Wildlife office shoots two bt accident - Page 2
Register

Welcome to the Prepper Forum / Survivalist Forum.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Wildlife office shoots two bt accident

This is a discussion on Wildlife office shoots two bt accident within the General Talk forums, part of the General Discussion category; Around here turkey hunters are dressed up in suits that would make a sniper feel envy . Seriously the hard core here have weapons and ...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
Like Tree50Likes

Thread: Wildlife office shoots two bt accident

  1. #11
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    SE Wisconsin
    Posts
    19,900
    Around here turkey hunters are dressed up in suits that would make a sniper feel envy . Seriously the hard core here have weapons and gear that make a man invisible. I am not making excuses for the warden on something I have noticed. In this state game wardens have police power. Don't think that would make any difference.
    No madder how you look at it depending on the DA and how forgiving the two that were shot are he may get off easy or slapped down hard. The wrong DA and he is in deep dung.
    New life as a house husband, major shift in duties.

    Karl Marx said, "Destroy their culture, rewrite their history. Ruin their art and literature, and defame their heroes, by offering fabrications to scandalize that which they considered good.
    After reading this Obama said I am on it.

  2. #12
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    8,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty901 View Post
    Around here turkey hunters are dressed up in suits that would make a sniper feel envy . Seriously the hard core here have weapons and gear that make a man invisible. I am not making excuses for the warden on something I have noticed. In this state game wardens have police power. Don't think that would make any difference.
    No madder how you look at it depending on the DA and how forgiving the two that were shot are he may get off easy or slapped down hard. The wrong DA and he is in deep dung.
    There is an inherent risk in hunting, especially turkey since proper camo is a requirement.
    However, that does not absolve a person from firing a weapon at another person. It was not done in malice, from what has been presented. The shooter did not intend for it to happen. But he is still responsible, and if the victims press charges, he has to deal with that.
    "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H. L. Mencken

  3. #13
    Super Moderator


    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    21,817
    Quote Originally Posted by Kauboy View Post
    There is an inherent risk in hunting, especially turkey since proper camo is a requirement.
    However, that does not absolve a person from firing a weapon at another person. It was not done in malice, from what has been presented. The shooter did not intend for it to happen. But he is still responsible, and if the victims press charges, he has to deal with that.
    I'm not a turkey hunter but I know that the hunters make it to where they aren't seen. If the one doing the shooting didn't see them because they did a really good job, what was he to do? Call out to make sure there are no hidden hunters before he shoots? I'm sure the turkey population would love that!

    The article tells us that the incident took place. It doesn't tell us how it happened and that's why there is an investigation. That being the case, I'm going to use good sense and not cast judgment.
    If someone follows this and shares the determination, that'd be nice.
    "Reality is almost always wrong."
    Dr. Gregory House

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PrepperForums.net
    Advertisements
     

  5. #14
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    North Mississippi
    Posts
    2,121
    Boy, this world has sure changed. When I was a kid, I got hit in the neck with pellets when rabbit hunting in heavy brush near the Mississippi river. I had my gun up ready to fire and when hit, dropped by gun. My dad started laughing, thinking maybe I dropped it due to the recoil. When he saw the blood, he understood. Yes, the shooter made a mistake, but those big ass swamp rabbits can run like the wind. Never once did anyone even think about responsibility or liability. Shit happens... then you die.

    I will add, my dad & the men we hunted with all served during WWII, so getting hit with a few stray pellets was no big deal. They saw & lived thru hell. And back then, a kid getting bloody was par for the course. Not something my parents ever got concerned with... no matter what I did. And I did some really stupid things. Part of growing up.
    Last edited by Redneck; 05-20-2020 at 01:08 PM.

  6. #15
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    8,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Denton View Post
    I'm not a turkey hunter but I know that the hunters make it to where they aren't seen. If the one doing the shooting didn't see them because they did a really good job, what was he to do? Call out to make sure there are no hidden hunters before he shoots? I'm sure the turkey population would love that!

    The article tells us that the incident took place. It doesn't tell us how it happened and that's why there is an investigation. That being the case, I'm going to use good sense and not cast judgment.
    If someone follows this and shares the determination, that'd be nice.
    You are taking this from the perspective of the shooter.
    Instead, flip it to the perspective of the injured party, and see if there is an issue.

    If I fired a round in self defense, in my home, and was fully justified in shooting the person in my home... but the round penetrated my exterior wall and hit a child outside... would I be responsible for it? Yes.
    Should not knowing of the child's presence keep me from shooting? No.
    Should I fully anticipate accepting responsibility for the round I fired, and ALL it did? YES!
    Again, engaging in the act of hunting, putting oneself in the position of being in the woods, in camouflage, and expecting gunfire, does not absolve anyone of their responsibility for every shot they take.

    What *should* he have done? With the benefit of hindsight, clearly the answer is "not shoot". In the moment, he was not *certain* of what was beyond his target. Therefore, he is at fault for any injury caused by his action.

    I'm not calling for attempted homicide here. But he caused injury, and if the victims decide to press charges, they are well within their rights to do so.
    Last edited by Kauboy; 05-20-2020 at 01:13 PM.
    1skrewsloose likes this.
    "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H. L. Mencken

  7. #16
    Super Moderator


    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    21,817
    Quote Originally Posted by Kauboy View Post
    You are taking this from the perspective of the shooter.
    Instead, flip it to the perspective of the injured party, and see if there is an issue.

    If I fired a round in self defense, in my home, and was fully justified in shooting the person in my home... but the round penetrated my exterior wall and hit a child outside... would I be responsible for it? Yes.
    Should not knowing of the child's presence keep me from shooting? No.
    Should I fully anticipate accepting responsibility for the round I fired, and ALL it did? YES!
    Again, engaging in the act of hunting, putting oneself in the position of being in the woods, in camouflage, and expecting gunfire, does not absolve anyone of their responsibility for every shot they take.

    What *should* he have done? With the benefit of hindsight, clearly the answer is "not shoot". In the moment, he was not *certain* of what was beyond his target. Therefore, he is at fault for any injury caused by his action.

    I'm not calling for attempted homicide here. But he caused injury, and if the victims decide to press charges, they are well within their rights to do so.
    I prefer not to deal in ifs and assumptions. As I said, there's an investigation being conducted. Maybe we'll find out what really happened.
    "Reality is almost always wrong."
    Dr. Gregory House

  8. #17
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    8,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Denton View Post
    I prefer not to deal in ifs and assumptions. As I said, there's an investigation being conducted. Maybe we'll find out what really happened.
    Fair enough, but if the investigation results in the officer's weapon discharging, and any pellet from that discharge striking the injured parties, he's at fault. Plain and simple.
    That's the information we have thus far, and I can't imagine it varies much from that.

    It is not an assumption to state that a shooter is responsible for all injury and damage their shot causes. There can be legal defenses against punishment or restitution if the shot was justified, but the responsibility always remains.
    "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H. L. Mencken

  9. #18
    Super Moderator


    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    21,817
    Quote Originally Posted by Kauboy View Post
    Fair enough, but if the investigation results in the officer's weapon discharging, and any pellet from that discharge striking the injured parties, he's at fault. Plain and simple.
    That's the information we have thus far, and I can't imagine it varies much from that.

    It is not an assumption to state that a shooter is responsible for all injury and damage their shot causes. There can be legal defenses against punishment or restitution if the shot was justified, but the responsibility always remains.
    My question isn't why he accidentally shot a couple of hunters who made them invisible. My question is how were they hunting in the same area? At the hunting club, you go to the cabin where the map is, mark the area you'll be hunting and then remove the mark when you leave. On post, you're to go to the game warden's office and you'll be assigned an area.
    How did they end up hunting on top of each other?
    "Reality is almost always wrong."
    Dr. Gregory House

  10. #19
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    The Lone Star State
    Posts
    8,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Denton View Post
    My question isn't why he accidentally shot a couple of hunters who made them invisible. My question is how were they hunting in the same area? At the hunting club, you go to the cabin where the map is, mark the area you'll be hunting and then remove the mark when you leave. On post, you're to go to the game warden's office and you'll be assigned an area.
    How did they end up hunting on top of each other?
    I can't speak for how Wildlife Management Areas operate in Tennessee, but in Texas, they are open to the public during hunting season, and there is no checking or verification performed upon entering or leaving. Some areas require a special permit, others don't.
    "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H. L. Mencken

  11. #20
    Senior Member


    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Western PA
    Posts
    6,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Kauboy View Post
    Ahem...


    Your scenarios would be irrelevant.
    Negligence is negligence, and he caused injury.
    The shooter is responsible for EVERY SINGLE PELLET FIRED, AND EVERYTHING THEY HIT.
    Period.
    so is your stance is that all cases of person being shot while hunting should be punished?

    let me point out responsible and fault are not the same.

    a person shots at deer. bullet passes trough the deer and hits a metal pipe used to hold bird houses, bullet ricochets and hits a person

    a person shots an arrow that misses and hits a tree, flight path changes and it hits a person

    both cases the person is responsible.. but they not at fault, not guilty!!!

    you can totally keep rule 4 and yet still have an accident... Of course if you wanted to keep rule 4 perfectly you could never ever ever ever hunt in Maine or in thick wooded areas

    My grandfather shot at a deer and ended up hitting a man in the ass... the man was not able to be seen (behind bushes and shrubs) and the deer was between them

    in Maine, with the thick woods and often close up shots... it would be impossible to verify that there was nobody in a straight line behind your target animal

    Of course in a perfect world on a gun range rule 4 is easy... but in real life hunting or even in police work.... the thing is to KNOW what is beyond ... SOMETIMES you just can not KNOW what is on the other side of the wall or what might be walking around the corner when you are shooting at a suspect.. nor can you KNOW what is 50 yards past the deer, turkey, grouse, moose behind high grass, shrubs, blue berry bushes....

    so ya I agree you are responsible for every pellet... but are you guilty and should you be punished.....
    rice paddy daddy likes this.
    Be a Berean

 

 
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to Top