The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 20, 2008, 08:53 AM   #26
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
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.

Last edited by Creature; November 20, 2008 at 09:02 AM.
Creature is offline  
Old November 20, 2008, 11:31 AM   #27
Dallas Jack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 381
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:
Any 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.

Quote:
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
Dallas Jack is offline  
Old November 20, 2008, 12:12 PM   #28
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,560
Quote:
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.
__________________
"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
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 20, 2008, 03:13 PM   #29
Sportdog
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"
Sportdog is offline  
Old November 20, 2008, 03:41 PM   #30
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,560
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
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 20, 2008, 03:51 PM   #31
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
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.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old November 20, 2008, 04:29 PM   #32
FrontSight
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
FrontSight is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 02:49 PM   #33
Sportdog
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.
Sportdog is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 03:59 PM   #34
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Dallas Jack wrote:
Quote:
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
Quote:
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.
Creature is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 04:07 PM   #35
FrontSight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2005
Posts: 1,712
Creature, you wrote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
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
FrontSight is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 04:12 PM   #36
Creature
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?
Creature is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 04:18 PM   #37
FrontSight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2005
Posts: 1,712
Quote:
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?
__________________
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
FrontSight is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 04:18 PM   #38
hogdogs
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 04:22 PM   #39
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
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.

Last edited by Creature; November 21, 2008 at 04:29 PM.
Creature is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 04:23 PM   #40
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
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.
Creature is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 04:47 PM   #41
Fremmer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 3,482
Or perhaps hunting should not be allowed at all, right?
Fremmer is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 04:51 PM   #42
FrontSight
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
FrontSight is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 04:52 PM   #43
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
Or perhaps hunting should not be allowed at all, right?
Quote:
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.
Creature is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 05:12 PM   #44
hogdogs
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 05:22 PM   #45
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
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.
Creature is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 05:34 PM   #46
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
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.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 05:49 PM   #47
Creature
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.
Creature is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 06:28 PM   #48
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,560
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
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 06:45 PM   #49
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Well said, Double. The sooner some here realize this idea, the better.
Creature is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 07:06 PM   #50
Fremmer
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.
Fremmer is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12781 seconds with 7 queries