|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 20, 2008, 08:53 AM | #26 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Creature; November 20, 2008 at 09:02 AM. |
|
November 20, 2008, 11:31 AM | #27 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 386
|
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?
Creature Quote:
Quote:
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 |
||
November 20, 2008, 12:12 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,712
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
November 20, 2008, 03:13 PM | #29 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 28, 2006
Location: Southwestern Michigan
Posts: 369
|
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. 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"
|
November 20, 2008, 03:41 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,712
|
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?
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
November 20, 2008, 03:51 PM | #31 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
November 20, 2008, 04:29 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2005
Posts: 1,712
|
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.
__________________
To kill something as great as a duck just to smell the gunpowder is a crime against nature. - Alan Liere Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. - George Bernard Shaw Last edited by FrontSight; November 20, 2008 at 04:35 PM. Reason: typo |
November 21, 2008, 02:49 PM | #33 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 28, 2006
Location: Southwestern Michigan
Posts: 369
|
00Spy
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.
|
November 21, 2008, 03:59 PM | #34 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Dallas Jack wrote:
Quote:
If he did, he is not only negligent, then he showed depraved indifference. Either way, throw the book at him. Scrap5000 wrote Quote:
Ignorance is not an excuse. |
||
November 21, 2008, 04:07 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2005
Posts: 1,712
|
Creature, you wrote:
Quote:
__________________
To kill something as great as a duck just to smell the gunpowder is a crime against nature. - Alan Liere Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. - George Bernard Shaw |
|
November 21, 2008, 04:12 PM | #36 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
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? |
November 21, 2008, 04:18 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2005
Posts: 1,712
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
To kill something as great as a duck just to smell the gunpowder is a crime against nature. - Alan Liere Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. - George Bernard Shaw |
|
November 21, 2008, 04:18 PM | #38 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
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 |
November 21, 2008, 04:22 PM | #39 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Creature; November 21, 2008 at 04:29 PM. |
|
November 21, 2008, 04:23 PM | #40 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Quote:
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. |
|
November 21, 2008, 04:47 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 3,482
|
Or perhaps hunting should not be allowed at all, right?
|
November 21, 2008, 04:51 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2005
Posts: 1,712
|
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....
__________________
To kill something as great as a duck just to smell the gunpowder is a crime against nature. - Alan Liere Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. - George Bernard Shaw Last edited by FrontSight; November 21, 2008 at 04:52 PM. Reason: typo |
November 21, 2008, 04:52 PM | #43 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
November 21, 2008, 05:12 PM | #44 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Creature.... SMARMY??? At first read I saw "SAMMY"... And thought, "How did he both of them had the same name???"
Brent |
November 21, 2008, 05:22 PM | #45 | |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Quote:
|
|
November 21, 2008, 05:34 PM | #46 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
November 21, 2008, 05:49 PM | #47 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
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. |
November 21, 2008, 06:28 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,712
|
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.
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
November 21, 2008, 06:45 PM | #49 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
|
Well said, Double. The sooner some here realize this idea, the better.
|
November 21, 2008, 07:06 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 3,482
|
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.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|