Maybe so in PA, but the incident was in MA. And no, this was not an accident anymore than if a drunk driver had ran her over.Originally Posted by bronconite
"It's fun to have fun, but you have to know how." ---Dr. Seuss
I have to respectfully disagree with you on this.It is my understanding that PA 58 code 135.41(c)specifically deals with hunting but I sure can understand how the language reads is not specific enough.
Clearly this is not a deer,cause she's a Doll.yea found an early picture....she's 66 today notice the nice doggie she was walking.
The reporter says, "It all went down around dusk, about 5:00 pm".
Blaze orange does not show up well after dark unless illuminated by a remote light source. Your point? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that because it may not increase the liklihood that you'll be seen that it isn't worth wearing it after dark during hunting season? Honestly, after dark during hunting season, if you're hiking and don't have a headlamp or other light source in operation while on the trail, you (one, not you personally, but anyone) should have your head examined before someone puts an extra hole (that God never intended) in it.
Unfortunately, the reporter may be showing her lack of hunting knowledge when she said "muzzle loading shotgun."
As I live, declares the Lord God, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn back from his way and live. Ezekiel 33:11
1) The incident happened at just about exactly 5:00 pm, a full 10 minutes after he should have stopped hunting. Sunset was at 4:22 on Dec 31 in Norton, MA on the day of the incident. Those of us who spend time in the woods know that once the sun goes down the light level drops quickly, and yes 8 to 10 minutes can and does make a big difference in visibility at that time of day.The reporter says, "It all went down around dusk, about 5:00 pm".
Blaze orange does not show up well after dark unless illuminated by a remote light source. Your point? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that because it may not increase the liklihood that you'll be seen that it isn't worth wearing it after dark during hunting season? Honestly, after dark during hunting season, if you're hiking and don't have a headlamp or other light source in operation while on the trail, you (one, not you personally, but anyone) should have your head examined before someone puts an extra hole (that God never intended) in it.
Unfortunately, the reporter may be showing her lack of hunting knowledge when she said "muzzle loading shotgun."
2) Are you seriously saying that I need to wear a headlamp to avoid being shot by a hunter at night. Give me a break . . .
I bring a flashlight when jogging at night in order to avoid getting hit by a car, what's the difference in logic as it applies to this situation?
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
You don't need to do anything anyone suggests. You're right. I'm wrong. and I'm done.
As I live, declares the Lord God, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn back from his way and live. Ezekiel 33:11
There are a myriad of reasons to have a light while hiking, or road walking, or doing anything else in dark or low light situations. Irresponsible hunters shooting at unidentified targets shouldn't be one of them.
As I said, I'm done - apparantly you aren't. Your safety should not be left up to the ones you deem "irresponsible". That is your choice, apparently. I don't trust that God Himself will keep me out of the way of danger if I don't do everything possible to protect myself. He gave all of us a brain and free will.
Last edited by Tinker; 01-05-2012 at 18:45. Reason: stupid spelling error
As I live, declares the Lord God, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn back from his way and live. Ezekiel 33:11
I read a blog where the person suggested that the women took her dogs at that time of day because she knew the hunters would be done hunting.
She should've been right, but she wasn't, because, as was correctly pointed out to me, someone else was wrong.
My message is, and has always been, "Take charge of your life by assuming others will, given the chance."
I almost died at the age of 19 in a car wreck because the other guy was drunk. I am more careful now, and smarter. I trust no one (except myself, foolishly, at times) behind the wheel of a car. (I have many other stories like this, where I've seen others get hurt by assuming the other person was in control).
Assuming makes an Ass (donkey, if you will), out of u and me. (or so I've been told). I've proven this statement to be entirely false, however, as I've found, time after time, that assuming only makes an ass out of ME!
As I live, declares the Lord God, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn back from his way and live. Ezekiel 33:11
How stupid can this guy be.
1) Shooting after the close of allowed hours.
2) Cant tell the difference between a deer and a person. It could have been a baby moose, cow, dog. All of these are not in season.
3) Did his ego cause him to become desparate at the end of the season? Is someone this immature the person who should be a LEO?
4) Common sence tells you not to shoot what you cannot identify. He has shown he does not have any. Next week he could be driving 120 mph on a road near you.
Just my opinion.
Maybe its the way my dad was when i was growning up and hunting, but he ALWAYS stressed to never shoot unless you are %100 sure of your target..... he stressed to never shoot an noises or moving bushes, unless you can clearly see your target YOU DONT SHOOT !!!!!!. there are accidents that happen... i remember reading an article about a guy that shot at a deer and missed and someone that was over 150 meters away hidden in the woods got hit, that is an accident. Someone shooting at something he "thought" was a deer..... which i take as he just shot at a nosie becuase who would really mistake a 66 yearold for a deer !! and that just stupid and he should be charged with something !! And to be a cop just shows how DUMB he is, he should be safer with firearms then a normal person.....
This story shows that we as hikers can not assume that the hunters are all responsible and cautious about what they are shooting at. The point is that in every single case of accidents it is always the hikers' lives( or walkers in this case) that are in danger, so who is right who is wrong is not as important as who's life is in danger.
It has always been the life of hikers who is in danger.
I personally as an ex-hunter tend to believe that this trooper was reckless and clearly irresponsible person. Why? !!
He shot a woman assuming she is a deer. it is clear as day to me that he is not wise enough to own a gun let alone be a hunter for the rest of his life. Not charging or punishing him just is like sending a message to other hunters that they can get away with reckless hunting.
He is not living in Africa that hunting is the way of survival, he has a job and salary that proves he was not desperate for the meat. But we hikers better do every thing in our power to save our lives from reckless hunters
since it seems to me that even educated hunters ( like this guy) might be stupid and reckless enough to shoot moving targets in marginal ambient light. Lack of common sense is common and it is always the life of other people who is in danger and not the hunters.
Tinker, thank you for your efforts to spread the words of wisdom among us.
I will do any measure that can extend my hiking life in the woods(like Blaze Orange) not because I have to or I am forced to but because It is my life that can be over in a blink of eye. If I were the neighbour of this guy I would be scared for the rest of my life walking around my home knowing that I have a reckless hunter around that has not been punished for his clearly reckless acts.
Just my 2 cents on this issue:
1/The cop was wrong. He should be tried.
2/ Blaze orange is fine but, remember, most hunters will see you from the front and not the back as you are walking and they are standing (usually) so, wear something in front. I tend to look for those orange or pink plastic ribbons that are tied on things to mark them and tie a few of them on my shoulder straps IN THE FRONT!
3/ Hunters can suck, this lady supposedly owned the property he was hunting on! (Hikers can suck too by the way, my brother is an avid hunter and claims that we (hikers) trash the land. I say BS on that (comparably)
4/ In PA, a lot of the AT is on PA state game land, last time I entered such land, I read the long warning sign filled with rules there and noticed that two hundred and some square inches of blaze orange IS REQUIRED during hunting season.
Of course, I don't know the rules in all the states on the AT, and it is not a rule outside of state game lands in PA.
Don't let your fears stand in the way of your dreams
[QUOTE]That trooper is incredibly stupid, ignorant, careless, and self-centered...thinking he could shoot at something that "looked like a deer". And ending up shooting an innocent civilian.
He should be arrested...just like any civilian probably would be...and be convicted...and sent to prison...in with the general population.
Last edited by Alligator; 01-06-2012 at 00:24. Reason: Removed Politics
Let no one be deluded that a knowledge of the path can substitute for putting one foot in front of the other.
—M. C. Richards
[QUOTE=chiefiepoo;1235517]Let's see. He shot and killed a woman walking her dog on her own property, while poaching. No charges? And people wonder why police officers are not respected.That trooper is incredibly stupid, ignorant, careless, and self-centered...thinking he could shoot at something that "looked like a deer". And ending up shooting an innocent civilian.
He should be arrested...just like any civilian probably would be...and be convicted...and sent to prison...in with the general population.
"It's fun to have fun, but you have to know how." ---Dr. Seuss
[QUOTE=Feral Bill;1235546]Sheisn't dead. She was shot in the hip with his .50 muzzle loader. She was/is hospitalized and it sounds like she will make a full recovery. He (the cop) was also the one who immediately called 911 and administered first aid. He FU'ed big time, but did do the right thing in response. It was an accident (obviously he didn't start out that day to shoot a person), but one that he caused. I think he is 100% at fault. Others seem to feel that, unless I am interpreting their posts incorrectly, because the victim wasn't wearing blaze orange or carrying a light she was also somewhat negligent (but maybe not "to blame"?). It's gotten a bit confusing.
Yeah your right, he's f*****alright this ain't over by a long shot for both of them.I don't feel the women has to assume any responsibility here at all.having said that if it were me and i knew it was hunting season,and my property gets activity from hunters and I decide not to take some sort of action for my personal safety,including not taking a walk and i get shot that doesn't mean I'm responsible for getting shot it just means that I could have and should have protected myself and chose not to.it makes me a lot of things but responsible isn't one of them......irresponcible?..you decide
Thankfully she is alive. Last news clip I saw said it happened at night. Hunting in MA allowed 30 min past sunset thus dusk. To mistake a dog for deer & shoot. Bad choice & judgement. All in all a tragedy, buy feel LEO should be held to higher scale due to their job. At the least it showed bad judgement in use of a firearm. Something his training is suposed to teach him to do right. To have this person carry one as part of his job should be seriously reviewed. I'm sure he regrets his actions, but he should be thankfull his victum will live. I am not anti- LEO. My uncle was a high ranking officer in MSP. His training alone should be enough to prove negligience. Just my opinion & pray for speedy recovery for victom.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
