The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 21, 2008, 07:09 PM   #51
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
I am sure you would feel very differently if that was your daughter who was "accidentally" killed by a hunter's "stray" bullet.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Creature is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 07:16 PM   #52
Fremmer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 3,482
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.

Quote:
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.
Fremmer is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 07:16 PM   #53
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Is that what you require in order to be convinced?
Creature is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 07:28 PM   #54
Fremmer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 3,482
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.
Fremmer is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 07:31 PM   #55
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
And that "correct legal standard" would be?
Creature is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 07:35 PM   #56
Fremmer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2005
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 3,482
It is not strict liability as you repeatedly assert.
Fremmer is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 07:36 PM   #57
FrontSight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2005
Posts: 1,712
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)...
__________________
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, 07:42 PM   #58
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
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 is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 07:48 PM   #59
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
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?
Creature is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 08:10 PM   #60
FrontSight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2005
Posts: 1,712
1.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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!!
__________________
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, 08:58 PM   #61
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Creature is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 09:35 PM   #62
Dallas Jack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 381
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
Dallas Jack is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 09:44 PM   #63
Swampghost
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: Florida, east coast
Posts: 2,106
'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?'.
__________________
NRA Patron Member
Swampghost is offline  
Old November 21, 2008, 11:53 PM   #64
jdscholer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2008
Location: Jefferson State
Posts: 895
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. jd
__________________
"We're all dummies, just in different ways." Old Okie Philosopher
jdscholer is offline  
Old November 22, 2008, 08:32 AM   #65
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,384
Quote:
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://6fbd21e64bc817fd097aa54148bd3...C2007Mar08.pdf
__________________
"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 22, 2008, 08:37 AM   #66
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Dallas Jack wrote:
Quote:
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.
Creature is offline  
Old November 22, 2008, 08:38 AM   #67
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
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???
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old November 22, 2008, 09:57 AM   #68
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
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.
Creature is offline  
Old November 22, 2008, 11:23 AM   #69
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,071
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old November 22, 2008, 01:47 PM   #70
jdscholer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2008
Location: Jefferson State
Posts: 895
"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
__________________
"We're all dummies, just in different ways." Old Okie Philosopher

Last edited by jdscholer; November 22, 2008 at 01:50 PM. Reason: add quotations
jdscholer is offline  
Old November 22, 2008, 04:43 PM   #71
Creature
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 8, 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,769
Quote:
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"?
Creature is offline  
Old November 22, 2008, 11:42 PM   #72
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,384
Quote:
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.
__________________
"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 23, 2008, 01:57 AM   #73
Dallas Jack
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 25, 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 381
Quote:
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.


Quote:
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
Dallas Jack is offline  
Old November 23, 2008, 08:00 AM   #74
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague County, Texas
Posts: 10,384
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"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 23, 2008, 09:40 AM   #75
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,423
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
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman 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 06:57 AM.


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 0.13059 seconds with 7 queries