View Full Version : Off duty Mass. policeman shoots woman while hunting...........
I started a thread about blaze orange and the importance of wearing it a while back and, as usual, there were several folks who said it was the hunter's responsibility to identify his target before pulling the trigger. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen. It was an open season. The woman didn't know it and was not wearing any blaze. Here in RI, popular hunting grounds are posted by the DEM with signs stating that any user of the public area in question is required by law to wear at least 200 sq. in. of blaze orange from the second week in November right through the second week in May, if I remember correctly. All open hunting seasons are covered that way, and there is less of a chance that accidental shootings will happen between the different seasons.
Link to blaze orange rule in RI on one of my favorite sections of trail : http://www.mdc.net/~dbrier/yawgoog/trails/long-ell.html
The story on the accidental shooting: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/02/husband-massachusetts-shooting-victim-questions-hunter/
There's no such thing as too careful if you want to stay alive while using the woods when hunters may be present.
Happy, safe New Year.
They should press charges against the hunter. If only to impress upon other hunters the importance of knowing what they're shooting instead of pulling the trigger for anything that moves.
There's an open grass park in our residential development, with swings and slides, etc., bordered by a quarter mile strip of woods in turn bordering a reservoir. We took a walk onto a path into those woods last week and suddenly a man holding a gun was _screaming_ at us for "scaring away the game." We see a solitary deer once or twice a year. Birds, and a load of squirrels. A skunk every couple of years. Das it. Frankly I think he was somewhat in shock at having almost shot us.
Our bad. Orange from now on. All the time, everywhere, once you're off the sidewalk. There are shooting people out there!
ALLEGHENY
01-04-2012, 07:24
This was not an accident, this was reckless behavior and dumb. This hunter/ LEO should have his guns confiscated and be band from hunting. I'm a hunter and only shoot at what I'm going to eat.:o:(
Some people actually depend upon game meat to bolster their food stores, some are just ardent sportsmen. All of them are out there to shoot game. Sometimes they (and we) make mistakes.
This is just an example.
And it was good to point out that hunters feel that they have a right to stalk game without noisy non-hunters scaring it away. They spend a lot on equipment and licenses, spend a lot of time dreaming and preparing for the hunt, and don't like noisy intruders any more than most hikers appreciate "locals" using shelters for parties.
Trying to see through the eyes of others goes a long way towards mutual understanding.
rocketsocks
01-04-2012, 07:34
You would think a (trained observer)state police officer,would know and identify his target(and beyond)as one of the 10 rules (commandments) of all hunters are required to do.The women on the other hand was not required to wear the 200 Sq. inches of hunter orange that all hunters of deer are required to wear by law.They call it an accident..and a bad one at that.But I have no doubt in my mind that the officer did not go into the woods that day and have the slightest notion this could happen to him,A trained observer.
Precisely the point. Many of us are in denial that things that happen to other folks "won't happen to me".
What, pray tell, makes me any better than anyone else that I can dismiss common sense? The average person (in this country) lives in denial of their own mortality until "IT" happens to them, and if they survive, they'll probably live another day to deny many other common sense issues.
Survival - it requires hoping for the best while preparing for the worst.
Migrating Bird
01-04-2012, 09:40
This was not an accident, this was reckless behavior and dumb. This hunter/ LEO should have his guns confiscated and be band from hunting. I'm a hunter and only shoot at what I'm going to eat.:o:(
+1 here especially as he is a State Trooper. We have stiffer laws for shooting a police officer, a life is a life, pain and suffering is pain and suffering regardless of who you are.
Rain Man
01-04-2012, 10:12
... as usual, there were several folks who said it was the hunter's responsibility to identify his target before pulling the trigger. ...
From your "tone of voice," I take it that you do not think it's the hunter's responsibility to identify his target before pulling the trigger???
I wear lots of blaze orange if I know it's hunting season and I always check with the local rangers to ask while planning a hike. But that sure as heck doesn't mean I don't think it's the HUNTER's responsibility always, always, always, 100% when he pulls the trigger. This was a 66-year-old lady walking her two dogs, for pete's sake! This hunter should go to prison in my opinion. Is it ever legal to hunt deer after dark anyway?
Rain Man
.
4eyedbuzzard
01-04-2012, 10:15
Some people actually depend upon game meat to bolster their food stores, some are just ardent sportsmen. All of them are out there to shoot game. Sometimes they (and we) make mistakes.
This is just an example.
And it was good to point out that hunters feel that they have a right to stalk game without noisy non-hunters scaring it away. They spend a lot on equipment and licenses, spend a lot of time dreaming and preparing for the hunt, and don't like noisy intruders any more than most hikers appreciate "locals" using shelters for parties.
Trying to see through the eyes of others goes a long way towards mutual understanding.Actually, I don't believe there is "a right to stalk game without noisy non-hunters scaring it away." There are non-interference laws regarding fishing and hunting, but noisy non-hunters would have to be intentionally trying to interfere with the hunt in order to be in violation. Someone out walking their dog and making noise in the woods during hunting season may be annoying, and they may well be a fool, but they aren't necessarily breaking any laws. Every noisy person in the woods isn't necessarily trying to scare game - I have a relative who is loud and noisy everywhere. But whenever you have a lethal weapon, the burden is always on you to positively identify your target and what lies both in between you and that target and downrange. Mistakes with weapons are judged under a different set of rules, as they should be.
Snowleopard
01-04-2012, 11:00
This is a classic accident. The woman was shot in the dark within minutes of the end of hunting season (probably several minutes after hunting ended).
She was shot on her own property, according to her son. Other reports place her in a wildlife preserve across the street from her home.
Mass. law says you 500' from any building. Google maps shows that street as fairly built up and it would be hard to find a spot in that area further than 500' from any building.
Hunting is legal till 30 minutes after sunset. It is pretty dark in the woods here at 30 minutes after sunset. You'd have to be almost on top of them to distinguish a person from a deer in the woods then. The shooting happened about 5pm, which would be illegal and after the end of hunting season.
Most hunters do not have permits for antlerless deer. You have to determine that the deer has at least 3" antlers before you shoot.
Within 12 hours the state police were stating that it was an 'accident' and there would be no charges; the shooter was a state police officer. I think that the officer should serve jail time. It is clearly negligent use of a firearm (up to 6 months in jail).
I did not go outside at all the last day of hunting season. I was afraid to go out on the last hours of deer season because some hunters become desperate to get a deer. I usually wear blaze orange going to my mail box during deer season and always wear it walking in the woods in hunting season.
This is a classic accident. The woman was shot in the dark within minutes of the end of hunting season (probably several minutes after hunting ended).
I was under the impression there's no hunting after dark. If it was one minute after hunting season, it was no accident, but reckless and negligent. .
strollingalong
01-04-2012, 11:17
he was aiming for her dogs, after my dog-enduced sleepless night last night I'd've shot em too
Hunting is legal till 30 minutes after sunset. It is pretty dark in the woods here at 30 minutes after sunset. You'd have to be almost on top of them to distinguish a person from a deer in the woods then. The shooting happened about 5pm, which would be illegal and after the end of hunting season.
Too close for comfort...
12/31 (Norton, MA)
Sunrise: 7:13am
Sunset: 4:23pm
4eyedbuzzard
01-04-2012, 11:25
Is it an accident? Yes, but only in the same sense that driving 60 mph in a 25 mph school zone and hitting a child is. Reckless operation of a vehicle resulting in a death is typically a manslaughter charge. Reckless operation of a firearm should be no different.
It may be called an accident in that it wasn't intentional but, come on, even if he thought the dogs were deer, he shot a person. Hunting after sunset is an absurd law.
Pedaling Fool
01-04-2012, 11:55
I tend to agree that this was probably neglect, vs. a simple accident, but then again I'm a stickler for safety around firearms, being a former instructor. But what I'm sick of, is how much attention this subject garners. I tend to believe many shooting accidents are neglect, but I also believe many car accidents are also neglect, but the majority are simply ruled an accident, even when life-changing injuries are involved, not to mention death.
But that does not seem to garner the same attention, except in the cycling community, because many times cyclists are the victims, so they're a little sensitive to the subject. However, they wrongly come to the same basic conclusion that many do on this subject. Many think these incidents are ruled as pure accidents because of some conspriacy with gun lobbies -- and that's why it becomes so controversial. However, it's not true. The reason is the same reason many car accidents are ruled as a simple accident -- lack of proof.
BTW, in the cycling community many cyclists are convincened that America hates cyclists and that's why so many motorists are not criminally charged when a cyclist is killed. But the "sad" fact is, you need evidence in our system of justice. But just drive your car and look around at the crazy way people drive, that right there tells me the bulk of accidents are very, very preventable. But it's very hard to prove in court unless you got overwhelming evidence.
P.S. I was very surprised to hear in the news story that hunters are NOT required by law to fully identify their target. Something strange there:confused:
If the shooter was not a cop, some charges would already have been filed (at least a misdemeanor of some sort). But since the guy was a cop, they'll protect their own.
LoneRidgeRunner
01-04-2012, 12:38
They should press charges against the hunter. If only to impress upon other hunters the importance of knowing what they're shooting instead of pulling the trigger for anything that moves.
ABSOLUTELY! Yes, it is the hunter's responsibility yo KNOW what he's shooting at even BEFORE he takes aim. Unfortunately, there's a lot of morons who just shoot at anything that moves. I Deer hunted most of my life and have seen lots of Deer and lots of hunters in the woods and they do NOT resemble each other in ANY way whatsoever. Any hunter who shoots someone while hunting should be charged with and convicted of premeditated murder. It's premeditated because when he took aim and pulled that trigger he intended to kill his target. But it's not a bad idea to wear some orange. Even if the hunter is charged and convicted ( he won't be though as they always call it an unavoidable "accident", the victim is still dead.
i'm really tired of seeing jackasses driving and texting or yappin' on a cell. i don't own one so i ain't guilty but i bet 90% of posters here are. they cause tons of wrecks and deaths
LOL... here's a story of a girl that went to jail for texting in class.
http://www.instantnews.net/girl-goes-to-jail-for-texting-in-class.aspx
. (http://www.instantnews.net/girl-goes-to-jail-for-texting-in-class.aspx)..but hunter/cop shoots someone, no problem.
Has anyone seen this woman. Maybe she looks like a deer.
panzer
4eyedbuzzard
01-04-2012, 13:39
Has anyone seen this woman. Maybe she looks like a deer.
panzerNah, wasn't that. Her dog must have antlers.
mrclean417
01-04-2012, 13:51
Some people can barely drive, others can handle multiple tasks. It's the same in the pilot world. Some folks are tasked flying their 150 and yet our 'average' fighter pilot monitors 30+ systems while trying to complete a mission, ie they ain't your average folks. I'm a little more anal. I can't stand when folks take their attention away from driving to light up and smoke. But then I grew up trapped in a back seat with smoke and ashes hitting me in the face. Just the price of being a child of the 60's. Last I heard the NTSB wants to ban the use of all cell phones including hands free. Somehow running a CB is still ok though.
As far as not fully identifying his target, I'm sure almost everyone has done their best to identify their target, but friendly fire accidents kill our service men all the time. They're trained professionals. I
If you're hiking in a hunting area, you are a possible target even wearing blaze orange. I'm sure the hunter is not trying to shoot a person. It's a shared responsibility. If you can't go hiking in a no-hunting area, where I'd still wear the blaze, then consider if it's truly worth the risk. It's kind of like swimming across a lake where there aren't normally swimmers. Might be legal but your at the mercy of the boaters to spot you. They don't mean to run you over either and will feel terrible the rest of their lives.
Frankly, I'm a little surprised though that the racist attack above has been allowed. 'Hicks' while certainly not as offensive to most of us as the good ole N bomb, F bomb, C bomb and any other letter you want me to use so that you must use the actual word in your mind and I can say I wasn't trying to be offensive, is still being used in a racist manner and should be reprimanded.
In his defense, she looked an aweful lot like a moose.
strollingalong
01-04-2012, 14:04
Oh and Mexico too
All, keep it civil and relatively on topic here. This is not a thread for discussing racism, gun laws, insulting each other and insulting their character, etc etc etc.
IOW, play nice.
An accident is missing your target, not shooting what you aimed at.
From your "tone of voice," I take it that you do not think it's the hunter's responsibility to identify his target before pulling the trigger???
I wear lots of blaze orange if I know it's hunting season and I always check with the local rangers to ask while planning a hike. But that sure as heck doesn't mean I don't think it's the HUNTER's responsibility always, always, always, 100% when he pulls the trigger. This was a 66-year-old lady walking her two dogs, for pete's sake! This hunter should go to prison in my opinion. Is it ever legal to hunt deer after dark anyway?
Rain Man
.
My point was that hikers share in the responsibility to keep themselves safe during hunting season by wearing blaze orange.
As for after dark and the close of the season, it was pretty close. The 911 call is the first actual record of time in the incident, so I'll let the authorities investigate and bring charges.
This post was an FYI to fellow hikers, to help them make the decision to hike more safely during hunting season.
Pathfinder1
01-04-2012, 15:37
Hi...
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.
Then shot.
Creek Dancer
01-04-2012, 15:51
The decision not to wear blaze orange when its not required, but when it's smart to do so, comes down to this - - Do you want to be right? Or do you want to be dead right?
And I agree the shooter should be prosecuted, just like anyone else. Being a law enforcement officer should not give him a pass.
I would totally wear blaze orange if I was off trail or on a trail that didn't see much use. It shouldn't be required in any way on superhighway trails like the PCT or AT.
Hi...
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.
Then shot.
You have the right to express your opinion, and much of it is probably shared by many of the posters here, but I disagree wholeheartedly about the "shot" part.
It may well be that the hunter had the type of ego that gave him a pass to not follow the rules. If so, I agree with the main body of your comment.
Pathfinder1
01-04-2012, 16:03
Survival - it requires hoping for the best while preparing for the worst.
An EXCELLENT way of putting it...!!
The decision not to wear blaze orange when its not required, but when it's smart to do so, comes down to this - - Do you want to be right? Or do you want to be dead right?
And I agree the shooter should be prosecuted, just like anyone else. Being a law enforcement officer should not give him a pass.
Re: As to being a LEO - absolutely agreed. One of my friends from church is a local LEO who pulled over a drunk driver after the guy took off on him and blew through a red light. The drunk argued that he was the nephew of a big-shot retired public official and should be "given a break". After conferring with several other officers on the scene, my friend issued him a ticket, telling him that he'd already had two previous "breaks" and his luck had run out. Kudos to him. When it comes to reckless endangerment who you know should never be a factor.
Migrating Bird
01-05-2012, 10:55
Here are a couple of links to additional articles on this "accident"
http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/01/04/trooper-who-shot-woman-called-rescue/z4Q2Q5PujyNKwG6EVFAKIM/story.html
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220101state_trooper_shot_norton_woman_he_mistook _for_deer/
Below is the Legal Definition of Hunting in Massachusetts
The verb “to hunt”, in all of its moods and tenses, includes pursuing, shooting, killing and capturing mammals and birds and all lesser acts such as disturbing, harrying or worrying, or placing, setting, drawing or using any device commonly used to take mammals and birds, whether or not such acts result in taking; and includes every attempt to take and every act of assistance to any other person in taking or attempting to take mammals and birds.
The accident occurred on the last day of muzzle loader (black powder) season, with a single shot 50 cal. muzzle loader - just think of what he could have done with a repeating weapon?
When I was 6 my mother enrolled my brother and I in an NRA gun safety/target course. I hunted for years both with a gun, black powder and bow, although I do not hunt anymore, I am not anti hunting. It is my firm belief that this hunter should be charged period, the fact that he is a state trooper makes his defense all the more damning.
Note: I underlined and bolded the type above.
M. Bird
Rain Man
01-05-2012, 11:07
My point was that hikers share in the responsibility to keep themselves safe during hunting season by wearing blaze orange.
How well does that blaze orange show up after dark?
The article did not say "dusk," but rather "dark." Two different things. So, since the article is what we're going on, then I'm still assuming it was dark rather than getting off on tangential hypotheticals.
Rain Man
.
Wise Old Owl
01-05-2012, 11:35
Hey Tinker after a argument on a previous thread this year... I called the game lands authority and discovered the blaze orange is required of the hunter the woman or person walking "It is strongly suggested" it is not unlawful not to wear blaze orange.
Wise Old Owl
01-05-2012, 11:38
Has anyone seen this woman. Maybe she looks like a deer.
panzer
yea found an early picture....she's 66 today notice the nice doggie she was walking.
http://www.aboutcostume.com/images/disney_costumes/381-768-dg27193.jpg
bronconite
01-05-2012, 16:55
Hey Tinker after a argument on a previous thread this year... I called the game lands authority and discovered the blaze orange is required of the hunter the woman or person walking "It is strongly suggested" it is not unlawful not to wear blaze orange.
Why do you insist on repeating this false information? On PA State Game Land between Nov 15 and Dec 15 you are required to wear at least 250 sq in of orange. The actual Law was posted in the previous thread, along with the link for verification, by ki0eh, which I will include below. There is no such thing as a "game land authority". What was the title of the person you talked to? Was it an actual WCO (wildlife conservation officer)? Either way, they were wrong. Please take the time to read ki0eh's quoted post below.
58 Pa.Code 135.41(c) Additional prohibitions. In addition to the prohibitions contained in the act pertaining to State game lands and § 135.2, except with the written permission of the Director, it is unlawful to: * * * (21) Except on Sundays, be present on State game lands from November 15 through December 15 inclusive when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping and fail to wear a minimum of 250 square inches of daylight fluorescent orange-colored material on the head, chest and back combined or, in lieu thereof, a hat of the same colored material. The material shall be worn so it is visible in a 360° arc. Persons using shooting ranges are exempted from this requirement.
Quoted from http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter135/subchapCtoc.html but you have to scroll down far enough.
Hey Tinker after a argument on a previous thread this year... I called the game lands authority and discovered the blaze orange is required of the hunter the woman or person walking "It is strongly suggested" it is not unlawful not to wear blaze orange.
I don't remember arguing. Discussing and disagreeing, maybe.
I don't care if I'm wrong or right as per my thoughts on the news link that I gave when I started this thread.
I just know that it's right to care about everyone, and, in this case, it means fellow hikers. And your life is more important than my ego.
Feral Bill
01-05-2012, 17:10
Why do you insist on repeating this false information? On PA State Game Land between Nov 15 and Dec 15 you are required to wear at least 250 sq in of orange. The actual Law was posted in the previous thread, along with the link for verification, by ki0eh, which I will include below. There is no such thing as a "game land authority". What was the title of the person you talked to? Was it an actual WCO (wildlife conservation officer)? Either way, they were wrong. Please take the time to read ki0eh's quoted post below. 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.
rocketsocks
01-05-2012, 17:29
Why do you insist on repeating this false information? On PA State Game Land between Nov 15 and Dec 15 you are required to wear at least 250 sq in of orange. The actual Law was posted in the previous thread, along with the link for verification, by ki0eh, which I will include below. There is no such thing as a "game land authority". What was the title of the person you talked to? Was it an actual WCO (wildlife conservation officer)? Either way, they were wrong. Please take the time to read ki0eh's quoted post below.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.
rocketsocks
01-05-2012, 17:33
yea found an early picture....she's 66 today notice the nice doggie she was walking.
http://www.aboutcostume.com/images/disney_costumes/381-768-dg27193.jpgClearly this is not a deer,cause she's a Doll.
How well does that blaze orange show up after dark?
The article did not say "dusk," but rather "dark." Two different things. So, since the article is what we're going on, then I'm still assuming it was dark rather than getting off on tangential hypotheticals.
Rain Man
.
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." :)
4eyedbuzzard
01-05-2012, 18:11
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." :)
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.
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 . . .
Sarcasm the elf
01-05-2012, 18:17
1) 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?
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.
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 . . .
You don't need to do anything anyone suggests. You're right. I'm wrong. and I'm done.:rolleyes:
4eyedbuzzard
01-05-2012, 18:32
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.
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.
rocketsocks
01-05-2012, 18:45
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.
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! :eek::rolleyes:
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.
fiddlehead
01-05-2012, 21:36
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.
chiefiepoo
01-05-2012, 23:21
[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.
Feral Bill
01-06-2012, 00:49
[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.
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.
4eyedbuzzard
01-06-2012, 01:15
[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.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.
rocketsocks
01-06-2012, 01:56
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
Mountain Mike
01-06-2012, 01:56
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.
rocketsocks
01-06-2012, 02:14
I agree mt mike,ya know when this is all said and done I'm sure we all find some things out that we didn't know,a lot of assuming here in the early stages.Nothing wrong with that just bouncing idea off each other.I did not know it was a muzzle loader I figured it was buck shot.Not easy to put a single projectile where you want it to go.makes it a little more damning I think.
Sarcasm the elf
01-06-2012, 09:26
[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.First off thanks for pointing out tha she is alive and hopefully making a recovery. Based on the other threadposts I had gotten the idea that she died. Second, just for the record I agree with you 100%, I hope none of us are blaming the victim. For my part, I think that wearing blaze orange or having a flashlight during hunting season is a good idea since I think that it's worh it to take precautions to keep myself safe from other peoples negligence. Whether or not she took these precautions does not change the fact that she was the victim and that based on the facts presented so far this doesn't sound like it is her fault in the slightest.
Snowleopard
01-06-2012, 12:08
The woman's hip was broken by the shot. TV news reported that her life is not in danger, but she may have a permanent limp.
A lesson for hikers is that we should be very careful for the 30 to 45 minutes after sunset in areas where there is a lot of hunting. Wear blaze orange, but don't count on it being seen once it gets dark. Sunset is a popular time for hunting: the deer tend to come out to feed around sunset and some local hunters can hunt after work.
Other states use the 30 minute before sunrise till 30 minutes after sunset rule: a quick look on the web shows at least VA and PA. I think that is marginal in open terrain but crazy in dense forest.
I'm not sure what is best to do at dusk. Probably make human noises or turn on a headlamp or flashlight before we really need it to see to walk. I wonder if the reflective material on the vests that bicyclists or highway workers use shows at dusk than blaze orange?
In the olden days I didn't worry about bow and muzzle loader deer seasons. According to people I've asked at hunter/outdoor shops, current bows and muzzle loaders are much more powerful than the equipment my father used in the 70s. They've told me that the modern muzzle loaders are almost as powerful as rifles. Do those of you knowledgeable about guns agree with that?
From Snowleopard:
"I wonder if the reflective material on the vests that bicyclists or highway workers use shows at dusk than blaze orange?"
Unfortunately, it wouldn't, unless the hunter was using a flashlight, which probably would be poaching in any case. I use reflective bicycle clothing which I hang up on the porch to dry and air out. If there is no light beam directed at it, it is very hard to see the difference between the greenish yellow of the safety color and the strips of 3M material sewn in strategic places.
I have to admit that I feel a little safer hiking during muzzle loader and archery season than during shotgun season (and the feedback I get from DEM workers when I asked to use a local primitive campsite during shotgun season bears this out - basically, no - it wouldn't be safe and we wouldn't want an accident to reflective negatively on hunters :)).
Archers stand to lose an expensive arrow if they miss and can't find it.
Muzzle loaders have one shot and then they have to reload, so they don't want to miss and spook the animal because they won't get a second shot (or so I thought).
Apparently, my feelings are unjustified, given the circumstances of this incident (almost said "accident").
Negligence and ignorance was involved (no alcohol needed). :|
atmilkman
01-06-2012, 13:07
In Montana during the Bowhunters safety course we had to take a seperate test in bear identification to distinguish the difference between a black and a grizzly. Big time fine if you shoot the wrong one. Maybe they should start a seperate test for identifying the difference between a human and an animal, but then again, some would just say oh well, what the hell, I'll just pay the fine, it's only a human.
The Solemates
01-06-2012, 16:47
It may be called an accident in that it wasn't intentional but, come on, even if he thought the dogs were deer, he shot a person. Hunting after sunset is an absurd law.
i was about to ask that. its illegal to hunt in the dark in MA right?
this guy is a moron and deserves prosecution. we should have laws concerning this. every year i cant believe we do not. i advocate hunting, but still think that someone should be prosecuted for shooting another human....accident or not.
The Solemates
01-06-2012, 16:49
The decision not to wear blaze orange when its not required, but when it's smart to do so, comes down to this - - Do you want to be right? Or do you want to be dead right?
And I agree the shooter should be prosecuted, just like anyone else. Being a law enforcement officer should not give him a pass.
this woman was in her back yard. do you wear blaze in your back yard? i live out in the sticks and i dont....
The Solemates
01-06-2012, 16:53
The woman's hip was broken by the shot. TV news reported that her life is not in danger, but she may have a permanent limp.
25% of people over the age of 60 who sustain a hip fracture die within one year.
75% of people over the age of 60 who sustain a hip fracture die within three years.
her life IS in danger. its serious business. i work in orthopaedics and see if every day.
Creek Dancer
01-06-2012, 17:54
this woman was in her back yard. do you wear blaze in your back yard? i live out in the sticks and i dont....
I would if I knew that there may be hunters on my property as someone pointed out there were in this case. Sure, I wouldn't be required to do so, but I would and I would want my familty to do so as well. Wouldn't you want your family to be safe?
4eyedbuzzard
01-06-2012, 18:05
25% of people over the age of 60 who sustain a hip fracture die within one year.
75% of people over the age of 60 who sustain a hip fracture die within three years.
her life IS in danger. its serious business. i work in orthopaedics and see if every day.
Serious questions, not trolling for an argument:
How many of those that die within one or three years though had prior medical conditions that were significant in leading to their broken hips? For example, lots of hip fractures are fall related, and I have a suspicion that many of those falls are caused indirectly by those underlying medical conditions.
"Over 60" is a pretty broad category that encompasses everyone from 60 to death. Those in both good health and bad. I would honestly think that her medical condition prior to the GSW may more determine her lifespan than the injury, provided there are no immediate complications.
Not downplaying the seriousness of a broken hip or GSW, just wondering about your thought regarding my take on this.
Pedaling Fool
01-06-2012, 18:40
Serious questions, not trolling for an argument:
How many of those that die within one or three years though had prior medical conditions that were significant in leading to their broken hips? For example, lots of hip fractures are fall related, and I have a suspicion that many of those falls are caused indirectly by those underlying medical conditions.
"Over 60" is a pretty broad category that encompasses everyone from 60 to death. Those in both good health and bad. I would honestly think that her medical condition prior to the GSW may more determine her lifespan than the injury, provided there are no immediate complications.
Not downplaying the seriousness of a broken hip or GSW, just wondering about your thought regarding my take on this.Bingo!:)
.
MuddyWaters
01-06-2012, 18:42
Yes the hunter was wrong. I think that a significant portion of the people in the world are either absolute idiots, or criminals, and that belief is reinforced often.
The hunter committed no real crime. Accidents arent usually crimes which are punished, its a civil matter. Thats a different story.
Yes, if you are in the woods in hunting season, you need to be aware and careful, even in your own yard if there is hunting around you. See first statement.
You can see fine for a long time after official sunset. Many persons use "cant see anymore" as time to stop, incorrectly. Few look up the official sunset time every day. I have remained on stand for an hour after sunset before and still had plenty of light to see on full moon evenings. (not intending to shoot, but watching does, etc in front of me in a food plot)
Yes injuries are bad for elderly. A broken ankle started my own fathers downhill slide. Elderly people lose a great deal of strength every day they are in a hospital bed, a Dr told me 6wks to fully recover from single day in hospital. My father NEVER recovered at 72 from broken ankle.
Lone Wolf
01-06-2012, 21:12
, lots of hip fractures are fall related, and I have a suspicion that many of those falls are caused indirectly by those underlying medical conditions.
nope. most hips break, then they fall
4eyedbuzzard
01-06-2012, 21:17
nope. most hips break, then they fallNot according to the medical journals I've read.
nope. most hips break, then they fall
I am wondering about the source of your statement?
I break my hip if you are right!!!:)
There are myriad of subjects that you as an experienced respected hiker have a right to talk about but hip fracture and medical issues? leave it to medical experts.
Most likely her only recoarse will be civil court. I'm going to assume it's treated the same as hitting a bicycle with a car. No big deal in most states. My wifes uncle was killed in July while riding his bike on an open stretch of road (4 lanes straight for close to a mile) and no charges we filed by the DA. It looks like the era of personal responsability is over. At most if covered by his home owners insurance maybe his rate will go up a little. Life in America is not very valuable.
Feral Bill
01-07-2012, 00:52
The hunter committed no real crime. Accidents arent usually crimes which are punished, its a civil matter. Thats a different story.
I'm not a lawyer, let alone a MA lawyer, but I am pretty confident that negligent discharge of a firearm is a crime, and dead certain that poaching is. I see this as a case of the law enforcement communty protecting its own, which is all to common.Section 752.863a - Reckless, wanton use or negligent discharge of firearm; penalty.
CARELESS, RECKLESS, OR NEGLIGENT USE OF FIREARMS (EXCERPT)
Act 45 of 1952
752.863a Reckless, wanton use or negligent discharge of firearm; penalty.Sec. 3.
Any person who shall recklessly or heedlessly or wilfully or wantonly use, carry, handle or discharge any firearm without due caution and circumspection for the rights, safety or property of others shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Kookork is correct on this one.
I looked it up hoping to see Kookork have to post a video of him breaking his hip. I can see it now. Might take ten or twelve tries falling down to make it work depending on Kookork's physical condition and stamina.
Saying the phrase "I've fallen down and can't get up" after each attempt would add much drama!
Just having a little fun with you Kookork.
nope. most hips break, then they fall
I am wondering about the source of your statement?
I break my hip if you are right!!!:)
There are myriad of subjects that you as an experienced respected hiker have a right to talk about but hip fracture and medical issues? leave it to medical experts.
We have a saying in Persian that says : Thousands of friends is not enough but one enemy is more than enough.
It seems I made more enemy here in WB than friends. It has been the direct consequence of my reckless( and sometimes inappropriate) approach to this community and I am here to make it right.
My new year resolution is being respectful to other people's Ideas and believes but old habits die hard bro.
Ps: I consider you a friend rastraikis and I like most of your posts to be honest, but I love my hip more:), unbroken of coarse. But as one of posters once said rightfully about me: I love Drama.
Thanks!
It would be funny video though. Do you know the phrase "I've fallen and can't get up"? It is from a TV commercial about ten years ago for those medical alert necklaces for the elderly.
We have a saying in Persian that says : Thousands of friends is not enough but one enemy is more than enough.
It seems I made more enemy here in WB than friends. It has been the direct consequence of my reckless( and sometimes inappropriate) approach to this community and I am here to make it right.
My new year resolution is being respectful to other people's Ideas and believes but old habits die hard bro.
Ps: I consider you a friend rastraikis and I like most of your posts to be honest, but I love my hip more:), unbroken of coarse. But as one of posters once said rightfully about me: I love Drama.
I have been in Canada since about 5 years ago so I have not been around long enough to watch that commercial.
I agree that it should be funny video though.
98 oak street, Noton MA. This is the address of the shooting.
The property backs up to the wood but is surrounded by three roads all within a 1/4 mile. Not a place to be shooting a 50 cal ball shot moving at 2000 feet per second.
News report tonight that Mrs. Blair is not improving and her wound is infected.
Also looking at Massachusetts gun law it is not legal to discharge a weapon within 500' of a occupied building without the owners permission. Looking at the satelite image this hunter would need permission from many homeowners. The more you look the worse it gets. This was not a hunting area, just a bit of woods behind a residential neighborhood.
A news article states that she was a 1/4 mile from her house. North is a golf course. South is a school. West is a residential area. East is across the street with some houses and woods.
atmilkman
01-07-2012, 11:37
A news article states that she was a 1/4 mile from her house. North is a golf course. South is a school. West is a residential area. East is across the street with some houses and woods.
rastraikis you have been doing your homework. You would definitely make a better cop than this guy and I don't mean it in a sarcastic way. He should have done "his" homework.
4eyedbuzzard
01-07-2012, 11:43
98 oak street, Noton MA. This is the address of the shooting.
The property backs up to the wood but is surrounded by three roads all within a 1/4 mile. Not a place to be shooting a 50 cal ball shot moving at 2000 feet per second.
News report tonight that Mrs. Blair is not improving and her wound is infected.http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x735288513/Shooting-accident-victim-Cheryl-Blair-undergoes-additional-surgery That sucks
I had no idea the size of the can of worms I opened.
I feel very bad for the woman, and less and less about the hunter. I guess anyone would have been in tears when he called 911 after shooting someone he mistook for a deer. regardless of how much a blunder he made. The tears were genuine, I'm sure, but the guilt must have been overpowering. No matter how sorry he feels, it can never change the fact that he pushed the limits of the law in many ways, and he is unfit to enforce the law upon others at this point. Can he change? Maybe. Lots of people do.
Pray for the woman, and for justice to be done.
4eyedbuzzard
01-07-2012, 12:07
It does appear that from google satellite view http://maps.google.com/maps?rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu&oe=&q=98+oak+street,+Norton+MA&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x89e461b6fa416847:0x9b15effb1b8a639a,98+Oak +St,+Norton,+MA+02766&gl=us&ei=tmsIT4ahBKP30gHxveGKAQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ8gEwAA that even though the area behind the home is wooded, while not impossible, it would be very difficult to maintain a 500' distance from any inhabited structure. As a former hunter, not a place I'd really expect someone to be hunting.
@Tinker inre "can of worms". No big deal. It is a discussion board after all.
bronconite
01-12-2012, 16:14
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.
Actually, it's quite specific. That's why it specifically says "when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping". None of 135.41 deals specifically with hunting, it deals specifically with State Game Lands
58 Pa.Code 135.41(c) Additional prohibitions. In addition to the prohibitions contained in the act pertaining to State game lands and § 135.2, except with the written permission of the Director, it is unlawful to: * * * (21) Except on Sundays, be present on State game lands from November 15 through December 15 inclusive when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping and fail to wear a minimum of 250 square inches of daylight fluorescent orange-colored material on the head, chest and back combined or, in lieu thereof, a hat of the same colored material. The material shall be worn so it is visible in a 360° arc. Persons using shooting ranges are exempted from this requirement.
Quoted from http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter135/subchapCtoc.html but you have to scroll down far enough.
rocketsocks
01-12-2012, 19:19
The way this reads to me is that you are not allowed on state game lands on specified dates unless you are hunting.And if you are hunting,you must wear the orange as pointed out.the only exception is in writing from the director.Thanks for clearing that up bronconite.
rocketsocks
01-12-2012, 19:51
Sorry Except on Sunday's.It's also Entirely possible that the director in writing has amended an allowed persons other than hunters to enter said lands on dates described and strongly suggests they wear hunter orange.But has it has not been entered into law as it is part of the directors discretionary duties.
The shooting took place on 12/31/11. According to your post below only hunters are allowed on the land from 11/15 to 12/15. She clearly had lawful permission to be there fourteen days after the hunter only timeframe.
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.
Actually, it's quite specific. That's why it specifically says "when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping". None of 135.41 deals specifically with hunting, it deals specifically with State Game Lands
58 Pa.Code 135.41(c) Additional prohibitions. In addition to the prohibitions contained in the act pertaining to State game lands and § 135.2, except with the written permission of the Director, it is unlawful to: * * * (21) Except on Sundays, be present on State game lands from November 15 through December 15 inclusive when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping and fail to wear a minimum of 250 square inches of daylight fluorescent orange-colored material on the head, chest and back combined or, in lieu thereof, a hat of the same colored material. The material shall be worn so it is visible in a 360° arc. Persons using shooting ranges are exempted from this requirement.
Quoted from http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter135/subchapCtoc.html but you have to scroll down far enough.
rocketsocks
01-12-2012, 20:34
My post was not specific to the shooting in Mass.,it was just about hunting regs in PA.and I've read the thing 4 times ,any thoughts on the language?
Did not see PA. Sorry I thought you were writing about mass.
My post was not specific to the shooting in Mass.,it was just about hunting regs in PA.and I've read the thing 4 times ,any thoughts on the language?
That PA law states that only hunters and trappers may be on game lands from 11/15 to 12/15. It also states clothing that the hunters or trappers must wear.
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.
Actually, it's quite specific. That's why it specifically says "when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping". None of 135.41 deals specifically with hunting, it deals specifically with State Game Lands
58 Pa.Code 135.41(c) Additional prohibitions. In addition to the prohibitions contained in the act pertaining to State game lands and § 135.2, except with the written permission of the Director, it is unlawful to: * * * (21) Except on Sundays, be present on State game lands from November 15 through December 15 inclusive when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping and fail to wear a minimum of 250 square inches of daylight fluorescent orange-colored material on the head, chest and back combined or, in lieu thereof, a hat of the same colored material. The material shall be worn so it is visible in a 360° arc. Persons using shooting ranges are exempted from this requirement.
Quoted from http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter135/subchapCtoc.html but you have to scroll down far enough.
rocketsocks
01-12-2012, 20:46
no worries mate.
Rain Man
01-12-2012, 21:03
That PA law states that only hunters and trappers may be on game lands from 11/15 to 12/15. It also states clothing that the hunters or trappers must wear.
Uh ... as I read it, it doesn't say only hunters and trappers can be on game land. Just says others must wear orange.
... it is unlawful to: * * * (21) ... be present on State game lands from November 15 through December 15 inclusive when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping and fail to wear a minimum of 250 square inches of daylight fluorescent orange-colored material ....
Literally, it says you can't be there (1) when not hunting AND (2) failing to wear orange. Put another way, you can be there (1) when hunting OR (2) when wearing orange.
Rain Man
.
rocketsocks
01-12-2012, 21:19
My flippin head hurts.Getting a coffee,going for walk and will return later to publicly cut off 1 big toe.:confused:
Any possibility of getting that posted as a videi.:)
My flippin head hurts.Getting a coffee,going for walk and will return later to publicly cut off 1 big toe.:confused:
I would bet money ($1) that this is lawer speak for only allowing hunters and trappers on the game land for those dates. When you read the entire exceptions part it comes across that way. The bet part is a joke in case betting is also illegal.:D
That PA law states that only hunters and trappers may be on game lands from 11/15 to 12/15. It also states clothing that the hunters or trappers must wear.
Uh ... as I read it, it doesn't say only hunters and trappers can be on game land. Just says others must wear orange.
... it is unlawful to: * * * (21) ... be present on State game lands from November 15 through December 15 inclusive when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping and fail to wear a minimum of 250 square inches of daylight fluorescent orange-colored material ....
Literally, it says you can't be there (1) when not hunting AND (2) failing to wear orange. Put another way, you can be there (1) when hunting OR (2) when wearing orange.
Rain Man
.
rocketsocks
01-12-2012, 22:01
I think you got it.Why lawyers tell you what you "can't"do,and then throw a "NOT"in there is at beat disingenuous,unless your another lawyer this makes no effin sense.And before you ask my head is fine.......but my foot is killin me.:D
There's only one thing to say here. IF YOU CAN'T TELL WHAT YOU ARE SHOOTING AT YOU DON'T SHOOT.
bronconite
01-13-2012, 08:17
I would bet money ($1) that this is lawer speak for only allowing hunters and trappers on the game land for those dates. When you read the entire exceptions part it comes across that way. The bet part is a joke in case betting is also illegal.:D
You would lose that bet. Neither the State of PA nor the Game Commission discourage non-hunters/trappers from being present on Game Lands during the dates specified in the code or any particular hunting season. There are some restrictions on non hunters/trappers during certain seasons related to bicycles and horses, but none for general use on foot.
bronconite
01-13-2012, 08:27
I think you got it.Why lawyers tell you what you "can't"do,and then throw a "NOT"in there is at beat disingenuous,unless your another lawyer this makes no effin sense.And before you ask my head is fine.......but my foot is killin me.:D
You make it sound as if they used a double negative, which they did not. The "NOT" is used to differentiate between those engaged in legal hunting/trapping and those who are not. While I agree, laws are often written in such a way that they are very hard to understand, though I don't believe that to be the case here. Consult you 8th grade English teacher if you must:D, it means exactly what it says.;)
rocketsocks
01-13-2012, 09:04
I did not explain that very well,and not so sure a second go at it would be of any help.Can't ask my 8th grade teach cause I only went to 5th:rolleyes:,and "double noogies' that's what that's called thanks.Bronc, I think were gonna have to agree to disagree,for now any way.And if I should discover that you are in fact correct,I'll buy you an ice cream.How that sound?:)boy I sure stepped in it this time:confused:
rocketsocks
01-13-2012, 09:16
135.41(21)except on sundays,be present on state game lands...when not engaged in lawful hunting.I don't man......What flavor do you like?
rocketsocks
01-13-2012, 09:21
I'm a victim of lysdexia I can't tell my left right my from.Long a sing long a sing body every long a sing.;)
Migrating Bird
01-13-2012, 09:24
Anybody know how the woman is doing? Has there been any additional considerations for charging the hunter?
Snowleopard
01-13-2012, 11:28
The shooting is still being investigated by the Massachusetts Environmental Police (basically game wardens/rangers with law enforcement powers).
She's still in intensive care and on her fifth surgery.
Blair was shot with a .50 caliber lead ball, resulting in a fractured pelvis, a 10-inch wound and the likelihood of a permanent limp with chronic pain. She is expected to undergo her fifth surgery Friday as a result of the incident.
Blair, 66, remains in Rhode Island Hospital as she undergoes a series of operations to treat her gunshot wound and deal with the infection that came with it. Originally doctors expected her to be released from the hospital on Jan. 5, her family said; now, there is no timetable for her to move on to a rehabilitation center and to go home.
“They've been debriding, taking infection out,” said her husband, Jim Blair, who has been visiting her twice a day. “The doctors are taking damaged flesh and infected tissue out. They are trying to stay ahead of infection, and she remains on antibiotics, and whenever they find infection they go in and take more out.”
Blair underwent surgery on the night of the shooting incident, had another surgery to address infection on the following Friday, and then further surgery was conducted this Monday and Wednesday.
“The doctors tell me she's coming along,” said Jim Blair, who himself is a lifelong hunter and state certified firearms instructor. “You only have two choices when you are ill. You come along, or you die. She is still in the trauma and intensive care (unit), and she’s making progress.”
Jim Blair said the twice-daily visits to his wife last 15 minutes before she falls asleep. Cheryl Blair remains on pain medication and needs her rest, he said.
http://www.enterprisenews.com/topstories/x255281993/Hunters-group-Revoke-state-trooper-s-license-after-Norton-shooting
I'm a victim of lysdexia I can't tell my left right my from.Long a sing long a sing body every long a sing.;)
Te moo. Hife is lard. ;)
Rain Man
01-13-2012, 19:36
I think you got it.Why lawyers tell you what you "can't"do,and then throw a "NOT"in there is at beat disingenuous,unless your another lawyer this makes no effin sense.And before you ask my head is fine.......but my foot is killin me.:D
Why are you beating up on lawyers? Beat up on LEGISLATORS! They wrote the law. I'm not any happier with how legislators write statutes than you are.
Lawyer Rain:sunMan
.
rocketsocks
01-13-2012, 21:19
:datzStop the ride I want to get off.Sorry Rain Man.:oYou are exempt...if you wear orange.Hife shore kan be lard you want some ice cream too?Pm with address and flavor.Cone,bar or bowl.
I would bet money ($1) that this is lawer speak for only allowing hunters and trappers on the game land for those dates. When you read the entire exceptions part it comes across that way. The bet part is a joke in case betting is also illegal.:D
If I'm not mistaken, when the word "and" is used, it means that BOTH conditions must be met. When the word "or" is used, it means that either condition can be met. Since "and" is used in the law, then according to the rules of English, Both conditions must be meant. So that means that you must be a hunter and be wearing orange to be on the land during the time stated.
Sarcasm the elf
01-14-2012, 16:09
http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/images/Eloquent/miscgreen/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by rastraikis http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/images/Eloquent/buttonsgreen/viewpost-right.png (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1238695#post1238695)
That PA law states that only hunters and trappers may be on game lands from 11/15 to 12/15. It also states clothing that the hunters or trappers must wear.
Uh ... as I read it, it doesn't say only hunters and trappers can be on game land. Just says others must wear orange.
... it is unlawful to: * * * (21) ... be present on State game lands from November 15 through December 15 inclusive when not engaged in lawful hunting or trapping and fail to wear a minimum of 250 square inches of daylight fluorescent orange-colored material ....
Literally, it says you can't be there (1) when not hunting AND (2) failing to wear orange. Put another way, you can be there (1) when hunting OR (2) when wearing orange.
Rain Man
Based on my experience reading (far too many) legal documents, Rain Man's interpretation is correct. But I'm no attorney...
Now I'm sure there's someone on this board that lives and hikes in Pennsylvania, can they please speak up, or are they having too much fun watching all of us from out of state argue about the interpretation of their laws?
rocketsocks
01-14-2012, 16:13
Yes, and "Shall" means "must".While 135.41(21)as stated above may sound like it refers to all persons on the state game lands (hunting or not),to wear orange,It is my contenison that it is only the hunter for whom this law was written.Ex;I'm walking on state game land during hunting season and meet up with a hunter and a WCO,the hunter who is not wear the required orange gets a ticket for failure,I do not(but are pretty damn foolish for failure to do so)If you would like some ice cream,get in line please.;)
rocketsocks
01-14-2012, 16:19
:datzI can't believe I got back on this ride, I hate this ride!
Sarcasm the elf
01-14-2012, 16:28
:datzI can't believe I got back on this ride, I hate this ride!
I know, I can't believe I let myself get sucked in this far into the discussion:eek:
rocketsocks
01-14-2012, 17:08
OK,I just spoke to a family member and explained the situation.His response was,"well based on what information you gave me",
"How much ice cream do you have to buy"?F---- me running.SO PUBLICLY I would like say Broncoite,RainMan and Sarcasm the elf(because you were so far sucked in)What Flavor Do You Want?oh yah and" I WAS WRONG"!and do not wish to continue with this thread as I'm just to damn embarrassed.Thank you all for coming.:p
Rain Man
01-14-2012, 18:06
I think this explains nicely why criminals sometimes get off on "technicalities." If we all can't understand the statute, how can a jury say beyond a reasonable doubt that someone violated it? The lawyers commonly are blamed when this is the outcome, but it's the legislators and police who create then enforce the game, not the lawyers.
Rain:sunMan
.
rocketsocks
01-14-2012, 18:11
I think this explains nicely why criminals sometimes get off on "technicalities." If we all can't understand the statute, how can a jury say beyond a reasonable doubt that someone violated it? The lawyers commonly are blamed when this is the outcome, but it's the legislators and police who create then enforce the game, not the lawyers.:)
Rain:sunMan
.Good point,Hey Rain Man,sent you a PM
Snowleopard
06-15-2012, 11:51
The hunter has been charged criminally. Depending on which source I look at, he faces five years loss of his hunting license, or loss of license plus up to 6 months jail plus permanent loss of right to carry a firearm. There will be a series of court hearings at which point the exact charges and possible penalties will be clearer.
Hunter faces charge in accidental Norton shooting
BOSTON—State environmental police are seeking criminal charges against a state trooper who was hunting on New Year's Eve when he accidentally shot his neighbor walking her dog.
Authorities say they filed a complaint against Trooper John Bergeron last week on one count of careless or negligent use of a weapon causing injury or death.
Meanwhile, the woman who was shot, 66-year-old Cheryl Blair of Norton, has sued Bergeron and the owner of wooded property where the incident occurred seeking damages and compensation for medical bills.
Blair spent two months in the hospital and required multiple surgeries.
Police have said that the off-duty Bergeron mistook Blair's dog for a deer and shot Blair once in the leg.
Bergeron denies negligence and has previously expressed remorse for the shooting. http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/06/15/hunter_faces_charge_in_accidental_norton_shooting/
Cheryl Blair, 66, was walking her two golden retrievers in the woods behind her Oak Street house on Dec. 31 when a bullet from a black-powder rifle struck her hip, shattering her pelvis, damaging muscle tissue and lodging fragments in her body. The Norton woman’s injuries required 10 surgeries and a two-month hospital stay.
She is seeking unspecified damages in a civil complaint against Bergeron. The suit alleges the actions of Bergeron, who said he fired his gun when he mistook one of Blair’s dogs for a deer, were negligent and led to the woman’s injuries.
“Blair has incurred and will incur medicals bills, suffered and will suffer great pain of body and mind and significant deterioration in her physical well-being, has been and will continue to suffer lost wages and/or lost earning capacity, and has been and will continue to be prevented from engaging in her usual activities,” the lawsuit states.
http://www.patriotledger.com/news/cops_and_courts/x345282008/Hunter-to-be-charged-in-shooting#ixzz1xsLnIoyR
At the very least he should lose his hunting license for a few seasons. Not sure why she thinks she can sue the property owner.
Creek Dancer
06-15-2012, 14:01
At the very least he should lose his hunting license for a few seasons. Not sure why she thinks she can sue the property owner.
Because evidently she was injured on the owner's property. Property owners sometimes carry liability insurance in the event someone gets injured on their property. I am not suggesting that it was the owner's fault - I don't know the facts. But the liablity insurance carrier, who would end up paying the bill if she wins, has deep pockets and I am sure her lawyer knows that.