BTBowhunter

To any and all of you who continue to rationalize and defend the irresponsible behavior of this slob.....Would you argue on his behalf if the owner of a property you hunt or hope to hunt was present? I think not.

It is truly a shame that the landowners who own the land you hunt on arent aware of your cavalier attitude about the ramifications of not being sure whats beyond your intended target.

hillbillyhunter1

0.5 mi of orchard?

what the heck does that mean? tree branches? tree tops? Earnest and Julio Gallo?

I got news for you there dear ol' ddear---if you cannot see a solid, SOLID backstop....... don't shoot

what is this guy? a relative of yours?

Do you hear this from your hunting buddies often?----- "Wait till we get out of the way"?

Rickmur

What?????????
Xray vision??????????
Criticise?????????????

The investigation by the PGC did not not conclude he was careless and reckless and do so without Xray vision???????

Some of you people really scare me [&o][&:]

hillbillyhunter1

ridgerunner.
It is right. you can't compare this to the coffee thing. This was a pregnant woman who was shot because someone obviously wasn't using safe shooting practices. The shooter would not even apologize to her---That in itself is unimaginable to me. If a shot somebody (unless it was my intention), I would be devastated as I'm sure you probably would.
Non-hunters should never, ever have to worry about being shot "accidentally" during hunting season. If they (non hunters) have to worry about that, then they might start thinking that it would be better not to have hunters around in the first place. That's how all hunters receive a bad rap and are considered dangerous by many of the general public. That's why the hunting community should stand behind the victim and ask that this guy pay the price and for god's sake apologize to the poor girl.

Buckshot

Anyone here realize that a 7mm rem mag will drop over 28' at 1000 yards?

AJ52

Getting an attny or "filing a suit" does not mean its going to suit/court/jury/judge. Most cases are settled out of court long before they ever reach a court house.

Don't forget just because this gal has "filed suit" thru her attny does not mean it will go to trial. It could very well be settled before any trial takes place "on the court house steps" as they say. If it goes to a jury trial it still could be settled prior to any verdict. Any jury award can still be appealed and during that appeal process(years)it can still be settled for a lesser amount. Doesn't mean this lady is gonna make a windfall. I have no idea how severe or permanent her injuries are. Alot of variables for a jury to consider(IF it Gets That Far).

All this is assuming(I don't know) this man has insurance to cover such a loss. If he does,his policy will only pay up to the policy limits. So thats about all this lady can expect to see. Her attny knows this.

Thing that sticks in my mind, is this guy shot at fox out of season. Was that the shot that struck the woman?? Either way that cooked his goose from the get go!! From what I'm reading here in the thread if its true, he's a real jerk on top of it all.

I believe there are rare circumstances where hunter is or can be totaly innocent of any negligence. Anything that Can't Happen - Will Happen! In this case I have no sympathy for the guy.

ddear

That is a very important point and one that many who are condemning this hunter fail to consider. I do not know the exact heigth of a deers vital zone above the ground, but for the sake of discussion lets say it ranges from 36" to 48 ". Therefore, the bullet form every normal hunting rifle , that was fired on level ground would contact the ground within 600 yds or less. The hunter in question fired into an orchard ,and the house and car were not visible from where the hunter was located, He ws firing up hill from a valley into the orchard. Based on the facts ,as reported in the papers, the hunter in question had no way of knowing that the bullet he fired would travel 0.5 miles. Furthermore ,the DA said the hunter did not act with criminal intent or gross negligence , whcih means it was an accident that could happen to any rile huter under similar circumstances.

AJ52

The DA said the hunter did not act with "criminal intent" or "gross negligence". So What!

There is a huge differance between "Gross Neg" and "Negligence". I don't remember anyone saying this guy had any intent on shooting at the woman. If there was no negligence what exactly was this hunter convicted of? Where does intent or gross come into play?

Example;If your doing 70 mph in 55 mph zone,fell asleep, crashed and caused injury to someone. You would be negligent. If your going 75 mph in a 55 mph zone,fell asleep,slid on wet road at night,crashed and caused injury to someone. You could very well be deemed "grossly negligent" in a criminal or cival proceeding. Wreckless is another word used to invoke severity of ones actions compared to simple negligence.

hillbillyhunter1

the hunter had no way of knowing the bullet would travel 0.5 miles----B.S.

Just read this off of a Remington .308 ammo box---"Know your target and what is beyond it"

and if he was firing uphill--then, it stands to reason he's not holding the gun level--so what does 600 yds have to do with anything?


who cares what the drop rate was---if you didn't have a solid backstop---you didn't --shame on you

Buckshot

Have you ever shot at a deer on level ground?