Casey Burns , The Rest Of The Story!!

[ddear]

For all of the holier than though type who who only too willing to condemn a fewer hunter, here is the rest of the story from Mr. Wetzels perspective.

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-...l=all-news-hed

[Buckshot]

Although ballistics tests were unable to make a 100 percent match between the bullet and Wetzel's rifle, Teehan said the bullet matched the ones Wetzel gave police and had the same number of grooves and ridges as Wetzel's rifle barrel.

That above statement doenst prove jack. I wonder if they checked it against any other Remington rifles of the same make and model.

[ulysses]

based on what I've seen printed in the newspaper I'd have convicted Wetzel too, but of nothing more than an accidental shooting.
I'm pretty certain he feels awful, and I'm equally certain Burns was injured thru no fault of her own.
But I can see no act commited on purpose by Wetzel and the issue should be dropped by Burns. To my way of thinking it is morally wrong to try an prosper as the result of an accident. Those are Burn's intentions SUE the poor bugger for anything he has or ever will have. Why ...to me it looks like for no better reason than to make $ where she has a chance. That is WRONG! and a prime example why our legal system has run amuck!!

[fastfire]

I have been following this some what & heres what I would like to know?
1. If he was about 1/2 to 3/4 mile from her & in direct line of her drive way
why did not the bullet kill her lets face it people that unless it did not
hit her direct on then? Were talking 7mm mag!
2. No where does it say where it struck her other than the head.
3. Did the investigators check out the rest of the woods up to 1 mile in all directions ?
4. No where does it say where the found the bullet they used for the Baltic ck. other than the one he gave for comparison.
5. He lives about 1 mile from her do you think he did not know where the house was?

Here's what I think the investigation was poorly handled they found
1 hunter that was in the area & boom he did it. Investigation stopped!!!!!
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying he did or did not do it just that
the 7mm mag. is a very popular rifle! The Baltic's are not 100% positive that it was his.
I think he was one scared man & just did not know what to do.

We will never know all the story but what has come out so far leaves a lot of questions as far as I'm concerned!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shooting at the fox wrong by law yes but what would you guys have done under the same conditions?

based on what I've seen printed in the newspaper I'd have convicted Wetzel too, but of nothing more than an accidental shooting.
I'm pretty certain he feels awful, and I'm equally certain Burns was injured Thur no fault of her own.
But I can see no act committed on purpose by Wetzel and the issue should be dropped by Burns. To my way of thinking it is morally wrong to try an prosper as the result of an accident. Those are Burn's intentions SUE the poor bugger for anything he has or ever will have. Why ...to me it looks like for no better reason than to make $ where she has a chance. That is WRONG! and a prime example why our legal system has run amuck!!

By what I have seen in print up to the time of court I would have done the same BUT since I am not so sure as more & more comes out of the wood work so to say.

[ulysses]

I am not 100% cetain but I'm pretty sure it says something in the wildlife code about dispatching a sick animal then contacting the PGC. Same as if you are a homeowner an the sick animal is in your garage.
Wetzel says the fox had mange possibly distemper, who are we to question him on that? Certainly it is possible it did have a sickness.
At the very least any 1st yr law student could make a strong case for Wetzel shooting at it to protect himself.

[Rickmur]

Same damn argument that has ragged on here far to long, just a different thread. Everything that has been said in the above has been repeated over and over again. Why do you insist on dwelling on this? Everyone knows your stance. Geeeezzzz. []

[AJ52]

I have to agree. All this has been hashed,rehashed,debated,argued,opinions,assumption s etc. etc. Whats new here!

As far as I'm concerned this is a duplicate topic.