quote:

There is a vast difference to a foot game viewing safari. One expects to shoot an elephant on a hunting safari. It is a thing of last resort on a game viewing safari.

I have never hunted elephant and probably never will. I am just not sure I want to shoot one. Having said that, it seems to me that Nitrox's comment above, is relevant.
Peter.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:

Wrong. You are engaging in the rankest kind of second guessing and speculation.

.... I have not said, and will not say, that the guide did anything wrong, or should have done anything differently - not based on the facts presented thus far. And IMHO no one else should either.

Lets look at "rank second guessing and speculation":

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
Why didn't the guide get his group the hell out of there as soon as he realized that the elephant was in musth? (All rules of elephant behavior go out the window when dealing with a bull in musth.)

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
How far away was the elephant when it stopped, after the guide shouted, in each of his two mock charges? (Too close for comfort, apparently, at least with respect to the second mock charge.)

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
When the elephant began its final, real charge, how close did the guide let him get before firing a warning shot over the elephant's head? (Perhaps it's better to hold fire until you need it and then fire for effect.)

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
Why did the guide fire a warning shot at a genuinely charging, as opposed to mock charging, elephant? (Perhaps it's not as easy to distinguish between the two as this report seems to indicate.)

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
What prevented the guide from firing another shot after his warning shot failed to stop the elephant? (The key question.)

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
Maybe there are good answers to each of these questions. But we sure don't have them in this report. As I've said before about this situation, fair or not, the buck stops with the man holding the rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
Of course, let's not kid ourselves. In this case, as in similar cases, there is also the real fear on the part of the guide and his employer that they may be sued and found liable for negligence (although the odds for that seem low, given the surviving husband's actions thus far in the wake of the incident, as reported by The Hide).

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
There is also the fear on the guide's part that he may lose his license.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
These concerns often stand in the way of and sometimes prevent full disclosure of the facts. That is a reality that I do not discount. That does not, however, excuse the failure to ask the hard questions.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
Speaking only for myself, if I were a guide under these circumstances, I would rather risk losing my license, or my life, than the lives of my clients. As I have said, the buck stops with the man holding the rifle, right or wrong, fair or not.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
He is the one on the scene, and the one who will have to live the rest of his life as one of only two survivors of this incident. I do not mean to suggest that he did anything wrong. We can't know or say that on the facts so far presented. I sincerely hope that the guide in this incident can get on with his life secure in the knowledge that he did all that he could to safeguard his clients.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
The impulse to assume the best is a good human trait, but it is a poor predicate for action or behavior.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
But I do not apologize in any way, shape or form for asking these questions - the head in the sand approach has never appealed to me. No one should ever be afraid to ask such questions after an incident like this one.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
Also, for the record, I am not armchair quarterbacking, unless asking questions is quarterbacking. And getting answers to these questions is necessary before we can hope to know precisely why this unfortunate incident took place - or before anyone can do any armchair quarterbacking, if so inclined.

Really????

Yet ...

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
I recognize that they may never be answered.

..... then why the many many questions questioning the conduct of the PH and second guessing his actions?


Now the surviving client is "suggested" to be an idiot with "no earthly clue" Any evidence of this from mrlexma?

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
As for whether the surviving husband knew what he was getting into when he took his family on their game-viewing walk, I would suggest that he manifestly and absolutely had no earthly clue.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
I tend to agree with you that if it's so late in the game that you're thinking of firing a warning shot then it's too damned late for a warning shot.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
Further, I have to wonder why one would ever fire a warning shot without time to follow up with one between the eyes? Much remains unsaid about that.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
As I have said, one can't be an armchair quarterback, or second-guess (which is the same thing), or most importantly, learn anything, without the facts.

******************************************

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
You are engaging in the rankest kind of second guessing and speculation.

Now to use your mode of casting negative questions on the lodges and PHs reputations, I will say this .....

even though I am not suggesting this is the case, .....

it should be asked if the sentence above is the most hypocritical comment made on AR in 2007?



mrlexma

You do realise this was a real true life and death incident, and the reputations of real people are affected by asking such questions, which have NO ANSWERS?

NitroX, you have inferred some sort of evil intent from my questions where none was intended or can be found - and despite your efforts to take several of them out of context to make what passes for your point, you have only strengthened my original proposition. I have asked questions. To the extent that I have speculated in connection with those questions, it has been to clarify or explain why such questions are or may be relevant - not to draw unfounded conclusions, as you have done.

Here is the bottom line, and I have said this at least twice, and you have even quoted me once. Maybe there are good answers to each and every one of my questions. But we sure don't have them in in the published reports of this incident. And for lack of those answers, we lose the chance to learn from this unfortunate incident.

You, apparently, would prefer to ask no questions, and just conclude, not ask, suggest or wonder, but flat out conclude, that the guide made a mistake here, and should not have fired a warning shot. I stand by my characterization of your conclusion as rank and ill-founded speculation. You seem now to realize that you were speculating when you claimed that the shot shouldn't have been taken, but at the time you said it, you asserted it as fact!

The answer in a case like this one is never as simple as "Accidents happen." That is why we have accident investigators, inquests and autopsies. It is always more complicated than "Animals are dangerous." or "Machines are complicated." The only way we learn how to prevent these kind of incidents, in those cases where prevention is possible, is to find out why and how they happened. Enough said.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:

You, apparently, would prefer to ask no questions, and just conclude, not ask, suggest or wonder, but flat out conclude, that the guide made a mistake here, and should not have fired a warning shot. I stand by my characterization of your conclusion as rank and ill-founded speculation. You seem now to realize that you were speculating when you claimed that the shot shouldn't have been taken, but at the time you said it, you asserted it as fact!

Lets use my actual words, hey? Not a lawyer trying to paraphrase them.

quote:

It is certain the PH or guide in this example should have shot the elephant instead of trying a warning shot. But hindsight makes everyone a brilliant expert. Speculation is also very easy but without any more facts that is all it is going to be.

As two clients got killed and the PH was himself knocked over, and only fired one warning shot, OF COURSE the PH should have tried to fire a killing shot. ALL FROM HINDSIGHT which is probably next in line to BULLSH*T in level of strategy.

Even a lawyer should be able to work that one out???

Personally I think the PH on the FACTS acted appropriately but will have to pay for this incident for the rest of his life. I prefer FACTS not speculation.

And you yourself have said we are unlikely to ever get all the answers, so lets leave these people get on with their lives and businesses withiout more rumour and innuendo including the surviving client.

I'm not going to argue it more anyway.

PS The cartoon above I found above, while it was more hard hitting than I intended it was so good it could not not be used! I hope you enjoyed it. It will come in handy in the future as well.

You are certainly better at cartoon selection than logic or reading comprehension, I will grant you that. I guess I stung you too hard when I pointed out the purely speculative nature of your claim that the guide in this case should definitely not have fired a warning shot.

As for your love of facts, I would suggest that if you really do prefer to deal in facts, then you really shouldn't be afraid of asking questions. My original point in this thread, which you have steadily evaded or misconstrued, is that far from putting this matter to rest, the follow up report from The Hide raises as many questions or more than it answers.

Even a non-lawyer with his head stuck firmly up his ass should be able to understand that.

I will leave you with that parting shot, which is really more hard hitting than I intended, but too good not to be used.

Let's see.

Some people got too close to an elephant. They got squashed.

That seems to be about it.

I love it. "Animals are dangerous so why try to figure out what happened?"

How about a few analogies:

Traffic Accident Investigation:

Let's see, head on collision. Family in the minivan got squashed.

That seems to be about it. Call the ambulance.

Next?

Murder Investigation:

Let's see, this poor guy got shot. Looks like he's dead.

That seems to be about it. Call the morgue.

Life in the big city.

Next?

NASA Accident Investigation:

Let's see, the space shuttle went up, then it exploded, and some astronauts got squashed.

That seems to be about it. Machines are complicated.

Let's launch another one post haste.

Any volunteers?

* * *

This horse is safe from any further beating by me. I give up.

Should the FBI be doing a background check on the elephant to see if he previously showed an inclination toward squashing people and if perhaps he should have been incarcerated for such inclination?

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
I love it. "Animals are dangerous so why try to figure out what happened?"

How about a few analogies:

Traffic Accident Investigation:

Let's see, head on collision. Family in the minivan got squashed.

That seems to be about it. Call the ambulance.

Next?

Murder Investigation:

Let's see, this poor guy got shot. Looks like he's dead.

That seems to be about it. Call the morgue.

Life in the big city.

Next?

NASA Accident Investigation:

Let's see, the space shuttle went up, then it exploded, and some astronauts got squashed.

That seems to be about it. Machines are complicated.

Let's launch another one post haste.

Any volunteers?

* * *

This horse is safe from any further beating by me. I give up.

I don't understand the extreme interest in "fact Finding" here. In each of the examples above, you left out one critical part of the equation. A BULL ELEPHANT IN MUSHT!!! Un unpredictable, illogical, and highly irritated dangerous animal!

The actions of the humans has been expalained are logical and justifiable. Seems if you want any more anwsers, you'll have to interview the bull.

This whole thread has gotten ridiculous.

Here you go fellas:

Bored Lawyers

Have Fun!

quote:

Originally posted by N'gagi:
This whole thread has gotten ridiculous.

Nah, just one poster did.
------------------------------------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burn gunpowder."

So now the peanut gallery finally decides to pipe up?

Too late. The game is over. I have given up. Cheap shots notwithstanding.