Hunter kills woman; acquitted - fair?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by SLO
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

Ahhh,

well WHAT IF she was walking her dog on the MOON during MARTIAN hunting season, and she wasn't wearing GREEN, so they mistook her white scarf for a ......

the WHAT IFs could go on for ever.

It said she was a half mile from her home, we can all infer what we'd like, but we don't know the facts.

There ARE laws about hunting in residential areas, but it doesn't say how close she was to one.

[Wlfgng]

Slo, don't go pushing gun-control or something...

the 'hunter' should've been prosecuted and convicted IMO.. it was plainly negligent.

Hunters, and all gun toting people, need the proper training and respect.  
Gun Control does not work so your stance on being afraid of all hunters or having to wear orange to walk in the park is so far out there I'd almost swear you were from .. (not gonna say it)

[SLO]

say it wolf...come on...I know you wanna:D

[Sixpence]

Where was this hunting area? We used to go out to the berkshires and there wasn't another camp for miles. It's hard to believe he was hunting right near someone's house.

Manslaughter sounds like the way to go, I don't see how they would charge him with murder. I would imagine his guns would be taken away.....responsibility.


SLO , a good size buck can feed your family for a month. Plz don't turn this into an anti gun thread. We've been down this road before, and if i'm correct, more people die in car accidents, ban the cars!

[Wlfgng]

lol Slo

I'm uh.. turning over a new leaf... or something

[Lazerus1]

Not trying to put the blame on the victim here, but I just thought of something. He did say he had just shot a deer. What would you do if you were walking throught the woods and heard gunshots?

[Pongo]

Id prance away from the scene and hope my scarf didnt look like a white tails bellybutton on the run.

In reality I think she was probaly applying first aid to the deer and he thought that if she revived it he would lose his kill...so he did what he had to do.

But honestly. You use the word neighbor and people imagine a residential area. In parts of canada your nearest neighbor is miles away.

[WineMan]

I am an avid hunter and this type of story is very, very sad.

The details in the story were a little vague to me, as in what exact charges the prosecutor sought.  Also, not being a lawyer, I don't know all the intricacies of law.  I was always familiar with murder, manslaughter, etc. - Reckless homicide?  Not sure where it fits in.

But in any case, every hunter (at least in California) has to go through a Hunter's Safety Course before they are allowed to hunt in Calif.  Rule number 4 of the "Ten Commandments of Firearms Safety," -http://www.remington.com/safety/10comm.htm

- is to Know your target and what is beyond it.  There really is just no excuse for shooting at what he "thought" was the white tail of the deer.  You are responsible to know 100% what you are shooting at, and IMO that means seeing more than just white "flash."  I would never shoot unless I saw the whole deer.

Gofaster wrote: "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."

I don't mean any offense to you Gofaster, but she has the right to hike in the woods without fear of being killed.  Admittedly, she maybe should be aware that it is deer season and that it might be a bit riskier venturing out in the woods, specifically because of the reason that there are idiots out there who shouldn't be allowed to possess a gun.

Whether or not the guy deserves jail time is hard to say without all the facts, but he is completely liable for the woman's death and should be at LEAST held so in a civil case.

It's people like him that give the rest of us a bad name, that make it harder and harder for those of us who are safe, responsible gun owners/hunters to pursue our hobbies.

[davidpt40]

It was a freak accident and the woman is dead.  What GOOD what it do to send the man to prison?  Is this incident going to happen again?  Probably not.  

Punishment just for the purpose of punishment is ignorant IMO.  Use it as a deterrent or to prevent something from happening again.  But no need to ruin this guy's life over it.

[john9001]

she was on a road , not a highway, a unimproved road in the woods.
it was black powder deer season , which is at a differnt time than regular deer season. she may not have known that.

anytime you fire a gun you are responsible for where the bullet goes and what it hits, thats YOUR bullet.

you must always know what you are shooting at, even if you can see the whole deer, you still may not have a shot , you have to be able to hit a vital area to kill the deer with one shot.

 if the deer is only wounded , you may never find it, even with a kill shot the deer may run for a good distance befor it dies.

he should have been charged with something like manslaughter.

[dfl8rms]

Just to point out a few things:

It was a muzzleloader.  This implies less hunters in the woods, less general populace knowledge that hunters are in the woods, and at least in Minnesota less restrictions on amount of Blaze /Hunter Orange required by the hunter.  Additionally, muzzleloaders are typically less accurate and have less effective range.

In Wisconsin, regular firearm and archery hunters are allowed multiple deer -- usually does as a way to curb the deer population.  So shooting multiple deer is not per se illegal.  Also, funny thing about the DNR or Wildlife Dept is that they are trying to reduce the deer population in and around people areas.  To do that, they allocate more license tags for those targeted areas.  In Minnesota, the minimum required plot of ground to hunt is 10 acres.  Other restrictions are not within 500 feet of a building.  So if I owned 10 acres in a semi-rural town that did not have a non-discharge of firearms rule (and sometime even if the city has one) I can hunt and shoot.  Not saying I would, but it is legal.

While I am thoroughly saddened by this persons act, I don't know if it constituted the homocide / murder charge.  Maybe manslaughter or some lesser criminal charge.  In any case, I would not have wanted to be the jury or the defendant.  They were both in a loose, loose situation.

Now that I've type all this -- just keep on moving on, nothing hear to read.

[Furball]

does the dog have to wear orange too?

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Furball
does the dog have to wear orange too?

I put orange on my dogs during hunting season.

[Eagler]

Originally posted by davidpt40
It was a freak accident and the woman is dead.  What GOOD what it do to send the man to prison?  Is this incident going to happen again?  Probably not.  

Punishment just for the purpose of punishment is ignorant IMO.  Use it as a deterrent or to prevent something from happening again.  But no need to ruin this guy's life over it.

yeah right - no need to ruin HIS life over it

just the womans life he killed and the ones she left behind...

the moron should pay, if not in the cell with bubba, he should lose his shirt in court .... freakin moron - playing davy crocket in the woods, firing at "flashes of white"

how many deer you think this genius has shot in the ass?

somebody show this rocket scientist the meat dept at his local grocercy store ...

[Dune]

What are the three rules of guns?
1. It's always loaded
2. Don't point it at anything you don't want to kill
3. Be sure of your target and what's behind it

As a prosecutor myself, here is what I would have done (of course based on the information provided in the first post.  There could be much more to it)

13-1102. Negligent homicide; classification

A. A person commits negligent homicide if with criminal negligence such person causes the death of another person.

B. Negligent homicide is a class 4 felony.

From there you could deal with it several different ways.  Based upon what StSanta posted, I would offer him a plea to Disorderly Conduct with a Weapon:

13-2904. Disorderly conduct; classification

A. A person commits disorderly conduct if, with intent to disturb the peace or quiet of a neighborhood, family or person, or with knowledge of doing so, such person:

6. Recklessly handles, displays or discharges a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

B. Disorderly conduct under subsection A, paragraph 6 is a class 6 felony.

For a sentence I would give him three years supervised probation.  Also, becuase he was convicted of a felony, he loses the right to ever posses a gun again.

This is similar to what the Wisconsin prosecutor offered.  The jury felt it was an accident.  They are his peers and felt that he did not deserve punnishment.  It would be easy to say that one attorney was better than the other, or that the jury was just a bunch of idiots, etc. etc.  Same things any attorney or spectator says when a jury comes back with a verdict they didn't like.  But that is our system.  And when it works, as it did here, it's the best in the world.

*Notes
1. I don't know all the facts.  I am just saying how I would charge it based upon what I've read about it.  The prosecutor in the case might have had a good reason for what he did.

2. I am a gun owner and a hunter.  Ask me and I'll show you a picture of the mule deer I shot this year.  

3. The laws mentioned above are from Arizona.