I'm not convinced. If he was shot with a 270 Winchester there would be vastly more tissue damage. A human body is similar in size and shape to a small deer , and the damage a 270 does to a deer is a lot more than that, so I am not too sure if the whole tale has come out yet.

I hope I'm wrong and the guy recovers.

quote:

Originally posted by muzza:
I'm not convinced. If he was shot with a 270 Winchester there would be vastly more tissue damage. A human body is similar in size and shape to a small deer , and the damage a 270 does to a deer is a lot more than that, so I am not too sure if the whole tale has come out yet.

I hope I'm wrong and the guy recovers.

It seems from the details that the shot hunter and another member of the party were recovering a deer that had already been shot and he was likely bent over the downed animal when he received a grazing wound across his shoulder blade from a 270W. The quote below is from another news report.

"A hunter is lucky to be alive after being shot across the back by a hunting companion who mistook him for a deer".

Appears so . Having seen a lot of 270 vs flesh wounds this guy is extremely lucky to be alive. I hope he makes a full recovery , and his mate who shot gets a serious hammering through the courts.
Rule number 2 of the Arms Code in NZ - positively identify your target .

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Is This Another One Accident??

Not properly identifying ones target is a serious act of negligence,
as is,
- the irresponsible act of blindly running backwards with a firearm/dangerous object
causing one to trip/fall and shoot their PH.

Above are two examples of people who put their ambitions before their supreme responsibility whilst handling a firearm,
causing serious havoc and destruction in the process,..and just a fraction off killing someone.

Them not killing the victim involved is in no way due to their firearm skills or management at avoiding such.
rather, they are both just extremely fortunate their fck-UP didn't actually result in death.

quote:

Originally posted by muzza:
his mate who shot gets a serious hammering through the courts.
Rule number 2 of the Arms Code in NZ - positively identify your target .

9 Months for killing someone,so wounding wont come with much of sentence

Can't see the wound, it's been blurred.
Writer said it was a shotgun in the header. Story says .270, which? Damage much depends on the bullet used. Where did it go in? OR did it just graze deeply? Can't see any other marks and the patch job is a long narrow one. Hard to judge from what I can see here.

Damned easy to get shot it seems. Too many are not as careful as they should be. A dear friend hunting too late in the evening with iron sights way back in 1949 shot a horse out from under a guy. Good shot, double lung, just barely missed the riders leg by two inches. Dad was either second or third rider, all were leading a pack horse or a mule. Hunter told me yrs later that he'd killed around 330 elk by that time. Most in the haystacks in winter but ate 'em yr around anyway.

At least this young guy lived and didn't lose a limb and isn't carrying a grudge either. He'll make it.

George

Herein lies the problem: if you say you mistook the person for a deer there is virtually no recourse. I'm of the opinion that negligent homicide while hunting merits a minimum of 10 years in prison. That might make a few think before pulling the trigger although the kind of jackasses that shoot people don't give a lot of thought to anything.

I'm appalled by the lack of penalty for shooting a hunter here in the US.

Very lucky guy. Definitely a surface graze of a few millimeters. No obvious penetration of deep muscle tissue or bone.

How stupid can the shooter bee to mistake a head torch for a reflection! A deer's eye reflection is unmistakable.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Very lucky guy. Definitely a surface graze of a few millimeters. No obvious penetration of deep muscle tissue or bone.

How stupid can the shooter bee to mistake a head torch for a reflection! A deer's eye reflection is unmistakable.

Has been done a number of times so there is plenty of stupid out there.

BTW a deer's eye reflection and the way the animal behaves when in a spotlight is indistinguishable from a horse. Even the most experienced spotlighter/hunter, and I regard myself as at least one of the former, cannot tell the difference between a red deer and a horse in the light where the body features can't be seen. As we often spotlighted in areas where there were horses we always had to hold fire until we could make out a head or body feature and not just shoot at the eyes. Any other domestic stock is easy to distinguish from deer not so much from the eye reflection but from the mannerism of the animals head in the light.