Quote:
|
I agree FrontSight, it seems like someone should have blown thier horn here! Yes, the shootee is a "fault" for failure to identify his target! I am not a lawyer & don't play one on TV so I won't get into what his charges should be. But identifying fault does nothing for this 5yr old boy. I know a 5yr old can't sit as long as an adult. But keep him down as long as he is interested, and then leave! Teach him to respect the hunting ground and any possible other hunters & to seperate "hunting" & "playing". Just my opinion!
|
Well, I don't think that in this case it was the boy's fault at all, and blaming the father probably goes a bit too far as well. Could the father have been more careful than to gobble on public land, and have his 5 year old moving around? Sure. But can he be blamed? I don't think so. For a few reasons:
1) I'd have to say that the fault in this case lies 100% with the shooter, as he did not 100% identify his target. There was no turkey; he shot at what he THOUGHT was a turkey, but he did not make sure that it was, indeed, a turkey. If there had been a turkey, and the boy and his dad had been behind the turkey, then it more understandable, but of course then he would still have violated the "know what's behind your target" rule.
2) The boy and his father did not know that there was another hunter out there, so they could not have warned him. It's not as if they knew the danger and chose to not do anything about it, so I can't blame them for that.
So in the end, I'm still saying that if you are hidden, and you KNOW there is another hunter out there, and you don't warn them even though you easily could have, and they shoot at a true, legitimate target, then you can't 100% blame the shooter.
If you are up in a tree, where no one would hesitate to shoot at because it's always considered safe, then I'd say it's 100% the fault of the person who got shot, unless they were asleep or for some reason had no way to warn the other hunter or did not know the other hunter was there.
Just my opinion, and from what I have heard the state conservation investigators agree with this, or at least do not charge the shooter.