Totemkopf

This is going to make it harder to find land to hunt in pa.


http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/P/PA_PREGNANT_WOMAN_SHOT_PAOL-?SITE=PAPPA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

RonM

Wetzel doesnt sound like the bightest bulb in that lamp either, he should have presented himself with some dignity in court by dressing appropriately and definately needs an attorney to represent him, he appears to have a so what attitude and that always hurts the rest of us, first thing he needs to apologize to the victim ......

doman

If the facts in that article are true this guy got off easy from the game
commision. with his attitude his privlege to hunt should be suspended
indefinitley. what are you supposed to due with incompetent hunters like that?

Sport 2

If that artical is accurate then, the hunter is at fault. You should not take a shot if there is any chance of it being unsafe. But from what that artical represents, the owner should have no involvement. Every land owner should not have to babysit anyone that he lets hunt on his land. Its the hunters responsibility to be safe. Sueing the owner would be like arresting a land owner because some one he gave permission to hunt poached a deer. The owner gave permission to hunt safely, not to poach or shoot someone. The owner should have no resposibility.

Sylvan

This is really a bad thing. If land owners are going to be held even partially responsible for the acts of peoplethey give permission to hunt ontheir property you can just forget about hunting private property anymore. Unless you are the owner of course. What land owner in his right mind would give permission if it means he could be sued as a result of his kindness. Why take the chance? I know I wouldn't.

nodog

Just had a small conversation with some Indiana hunters about the use of rifles. I think my shotgun and ml are pushing limits if safety is an issue in determining the cal. of weapons allowed. Indiana is toying with the idea of allowing rifles in a shotgun only state. One very good reason maybe we should be restricting ourselves. I love the flatter farther abilities, but no animal is worth injuring or killing someone. The pursuit of "P.Y." "B.C." animals is all the rage and there are many hunters who think they need to get one to be somebody. The insecurity of hunters is fanned and fueled at a rate unheard of before thanks in part to T.V. and the Internet forums.

The land owner being held accountable in this day shouldn't surprise anyone. Not good at all for hunters and I get a bad feeling this one isn't going away until hunting as we know it is a thing of the past. Mark your calenders, this ones the real deal.[&o]

We sow the wind, literaly nothing but hot air. The whirlwind will be our reward and it leaves nothing the same.

patrkyhntr

To those who think the guy is a real bad guy and is guilty as he!!.

Easy to throw stones isn't it. By your reckoning, you should never take any shot with any gun, because no matter how slim the chance and how careful you are, something could go wrong, therefore no shot is absolutely safe. When something does, there are always people ready and willing to say things like this. Chances are that anytime you go hunting in the woods you could have a ricochet. Bullets travel huge distances. Several facts in this case made it impossible to convict the hunter. First, the bullet could not positively be identified as having come from his rifle. Second, he was not the only one hunting there. He did admit shooting at a deer that was in the location the experts said the bullet came from, and probably assumed responsibility for his own actions like a man is supposed to do. He couldn't afford a lawyer, so he was easy meat for the plaintiff's lawyer. Walk a mile in a guy's shoes before you judge him so harshly. There, but for the grace of God, go I. Think about it.

This was not a case of shooting someone in mistake for game. It does point out and serve as a good reminder to us all that bullets can travel a long way and hurt someone badly at great distances. As to the jury finding the landowner liable, even for 10%, that speaks volumes about how our system of justice doesn't work very well any more. The old adage about if the guy is rich he must be evil works very well in jury cases like this.

BTBowhunter

The PGC did file charges, The shooter pled guilty and was put on probation for 6 months, fined over $3000 and his hunting priveleges were suspended for 5-10 years. As I understand it, the bullet wasnt a ricochet so he obviously fired without an adequate backstop. Sounds like he was irresponsible and recklesss at best. Theshooter being found liable and being held accountable is only fair. Bringing the landowner into it is simply insane. The money grubbing lawyer ought to be shot himself for bringing the innocent landowner into it along with the idiot judge that even allowed it into the suit and also along with the jury or judge who found the landowner even 10% responsible.

ccm352

Well since youre the ballistics expert Mr moderator.. Give us your "expert" opinion.

AJ52

Mr ccm352 - I don't claim or so much as hinted to be any kind of "ballistics expert" - and - neither should anyone speculate or throw around numbers based on a newspaper article.

If I'm going to come here and post a fly by night reconstruction it at least will be based on some kind of Expert Opinon and Facts to surround the Opinion - Something Concrete - Something to sink your teeth into.
Not to much to ask IMO

The topic was started as I see it to discuss "Property Owner Sued for Hunters Action".