200 yds -- Pistol -- "Gee Officer, I thought she was a deer...."

The truck caught my attention, as well:
Another hunting accident happened in the same county on Friday when Robert Meritt’s pick-up truck was struck by a bullet. He and his passenger were unharmed, but the bullet “totally disabled the truck,” according to the Chautauqua County Sheriff’s Office.

The alleged hunter, Marvin C. Miller, told law enforcement he mistook the brown truck for a deer.
Click to expand...
- Miami Herald




NoSecondBest said:
You've got to hunt in more states so you know what you're talking about. Other than water foul and some migratory birds, most states have big game end at sunset.
Click to expand...
You can't have hunted very many states, then. Your assumption of superior knowledge, in an attempt to discredit another member is grossly incorrect.

Of the 50 United States, only ONE has 'sunrise to sunset' legal shooting hours for big game (or deer specifically). That is NY.
A few others have very complicated and variable shooting hours, such as MA, AK (due to extreme changes in day length), GA, OR, and WI (their "zones").

All but two of the other states - that's 42 total (84%) - operate based on the Civil Twilight principle, and define legal hours as 30 minutes (or 1/2 hour) before sunrise to 30 minutes (or 1/2 hour) after sunset.

WA operates on a schedule of legal shooting hours that does not align perfectly, but roughly equates to the common 30/30 "Civil Twilight".
AZ uses a "daylight shooting hours" definition that basically says, "If you can see well enough to identify the target, you can shoot it."

Nearly all of the above do have some exceptions to those hours for very special units, or very special seasons. But the vast majority of seasons, units, and zones adhere to the basic state regulations.
 
Last edited:
FrankenMauser said:
Of the 50 United States, only ONE has 'sunrise to sunset' legal shooting hours for big game (or deer specifically). That is NY.
A few others have very complicated and variable shooting hours, such as MA, AK (due to extreme changes in day length), GA, OR, and WI (their "zones").

All but two of the other states - that's 42 total (84%) - operate based on the Civil Twilight principle, and define legal hours as 30 minutes (or 1/2 hour) before sunrise to 30 minutes (or 1/2 hour) after sunset.

WA operates on a schedule of legal shooting hours that does not align perfectly, but roughly equates to the common 30/30 "Civil Twilight".
AZ uses a "daylight shooting hours" definition that basically says, "If you can see well enough to identify the target, you can shoot it."

Nearly all of the above do have some exceptions to those hours for very special units, or very special seasons. But the vast majority of seasons, units, and zones adhere to the basic state regulations.
Click to expand...

....all of what you said still makes what the shooter did illegal, regardless of what state you are talking about, since it was 40 minutes after sunset and he could not identify his target. Still makes him an idiot, a poacher and guilty of homicide.
 
Given that this particular shooting happened in New York, other states' laws aren't relevant, so there's no reason to bring them into this discussion.

44 AMP said:
A couple of points in the linked article, which are not being mentioned in the discussion, so far, are #1, the "40 minutes after sunset" is the time the shooting was reported. Note that, reported, not the time the shot was taken.

Also, people are assuming that "after sunset" means after dark, and this isn't necessarily the case. After official sunset time, there is twilight, a period of lessening light, but still allowing visibility for some time, dependent on local conditions. THEN comes full dark. SO, there could have been enough light to see his target, when he made the shot.
Click to expand...
It was Mr. Jadlowski himself who reported the shooting, so the possibility you seem to be raising -- that he shot Ms. Billquist before sunset and then waited over 40 minutes to report the shooting -- doesn't look like much of a mitigating circumstance. Whether there was "enough light" doesn't matter in terms of the legality of what he did; if he was shooting after sunset, he was violating the law.
 
Bottom line is that he owns that bullet regardless of how dark it was.
Click to expand...

Yep, the idiot failed to properly identify his target. Years ago "thought he/she was a deer" was almost always given a pass. Now negligent hunters who mistakenly shoot humans are often charged with manslaughter.

Now he needs a lawyer.
Click to expand...

The shooter will be bankrupt when its over.
 
The shooter will be bankrupt when its over.
Click to expand...

Which may not amount to much $. Jadowski lives on Cornish St. in Sherman. Houses there are small frame homes and mobile homes, mostly. Checking real estate prices and rentals show the houses going for $44-105K, many are run-down. So I doubt Jadowski has a lot to lose financially to this.
 
there are people that cant hit a deer at 100 yards with a rifle, and this moron hits a woman at 200 yards with a pistol? im not buying the story as reported just yet.
 
I don't care what color someone is wearing. People don't look like deer. I don't really see any plausible defense for this. I doubt that woman was crashing through heavy brush holding branches over her head. Probably in an open field. That guy rendering aid to his victim doesn't lessen the severity of his actions.

Also, while I believe this guy should go to jail for his stupidity, what on Earth does his economic standing or the values of property on the street he lives on have to do with any of this?
 
I maybe an idiot and leave a lot of game in the field, but I only shoot game I can clearly identify as meeting the legal definition. Then I only take shots I can hit repeatably. Hitting her in the pelvis would be a huge miss....


What else is going on here?
 
Also, while I believe this guy should go to jail for his stupidity, what on Earth does his economic standing or the values of property on the street he lives on have to do with any of this?
Click to expand...

Glad you brought up the notion of a defense, LOL. The statement was made that this event would bankrupt him. No doubt there will be legal fees. Plus, there is the looming possibility of a wrongful death lawsuit by the victim's family. So I looked at what I could find that would be relevant to the issues and that is the property value of the street where he resides. It would not appear that he would have much means to cover either a good lawyer or provide anything of significance in a wrongful death settlement, which is unfortunate for the victim's family.

I maybe an idiot and leave a lot of game in the field, but I only shoot game I can clearly identify as meeting the legal definition. Then I only take shots I can hit repeatably. Hitting her in the pelvis would be a huge miss....


What else is going on here?
Click to expand...

The guy was poaching. He was hunting after hours and apparently in a field where he did not have permission to hunt. You don't think somebody poaching is going to be all that concerned about clearly identified targets, legal deer, and shot repeatability, do you?
 
buck460XVR said:
....all of what you said still makes what the shooter did illegal, regardless of what state you are talking about, since it was 40 minutes after sunset and he could not identify his target. Still makes him an idiot, a poacher and guilty of homicide.
Click to expand...
I don't care about legal shooting hours in regards to the death. I wasn't addressing that.
The dude killed a lady. Legal shooting hours don't matter, since there is no season on innocent dog walkers.
I was addressing the fact that NoSecondBest was snidely replying to another member for statements about legal shooting hours, while being grossly and factually incorrect with his own statements.
 
He should pay with his freedom. I hate the sue happy world we live in. What exactly is the monetary value of a life? Is one worth more than another? Does any amount of money make up for loss of life? I experience alot of inner conflict when the $ signs start flying.

Double Naught, I get what you're saying relating to the legal costs of the aftermath of this senseless shooting.
 
Nathan said:
... I only shoot game I can clearly identify as meeting the legal definition. Then I only take shots I can hit repeatably.
Click to expand...


That's too much common sense for many 'hunters'. Not to mention knowing what's behind the target, remaining stone cold sober while hunting, and following the rules.
 
The dude killed a lady. Legal shooting hours don't matter, since there is no season on innocent dog walkers.
Click to expand...

That it was not during legal shooting hours means the shooting was during the commission of a crime - poaching. Being after hours means it is low light shooting which further attests to the recklessness of what he was doing. That certainly may go a long way toward actual prosecution, or a higher level of prosecution, or a higher level of sentencing.
 
That it was not during legal shooting hours means the shooting was during the commission of a crime - poaching.
Click to expand...

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I think we don't have enough information at this time to "convict" him of poaching. He probably was, but its also possible he wasn't.

It is possible that he was legally hunting, until sunset, then on his way out of the woods, spotted what he assumed was a deer, and took a shot.

the shot would have been after legal hours, and a violation of law, but he MAY not have been poaching, by intent.

Until/unless more information about this becomes public, we simply don't KNOW very much about the details.
 
It is possible that he was legally hunting, until sunset, then on his way out of the woods, spotted what he assumed was a deer, and took a shot.
Click to expand...

Once sunset occurred, and he continued to hunt, then he was hunting illegally.

Given that poaching is the illegal hunting, killing, capturing, or taking of game in violation of law and given that law enforcement has reported that Jadlowski was hunting illegally after hours and that Jadlowski said he thought he was shooting at a deer, then I don't see how you could call it any other thing than poaching. Intent to be poaching isn't a prerequisite to poaching.

What he was doing beforehand really doesn't matter, sort of like if you are driving 55 in a 55 mph zone and having the speed limit drop to 30 and you continue to drive 55 and getting ticketed for it. You can say you didn't have the intent to be speeding, but that doesn't change the fact that you were speeding.

Regardless if you just want to call it "hunting illegally after hours" or "poaching," he was still engaging in an illegal act at the time Rosemary Billquist was shot by him.
 
FrankenMauser said:
I don't care about legal shooting hours in regards to the death. I wasn't addressing that.
The dude killed a lady. Legal shooting hours don't matter, since there is no season on innocent dog walkers.
I was addressing the fact that NoSecondBest was snidely replying to another member for statements about legal shooting hours, while being grossly and factually incorrect with his own statements.
Click to expand...

I don't care about legal shooting hours either. I was just addressing the fact that some folks are trying to put some of the blame on the victim and some are trying to find a valid reason of why he took the shot in the first place. I agree, even in daylight he broke a cardinal rule of hunter safety and he also broke the law by trespassing. The shooting after legal hours just digs his hole deeper.

As for the " grossly and factually incorrect " statements, I find it common that on these forums, folk's knowledge base of regulations and techniques outside their area is limited. For most folks, until the advent of the internet, unless you actively hunted an area, you generally had no way of really knowing the current local regs unless you had in your possession the local DNR/F&G regulation pamphlet. Now folks can Google local regs(and local home values) in a matter of milliseconds from the comfort of their home. I had to do the same before I knew what was legal in N.Y. Probably forget it in a few days tho, just like I'll forget the value of Trailer Houses in Sherman.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I think we don't have enough information at this time to "convict" him of poaching. He probably was, but its also possible he wasn't.
It is possible that he was legally hunting, until sunset, then on his way out of the woods, spotted what he assumed was a deer, and took a shot.

the shot would have been after legal hours, and a violation of law, but he MAY not have been poaching, by intent.
Click to expand...

Shooting after hours and trespassing with the intent of shooting a deer = poaching to me, regardless of what your definition is. Not identifying your target and killing an innocent woman while doing so, makes you a stupid poacher. Intent may have a determination of whether it was manslaughter or murder, but it does not change the fact he was hunting deer illegally, which constitutes poaching, and committed a homicide while doing so. Again, why are so many folks trying to give some sort of validation/justification to the shooters actions?
 
I was addressing the fact that NoSecondBest was snidely replying to another member for statements about legal shooting hours, while being grossly and factually incorrect with his own statements.
Click to expand...
Absolutely nothing incorrect about my statements, and correcting anyone who makes incorrect statements regarding safety isn't being snide. I was a handgun safety instructor in NY for many years and I've seen some people twist/interpret laws to suit themselves. I worked for many years as a safety manager (and had an exemplary record) and in 99.9% of all "accidents" the root cause can be directly laid on failure to follow safety rules. Most of the violators simply ignored them. A lot of adults don't like being corrected when they're wrong and act offended by it. When it comes to safety I correct them anyway. I'd rather someone's feathers than have someone get hurt.
 
Last edited:
Upon "Googling" farther I discovered that the gun used was a "single shot handgun" which tells me it was probably a T.C. configuration in a rifle caliber, which makes for a 200 yard shot. According to the reports, the bullet went thru her pelvis and then continued out her back.....something most difficult for most straight-walled handgun cartridges after going 200 yards. A picture of the crime scene shows there was snow on the ground, making seeing a dark object moving in the distance easier, while still being difficult at best to identify. I'd bet, that the shooter knew there was a good chance of deer coming to the area after dark(since he was a neighbor of the victim) and was hoping the snow on the ground would assist him in taking a deer after hours. IMHO, poachers and those folks that "bend" the rules, especially those that shoot/hunt before and after legal hours do it more than once during their hunting career.

I know recently, many states have made handguns legal for hunting in areas where rifles have been restricted for safety reasons. I understand with dwindling hunter numbers and increasing deer herds in many areas, the principle behind it. Still, a long barreled handgun shooting a bottle-neck rifle cartridge is not any safer, IMHO, than shooting it in a short barreled carbine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top