In the past such shootings were casually called "accidents". But more recently charges are made . The media should just call it a shooting until police have made a judgment .
Published "facts '' are few. I would like to see it a crime to do something grossly stupid.
The woman and her dogs should have worn orange .
Throw the book at the shooter.

https://bangordailynews.com/20...incident-identified/

Here's another from a few weeks ago....34 yo woman shot and killed in her back yard in Maine. He says he "saw movement but couldn't see the whole body of the deer".

Anyone who shoots someone claiming they thought it was a deer should be in prison for a minimum of 10 years. Even the most asinine hunter might think twice before firing. I'm appalled by every one of these murders.

quote:

Originally posted by Norton:
https://bangordailynews.com/20...incident-identified/

Here's another from a few weeks ago....34 yo woman shot and killed in her back yard in Maine. He says he "saw movement but couldn't see the whole body of the deer".

Anyone who shoots someone claiming they thought it was a deer should be in prison for a minimum of 10 years. Even the most asinine hunter might think twice before firing. I'm appalled by every one of these murders.

+million Norton; could not agree more.

I do wish the media would quit referring to this guy as a hunter. He was trespassing. He was shooting after legal time had expired. He, then, is no longer a hunter. He is a POACHER.

I am not defending this guy at all. The article say he CALLED after sundown. It does not say he shot after sundown.

I am confident he violated many rules of gun safety if not applicable law. He deserves what punishment he gets.

I could have sat by my pool and shot a number of deer today. I would not even think about it due to the number of people around.

We don't uniformly train hunters before allowing them to get a license and we certainly do not train any hunters to German standards. It seems probable we could train better and actually try to weed out some wannabe hunters.

I have to agree with Norton on this, especially ion this case and the shooter needs to suffer the maximum punishment available.

I’ll wait for all the facts
It’s easy to point finger...

+ What Norton said.
Not much more that can be said about it.

quote:

It’s easy to point finger..

200 yards with as single shot handgun, that is pure negligence.

Would you be waiting for the real story if it had been one of your family members?

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

quote:

It’s easy to point finger..

200 yards with as single shot handgun, that is pure negligence.

Would you be waiting for the real story if it had been one of your family members?

what more to the story can there be? Like, she wasn't wearing orange and should have been???? WTF...

“I thought she was a deer” is all you need to know.

Read the link I provided if you prefer murder by rifle.

quote:

200 yards with as single shot handgun, that is pure negligence.

What a moronic statement........ Iv'e killed animals farther with my Contenders......

Shooting a person you "thought" was a deer is terribly negligent!

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:

200 yards with as single shot handgun, that is pure negligence.

You need to rethink this statement.

Why?

I understand full well the capabilities of experienced hunters using T&C Contenders and other such such single shots, equipped with scopes and have been worked with over time and the shooter being fully aware of his/her capabilities.

My comment was in No Way a condemnation of hunters using single shot handguns for hunting at whatever range they have the confidence and capability of handling.

Is that this situation with this incident?

Was the shooter an experienced hunter with that equipment?

Was the handgun scoped with an adequate scope for shots at that range?

Was the hunter pushing the envelope of his abilities to identify game and/or shooting at a target at that distance?

To me it appears there are several avenues in this incident that points to negligence on the part of the hunter!

quote:

Iv'e killed animals farther with my Contenders...

And you honestly believe ALL hunters share your exact same level of experience and ability?

While my wording of the statement should have been better expressed, the point remains, a woman is dead, a family is grieving and a hunter made a bad damn decision, which equates to nothing more or less than negligence on his part.

It was a blanket statement, that's why. It goes without clarification that everything about this particular case was "pure negligence".

As I said, I worded my comment wrongly and really did not intend it as a Blanket statement as I have been around hunters that are excellent shots with their Contenders or other such handguns.

It was never my intention to blame ALL handgun users.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
As I said, I worded my comment wrongly and really did not intend it as a Blanket statement as I have been around hunters that are excellent shots with their Contenders or other such handguns.

It was never my intention to blame ALL handgun users.

Gotcha, no worries. I shot a snowshoe Saturday with my .410 Contender lefty.....not easy! The trigger is fantastic for the 45LC but a little light for nondominant offhand shotgun.....a true "hare" trigger.

And some idiot from Ohio shot a brown pickup truck in NYS because he thought it was a deer.

There are too many idiots out there.

quote:

We don't uniformly train hunters before allowing them to get a license and we certainly do not train any hunters to German standards. It seems probable we could train better and actually try to weed out some wannabe hunters.

Unfortunately we seem to be going in the opposite direction. Any attempt to "train better" or "weed out" incompetent hunters is promptly shot down (pun intended) as detrimental to the holy grail of hunter recruitment.

Wisconsin has traditionally had a 9 day gun deer season that starts on the Saturday of Thanksgiving week and run through the following Sunday. I read an article dated the day before Thanksgiving (half way though the season)in 1957 stating that there were 16 accidental shootings, 12 of which were fatal. I was told this sort of carnage was not unusual back in the day.

quote:

Gotcha, no worries.

I simply was not paying attention to how I worded my response and what it inferred.

I have known several folks that hunted with TC Contenders and they were damn good shots.

Condolences to the family on their loss.

- "Murder"? Not likely. Homocide or manslaughter, maybe. Let the investigation and the District Attorney figure it out.

- Many states are now allowing the Hunter Education and Bowhunter Education courses to be largely completed online. No old timers left to volunteer to teach it, not enough younger ones willing to volunteer and the state needs a way to sell more licenses. I can't imagine you get the same quality of instruction as when I took a 12 hour course in person about forty years ago. I even remember my instructors name as he made such an impression.

- NY Lawmakers will now be beating down the doors to get a "Hunter Safety/Blaze Orange" bill passed. Who knows, maybe they will propose cutting in to the current "sunrise-sunset" hunting hours.

Hard to imagine what it's going to take to make a lasting impression on some, as just last year we had a NY Conservation Officer shot well after dark after being mistaken for a deer. In this case and the one last year the media doesn't help by stating "accidental".

Title of thread is wrong.

Here, I'll fix it:

"Woman Killed by Irresponsible Douche Bag."

He claims he shot at a deer. Nice alibi.

quote:

Originally posted by boarkiller:
I’ll wait for all the facts
It’s easy to point finger...

One year there was a back-yard shooting in North Carolina, the News and Observer stuck it to the hunter good and proper. Only thing is, a few days later it turned out that there was a deer in between and the hunter hit it. The bad part is, he could not see the human back in the trees. Bad luck, or negligence in discerning the backstop?

Why the hunting in and around houses. Is that normal there. Are there not buffering restrictions regarding hunting in residential areas. Very sad for the family involved.

quote:

Originally posted by kda55:
Why the hunting in and around houses. Is that normal there. Are there not buffering restrictions regarding hunting in residential areas. Very sad for the family involved.

First off the so called hunter in this case was wrong and very negligent and totally responsible for the shooting.

Not every place has the population of Wyoming nor the wide open places.

Hunting in a lot of places around houses is a real possibility.

One needs to apply extra care.

Yesterday I was driving into the hunting property. There on the dirt town road a mile plus from any house were 4 people two dogs.

Spread out side to side in the middle on the right on the left.

In an area that was several square miles of public land.

.

As I topped the hill they were about 150 yards away. I was driving slow they all looked up like what the heck was I doing there.

Not dressed in very bright colors at all. It took a split second to realize that the road was filled with people and dogs

I had to make a left turn before I got to them.
They were still all over the road when I turned off

There is no posted speed limit on the road so it is 55mph there are people who travel it a lot faster. If one of those would have popped the hill. The walkers would have been in great danger.

So what is the point no matter if you think your by yourself it still pays to be alert.

It pays to wear bright colors when you could be in an area where being seen could be important.

There are many people who refuse to do smart things like wearing bright colors during hunting season or walking along the roadways.

As a hunter shooter ones has to sure of your target and back stop. You are responsibly for were your bullet goes.

But knowing how stupide some people are when driving or hunting. I decided for myself that when in areas it pays to be seen I wear bright colors.

There is a reason my biking, running clothes are very bright my bicycle has led red flashing lights on it. I put a orange vest on my dog when we are out running during any rifle season for deer.

Sure you can be totally legal and in the right but if you get hit by a car while walking or biking because the other guy didn't see you.

You still dead or seriously injured.

The same can be said it your wearing non bright clothing and get shot during hunting season.

I was right doesn't help if your shot dead or seriously wounded.

Would it have helped if the walker had some type of bright clothing on most likely.

Did she have to legally No. Was she in the right on all accounts yes.

Was the shooter totally responsible and in the wrong yes he was.

But she is still dead.

I don't trust the other guy and like to stack the odds in my favor.

Of the 6 states I've hunted, only New Mexico didn't require blaze orange clothing. I wonder if the requirement to wear blaze orange isn't counterproductive in some situations? With all hunters, and most others out and about during deer season wearing orange, could a careless / novice / overly excited hunter develop a "no orange = not a person = OK to shoot" mindset?

A couple of years ago I was on a guided WY antelope hunt and there were some hunters from Washington state in camp. These guys brought enough equipment along for an Everest expedition but they had no blaze orange clothing. They didn't know of the blaze orange requirement even though it's plainly stated in the WY hunter regs pamphlet sent out with licenses. Washington has a high population, and lots of hunters, so it's hard to believe they don't require blaze orange. Does WA has more accidental / negligent shootings or are their hunters more careful about identifying their targets because they know their fellow hunters are wearing camo?

I do agricultural deer damage control "work" all year long using a rifle. During the warmer months there are a lot of people out walking, riding bicycles and horses, and livestock is out all over. Thick foliage, crops and brush can effectively hide a person but won't stop a bullet. I have to wear orange but no one else does and it gets a bit scary knowing how easy it would be to accidentally shoot someone. Although I'm under pressure to fill the tags as quickly as possible, you can be sure I take a good hard look before I squeeze the trigger!

The shooter is responsible for the bullet once he pulls the trigger. Doesn't matter if it ricochets, or hits a deer and then something else.

We all make choices in life and we should all deal with the consequences of those choices. Sounds like this guy threw away years of his life by ending the life of another.

Some in this thread are confusing accidental and negligent. Shooting a person you thought was a deer is the latter and should be punishable akin to negligent homicide.

My bud was shot 25 years ago at 30 yards while wearing blaze orange head to toe by a 50-odd year old experienced hunter that vacillated between I'm color blind and I was shooting at a deer behind him. Miraculously the slug only broke a spinous process in his lower back. The unapologetic asshole was acquitted, continued hunting and is a taxidermist in the next town to this day.

There are no excuses for hunting accidents. Hunting is no longer a matter of survival. No one will go hungry if a questionable shot isn't taken and no one has ever been killed or injured by a shot that wasn't fired. There is simply no need to take any chances.

quote:

Originally posted by Venandi:
There are no excuses for hunting accidents. Hunting is no longer a matter of survival. No one will go hungry if a questionable shot isn't taken and no one has ever been killed or injured by a shot that wasn't fired. There is simply no need to take any chances.

Again, you're not grasping the stark contrast between accident vs. negligent.

quote:

Again, you're not grasping the stark contrast between accident vs. negligent.

Not really. I intended to put quotation marks around the word 'accidents' in the first sentence but forgot to do so. My bad, and that omission can certainly leave the wrong impression. My point is that there is no overwhelming need to take a risky shot and no consequences for going home empty handed if you pass on a shot. This pushes the "hunting accident" argument more in the "negligent" direction.

I've heard the same thing in the cowboy action shooting community regarding so-called "accidental discharges." There is no such thing because in most cases a firearm cannot fire itself. Somebody has to pull the trigger. If the firearm is in such poor mechanical condition as to randomly fire, it shouldn't be loaded in the first place. It's up to the person using the firearm to see that it is always pointed in a safe direction and kept in good condition.

There have been fatal shootings because of allegedly defective trigger on Remington 700 rifles but in all known cases the rifle was pointed (by someone) in the wrong direction when it went off. Are these shootings "accidental" or is it do to negligence on the part of Remington and/or the shooter?

When it comes down to it, aren't almost ALL accidents due to some degree of negligence? Where do you draw the line between criminal and not criminal actions?

Slipping and cracking your skull on a snow-covered patch of ice is an accident.....or would you say it is because one was negligent in not wearing ice cleats and probing the ground in front of them?

Arguing semantics doesn't add anything to a discussion about killing people you thought were deer. Severe punishment is long overdue.

While the greater fault was the shooter's, both parties have to bear some responsibility.
When my wife and I would camp in WY, even though we were 50mi beyond the end of the paved roads, we still wore orange vest while puttering around camp.

quote:

Originally posted by kda55:
Why the hunting in and around houses. Is that normal there. Are there not buffering restrictions regarding hunting in residential areas. Very sad for the family involved.

Most places have buffer restrictions, and they are usually not far enough even in the woods. I'd rather not have houses within a mile, myself; I like sage flats where I can see for a couple of miles.

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
While the greater fault was the shooter's, both parties have to bear some responsibility.
When my wife and I would camp in WY, even though we were 50mi beyond the end of the paved roads, we still wore orange vest while puttering around camp.

This has to be one of the nuttiest posts I've seen on this site in a long time. The lady bears "some responsibility"? Really? She should have been wearing orange while on private property? Come on, that is just garbage. Every person walking in the outdoors during hunting season should wear orange? That is bats-nuts crazy.

Hunters have the responsibility to not shoot anything but the game they have legal right to shoot. Period. You don't shoot a doe if you don't have a doe tag. You don't shoot a turkey if you don't have a turkey tag. You don't shoot your neighbor's trees or signs. And you surely do not shoot a person.

quote:

Originally posted by MC:

quote:

Originally posted by wasbeeman:
While the greater fault was the shooter's, both parties have to bear some responsibility.
When my wife and I would camp in WY, even though we were 50mi beyond the end of the paved roads, we still wore orange vest while puttering around camp.

This has to be one of the nuttiest posts I've seen on this site in a long time. The lady bears "some responsibility"? Really? She should have been wearing orange while on private property? Come on, that is just garbage. Every person walking in the outdoors during hunting season should wear orange? That is bats-nuts crazy.

Hunters have the responsibility to not shoot anything but the game they have legal right to shoot. Period. You don't shoot a doe if you don't have a doe tag. You don't shoot a turkey if you don't have a turkey tag. You don't shoot your neighbor's trees or signs. And you surely do not shoot a person.

Totally 1000 percent agree MC. I am getting really tired of hunters saying non hunters should wear orange during hunting season. If you are not ABSOLUTELY SURE of the target, don't pull the trigger.

One other thing: how come you never hear about this kind of stuff in states where you don't have to wear orange? Unless I have a tag, I really don't know what is is season here in AZ - why on earth would a non hunter????