My sympathy goes out to both parties involved. However there seems to be act of gross stupidity on the part of Mr Lawson,in the first instance did he have a legitimate right to be there? Second most foxes are shot within 200yds at night, so what was he doing so close?
Thirdly, night sights shut down when a bright light hits them and can permanantly damage the intensifier tube,so was it observation at all costs?
He was lucky, I bet he won't do it again!!!

Griff

This accident make me think to the Italian events...... as wild boars hunter I must have on a yellow or orange jaket, it is a safety measures generally taken by the responsibles of the hunting squads.
The same rules have never been adopted by the people that go in the woods looking for mushrooms or chestnuts.
The unpleasant affair is that they arrogantly pretend to stop the hunters (obviously they MUST go were people is hunting) instead to have on some higly visible garment even with ssome reflectant strip.
If Mr Lawson had had on one of that higly visible garment even with ssome reflectant strip maybe we would not here writing these considerations. It is sad very sad...

:31pm (UK)
Hunter Who Shot Wildlife Man Cleared

By John Bingham, PA News


A hunter who shot a leading wildlife expert after mistaking his night-vision binoculars for a fox�s eyes was cleared of assault today.

Anthony Burns, 52, from Prestwood, Buckinghamshire, was out �lamping� for foxes late one night in April last year when he shot journalist Trevor Lawson.

Mr Lawson, 37, had been looking for barn owls along a footpath through farmland near the village of Hyde Heath, Buckinghamshire, when he was shot in the chest with a hunting bullet designed to disintegrate inside the body of an animal to kill it more effectively.

Although there was no suggestion Mr Burns has shot Mr Lawson deliberately, prosecutor Neil Moore argued unsuccessfully that he had acted recklessly.

But the jury believed Mr Burns when he said he had been �100% sure� that he had been shooting a fox.

And the jury of seven men and five women took just under two hours of deliberation to unanimously clear him of causing grievous bodily harm.

Mr Burns hugged family members, who were weeping for joy, after the verdict was read out.

Solicitor Stephen Betts said afterwards: �He�s just very grateful, it was a tragic accident.�

Mr Lawson was not in court today but his wife left without commenting. However, the jury was also told during the trial that Mr Lawson was pursuing a civil action for damages against Mr Burns.

Mr Lawson spent two days in intensive care, lost a lung and still has part of the bullet under his skin.

Mr Burns had two decades of shooting experience including �lamping� � a form of night hunting using a red filtered light which is difficult for the fox to see � without incident.

Under an arrangement with the farmer on whose land the accident happened, Mr Burns and a group of friends rear pheasants in pens and organise small-scale shoots.

With the farmer�s permission he and his two fellow lampers would go on periodic expeditions to shoot foxes and protect their pheasants.

On the night of the accident the three had already shot one fox and were ready to turn in for the night when they decided to make one last visit to a field where one had earlier got away.

The lamp quickly picked up a fox and the court heard that Mr Burns had seen the whole animal three times before picking up a �massive set of eyes�.

Convinced that what he saw was the same fox he had seen moments earlier, Mr Burns pulled the trigger but to his horror heard Mr Lawson screaming in agony.

He quickly went to Mr Lawson�s aid and found him lying on the ground beside a track while one of his companions called an ambulance.

�I was just so shocked that I made this mistake,� he said.

He continued: �When I got up to Mr Lawson I realised, I saw his binoculars on the ground and I thought, �that was what I shot�.�

Mr Burns also told the court the memory of that night had haunted him.

He said: �I couldn�t actually think about anything else apart from Mr Lawson for months and months and months, I just couldn�t believe what I had done to him.�

Earlier in the trial, the jury heard how Mr Lawson reached for his mobile phone and pressed the redial button to call his wife whom he had spoken to earlier in the evening.

Mr Moore told the court: �She heard him say, �I�m going to die, I�ve been shot, I�m going to die, I love you�.�

Hmmm.......... apparently Mr Lawson had a cap covered in camoflauge material with him - that he used when watching wildlife (!) ........ I understand that he is a contributor to the 'Guardian' newspaper.

I am not sure what his motives were for being in the area - suspect that watching wildlife was not a priority that evening. Nether the less - all previous comments apply......'All the pheasants ever bred, don't make up for one man dead!'

Identify your target. Hit it with one lethal bullet.

Ian,



Assuming that Mr Burns is a BASC member, it will be interesting to see if they will take up his case when Lawson sues him..also if Burns looses, I wonder if his BASC insurrance will pay out?



Getting back to the incident, there seems to be something "odd" about the story or at least the version reported in the press..if Lawson had been looking through the nightvision when Burns took the shot, I would have expected him to have been hit in the head or neck...if the bino's were hanging down facing the ground, I would not have thought they would have reflected the lamp?



Regards,



Pete

Pete
I agree with you there uis something wrong with this story. BASC aside, the shot itself bears looking at. We have been told in the version of events above that Mr Burns, the shooter, has a wealth of experience in lamping and other shooting pusuits. We can then surely safely assume that he would realise that a set of eyes somewhere between five feet and six feet off the ground did not belong to a fox. Especially as he stated that he had seen the whole animal on several occasions.

The only reason I can come up with is that Mr Lawson was lying on the ground when he got shot, this would account for the massive set of eyes that are referred to, also it would account for him being shot in the chest, as his chest would now be where a foxes chest would be, and not in the neck as you rightly assumed would be the case had he been standing on the path as seems to be the popular belief. The hunched outline of his shoulders and upper torso being mistaken for the foxes outline.

I believe that this was an accident, a tragic accident, that was caused in part by Mr Lawson's night vision goggles. There is a valuable lesson to be learned here, people who insist on watching shooting sportsmen, and indeed land managers and keepers and the like, using any sight aid that will generate/reflect light should try to make themselves conspicuous, after all they are only watching not spying, I like to think.

Conversely shooters should be aware at all times of the growing number of people who like to "watch" other people enjoying their various sports and the equipment they now have at their disposal. As always the point of making sure it is a safe shot at a safely acquired target cannot be over emphasised.

It may be a selfish observation but shooting does not need this type of publicity, even though the jury saw the incident for what it was.

Just my ramblings but I feel better now.

John

John,

That was my conclusion about Mr Lawson being prone too and it might explain why the jury found Mr Burn "not guilty" in that it was easier for them to see it the incident as a mistake. I would also like to know if Mr Lawson had permission to be on the land as well; I doubt this sort of person would ever dream of ringing the farmer a head of time to ask, but if he had, it just might have saved himself a lot of pain! Also if he saw the light sweeping towards himself as the orginal story suggested, why not just lower the bino's, and make sure he could be indentified as a human? Waving a small torch or even shouting would have all that needed doing; unless of course he was trying to remain hidden....

regards,

Pete

Just as some people are not safe to be out with a gun/car/walking stick/dog/cat etc some people are just not safe to be out.

John

Hmmm - yes, I have been viewing Mr Lawsons intent with a bit of scepticism. Thoughts - saw a range of fifty yards mentioned in a paper. Lawson lost a lung - would have thought if he was prone, a frontal shot would have been a lot more problematic. Ruptured intestine, liver etc. Which suggests maybe he was standing.

This leaves us with the idea of missing a four inch aim point, five foot off the ground - by a matter of 6-8inches.....Most confusing.

I should probably keep my notions to myself,but-- am so disturbed by the previous judgements here that I feel I have to chip in.
I believe that the incident was an accident and not a murder,fine.
I also believe that any man has a right to walk the grounds without being shot at,or mistaken as quarry, even if he is innocently jumping a neighbor's fence at night.
I happen to believe that shooting at targets not clearly identified-by that I mean UNMISTAKENLY identified,will always lead to occasional accidents.
This is no different than the famous "brushshots": I saw something move or heard something.Inexperienced "hunters" being just too eager to assume,and shoot without thinking or regard to anything else.
We heard stries of kids shooting at a red spot,later identified as a neck bandada of a relative,not a turkey etc etc
If the target is not clearly identified-I believe it is criminal to assume and shoot.The price is simply too high.
National education is in order and stiff fines to bring the results into public conscience are called for.

Why do I feel so militant?
I want to walk the woods without being killed or injured,simple as that.I dont want to be blamed for not wearing bright orange,waving etc - its the shooter that has the obligation to identify the target!
Not assume and see what happens

Sheephunter,

I agree with what you say, and I have no doubt that other UK hunters will also agree, but what I am talking about here is something a little different. My personal belief is, based on what has been read in the press which is a worry to start with, that indeed it was an accident.

However I believe that a portion of the blame for this accident is the responsibility of the man who got shot. I do not disagree with the principle of being able to walk in complete safety in the Countryside and believe that it is everyones right to be able to do this, however it must be done in a responsible manner, we are, after all responsible for our actions.

Hearing shots in the wood at night, then going into the woods to find out what was going on and using night vision goggles to do this, is, in my view not the brightest of things to do. Added to this I still believe that the walking along looking for Barn Owls and getting shot may be true, but I feel there are large gaps in the sequence of events and the above actions are only part of the actions of the injured man. What I am trying to say is that I believe although the walking, Bird spotting and undountably getting shot is true there are large gaps in his actions that evening and some creative editing has been done to produce the version put before the courts.

Of course I have no proof of any of this it is just what I believe, my opinion only, which thank God I am still allowed to have despite the present Government.

John

Sheephunter,

I have no problem with what your saying or how you feel. I am also glad to say accindents like this are virtually none existant in the UK; in fact I can't remember the last time I read about an accident of this nature.

Having said that, I will be honest and say that I suspect the guy who was shot was an "anti" and what he was doing was a form of harassment as well gross stupidity. If you knew the lengths anti's go to in their harassment of people who follow legal fieldsports you would perhaps understand why i feel this way.

Am I saying the guy deserved to be shot or that the shot was deliberate? No, not at all ...but if my suspicions are correct,(and they are only suspicions I admit) I believe he acted in an irrisponsible way which certainly contributed to the accident. At the end of the day, the ultimate responsibility will always lie with person pulling the trigger, but in this case obviously the jury who heard the full story from both sides thought there was mitigating circumstances such that they found Mr Burns not guilty.

Regards,

Pete