Hunter kills woman; acquitted - fair?

[StSanta]

Story is here.

Basically he was out deer hunting and had shot a deer. He then spotted something white flashing and took it to be the tail of the deer and fired. Turns out the white flash was a piece of clothing worn around the neck by his female neighbor, who died on the spot.

He goes free. While the death was probably accidental, his failure to identify the target before firing is, IMHO, crimininally negligent. And if he thought the scarf was the tail of a deer, wouldn't he fire at the upper part of the body instead of the tail - had he done this then his bullet would have gone wide and missed the woman.

I dunno. I know that in Denmark he'd get sentenced for negligent behaviour and manslaughter and do 1-4 years in jail.

Am surprised you can be so grossly negligent, kill someone, and walk free. Since I am not too familiar with US laws, perhaps someone can explain it to me? If it is an accident in the US and someone dies, you do not necessarily get jailed for manslaughter/murder, that much I know. But if there's crimininal negligence behind it, you get charged - yet even though this negligence is substantiated in court you can go free? Did he go free on a legal technicality (happens here too, annoys the hell outta me) or have I misunderstood something?

He was charged after all, but acquitted. Just how, I dunno.

[X2Lee]

Originally posted by StSanta
Story is here.

Basically he was out deer hunting and had shot a deer. He then spotted something white flashing and took it to be the tail of the deer and fired. Turns out the white flash was a piece of clothing worn around the neck by his female neighbor, who died on the spot.

He goes free. While the death was probably accidental, his failure to identify the target before firing is, IMHO, crimininally negligent. And if he thought the scarf was the tail of a deer, wouldn't he fire at the upper part of the body instead of the tail - had he done this then his bullet would have gone wide and missed the woman.

I dunno. I know that in Denmark he'd get sentenced for negligent behaviour and manslaughter and do 1-4 years in jail.

Am surprised you can be so grossly negligent, kill someone, and walk free. Since I am not too familiar with US laws, perhaps someone can explain it to me? If it is an accident in the US and someone dies, you do not necessarily get jailed for manslaughter/murder, that much I know. But if there's crimininal negligence behind it, you get charged - yet even though this negligence is substantiated in court you can go free? Did he go free on a legal technicality (happens here too, annoys the hell outta me) or have I misunderstood something?




He was charged after all, but acquitted. Just how, I dunno.

He should have been charged with manslaughter at least.
You shouldnt *think* you are shooting at a deer you should *know*.
When you pick up a firearm IMO you are responsible
for your actions, even the accidental ones.

[Martlet]

I definately think he is negligent, and guilty of something.  I'm not familiar enough with that type of law to say what.

I was raised into hunting, even though I no longer do it.  I received my first gun on my 10th birthday, but had been hunting with my father since about age 7 or 8.  In Maine you had to be 10 to carry a gun, though.

One of the 1st, and most important rules of hunting that I was taught was to not only be sure of your target, but to be sure of the area beyond it as well.  It is completely ignorant to shoot at a sound or a partially visible target.  Had I ever done that, I would never have been allowed to hunt again.

That being said, only a fool goes into the woods during hunting season wearing anything white, and without flash orange.

[StSanta]

Ok thanks guys. I thought that maybe it was interpreted differently in the US, but it sounds like you have the same laws as here. We have professional jurors whereas you rely on private citizens. I suspect the answers lies within that.

Yah Martlet, was raised with that knowledge too; if you hit the woods during hunting season, make sure you either know where they hunt (very difficult) or wear orange hat and very visible clothes; colours that cannot be mistaken for anything but humans.

OTOH, the neighbor was close to her home walking her dog. She made a small mistake not dressing appropriately, but his mistake was enormous. Failure to identify the target before shooting - that's a BIG no no in the Swedish hunting world, and I suspect the same is true of the US one.

Yeh, definitely some kind of punishment for such neglect is in order.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by StSanta
Ok thanks guys. I thought that maybe it was interpreted differently in the US, but it sounds like you have the same laws as here. We have professional jurors whereas you rely on private citizens. I suspect the answers lies within that.


Yeh, definitely some kind of punishment for such neglect is in order.

It may have been the fault of the prosecuter for going for a homicide verdict.  He may have had a better chance going for a negligent manslaughter verdict.

[Mini D]

Originally posted by Martlet
It may have been the fault of the prosecuter for going for a homicide verdict.  He may have had a better chance going for a negligent manslaughter verdict.

Martlet has it.  The prosecuter was the person at fault here.  If he tries it as a murder, the jurors have two choices: guilty or not guilty.  They can't reduce it to manslaughter themselves.

The prosecuter was more concerned about his career than going after the proper sentance.

MiniD

[Lazerus1]

I am in no way a lawyer, but I believe he can still be tried in a civil court for wrongfull death. This requires only a 2/3 majority to convict, not the 100% required in a criminal case. While this is still nowhere near enough for what he did, it is still something. And if successfull, it can burden him financially for the rest of his life. I'm sure there are ways around the financial obligations that prosecution in a civil court brings, but he will always have the fact that whatever he makes is subject to confiscation by the court. This is at least how I understand it to be. Like I said, not a lawyer.

[gofaster]

Wait a minute.  The article doesn't give enough evidence. Was she in the woods or on the road?  If she was in the woods a half-mile from the nearest home, away from public through-ways (i.e., a road) then maybe the verdict was proper.  If she was on the road, then maybe he got off easy.

Either way, the lack of criminal conviction won't impede the prosecution of a wrongful death suit.

[SLO]

wow...guess walking in the woods is DANGEROUS.....

if the moron didn't have a gun...that lady woulda had a pleasurable day walking her dog in the woods....


here's another scenerio......

Mark can you go walk the dog please......

sure MA.....

oh ya!!! Mark don't forget to wear your orange glow in the dark suit....just in case some hunters are out there....

but ma....that suit is aweful...my friends laugh at me.....

5 minutes later Mark leaves without the glow in the dark suit....cause it ain't cool see

[StSanta]

Ah, thanks Martlet/MiniD. In other words the DA was too greedy and tried to pin him for murder or somesuch?

Interestingly enough, manslaughter charges and others were also dropped by the hury.

The guy will feel horrible about himself for the rest of his life probably and while I sympathize with him and part of me just want to forgive him and let him try to get back to a normal life, he DID kill a human being through his recklessness. If it'd been my relative who died, this verdict would have upset me a great deal.

[Mini D]

The charges that were dropped were homocide charges... not manslaughter.  Reckless homocide and negligent homocide.  Both infer a prior knowledge of the lethality of the action... but don't require pre-meditation or motive.

What suprises me is a defense based on "I'd just shot a deer and thought I saw another one."  How many deer can you shoot in Wisconsin?  That'd be an instant poaching charge in Oregon.

MiniD

[-Concho-]

Santa what prosecutors try to do is protect thier win/loss record.

prosecutors like to win, so the will only take cases from the officers that they can win or they try to ramp up cases that could get thier names in the news paper.  my county atty wont take a DWI case unless he sees the video and the guy "looks drunk".

in this case the county atty plans on running for dist judge and dosent want to piss any possible voters off.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Lazerus1
I am in no way a lawyer, but I believe he can still be tried in a civil court for wrongfull death. This requires only a 2/3 majority to convict, not the 100% required in a criminal case. While this is still nowhere near enough for what he did, it is still something. And if successfull, it can burden him financially for the rest of his life. I'm sure there are ways around the financial obligations that prosecution in a civil court brings, but he will always have the fact that whatever he makes is subject to confiscation by the court. This is at least how I understand it to be. Like I said, not a lawyer.

correct, bet that is for compensation for the loss.  I won't result in a criminal record for him, or any sentence.  It will just state that he was responsible for the death, and he has to pay for it out of his pocket.

SLO,

If you care more about your looks than your safety, I don't know what to tell you.

When I go into the woods during hunting season, I wear my orange vest.

[SLO]

Originally posted by Martlet
SLO,

If you care more about your looks than your safety, I don't know what to tell you.

When I go into the woods during hunting season, I wear my orange vest.

I was makin up a fictional story martlet.....damn your always nit picking ain't ya.....never ends with you.

WHAT IF she had sent here SON instead of going HERSELF.....sorry bud.....but Hunting should be FAR FAR AWAY from residential areas.....damn the lady was just WALKING HER DOG....now your telling me walking your dog is DANGEROUS.....then you got lawyers playing WIN/LOSE game with humans.....She's dead...he walks away....go figure

[Makofan]

I was on a jury up here in Canada recently when they were trying a guy for second degree murder (drug dealer A shot drug dealer B in drug deal gone bad - multiple people from both sides involved)

The guy was definitely guilty of manslaughter and possession of an illegal weapon; he would have gone to jail for five to ten for that.  But the crown wanted a big splash and went for murder - the accused pleaded self defence.  After listening to the evidence and having the law explained to us by the judge, we had no recourse but to let the guy go free.

What a stupid system