It seems that everyone is saying "yes" or "no" with little else to say. The "yes's" seem to be those that say they have done it or seen it done. The real question is, "Is it an ethical shot?" it'sa philosophical thinker, "Do the ends justify the means?" a consequentialist says that as long as the deer is dead and not just injured it is ok b/c the action resulted in the desired outcome. However, you need to apply rationalism to this with all possible outcomes. As big as the buck may be, if the shot glances off and leaves a large wound, that big buck will run off and die of infection. The problem that we have amongst ourselves are the intentions of the hunters. We have those who hunt for enjoyment, and necessity...and those who hunt for trophy. I think that whenever we forego our ethical treatment and shot selection we are dealing with trophy hunters. We need to respect the game, and respect the woods, and treat it as an experience, not as a pissing contest to see who can get the bigger rack. This is where we are pressured and criticized, (and rightly so) by animal rights activists. We don't always make the smartest decision with our shots, but we need to recognize that, learn from it, and teach others to learn from our mistakes. A head shot with a bow, regardless of the outcome is not ethical, nor smart, and just adds fuel to the anti-hunting fire. If you mess up and don't follow the ethical guidelines set forth by previous generations and re-iterated in our safety courses, then don't advertise it and in effect condemn hunting. It's only a matter of time until it is taken away from us all, act mature and responsible. I'm not saying that this incident was irresponsible, but as a whole hunters need to improve their image in the public eye, advertising head shots, and taunting downed game, and acting like a general fool after a kill is not good publicity.