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

Status
Not open for further replies.
It could have been a ricochet of a serious angle for all we know.
Click to expand...

If it was in fact a ricochet, does a ricochet somehow make him no longer responsible?

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.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we start painting our homes blaze orange during hunting season so that hunters dont shot in our direction.

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

Isnt there? Fremmer certainly hasnt actual been established that either way. But based on the charges that have been brought against the hunter, I would say that the prosecutor thinks there is quite a bit liability involved.
 
I am amazed at some of the logic used to find culpability in the incident. Some of the comments made here border on the absurd. Let's at lest look at some of the things both known and unknown.

1. The 500 ft limit is voided with permission of the land owner. Did he have permission? Do not know.

2 Did he know the trailer was there or could he see it? Do not know. And as the area he intended to hunt was not identified we have no idea how far he tracked the deer.

3. He did fire a second shot at the deer from a location other than the one he was hunting from. When he fired this second shot was he in an area that he was familiar with? Do not know.

4. The child was visiting she did not live there. Was she normally there? Do not know.

5. Was his gun pointed in the direction of the trailer (we know it was pointed at the deer) when he fired the fatal shot? You simply can not predict the path of a bullet fired into the forest. Do not know.

This is why we have trials, to discover the truth and the facts. But it seems that some will write their own facts to fit their judgement.

It is a fact that a little girl died and by his actions a man has lost all hope of a peacefull future both in this own mind and in the world he lives in. No verdict can save him. He is truly doomed to his own hell.

Be safe
Dallas Jack
 
'Experienced hunter', I'd say not. He should have known that the dwelling was there and not fired towards it, occupied or not.

'Experienced hunter', who is this? I was invited to hunt private land in NC that had been in their family for generations. I caught a really nice buck out of the corner of my eye (no time to count points but nice) pass behind a stand of bushes. The buck proceeds to thrash the bushes for about 10 mins. with me only being able to catch patches of hide through some holes then the deer just evaporates, must have trailed off with the bushes in my line of sight. The 'experienced hunter' could see all of this and asked why I didn't fire through the bushes. He also didn't seem to comprehend having a clear target. HE would have taken the shot.

Being in the woods with 'experienced hunters' can be scary at times. I've often wondered 'What if that was me just setting up a temp. blind?'.
 
Lightning strike fatalities in our country average about 60 per year.
Negligence aside, I would put the odds of this type of firearm fatality in about the same catagory as lightning strikes.
I never seem to read about lightning fatalities. Do ya think that the media would over publicize firearm fatalities....naaah.:rolleyes: jd
 
Lightning strike fatalities in our country average about 60 per year.
Negligence aside, I would put the odds of this type of firearm fatality in about the same catagory as lightning strikes.
I never seem to read about lightning fatalities. Do ya think that the media would over publicize firearm fatalities....naaah.
Click to expand...

You probably don't seem to notice the lightning fatalities quite so much because you are not a participant in meteorological forums where such events are more noteworthy.

Be that as it may, lightning strikes are not the result of negligence and so are not nearly as newsworthy. A firearms incident involves at least twice the number of parties as a lightning strike (victim versus the shooter and victim). Notice that along similar lines, the number of stories about single party hunting incidents are largely missed by the media as well and make up very little discussion on related forums such as this one.

With that said, currently more people are killed by lightning strikes than in hunting incidents. The real difference is that 2 party hunting incidents involve negligence on the part of one or both parties. In 2007, there were some 180 such 2 party incidents, fortunately of which only a fraction were fatal. However, because some form of negligence was involved, they could have been avoided. There were another 50+ single party incidents you probably never heard anything about, huh?

http://6fbd21e64bc817fd097aa54148bd...ents.com/documents/Incidents/HIC2007Mar08.pdf
 
Dallas Jack wrote:
1. The 500 ft limit is voided with permission of the land owner. Did he have permission? Do not know.

2 Did he know the trailer was there or could he see it? Do not know. And as the area he intended to hunt was not identified we have no idea how far he tracked the deer.

3. He did fire a second shot at the deer from a location other than the one he was hunting from. When he fired this second shot was he in an area that he was familiar with? Do not know.

4. The child was visiting she did not live there. Was she normally there? Do not know.

5. Was his gun pointed in the direction of the trailer (we know it was pointed at the deer) when he fired the fatal shot? You simply can not predict the path of a bullet fired into the forest. Do not know.
Click to expand...

I am amazed at the logic that some have used to shirk culpability in this incident. Regarding the points you bring up in your list:

1. What does this have to do with anything about this case? Nothing. The owner surely never gave permission for the hunter to shot intentionally or otherwise at his home.

2. If he didn't know, he should have. You should not hunt an area that you are not completely familiar with...especially if you don't know if there are homes nearby. If he did know, then he is also guilty of depraved indifference.

3. Again...basic safety rules apply. And every hunter has to pass a hunter safety course before being issued a hunting license. Go look up firearms safety rules as relating to your target. Never mind: I'll do it for you:
Safety Rules Related to Your Target:

1. Positively identify your target and the threat it poses before firing at it.
2. What's behind your target? Always make sure that a stray shot, or a bullet which penetrates its intended target through and through, will be safely stopped.
3. Never shoot at a hard surface, or at water -- your shot may glance off, ricochet and injure someone.
4. Never shoot at glass bottles, living trees, or inappropriate targets which would create a hazard for other persons or damage the environment.
5. Never shoot a rifle or handgun directly upwards, or at a high angle of elevation. Even a rimfire .22 bullet fired at an angle into the air can have enough energy a mile and a half away to accidentally kill someone!
6. Never shoot across a highway or other roadway.
7. Never vandalize a road sign (or other public or private property) by using it as a target.
8. Never poach a game animal out of season, or shoot any game animal you don't intend to eat.​

4. Why does this matter...the little girl was INSIDE HER TRAILER HOME which the bullet pierced before striking her. Are you suggesting that this little girl is somehow at fault because she caught a 'stray bullet'?
5. This one doesn't matter either...he fired the bullet. He is responsible even for his bullets that ricochet...if that is indeed what happened. See rule #2 above.
 
Off topic of negligent shooting but on lightning strike... When I was a wee little boy I was taught that 2-4mississippi seconds was when we need to seek cover... Now I hear 12 is much wiser. I wonder who was tryin' to get me kilt in that aluminum row boat???:o:eek:
Brent
 
Lightning strike fatalities in our country average about 60 per year.
Negligence aside, I would put the odds of this type of firearm fatality in about the same catagory as lightning strikes.
I never seem to read about lightning fatalities. Do ya think that the media would over publicize firearm fatalities....naaah.
Click to expand...

This was a homicide. What do the odds of anything have to do with this homicide?

Lightning strike fatalities are freak casualties of nature. Firearm fatalities are because someone put their finger on the trigger and pulled it...intentionally or otherwise. There is no force of nature involved.
 
Okay here goes... I just went out to scout some on the EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE. I entered on a HIKING TRAIL that is part of the Florida Trail Association. On the entry sign it plainly states that hikers must wear the Blaze Orange required of hunters during legal hunting season. Why does this bear mention? The powers that be expect everyone to use good judgment when in the woods either hunting or tree hugging.
Okay so off I go looking for sign and ciphering the population of deer. I came upon a mans spot that he had set up in a nice hidey hole complete with 2 green plastic chairs and matching end table. How I found it was circling what appeared to be a great bedding site on cold nights or possibly a rendezvous point. Just a hundred yards previous I had picked out a natural blind overlooking that very spot. The person using the chairs would have had no idea I was there nor would I know he was present. Since I wasn't carrying compass nor maps I wasn't heading into the "bottoms" where I choose to go to avoid the slob hunters. If I chose to hunt the high ground I would further scout and likely limit my self to 00 buck or possibly the slug if I can find clear shooting lanes. Culpability is all on the shooter from the time they pull the trigger. I don't care if the bullet does loopy loops and turns corners before reversing direction... And I am not trying to sound holier than thou... That same culpability is my main concern even while packing my gear at the house. Hunting is one of the more serious endeavors a human can undertake! As for the child just visiting this house... It would have been okay to poke a hole in a domicile so long as it don't hit anyone?
Brent
 
"This was a homicide. What do the odds of anything have to do with this homicide?"

This man is guilty of homicide much the way that a father would be if his child were killed by lightning as they fished together in a boat on a lake on a cloudy day.
Let's not assign more blame to this guy than he deserves until the facts are in. jd
 
Last edited:
This man is guilty of homicide much the way that a father would be if his child were killed by lightning as they fished together in a boat on a lake on a cloudy day.
Let's not assign more blame to this guy than he deserves until the facts are in. jd
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding us. How is getting struck by lightning the same as shooting a someone....even "accidentally"?
 
This man is guilty of homicide much the way that a father would be if his child were killed by lightning as they fished together in a boat on a lake on a cloudy day.
Click to expand...

Um, no.

Pulling the trigger on a gun and killing a child as a result is not the same thing as an act of God.
 
I am amazed at the logic that some have used to shirk culpability in this incident. Regarding the points you bring up in your list:

1. What does this have to do with anything about this case? Nothing. The owner surely never gave permission for the hunter to shot intentionally or otherwise at his home.

2. If he didn't know, he should have. You should not hunt an area that you are not completely familiar with...especially if you don't know if there are homes nearby. If he did know, then he is also guilty of depraved indifference.

3. Again...basic safety rules apply. And every hunter has to pass a hunter safety course before being issued a hunting license. Go look up firearms safety rules as relating to your target. Never mind: I'll do it for you:

4. Why does this matter...the little girl was INSIDE HER TRAILER HOME which the bullet pierced before striking her. Are you suggesting that this little girl is somehow at fault because she caught a 'stray bullet'?
Click to expand...


1. It has been bought up as a contributing factor on this thread even to the point of if he was standing further away by just one more foot this would not have happened.

2,3. We do not know the relationship between his intentional hunting area and the location of the fatal shot.

4. On the contrary, I am not assigning blame on anyone, most certianly not the little girl. The point here was she would not have been there had he decided to hunt at a different time. Does that matter? Not really, just clearing up something that had been stated in other replies that was in error.


2. What's behind your target? Always make sure that a stray shot, or a bullet which penetrates its intended target through and through, will be safely stopped.
3. Never shoot at a hard surface, or at water -- your shot may glance off, ricochet and injure someone.
4. Never shoot at glass bottles, living trees, or inappropriate targets which would create a hazard for other persons or damage the environment.
Click to expand...

2. He was tracking a wounded animal, maybe outside of his hunting area. How would you handle this?
3,4. He was not shooting at any of the above targets. His target was a deer. As it turned out it was a bad decision.

I am not defending the hunter, only his right to a fair trial without bias or preudice. No one on this forum has privy to the facts. (If I am wrong and you know more than was reported please sound off so we can put this one to rest)

If you haven't noticed by now, I have no confidence in the reporting of facts in our media. Is this guy guilty of second degree manslaughter? I do not know as I again say, I DO NOT HAVE THE FACTS. Do you?

Be Safe
Dallas Jack
 
2. He was tracking a wounded animal, maybe outside of his hunting area. How would you handle this?
Click to expand...

Interesting, if you don't have the facts, then how do you know he was tracking a wounded animal?

FYI, it isn't the tracking that was the problem. It was the shooting. He may have been tracking a wounded animal and got in a position to shoot it, but he obviously didn't know what was beyond the animal (assuming innocence here). The simple point of the matter is that he should not have taken the shot.

He buggered his first shot and completely screwed up on his second shot. Wow.

If you haven't noticed by now, I have no confidence in the reporting of facts in our media. Is this guy guilty of second degree manslaughter? I do not know as I again say, I DO NOT HAVE THE FACTS. Do you?
Click to expand...

Any yet you keep arguing for only specific "facts" you claim you don't have and don't trust. How convenient.

You are playing both sides of the fence and that doesn't jive very well.
 
This thread has gotten to be as bad as the one about the kid up in the Pacific NW who shot a woman. Circular nit-picking to the nth degree.

Let's not get too nit-picky about word usage. Accident = unintended event. ("I didn't mean for that to happen!") It might or might not have resulted from negligence. Generally, negligence = carelessness or sloppiness in either thinking or doing. (Lotsa kids could be named Oops.)

There's just too much egregious stretching of the what-if in these threads.

And that's why this one is done.

Back to morning coffee...

Art
 
Art, did you mean mean to close it down?

Anyway, in before the lock: I have to agree with Art's "It was an 'accident' in that it was unintentional."

And yah, stop nitpicking already...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top