Hunter shoots 2 people Accidentally, Kills one

[finity]

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.

So now you want to start restricting specific guns/calibers instead of punishing the perpetrators? But you don't want to require people on public lands to wear blaze orange only during hunting season?

I ask you, which of the two will be the most infringement on an individuals rights?

 

[Jack Ryan]

So now you want to start restricting specific guns/calibers instead of punishing the perpetrators? But you don't want to require people on public lands to wear blaze orange only during hunting season?

I ask you, which of the two will be the most infringement on an individuals rights?

Did I say any thing there about restricting calibers or guns?

I'm talking about calling a spade a spade when some one starts asking about a brush gun or bragging how well their what ever busts through the brush.

Brush guns are for hunting brush. Brush hunting is the only reason to be shooting in to brush. Only morons hunt brush.

Is that clear enough for you or you want to cry some more about all the loggers, hikers, fishermen, and park rangers you want to wear blaze orange because you can't tell them from animals at distances you want to shoot?

Responsible people have no business shooting in to brush. Every one agrees AFTER some one get's killed and a couple weeks later they are asking for or giving out opinions on what makes a great brush gun. It's ridiculous.

 

[edsinger]

NO Hunting allowed - manslaughter with 5 year minimim......

 

[finity]

Did I say any thing there about restricting calibers or guns?

I'm talking about calling a spade a spade when some one starts asking about a brush gun or bragging how well their what ever busts through the brush.

Brush guns are for hunting brush. Brush hunting is the only reason to be shooting in to brush. Only morons hunt brush.

Is that clear enough for you or you want to cry some more about all the loggers, hikers, fishermen, and park rangers you want to wear blaze orange because you can't tell them from animals at distances you want to shoot?

Responsible people have no business shooting in to brush. Every one agrees AFTER some one get's killed and a couple weeks later they are asking for or giving out opinions on what makes a great brush gun. It's ridiculous.

No crying going on here, friend.

I guess that you suggesting taking action against people for selling or buying brush guns/calibers isn't really you advocating a restriction of said weapons. My bad.

I don't shoot into brush & I can tell people from animals just fine - especially at distances I want to shoot. What I can't tell (& i would say that no one else can either, even you, as perfect of a hunter as you seem to think you are) is if there is someone 150 - 200 yards away in the woods if they're wearing natural/neutral colors that blend in with their environment.

Tough luck if it's a little inconvenient for loggers, hikers, fishermen or park rangers to have to wear orange while on public lands during hunting season. I do, why shouldn't they? I'm the one with the gun. I'm not going to shoot myself by accident (or if I did orange won't stop it ). The reason I have to wear it is to protect me from other hunters. Just like other non-hunters should be. How inconvenient is wearing a certain color of clothing anyway? Unless they hike, fish or log nude they have to wear some clothes anyway. Why not make it orange instead of brown or green?

Nobody is forcing the people who don't work there to be there during that month. They have the freedom to choose to not go into the woods if they don't want to follow the rules. If rangers or loggers are in the woods during hunting season without orange on then they are complete idiots & probably shouldn't work in that field.

Aside from the obvious tragedy of someone dying in an accidental shooting & the psychological effects on the hunter, what I don't want to have happen is that hunter (possibly me or, yes, even you) getting blamed & crucified by people (like you) for a truly accidental shooting of someone who isn't smart enough on their own to take precautions to not get themselves shot because the hunter honestly couldn't see them.

 

[confused89]

You all are trying to make what if's happen here. It is to late to play that game. Some one is dead and another is wounded because of an idiot. This has been stated before. The student was not required to wear orange as she should not have been required. The "hunter" , I use the term lossely, was where he should not have been. He made a very stupid descision and now he should pay for it.

I believe that the manslaughter charge is not strict enough for him. We all hear about stories where somebody got hurt in the woods because someone shot at them thinking that they were a deer. It happens too often. I go coyote hunting and at night if I can not make out the entire coyote I will not shoot. All it takes is common sense and aparently common sense isn't to common at all.

 

[Jack Ryan]

No crying going on here, friend.

I guess that you suggesting taking action against people for selling or buying brush guns/calibers isn't really you advocating a restriction of said weapons. My bad.

I don't shoot into brush & I can tell people from animals just fine - especially at distances I want to shoot. What I can't tell (& i would say that no one else can either, even you, as perfect of a hunter as you seem to think you are) is if there is someone 150 - 200 yards away in the woods if they're wearing natural/neutral colors that blend in with their environment.

I don't see how it's a problem if you are telling the truth in the sentence above.

Tough luck if it's a little inconvenient for loggers, hikers, fishermen or park rangers to have to wear orange while on public lands during hunting season. I do, why shouldn't they? I'm the one with the gun. I'm not going to shoot myself by accident (or if I did orange won't stop it ). The reason I have to wear it is to protect me from other hunters.

The one pulling the trigger is the one responsible for where it is going. No excuses.

You don't have to wear orange during early archery or squirrel hunting.

We don't need more laws and rules from the nanny state. We need the law enforced and reckless morons jailed. Period.

Just like other non-hunters should be. How inconvenient is wearing a certain color of clothing anyway? Unless they hike, fish or log nude they have to wear some clothes anyway. Why not make it orange instead of brown or green?

Because they are not responsible for what YOU choose to do. You are responsible for where your bullet goes. Regardless of the color of your victims hat. Reckless morons come up with enough excuses with out further attempts to put the responsibility of reckless moron's mistakes on their victims.

Nobody is forcing the people who don't work there to be there during that month. They have the freedom to choose to not go into the woods if they don't want to follow the rules.

Just as any one with a weapon has the same choice to be there or not if they are in capable of safely using the weapon.

If rangers or loggers are in the woods during hunting season without orange on then they are complete idiots & probably shouldn't work in that field.

No they are not idiots. People who can't tell a human being running a chainsaw from a deer are idiots. They should be branded on the forehead and beaten senseless not forced to wear orange hats.

Aside from the obvious tragedy of someone dying in an accidental shooting & the psychological effects on the hunter, what I don't want to have happen is that hunter (possibly me or, yes, even you) getting blamed & crucified by people (like you) for a truly accidental shooting of someone who isn't smart enough on their own to take precautions to not get themselves shot because the hunter honestly couldn't see them.

If some one can't see what they are shooting and what is beyond it they have no business pulling the trigger in the field, on the range, and certainly have no business carrying a gun in public. How about you require the bad guys at the mall to wear orange hats.

We don't need any expansion of the nanny state. Just watch what you are doing and expect to be held accountable. If you can't see what you are doing then don't shoot. It's pretty simple. If you can't keep your emotions in check enough to accomplish that simple task you've no business carrying a gun for any reason.

 

[T-rav]

This is a horrible thing to happen. Everyone has their own opinion on here and we can debate it all day long. I look at it like this it was county owned property, restricted from hunting so therefore it shouldnt matter what he was shooting at, why the victims wernt wearing hunters orange (no need for them to) He BROKE THE LAW the man pays the price. even if they were mistaken for a deer, that man shouldnt of been hunting there aanyhow.

 

[haldir]

finity, i understand what you are saying. I understand you are just concerned with someone getting hurt. I think Jack is just against forcing non-hunters to have to alter or adjust their behavior because some guy with a gun can't practice good gun control. In all my years of deer hunting. I have never missed hitting it. That is not meant to brag. I have passed up shots that are, in my mind, a little too far, too much "brush" in the way, deer moving a little more than I liked. I am realistic when it comes to my abilities. There are guys on here that could make shots that I just won't take, probably. So what if I don't take that deer. I don't really need it to keep from starving. I am not a trophy guy. I mostly enjoy sitting out in the woods away from everyone else. You mention worrying about what might be behind the deer. I don't know about you but after 15 or 20 minutes in the woods and my senses have adjusted there isn't much in the immediate area that I am not aware of, numbers of squirrels, birds (and after an hour, I can tell you the breed of most of them. I was sitting in one little woods one fall and a migratory flock of bluebirds came into my woods. There were several dozen of them.) So for me and others it is hard for us to have an understanding of hunters that would pull the trigger not being confident they are going to hit what they are shooting at and also not knowing what else might be in the woods with them.

 

[finity]

finity, i understand what you are saying. I understand you are just concerned with someone getting hurt. I think Jack is just against forcing non-hunters to have to alter or adjust their behavior because some guy with a gun can't practice good gun control. In all my years of deer hunting. I have never missed hitting it. That is not meant to brag. I have passed up shots that are, in my mind, a little too far, too much "brush" in the way, deer moving a little more than I liked. I am realistic when it comes to my abilities. There are guys on here that could make shots that I just won't take, probably. So what if I don't take that deer. I don't really need it to keep from starving. I am not a trophy guy. I mostly enjoy sitting out in the woods away from everyone else. You mention worrying about what might be behind the deer. I don't know about you but after 15 or 20 minutes in the woods and my senses have adjusted there isn't much in the immediate area that I am not aware of, numbers of squirrels, birds (and after an hour, I can tell you the breed of most of them. I was sitting in one little woods one fall and a migratory flock of bluebirds came into my woods. There were several dozen of them.) So for me and others it is hard for us to have an understanding of hunters that would pull the trigger not being confident they are going to hit what they are shooting at and also not knowing what else might be in the woods with them.

It has nothing to do with practicing good gun control!! It's not the hunter who is being unsafe here!!! I'm not talking about taking any kind of questionable shot!!! Unless you think a questionable shot is more than 40 or 50 yards in anything other than completely open terrain & only from a tree stand so that you're shooting down into the ground as the bullet passes through or, in the rare circumstance, somebody might miss?

Have you ever hunted state land? During firearms season? Have you ever had someone walk into the woods at any distance away & all you saw was the orange hat? What if they weren't wearing the orange hat? What would you see then? Nothing except woods. Not all woods have 300 - 400 yards (or more) of open visibility. I would venture to say that MOST don't. Are you & Jack saying that we shouldn't hunt areas unless you can clearly see as far as the bullet could ever go in any direction under any circumstances? If that's the case there wouldn't EVER be any hunting of ANY kind. That's just not realistic. Even in an open field a bullet ricocheting off the ground can travel several hundred (or was it thousand) yards (I think there was a post on here recently that the argument in favor of using only shotguns/pistol cal rifles as being safer was shown to be incorrect).

I'm not talking about my immediate area. I am always confident that I will hit the target or I wouldn’t pull the trigger...but you have no idea what the animal or the environment is going to do in the split second it takes for you to decide to pull the trigger & the time your body actually does it. There is no such thing in the real world as a guaranteed hit on an animal that you are shooting at. You may not have ever missed (YET) but you can't guarantee you'll never miss in the future. You just never know. I've watched shows where even the pro's miss on shot's that should be reasonably easy.

For you & Jack to imply somehow that I am unsafe or reckless for seeing the reality in the situation is just ridiculous. I would say that it is unsafe & reckless for people to not see the inherent danger in this, at times, unpredictable sport & ensure people take appropriate precautions. Otherwise you're living in a fantasy land.

Sure, in a perfect world no one would have to make sure that everyone did the right thing. In that world we wouldn't need hunter orange or even the DNR, police, traffic laws, workplace safety laws, or any other number of laws/agencies that were put into place because people have proven time after time that generally people are stupid/lazy/greedy/sociopathic/narcissistic.

This isn't even about protecting us from ourselves. If some idiot walks in the woods during hunting season without the proper safety gear on & they get shot, they probably deserve it. Would I be happy? Nope. It's just like if some idiot gets behind the wheel of a car without wearing a seatbelt...if they wreck & die that's their problem. But...if you're going to hold ME responsible for the reckless acts of somebody else then it becomes MY BUSINESS what they do.

Come to think of it why do we have a law that I need to stop at those stupid crosswalk signs anyway? If I decide to do something stupid like run through one (especially at night, wearing black clothes) shouldn't the other person who hits me be responsible because, after all, they are driving a 1 ton piece of plastic & steel that can kill a person in an instant. I think that if they can't be completely aware of their surroundings (& in control of their emotions... ) & not see me doing something that could cause them to kill me then they have no business being behind the wheel of a car. The one behind the wheel has full responsibility for where the car goes. No excuses.[/sarcasm]

I don't see how it's a problem if you are telling the truth in the sentence above.

The one pulling the trigger is the one responsible for where it is going. No excuses.

First off, see above.

You don't have to wear orange during early archery or squirrel hunting.

Ok, early archery is defined as being from Oct 1 through No 29. Squirrel season runs from Aug 15 through January 31.

Actually, IAW IN law you must wear orange if hunting squirrels from the beginning of Bird season (Nov 6) through the end of the season (even though muzzleloader season ends on Dec. 20).

And you must wear orange for part of early (& even late) archery season – the part that overlaps the firearms seasons – in spite of the fact that you are still hunting with a bow.

Get the facts straight, please.

So my question is what changed during those times. When it is not required the reason is the weapon used is not particularly dangerous at long ranges where hunter orange is the most useful. Even the part of the law you pointed out understands that hunting deer (or birds, rabbits, or squirrels) is inherently more dangerous because of the WAY people hunt those animals at different times & the RANGE & LETHALITY of the weapons used. That’s why there is a difference in the first place. If EVERYONE was completely responsible for being able to become one with “The Force” & manage to be omniscient of everyone else THERE WOULD BE NO ORANGE REQUIREMENT AT ALL. We aren’t all seeing though, only just plain human. Hence, the orange requirement.

We don't need more laws and rules from the nanny state.

Close. We don’t need any more unnecessary laws.

We need the law enforced and reckless morons jailed. Period.

So, tell me what law is it that makes not seeing someone who doesn’t want or care to be seen illegal? Could you point that out in the IN Code please?

Is there any reasonable law that can be passed that will ban someone from making an honest mistake? No, I didn’t think so.

Because they are not responsible for what YOU choose to do. You are responsible for where your bullet goes. Regardless of the color of your victims hat. Reckless morons come up with enough excuses with out further attempts to put the responsibility of reckless moron's mistakes on their victims.

I’m not asking them to be responsible for MY actions I’m asking them to be responsible for THEIR actions.

If I don’t follow reasonable safety rules then I should be held fully accountable (& by ‘reasonable safety rules’ I mean what a reasonable person of reasonable judgment would do under similar circumstances not to the minute & ridiculous extremes that you seem to be suggesting – strange, it’s almost like an member of the Brady Bunch is in your head & you’re translating their words to be used in hunting scenarios. Hmmm…). If the other person doesn’t follow all reasonable safety rules then they should be held accountable as well, wouldn’t you agree?

No they are not idiots.

So we here on INGO generally suggest that people carry a firearm for self-defense because they can’t rely on the police to be there to help them (you know, as in, taking responsibility for their own safety) but all of a sudden you see no problem with people putting their safety fully in the hands of hunter’s. Again, interesting.

If some one can't see what they are shooting and what is beyond it they have no business pulling the trigger in the field, on the range, and certainly have no business carrying a gun in public.

Just watch what you are doing and expect to be held accountable. If you can't see what you are doing then don't shoot. It's pretty simple. If you can't keep your emotions in check enough to accomplish that simple task you've no business carrying a gun for any reason.

So let me ask you, would you hold a person who uses a gun in legitimate self-defense responsible for shooting an innocent bystander? How about the police? Should they be held 100% responsible for any innocent person injured in any justified police action? If they can’t see everything around them at every second during a dynamic situation (just like hunting is – unless you’ve got your animals tied up to a tree against an appropriate back-stop at all times) shouldn’t they decide that they should not shoot?


Frankly, I'm taken aback by the argument against such a small, common sense & simple requirement. Somehow I doubt that the orange requirement violates any Constitutional freedoms, infringes on any basic individual rights or that buying a $3 hat is particularly pernicious.


Sorry that it took a few days to reply. I was out in the woods emotionally shooting willy-nilly at over 400 yards into the biggest deepest brush I could find after dark just to see if there was anything in there worth pulling out after I killed it. In my reckless abandon I did manage to get a couple of deer, though. Sadly, one was only 50 yards away & the other was only 20 yards away. It’s hard to keep up a reputation with shots like those.

 

[Gungho_1989]

Common sense is rather uncommon now days.
If this guy would have been raised 30 years ago he might have had some kind of idea what common sense was.
We are getting dumber at a frightening rate. Every day we shown multiple examples of how dumb we have become and its only going to get worse.
This guy is simply a Dumb #%* who should spend the rest of his life in jail. his parents should be beaten and his teachers flogged.

Darwin has been taken out of the equation by liberalism. Even stupid people can survive, prosper and unfortunately propagate.

 

[dross]

If it was an accident, it's not murder. This is a concept that people need to understand. Murder requires intent. You must mean to kill someon. This guy intended to kill a deer, not a person. Does that mean he shouldn't be punished? No. Does it mean he shouldn't be punished severely? No.

This is what negligent homicide and manslaughter are for.
1. I plan and kill someone for their money - the worst.
2. I can get angry and kill someone in the heat of the moment - terrible, but not as bad as number one.
3. I can do something crazy and reckless that any reasonable person knows could likely end up killing someone - terrible, but not as bad as the first two.
4. I can do something stupid but that no reasonable person thought would kill someone, and accidentally kill someone - bad, but not as terrible as the first three.
5. I can do something a little stupid that turns out to kill someone - bad, but not as bad as the first four.

And so on.

This guy probably was in the realm of number three, manslaughter or negligent homicide, which carries heavy penalties.

 

[DoubleTap Tactical]

How about clearly identifying your target? Anyone else miss that in firearm safety class?

 

[dross]

Common sense is rather uncommon now days.
If this guy would have been raised 30 years ago he might have had some kind of idea what common sense was.
We are getting dumber at a frightening rate. Every day we shown multiple examples of how dumb we have become and its only going to get worse.
This guy is simply a Dumb #%* who should spend the rest of his life in jail. his parents should be beaten and his teachers flogged.

Darwin has been taken out of the equation by liberalism. Even stupid people can survive, prosper and unfortunately propagate.

The U.S. is safer today than it's ever been. And common sense has rarely been either.

 

[Golfminer]

I can't help but give thought to how the three are connected. How do you mistake 2 people for deer?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

By violating Rule #4. shooting at sound or a shadow.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Ok, early archery is defined as being from Oct 1 through No 29. Squirrel season runs from Aug 15 through January 31.

Actually, IAW IN law you must wear orange if hunting squirrels from the beginning of Bird season (Nov 6) through the end of the season (even though muzzleloader season ends on Dec. 20).

And you must wear orange for part of early (& even late) archery season – the part that overlaps the firearms seasons – in spite of the fact that you are still hunting with a bow.

Get the facts straight, please.

I've got them straight kiddo and I didn't have to look them up and cut'n paste them to know them either. I hunt every one of those seasons and I do it on private and public land. I live with public land on every side of me and I'd bet I spend ten times as much time on it as you do at least.

 

[danglearms]

irresponsible

this is a crock. know what you are shooting at or don't shoot. i have an idiot friend that i hunt w/ that wears tan carharts to hunt in & he hasn't gotten shot. poeple need to go back to the basics of knowing what you are shooting at