Be careful out there!!! Horrible accidents happen...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Seriously, and while we're at it, perhaps no gunstores should be allowed within 1 mile of a school, right?

I see now how the antis win a little bit at a time....
 
Last edited:
Or perhaps hunting should not be allowed at all, right?
Click to expand...

Seriously, and while we're at it, perhaps no gunstores should be allowed within 1 mile of a school, right?
Click to expand...

Okay...there is no need to be smarmy.

But stop making excuses for a stupid hunter who pulled the trigger when he shouldn't have. He pulled it and he killed someone. It wasnt accidental, it was negligent.

If you cant shoot a rifle while hunting because people are just too close, then use a shot gun.
 
Creature.... SMARMY??? At first read I saw "SAMMY"... And thought, "How did he both of them had the same name???":D:D:D:D
Brent
 
I see now how the antis win a little bit at a time....
Click to expand...

The killing a young girl because a hunter choose not to follow the basic safety tenants of firearms use is never going to "win" the antis over to our cause.
 
You must be daft. No, it was NOT an accident!
Click to expand...


and with this I am out...


Yes, I concede, he did indeed intentionally shoot the girl.

He must have, otherwise it was a negligent act that caused an accidental death.
 
Good. Glad to see you go. Because your belief that negligence is as good as an accident really shows how you have no understanding of the levels of indifference this hunter showed when he pulled that trigger.

There was no equipment malfunction here. If there had been, then only then would this have been an accident.
 
Funny how when we don't want to really assign responsibility, we call such events "accidents."

No, it was not an accident, not in regard to responsibility or behavior. The hunter fired intentionally in a manner that turned out to be terribly unsafe and apparently illegal.

No, he did not intentionally shoot the girl, otherwise, the charge would be murder.

So we have an intentional act in an attempt to cause death, performed illegally, that resulted in an unintentional wrongful death...hence the charge of manslaughter.
 
You really shouldn't call someone else "daft" and then tell us there's no need to get smarmy. I'm not being "smarmy" at all. I'm trying to understand what legal basis exists for imposing strict liability on a hunter, which is what you are asserting. I am not aware of a case from any State Court holding that hunting with a firearm is an ultra-hazardous activity (which would justify the imposition of strict liability). If you have such a case citation, please provide it. I understand that the hunter may have been negligent. But this is a different standard than the absolute strict liability standard you are attempting to impose on hunters. And why is my suggestion that all hunting should not be allowed under your standard somehow "smarmy"? After all, you are the one asserting that if there is ANY chance whatsoever that a bullet might hit a person, then hunting should not be allowed. I presume you are implying that a shotgun slug (or a shot from a shotgun) should only be allowed. Or maybe you are asserting that only arrow hunting should be allowed. Or only spear hunting. But with all of these examples, there will always be a "remote possibility" that a hunter will unintentionally hit something other than a deer.
 
I am sure you would feel very differently if that was your daughter who was "accidentally" killed by a hunter's "stray" bullet.

You really shouldn't call someone else "daft" and then tell us there's no need to get smarmy.
Click to expand...

By their statements, they were both.
After all, you are the one asserting that if there is ANY chance whatsoever that a bullet might hit a person, then hunting should not be allowed.
Click to expand...

No, I am not. I am simply saying that any/every hunter is liable for the bullet he fires. Period.
 
I presume your response indicates that you lack actual case law to support your legally incorrect assertion of strict liability for hunters. Note that I'm not calling anyone daft or smarmy. But that's just me. :)

I am simply saying that any/every hunter is liable for the bullet he fires. Period.
Click to expand...

Once again, you are legally incorrect. Your strick liability standard is not the law, and entirely devoid of logic in the real world.
 
I require the correct legal standard to be applied to the hunter, regardless of whether he or she is charged with a violation of criminal law or is sued in civil court for a tort. But in either case, your legally incorrect standard of automatic fault does not apply, and (thankfully) is rendered by a jury of peers, rather than one who castigates others (by labeling them daft or smarmy) simply because they express their opinions.
 
Fremmer: +1 to all of that.

And by the way, the law is 500 feet, which last time I checked, a modern shotgun slug has no problem travelling (166.67 yards)...
 
So...are you asserting that the hunter is not strictly liable for the bullet that he fired...a bullet which struck and killed a small child in her own home due to negligence?
 
And by the way, the law is 500 feet, which last time I checked, a modern shotgun slug has no problem travelling (166.67 yards)...
Click to expand...

You see a hunter 500 ft away from you and pointing a rifle in your direction...your cool with that?...because you know the law?
 
1.
So...are you asserting that the hunter is not strictly liable for the bullet that he fired...a bullet which struck and killed a small child in her own home due to negligence?
Click to expand...

If you remove the fact that he was 100 feet less than the law states, then HOW do you KNOW he was negligent, without all of the facts?? It could have been a ricochet of a serious angle for all we know.

2.
You see a hunter 500 ft away from you and pointing a rifle in your direction...your cool with that?...because you know the law?
Click to expand...

Who said I am cool with that?

If I am in the open in full orange and he sees me and still fires in my general direction then we've got serious problems.

If he doesn't see me b/c of thick woods (which, by the way, most NYers know you often times can't see full orange at 50 feet, let aone 500 b/c the woods are so thick), then I can't blame the guy if there are no residences around.

If he's 600 feet away from my house, and fires at a 45 degree angle away from my house into thick woods, and it ricochets at that 45 degrees and hits my house and kills someone, can he be blamed & charged, under the law?

Seems to me that Fremmer is saying no, he can't, because there is no strict liability for hunting, agreed?

And could I blame the guy? No, I don't think I really could...but I hope to God I never have to find out!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top