Hunter mistakes five-year-old boy for turkey

[Double Naught Spy]

No doubt; these days it's crazy to let your kids out of your sight in the supermarket, much less the woods while hunting. I agree, epic fail X 2.

But I think the father was an idiot, taking his kid out on public land without orange gear, and using a gobble to boot.

Oh yeah, no parent should ever take his/her child hunting for turkey in typical turkey hunting attire.

So you don't use a gobble for huntng if people in your hunting party are under what age? Why are these the actions of idiots just because a child is present. If the actions could get the child shot, they could get the hunter shot and therefore would be idiotic behaivor in general. Are you saying that all camo turkey hunters who use calls to bring in birds are therefore idiots because other hunters may shoot them?

[MLeake]

All turkey hunters who do so on public land, without knowing there are no other hunters are in the same area, are taking a huge risk. Doing so with a little kid seems asinine to me, yes, DNS.

Seems most of the guys here who use camp and calls do so in bounded areas, not open ones.

[MLeake]

He means what he said: it is not manslaughter without a death. It could still be various levels of assault, aggravated assault, etc. But murder or manslaughter charges require a death, and attempted murder typically requires intent.

[gearhounds]

Yes there are risks to going out hunting on public land in full camouflage since turkey have excellent vision. The guy was an IDIOT for shooting at a target he could not identify. DNS, are you not a hunter, or at least understand the danger inherent to shooting at something you couldn't identify?

Accidents happen, but this was not in that category; I'll say it again (and again, and again, apparently). Don't shoot at a target you cannot identify. PERIOD. What kind of fool would loose a shot at a vague cam-ish blob in the brush during turkey season? In the same situation, I know I would be thinking "hmm...wonder if by chance another hunter might be out here gobbling?".

[teeroux]

Even types of assault or batterys require intent. So with what would he be charged?

Negligent Injury? Perhaps but good luck with that after he gets a **** lawyer involved to defend him in court the lawyer will make it look like the dad was throwing his son under busses.

I don't defend the guy shooting the kid but I won't call an accident murder either. Yes I think it was an accident, a person out hunting, adrenaline going waiting for a shot on what he think is a turkey, the last thing on his mind is camoflaged 5yr olds roaming the woods on marked public hunting land.

If any party involved were to have used anything more than minimum thought into what they were doing out there, it never would have happend.

[jimpeel]

lineman22-250,

Easy. The mods are intolerant of that type of post.

Attack the post, not the poster.

[thallub]

We can talk this one to death. It does not change the fact that the hunter shot a kid in an act of negligence.

["JJ"]

RULE #4 - Be absolutely sure of your target, and what is beyond it. If the hunter followed this rule this thread would not exist & a 5 yr old boy might be hooked on hunting for life. The hunter who did fire at an obvious unknown target is solely to blame. I work in a very large industrial area. We have 100s of forklifts running about everyday! Reguardless of the situation, THE PEDESTRIAN ALWAYS HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY! Having said that, I still look around corners before I pop around it. Even though I have the right of way & the company would take care of any injuries, I still may be dead or permanently disabled. The fork driver is still at fault, but I may have been able to prevent it! POINT: the Dad might have been able to prevent it. This is probably eating up the Dad in hindsight! I think one of the parties SHOULD have seen the other come in and sit down. Maybe not! I would like to think that there are precautions one could take to prevent this. I for one, would make sure my child was seated beside me at all times! This is a tough situation for all involved. Prayers sent for all

[MLeake]

I don't think anybody feels the hunter was not grossly negligent. However, I really think those who want to go with camo and calls are better off on private land or leases, because there are a lot of others out there like the hunter in this scenario.

Don't believe it? Talk to anyone who owns livestock near public hunting areas.

["JJ"]

I agree MLeake, as with many things in life there are risk we must accept. I choose not to access public hunting grounds during seasons. But I don't hunt the "prime" species. I hunt predators so during the prime season I do stay on private land! This father may not have access to private land. Again I agree with your point & no, I don't think you,re an idiot for having it! Even though orange is not required, it might have prevented this from happening. While teaching our youth to enjoy nature, we must also teach them to do so safely & responsibly! This may have also prevented this from happening if the hunters father had done so when he was a child! I know the hunter feals terrible, as does the Dad!

["JJ"]

I also think the title of this thread is incorrect. The hunter did not identify his target! Just an opinion that belongs to me!

[FrontSight]

Just in case there are any misunderstandings of my posts, let me clarify:

I agree that the hunter is definitely at fault in this case for not identifying his target 100%; I do not dispute that at all.

What I am saying is that there are times when a hunter clearly DOES identfy his target, and takes a shot at what he or she believes to be a safe direction, and there happens to be someone camoflagued behind the target, who knew that there was a hunter there and could have easily warned him or her of their presence and did not do so.

That person, in my opinion, is just as much at fault as the hunter, possibly even more so. If the camo wearing hunter was up in a tree, and awake, and able to easily warn the other hunter, and did not, then I honestly feel it is practically 100% their fault.

We all have to share what resources we have, and we have to be smart and use common sense while doing so.

For example: That is why cars have horns; to warn someone that what they are doing is dangerous and is going to cause an accident. If you see that someone is going to possibly crash into you or into others, you blow the horn to warn them.

The same common sense applies to hunting. If you see another hunter approaching, and you are not visible to them, well then by God it is just common sense to warm them of your presence. And if you do not then it is at least partly your own fault if you get shot, and can even possibly be completely your own fault (if you are up in a tree, for example, since no hunter would hesitate to shoot in that direction).

["JJ"]

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!

[FrontSight]

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.

[highvel]

Excuses for accidentally shooting another person hunting ????? Hmm ????? That's what they are, just excuses for doing something stupid and unthinkable, I can not think of ANY justification for the person pulling the trigger, period!

If you can not see, stay out of the woods!
If you can not identify the quarry you are after stay home!
If you are too stupid to hunt, do not hunt!
Sell all of your firearms and buy air-soft guns so maybe you wont hurt anyone!

[Double Naught Spy]

I remember that story...I thought she was actually shot in her own backyard, no?

You and I know the same story. That was Karen Wood. She was shot by a guy named Don Rogerson. He claimed to have seen a deer and within a minute or so of going outside in her own back yard, she was shot and killed. There were NO deer tracks anywhere near here despite Rogerson's claims to have been tracking a deer. Everyone in Maine knows better than to go in their yards with white on lest they be shot as a deer, which seemed to be the attitude of many of the local and hence why Rogerson didn't end up in the penn. Rogerson did not do time despite not identifying his target and firing within 300 feet of a house (he was 188 feet away from Woods, but 286 feet away from the neighbor's house). He did pay $122,000 to Karen Wood's family, of which $100,000 came from his home owner's insurance.

I have a feeling that we might be having a slightly different discussion had the hunter shot at his "turkey" and gotten a for real turkey and somehow in the process some of the pellets missed and hit the child and father because the hunter was not aware of his backstop. At least then we could know that the hunter actually saw a turkey. No turkey, blood, or feathers to support the claim of a turkey, then it is hard to believe it is there.

In following up IHEA reports and finding articles, I am a bit perplexed at how many people claim to have seen animals they were shooting at, but mysteriously hit a human instead, but don't come up with a dead animal. Some are valid, no doubt, as the hunter was just a poor shot. Some are you typical "swing through" problems where there is a group and one member shoots another as something like a dove flies between them. It is the ones where the hunter shoots another person not known to be there and shoots doesn't have any prey to show either that seem most like possible cases of misidentification, sound shots, movement shots, etc.

Could the father have been more careful than to gobble on public land, and have his 5 year old moving around?

Did I miss a link? Do we actually know what the father and kid were doing at the time of being shot? I realize buck460XVR says he heard this, but I haven't seen a single report to indicate this went on. It may have, just no video, audio, or text I have heard/seen has this information.

["JJ"]

I was not aware of any facts of what was hapening at the time of the shot. I guess all we will ever know is what was reported. Truth or not! I was simply stating my opinion on the comment that the kid was in camo & moving around. My comment that the Dad may have been able to prevent this wasn't ment to apply any blame to him. Just a lesson we all may be able to take away from this. Preparing for a posibility. I hold the shooter 100% responsible also. My comment "someone should have blown thier horn" was in referance to FrontSights analogy suggesting that one of the parties, which ever came in first, should have made the other aware of thier presence. And I agree also this wouldn't be close to the same debate if there was a dead turkey in front of the boy and his Dad!

[FrontSight]

I have a feeling that we might be having a slightly different discussion had the hunter shot at his "turkey" and gotten a for real turkey and somehow in the process some of the pellets missed and hit the child and father because the hunter was not aware of his backstop. At least then we could know that the hunter actually saw a turkey. No turkey, blood, or feathers to support the claim of a turkey, then it is hard to believe it is there.

In following up IHEA reports and finding articles, I am a bit perplexed at how many people claim to have seen animals they were shooting at, but mysteriously hit a human instead, but don't come up with a dead animal. Some are valid, no doubt, as the hunter was just a poor shot. Some are you typical "swing through" problems where there is a group and one member shoots another as something like a dove flies between them. It is the ones where the hunter shoots another person not known to be there and shoots doesn't have any prey to show either that seem most like possible cases of misidentification, sound shots, movement shots, etc.

I agree with all of that; if there is no blood, hair, feathers, dead animal, etc, then we can never really know how many were shooting at true animals that they identified vs. fibbing to not go to jail / get a citation. The investigation does search for all possible evidence to see if there was indeed an animal present, and if there was then there is much less chance that the shooter will be charged with anything. Of course you're always supposed to know your backstop, but the reality of things is that it is close to impossible to always know 100% in thickly forested areas, especially early in the season when the foliage is dense, and you're not stand hunting since before dawn, but instead moving around from place to place, and it becomes a million times more difficult if others are wearing camo. That's where common sense comes into play by all parties, and you do your best to let others know that you are present. It doesn't take much; a simple shout or a whistle works wonders for avoiding a tragedy.

Anyone here hunt quail? In densely forested, or hilly areas? If you do then you will know exactly what I am talking about. The fly flat, and at face level. Even if they fly upwards, you could be shooting at what you believe is a safe angle, with your bead pointed at tree tops, but it turns out that behind those trees is a hill, and you're actually shooting at someone's chest who is standing on that hill. Are you supposed to learn every single hill and gully and memorize their exact location in relation to your position at every moment and direction at all times, before ever firing a single shot, lest you be charged with murder when you fire at a truly legitimate target and at what you believe to be a safe angle?

Seems a bit unrealistic to me. Would it not make more sense to do your best to warn one another? Perhaps require that small game hunters carry a beeper, like the electronic dog collars, to warn others of their approach?

If I heard you coming towards me, would you not want me to give you a friendly "HELLO! CAREFUL THERE, GOOD BUDDY!"? Or would you prefer that I remained as still as a statue and quiet as a mouse and then have you sent to prison for life for murder, and my family sue you for every penny you have left when you shoot me because a grouse flushed in between us and I was standing on a hill above you?

I honestly think rules can be taken too literally, to the point that common sense gets thrown out. Perhaps we should revise rule number 4 to: "Know your target and what is beyond, and always notify others of your presence if at all possible."

Quote:
Could the father have been more careful than to gobble on public land, and have his 5 year old moving around?

Did I miss a link? Do we actually know what the father and kid were doing at the time of being shot? I realize buck460XVR says he heard this, but I haven't seen a single report to indicate this went on. It may have, just no video, audio, or text I have heard/seen has this information.

I am not sure; just going by what was said above...

[Double Naught Spy]

I am not sure; just going by what was said above...

Okay, so we have one report of something heard, not backed up by any sources the rest of us can verify that doesn't match any of the other reports that we can verify and from that the father has been condemned as being at fault and irresponsible as a father and a hunter for his supposed acts. Okay, I am up to speed now.

I thought this was a good article. It notes that the boy's injuries were lessened by the fact that he was so far away from the hunter and noted that a shot at that distance was risky given the conditions.

I also liked this quote of the DNR game warden,

“He was spending quality time with his father out in the woods, which isn’t uncommon,” Lee told TODAY’S TMJ4 reporter Tom Murray. “I see it all the time.”

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/120134774.html

[Art Eatman]

This thread seems be headed toward the 'round and 'round, which becomes a waste of bandwidth.