter, regardless of whether he or she is charged with a violation of criminal law or is sued in civil court for a tort. But in either case, your legally incorrect standard of automatic fault does not apply, and (thankfully) is rendered by a jury of peers, rather than one who castigates others (by labeling them daft or smarmy) simply because they express their opinions.

Creature
November 21, 2008, 07:31 PM
And that "correct legal standard" would be?

Fremmer
November 21, 2008, 07:35 PM
It is not strict liability as you repeatedly assert. ;)

FrontSight
November 21, 2008, 07:36 PM
Fremmer: +1 to all of that.

And by the way, the law is 500 feet, which last time I checked, a modern shotgun slug has no problem travelling (166.67 yards)...

Creature
November 21, 2008, 07:42 PM
So...are you asserting that the hunter is not strictly liable for the bullet that he fired...a bullet which struck and killed a small child in her own home due to negligence?

Creature
November 21, 2008, 07:48 PM
And by the way, the law is 500 feet, which last time I checked, a modern shotgun slug has no problem travelling (166.67 yards)...

You see a hunter 500 ft away from you and pointing a rifle in your direction...your cool with that?...because you know the law?

FrontSight
November 21, 2008, 08:10 PM
1. So...are you asserting that the hunter is not strictly liable for the bullet that he fired...a bullet which struck and killed a small child in her own home due to negligence?

If you remove the fact that he was 100 feet less than the law states, then HOW do you KNOW he was negligent, without all of the facts?? It could have been a ricochet of a serious angle for all we know.

2. You see a hunter 500 ft away from you and pointing a rifle in your direction...your cool with that?...because you know the law?

Who said I am cool with that?

If I am in the open in full orange and he sees me and still fires in my general direction then we've got serious problems.

If he doesn't see me b/c of thick woods (which, by the way, most NYers know you often times can't see full orange at 50 feet, let aone 500 b/c the woods are so thick), then I can't blame the guy if there are no residences around.

If he's 600 feet away from my house, and fires at a 45 degree angle away from my house into thick woods, and it ricochets at that 45 degrees and hits my house and kills someone, can he be blamed & charged, under the law?

Seems to me that Fremmer is saying no, he can't, because there is no strict liability for hunting, agreed?

And could I blame the guy? No, I don't think I really could...but I hope to God I never have to find out!!

Creature
November 21, 2008, 08:58 PM
It could have been a ricochet of a serious angle for all we know.

If it was in fact a ricochet, does a ricochet somehow make him no longer responsible?

If he doesn't see me b/c of thick woods (which, by the way, most NYers know you often times can't see full orange at 50 feet, let aone 500 b/c the woods are so thick), then I can't blame the guy if there are no residences around.

Perhaps we start painting our homes blaze orange during hunting season so that hunters dont shot in our direction.

Seems to me that Fremmer is saying no, he can't, because there is no strict liability for hunting, agreed?

Isnt there? Fremmer certainly hasnt actual been established that either way. But based on the charges that have been brought against the hunter, I would say that the prosecutor thinks there is quite a bit liability involved.

Dallas Jack
November 21, 2008, 09:35 PM
I am amazed at some of the logic used to find culpability in the incident. Some of the comments made here border on the absurd. Let's at lest look at some of the things both known and unknown.

1. The 500 ft limit is voided with permission of the land owner. Did he have permission? Do not know.

2 Did he know the trailer was there or could he see it? Do not know. And as the area he intended to hunt was not identified we have no idea how far he tracked the deer.

3. He did fire a second shot at the deer from a location other than the one he was hunting from. When he fired this second shot was he in an area that he was familiar with? Do not know.

4. The child was visiting she did not live there. Was she normally there? Do not know.

5. Was his gun pointed in the direction of the trailer (we know it was pointed at the deer) when he fired the fatal shot? You simply can not predict the path of a bullet fired into the forest. Do not know.

This is why we have trials, to discover the truth and the facts. But it seems that some will write their own facts to fit their judgement.

It is a fact that a little girl died and by his actions a man has lost all hope of a peacefull future both in this own mind and in the world he lives in. No verdict can save him. He is truly doomed to his own hell.

Be safe
Dallas Jack

Swampghost
November 21, 2008, 09:44 PM
'Experienced hunter', I'd say not. He should have known that the dwelling was there and not fired towards it, occupied or not.

'Experienced hunter', who is this? I was invited to hunt private land in NC that had been in their family for generations. I caught a really nice buck out of the corner of my eye (no time to count points but nice) pass behind a stand of bushes. The buck proceeds to thrash the bushes for about 10 mins. with me only being able to catch patches of hide through some holes then the deer just evaporates, must have trailed off with the bushes in my line of sight. The 'experienced hunter' could see all of this and asked why I didn't fire through the bushes. He also didn't seem to comprehend having a clear target. HE would have taken the shot.

Being in the woods with 'experienced hunters' can be scary at times. I've often wondered 'What if that was me just setting up a temp. blind?'.

jdscholer
November 21, 2008, 11:53 PM
Lightning strike fatalities in our country average about 60 per year.
Negligence aside, I would put the odds of this type of firearm fatality in about the same catagory as lightning strikes.
I never seem to read about lightning fatalities. Do ya think that the media would over publicize firearm fatalities....naaah.:rolleyes: jd

Double Naught Spy
November 22, 2008, 08:32 AM
Lightning strike fatalities in our country average about 60 per year.
Negligence aside, I would put the odds of this type of firearm fatality in about the same catagory as lightning strikes.
I never seem to read about lightning fatalities. Do ya think that the media would over publicize firearm fatalities....naaah.

You probably don't seem to notice the lightning fatalities quite so much because you are not a participant in meteorological forums where such events are more noteworthy.

Be that as it may, lightning strikes are not the result of negligence and so are not nearly as newsworthy. A firearms incident involves at least twice the number of parties as a lightning strike (victim versus the shooter and victim). Notice that along similar lines, the number of stories about single party hunting incidents are largely missed by the media as well and make up very little discussion on related forums such as this one.

With that said, currently more people are killed by lightning strikes than in hunting incidents. The real difference is that 2 party hunting incidents involve negligence on the part of one or both parties. In 2007, there were some 180 such 2 party incidents, fortunately of which only a fraction were fatal. However, because some form of negligence was involved, they could have been avoided. There were another 50+ single party incidents you probably never heard anything about, huh?

http://6fbd21e64bc817fd097aa54148bd3dab37bc10ee.gripelements.com/documents/Incidents/HIC2007Mar08.pdf

Creature
November 22, 2008, 08:37 AM
Dallas Jack wrote:
1. The 500 ft limit is voided with permission of the land owner. Did he have permission? Do not know.

2 Did he know the trailer was there or could he see it? Do not know. And as the area he intended to hunt was not identified we have no idea how far he tracked the deer.

3. He did fire a second shot at the deer from a location other than the one he was hunting from. When he fired this second shot was he in an area that he was familiar with? Do not know.

4. The child was visiting she did not live there. Was she normally there? Do not know.

5. Was his gun pointed in the direction of the trailer (we know it was pointed at the deer) when he fired the fatal shot? You simply can not predict the path of a bullet fired into the forest. Do not know.

I am amazed at the logic that some have used to shirk culpability in this incident. Regarding the points you bring up in your list:

1. What does this have to do with anything about this case? Nothing. The owner surely never gave permission for the hunter to shot intentionally or otherwise at his home.

2. If he didn't know, he should have. You should not hunt an area that you are not completely familiar with...especially if you don't know if there are homes nearby. If he did know, then he is also guilty of depraved indifference.

3. Again...basic safety rules apply. And every hunter has to pass a hunter safety course before being issued a hunting license. Go look up firearms safety rules as relating to your target. Never mind: I'll do it for you:
Safety Rules Related to Your Target:

1. Positively identify your target and the threat it poses before firing at it.
2. What's behind your target? Always make sure that a stray shot, or a bullet which penetrates its intended target through and through, will be safely stopped.
3. Never shoot at a hard surface, or at water -- your shot may glance off, ricochet and injure someone.
4. Never shoot at glass bottles, living trees, or inappropriate targets which would create a hazard for other persons or damage the environment.
5. Never shoot a rifle or handgun directly upwards, or at a high angle of elevation. Even a rimfire .22 bullet fired at an angle into the air can have enough energy a mile and a half away to accidentally kill someone!
6. Never shoot across a highway or other roadway.
7. Never vandalize a road sign (or other public or private property) by using it as a target.
8. Never poach a game animal out of season, or shoot any game animal you don't intend to eat.

4. Why does this matter...the little girl was INSIDE HER TRAILER HOME which the bullet pierced before striking her. Are you suggesting that this little girl is somehow at fault because she caught a 'stray bullet'?
5. This one doesn't matter either...he fired the bullet. He is responsible even for his bullets that ricochet...if that is indeed what happened. See rule #2 above.

hogdogs
November 22, 2008, 08:38 AM
Off topic of negligent shooting but on lightning strike... When I was a wee little boy I was taught that 2-4mississippi seconds was when we need to seek cover... Now I hear 12 is much wiser. I wonder who was tryin' to get me kilt in that aluminum row boat???:o:eek:
Brent

Creature
November 22, 2008, 09:57 AM
Lightning strike fatalities in our country average about 60 per year.
Negligence aside, I would put the odds of this type of firearm fatality in about the same catagory as lightning strikes.
I never seem to read about lightning fatalities. Do ya think that the media would over publicize firearm fatalities....naaah.

This was a homicide. What do the odds of anything have to do with this homicide?

Lightning strike fatalities are freak casualties of nature. Firearm fatalities are because someone put their finger on the trigger and pulled it...intentionally or otherwise. There is no force of nature involved.

hogdogs
November 22, 2008, 11:23 AM
Okay here goes... I just went out to scout some on the EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE. I entered on a HIKING TRAIL that is part of the Florida Trail Association. On the entry sign it plainly states that hikers must wear the Blaze Orange required of hunters during legal hunting season. Why does this bear mention? The powers that be expect everyone to use good judgment when in the woods either hunting or tree hugging.
Okay so off I go looking for sign and ciphering the population of deer. I came upon a mans spot that he had set up in a nice hidey hole complete with 2 green plastic chairs and matching end table. How I found it was circling what appeared to be a great bedding site on cold nights or possibly a rendezvous point. Just a hundred yards previous I had picked out a natural blind overlooking that very spot. The person using the chairs would have had no idea I was there nor would I know he was present. Since I wasn't carrying compass nor maps I wasn't heading into the "bottoms" where I choose to go to avoid the slob hunters. If I chose to hunt the high ground I would further scout and likely limit my self to 00 buck or possibly the slug if I can find clear shooting lanes. Culpability is all on the shooter from the time they pull the trigger. I don't care if the bullet does loopy loops and turns corners before reversing direction... And I am not trying to sound holier than thou... That same culpability is my main concern even while packing my gear at the house. Hunting is one of the more serious endeavors a human can undertake! As for the child just visiting this house... It would have been okay to poke a hole in a domicile so long as it don't hit anyone?
Brent

jdscholer
November 22, 2008, 01:47 PM
"This was a homicide. What do the odds of anything have to do with this homicide?"

This man is guilty of homicide much the way that a father would be if his child were killed by lightning as they fished together in a boat on a lake on a cloudy day.
Let's not assign more blame to this guy than he deserves until the facts are in. jd

Creature
November 22, 2008, 04:43 PM
This man is guilty of homicide much the way that a father would be if his child were killed by lightning as they fished together in a boat on a lake on a cloudy day.
Let's not assign more blame to this guy than he deserves until the facts are in. jd

You have got to be kidding us. How is getting struck by lightning the same as shooting a someone....even "accidentally"?

Double Naught Spy
November 22, 2008, 11:42 PM
This man is guilty of homicide much the way that a father would be if his child were killed by lightning as they fished together in a boat on a lake on a cloudy day.

Um, no.

Pulling the trigger on a gun and killing a child as a result is not the same thing as an act of God.

Dallas Jack
November 23, 2008, 01:57 AM
I am amazed at the logic that some have used to shirk culpability in this incident. Regarding the points you bring up in your list:

1. What does this have to do with anything about this case? Nothing. The owner surely never gave permission for the hunter to shot intentionally or otherwise at his home.

2. If he didn't know, he should have. You should not hunt an area that you are not completely familiar with...especially if you don't know if there are homes nearby. If he did know, then he is also guilty of depraved indifference.

3. Again...basic safety rules apply. And every hunter has to pass a hunter safety course before being issued a hunting license. Go look up firearms safety rules as relating to your target. Never mind: I'll do it for you:

4. Why does this matter...the little girl was INSIDE HER TRAILER HOME which the bullet pierced before striking her. Are you suggesting that this little girl is somehow at fault because she caught a 'stray bullet'?




1. It has been bought up as a contributing factor on this thread even to the point of if he was standing further away by just one more foot this would not have happened.

2,3. We do not know the relationship between his intentional hunting area and the location of the fatal shot.

4. On the contrary, I am not assigning blame on anyone, most certianly not the little girl. The point here was she would not have been there had he decided to hunt at a different time. Does that matter? Not really, just clearing up something that had been stated in other replies that was in error.


2. What's behind your target? Always make sure that a stray shot, or a bullet which penetrates its intended target through and through, will be safely stopped.
3. Never shoot at a hard surface, or at water -- your shot may glance off, ricochet and injure someone.
4. Never shoot at glass bottles, living trees, or inappropriate targets which would create a hazard for other persons or damage the environment.


2. He was tracking a wounded animal, maybe outside of his hunting area. How would you handle this?
3,4. He was not shooting at any of the above targets. His target was a deer. As it turned out it was a bad decision.

I am not defending the hunter, only his right to a fair trial without bias or preudice. No one on this forum has privy to the facts. (If I am wrong and you know more than was reported please sound off so we can put this one to rest)

If you haven't noticed by now, I have no confidence in the reporting of facts in our media. Is this guy guilty of second degree manslaughter? I do not know as I again say, I DO NOT HAVE THE FACTS. Do you?

Be Safe
Dallas Jack

Double Naught Spy
November 23, 2008, 08:00 AM
2. He was tracking a wounded animal, maybe outside of his hunting area. How would you handle this?

Interesting, if you don't have the facts, then how do you know he was tracking a wounded animal?

FYI, it isn't the tracking that was the problem. It was the shooting. He may have been tracking a wounded animal and got in a position to shoot it, but he obviously didn't know what was beyond the animal (assuming innocence here). The simple point of the matter is that he should not have taken the shot.

He buggered his first shot and completely screwed up on his second shot. Wow.

If you haven't noticed by now, I have no confidence in the reporting of facts in our media. Is this guy guilty of second degree manslaughter? I do not know as I again say, I DO NOT HAVE THE FACTS. Do you?

Any yet you keep arguing for only specific "facts" you claim you don't have and don't trust. How convenient.

You are playing both sides of the fence and that doesn't jive very well.

Art Eatman
November 23, 2008, 09:40 AM
This thread has gotten to be as bad as the one about the kid up in the Pacific NW who shot a woman. Circular nit-picking to the nth degree.

Let's not get too nit-picky about word usage. Accident = unintended event. ("I didn't mean for that to happen!") It might or might not have resulted from negligence. Generally, negligence = carelessness or sloppiness in either thinking or doing. (Lotsa kids could be named Oops.)

There's just too much egregious stretching of the what-if in these threads.

And that's why this one is done.

Back to morning coffee...

Art

Creature
November 23, 2008, 02:20 PM
Let's not get too nit-picky about word usage.

My bet is that the lawyers on both sides of this case will be nit-picky about word usage when this comes to trial...

FrontSight
November 24, 2008, 11:59 AM
Art, did you mean mean to close it down?

Anyway, in before the lock: I have to agree with Art's "It was an 'accident' in that it was unintentional."

And yah, stop nitpicking already...