Hunter shoots 2 people Accidentally, Kills one

[243rem700]

This is a terrible accident. How can anyone shoot at anything without knowing what it is. If it's too dark to see your target clearly, it's time to pack up and go home. To me this was not an accident it was murder.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Do I think it should be required on public hunting ground during hunting season for non-hunters, yes.

If the hunter can't see you at a distance (which could happen with natural colors in a forest environment - even without camo) then there is no good way for the shooter to verify what's beyond his target. If you see orange don't shoot. If you are wearing clothing that blends in with the woods then you are taking some (the majority? - all?) of the responsibility off the shooter.

I don't think it should be a requirement, not ever. I think people who carry guns and use them should be held accountable for the full affect they cause just as I feel the same way about drunk drivers or any one else. Killing and shooting peopl at randome is what should be illegal and punished as well as running over them, not wearing the wrong color hat for a particular day and place.

If a person can't tell a human being from a 4 legged deer at a particular distance then they have no business shooting that distance. If you can't tell a deer from a person that far away it sure as heck is not a good shot with any degree of probablility for success. It is nothing but a hail Mary shot by an idiot moron antsy to shoot his gun. He belongs on the practice range in a controlled enviroment, not out among the responsible and free ranging population.

Buying a gun does not make a person a hunter. Poking holes in paper does not mean that's a shot you can make or should take in the field. Paper plate accuracy, degree of ground hog or degree of deer all that bull crap is just plain stupid terminology used by people who know nothing of hunting but want to think they do.

Accurate is accurate it is nothing but a relative term requiring specific means of comparison. Accurate enough for deer doesn't change because you change weapons it only changes in relationship to your position to the target.

Rifle, shotgun, pistol, it doesn't matter you still have to hit the same size target and that target is the heart. Every thing else is the "save your hiney because you made a mistake" back stop.

"At least it was a clean miss." is not a whew I got lucky and don't have to chase it for miles. A clean miss is a sure sign it was a stupid rookie mistake to even try that shot, don't be so stupid next time fool. That's the lesson that should be taken from "a clean miss".

 

[DemolitionMan]

Jack, I think finity's reason for requiring orange -- on public hunting lands -- had to do with a scenario where the hunter can clearly see the deer he is targeting, but there are people beyond the deer that cannot be easily seen because they're blending into the background. A miss or a shot that passes through the deer could injure the non-hunters even though the hunter had what he thought was a clear shot.

Assuming I described finity's scenario correctly, I don't think I agree about requiring non-hunters to wear orange. In general I don't like regulating common sense. Non-hunters should consider carefully whether they want to walk in public hunting grounds during hunting season, and if they do they should make efforts to ensure they're visible. That's just common sense because there are poor hunters out there shooting at shadows --but it is up to individuals to make those choices. I feel the same way about seat belt laws and requiring helmets on motorcycles.

Obviously the scenario here is different. The poacher was not where he was supposed to be and took a shot without verifying his target, let alone what was behind it. His victims are totally and completely blameless for the tragic outcome and the poacher should be behind bars for a very long time.

 

[ATF Consumer]

Assuming I described finity's scenario correctly, I don't think I agree about requiring non-hunters to wear orange. In general I don't like regulating common sense. Non-hunters should consider carefully whether they want to walk in public hunting grounds during hunting season, and if they do they should make efforts to ensure they're visible. That's just common sense because there are poor hunters out there shooting at shadows --but it is up to individuals to make those choices. I feel the same way about seat belt laws and requiring helmets on motorcycles.

As I was and am sure most other non-hunters are...are unaware of when is and when isn't hunting season...if I did, then I'd be a hunter.
Just like, I am not a sports fan of any kind, so I couldn't tell you when any season starts or ends for any of the sports people like to follow.
The sole responsibility should be on the hunter, not anyone that could possibly get hurt because of the hunter's actions.

 

[BUCK HINKLE]

Was that guys head up his butt?? To fire on two people and then say oops I thaught they where deer. WHAT???? I din't think so..

 

[DemolitionMan]

As I was and am sure most other non-hunters are...are unaware of when is and when isn't hunting season...if I did, then I'd be a hunter.
Just like, I am not a sports fan of any kind, so I couldn't tell you when any season starts or ends for any of the sports people like to follow.
The sole responsibility should be on the hunter, not anyone that could possibly get hurt because of the hunter's actions.

I must not have been clear so I'll try again.

I completely agree that hunters are solely responsible for whatever happens when they take a shot. No matter what the circumstances, they need to follow the basic gun safety rules and if someone gets hurt it is their responsibility.

Having said that, it only makes sense to take precautions when going out in the woods. You should know about the land you're walking on and who else might be out there. You should know if it is hunting season or not, and you should take steps to make sure you're visible. It shouldn't be required by law for you to do any of these things, and if you do get shot because Bubba thinks you look like a 6-pointer through his beer haze it would not be your fault -- but the fact that it wasn't your fault and that Bubba is going to jail won't be much comfort to your widow.

That's why I didn't agree with making laws regarding non-hunters wearing orange. It's not up to the government to decide how I should protect my self. To me it's the difference between legal responsibility (which is clearly on the person pulling the trigger) and personal responsibility (which is always on the individual).

 

[dooleydclown]

Bottom line the guy killed one and wounded another doing something illegal. If he was comitting a felony there wouldn't be any discussion of an accident and I agree it's still murder in this case. Be interesting to see what he is finally charged with.

 

[mammynun]

You should know if it is hunting season or not, and you should take steps to make sure you're visible.

Why?

I agree with your thoughts on personal responsibility as it pertains to hunters (the ones taking "action"), and I extend it firearms owners in general. But the only way I know that deer (or any other) season is approaching is that the ranges get full. Huntings seasons are just not on my radar at all. Or my wife and kids. If done improperly, firing a weapon can be dangerous to others. Walking through the woods should only be dangerous to the individual doing the walking, irregardless of "rut" or whatever.

 

[DemolitionMan]

Why?

So that you don't get shot...or at least minimze the chance of it happening.

A lot of this thread has been about assigning fault. In the originally posted news story it is very clear that the poacher was at fault. You and I and others have all agreed that the fault for any accidental shooting is always on the shooter.

Getting beyond who's legally or morally responsible for such a tragedy, it's up to you to protect yourself and your family. If you're going into the woods you should know the lay of the land, what the weather will be like, where to get help in an emergency, and whether there are people running around with high-power rifles who may or may not take a second to make sure you have 2 legs instead of 4 before blazing away. Again, if an accidental shooting occurs it is not your fault but it just makes sense to do what you can to prevent it from happening.

It's like walking around in a high-crime area at night. If someone robs you it is not your fault -- the fault lies in the criminal's actions. You should still take the time to learn where the high-crime areas are and take appropriate measures to protect yourself and your family against people who don't follow the rules.

 

[finity]

Yes, Demolitionman, you restated my position correctly.

I still feel that there should be a requirement for anyone entering onto public lands during hunting season to wear orange. I mean, there is already a requirement for all hunters to wear orange during certain seasons whether you're on private property or public. I don't see any problem with setting additional safety requirements for use of public land. It's only a little over a month out of the whole year so it's not like it's a huge inconvenience.

It really doesn't matter that you don't know when hunting season is. Find out. I've heard somewhere else that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

As to who's responsible for an accident under the scenario I posted, I liken it more closely to a motorist hitting a person who steps out between two parked cars (as opposed to the drunk driver example that Jack used). Is it the (otherwise safe) drivers fault in that situation or the (irresponsible) pedestrians? If I was the driver I would feel terrible but I wouldn't blame myself for the reckless actions of another.

The same with the hunting scenario. If there was someone who was dressed to blend in to a woodland environment (on public land) I don't think it would be the hunters fault if an (otherwise safe) errant shot or pass through hit the other person. (Jack, you must be the only perfect hunter if you've never missed a target you're shooting at. Never? Really?).

You're right that we all have to take responsibility for our actions. That's why I say that the other person in this situation should take responsibility for their actions (not wearing orange) as well, not just put all the blame on the hunter who, in all likelihood, was doing all they reasonably could to ensure they were being as safe as possible (most hunter really aren't idiots).

If you're in the woods where hunting is legal during hunting season without safety clothing & you get shot you have no one to blame but yourself (again assuming the hunter is following all reasonable safety rules themselves).

By requiring everyone in the (public) woods to dress safely it would take the responsibility off the person who was shot & put it back onto the hunter because they could have no excuse by saying that they "didn't see them". Otherwise it is a vague judgement call on whether the hunter is really a careless idiot or honestly didn't see the other person.

To open another can of worms that has already been mentioned, I don't have a problem with seatbelt laws or helmet laws either. They save lives & minimize injuries without too much inconvenience to the object of the law, which saves ME money on my insurance. I know I'll be accused of being a nanny-stater but it is a legitimate function of government to make laws on things that effect society as a whole while minimizing the impact as much as possible on each individual (I think the term is "narrowly tailored").

I will say it again for those who missed it in my first post:

I am not saying that the blame in the OP is on the victims. The hunter was ILLEGALLY hunting property not authorized for hunting & one person is dead. THE HUNTER IN THIS CASE should be held completely responsible for at least reckless homicide if not murder.

 

[Jack Ryan]

One situation where I would put the blame firmly on the head of the person shot would be if they are tresspassing on property owned by the shooter or tresspassing on land where the shooter was acting with permission of the land owner.

 

[finity]

One situation where I would put the blame firmly on the head of the person shot would be if they are tresspassing on property owned by the shooter or tresspassing on land where the shooter was acting with permission of the land owner.

Why then?

Last I heard trespassing was not a capital crime.

So It's OK by you to "accidentally" kill a trespasser?

Again, I'm not saying that anyone on private land should be required to wear orange (which if they were trespassing it would definitely be on private land) only on public land.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Why then?

Last I heard trespassing was not a capital crime.

So It's OK by you to "accidentally" kill a trespasser?

Tresspassers are breaking the law. They are stealing the use of some one else's land. They are stealing the portion of that person's life they traded in order to own that land. They are not suppose to be there and they are responsible for the situation they have put them selves in.

I don't think the land owner should be held responsible for the results of some one else's actions. There is no way one particular land owner can be expected to anticipate the stupid and illegal actions that may be taken by all of the morons in all of the world at any one particular time. He should be able to make use of his property as he see's fit to the degree he is not infringing on his neighbors. If he is required to anticipate what his neighbors may decided to do on his land with out his permission and alter his behaviour accordingly it is an infringement on his right to make use of his property as he see's fit.

 

[Jack Ryan]

So It's OK by you to "accidentally" kill a trespasser?

Yes.

"accidently", accidently, or on purpose is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Leadeye]

Over the years I've encountered hunters who took what they called "brush shots", shooting at movement but no clear target. Really stupid in my opinion, having been shot at this way, but not that uncommon. I don't have to wear orange when I go out in the woods during season but as a matter of prudence I do. Being right, but dead or injured, is useless.

 

[haldir]

Over the years I've encountered hunters who took what they called "brush shots", shooting at movement but no clear target. Really stupid in my opinion, having been shot at this way, but not that uncommon. I don't have to wear orange when I go out in the woods during season but as a matter of prudence I do. Being right, but dead or injured, is useless.

Personally, I think anyone caught taking a 'brush shot' should have their license revoked for life. They have no business being in the woods or field.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Personally, I think anyone caught taking a 'brush shot' should have their license revoked for life. They have no business being in the woods or field.

Why not just save a lot of people getting shot at and start taking action when they sell, or post looking for brush guns and calibre that will "bust the brush"?

I see the term "brush gun" used here all the time and even advocated but I never see any one called out about hunting brush.

A couple of examples here:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/long_guns/65298-ruger_carbien_44_magnum.html

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/long_guns/65254-short_barrel_357_pump.html

 

[mammynun]

So that you don't get shot...or at least minimze the chance of it happening.

Again, I agree with 99% of you post. I don't agree with requiring non-hunters to wear orange. I agree that people should take whatever measures are needed to protect themselves. If it were required, it would only cloud the water... even in the OP case. I can easily see an attorney for the hunter using the "lack of Blaze" defense when his/her client was clearly wrong.

 

[finity]

Yes.

"accidently", accidently, or on purpose is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

Deadly force is (rightly) reserved for protection of your person or that of another. I might even buy the use of it in certain circumstances to prevent someone from actively stealing certain property. But to advocate killing someone JUST because they are on your land without permission is just plain irresponsible & is an advocation of vigilantism.

Sorry, your on the wrong side of the law. I'd probably even say morally. But hey, that's just my opinion.

 

[finity]

If it were required, it would only cloud the water... even in the OP case. I can easily see an attorney for the hunter using the "lack of Blaze" defense when his/her client was clearly wrong.

Not really. It's a completely different situation. The hunter was in an area that was not authorized for hunting so there would be no requirement for people to wear orange.

It would be like trying to justify killing someone just for stepping one foot on your property without your permission.(...Oh wait that's already been suggested...). It won't work but they can try any defense they want.