Be aware of your shot

VBshooter · Post by **VBshooter** » Thu, 20 Jan 2011 11:42:37

This poor guy had the misfortune to accidently shoot and kill another hunter and to top that off he has been arrested and charged with manslaughter,, Could be facing 10 years on a felony conviction.

Va. hunter charged in fellow hunter's death

http://hamptonroads.com/node/585284

Slams home the old saying of know where your shooting at all times and if unsure don't take the shot.

dmharvey · Post by **dmharvey** » Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:07:55

There is no excuse for this sort of "accident"...ever.

Vahunter · Post by **Vahunter** » Thu, 20 Jan 2011 20:22:08

I don't call them accidents, they are incidents. No excuse for 99% of them.

gunderwood · Post by **gunderwood** » Thu, 20 Jan 2011 21:24:17

Vahunter wrote:I don't call them accidents, they are incidents. No excuse for 99% of them.

Yes, but strange things like ricochets and terrain make the last 1% actual accidents. I have no idea which this is.

Post by **zephyp** » Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:55:01

Sounds like they need to do what Henry and I do when we hunt together. Know where each other is, when they plan to exit the woods, and situate yourself to avoid a crossfire or "accident."

gunderwood · Post by **gunderwood** » Fri, 21 Jan 2011 08:49:25

zephyp wrote:Sounds like they need to do what Henry and I do when we hunt together. Know where each other is, when they plan to exit the woods, and situate yourself to avoid a crossfire or "accident."

I do this when I go out with family. The problem is that it doesn't work on public land. I don't get the " I shot at something that might have been a deer." You shouldn't shoot unless you are sure. However, shooting at an actual deer and then missing or the bullet going clean through can cause an actual accident. On land where you know everyone out there, that should never happen because you set up correctly. Public land has more risk.

Unkn0wN · Post by **Unkn0wN** » Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:02:07

I'm not sure how accurate the info is, but in the comments of the article someone said the victim went into the woods to push the deer towards the firing line.

davasmith · Post by **davasmith** » Fri, 21 Jan 2011 10:33:26

I feel compassion for all concerned. It's bad enough a life was lost, but taking this man in custody for manslaughter is just a show of force in my opinion. I see no intent, just a premature shooter. You don't shoot what you can't see. With all the anti-gun legistlation out there, we don't need this. Anyone know of a memorial fund for the departed?

Vahunter · Post by **Vahunter** » Fri, 21 Jan 2011 17:35:58

gunderwood wrote:
zephyp wrote:Sounds like they need to do what Henry and I do when we hunt together. Know where each other is, when they plan to exit the woods, and situate yourself to avoid a crossfire or "accident."
I do this when I go out with family. The problem is that it doesn't work on public land. I don't get the " I shot at something that might have been a deer." You shouldn't shoot unless you are sure. However, shooting at an actual deer and then missing or the bullet going clean through can cause an actual accident. On land where you know everyone out there, that should never happen because you set up correctly. Public land has more risk.

That is why I never ever hunt on public land. Too many trigger happy idiots out there.

Post by **zephyp** » Sat, 22 Jan 2011 09:19:21

There are those idiots to deal with. I've been to Phelps a couple of times and hardly ever see another vehicle. The only thing down there I see pressured is the range.

OleMan · Post by **OleMan** » Sun, 23 Jan 2011 02:32:05

The following was a response later in the blog. If true it points to a bad decision on the part of the victim and malfeasance on the part of the Commonwealth's Attorney. I'll hope to hear the truth later.

"Why Are We Here?
Submitted by JusticeIsBlind on Thu, 01/20/2011 at 4:47 pm. the shooter and his party did everything they could to revive Scott, yet they are being treated like common criminals. The shooter is a disabled man who hunts from open spaces close to vehicles. He has over thirty years hunting experience. He has been emotionally distraught over the loss of this young man since the day it happened. He has sent letters of apology to the family, begging for forgiveness and offering to do anything in his power to make up for this terrible tragedy. He has been subject to death threats, and his adolescent children have been subject to teasing in public school. There was no motive, no drugs or alcohol were involved, and ANYONE could have been behind the trigger in a similar situation. Any rational jury will see that.

Submitted by JusticeIsBlind on Thu, 01/20/2011 at 4:44 pm. Of the five eyewitnesses, the Commonwealth Attorney called precisely zero of them to testify to the Grand Jury. If he had, charges would have never materialized for lack of evidence. Why? Because every eyewitness to the account, including the victim's friends and enforcement officials, would have testified that the victim took it upon himself to go in the woods and attempt to "scare" deer towards a known open line of fire without wearing any blaze orange, and without informing hunters already on their stand. There was no group "deer drive". The victim acted unilaterally, and without making any noise, he stealthily approached a known open line of fire from forest cover dressed in total camouflage, resulting in this tragic accident ...."

GeneFrenkle · Post by **GeneFrenkle** » Sun, 23 Jan 2011 19:56:10

IANAL, so I'm probably very wrong. As I understand it, the purpose of the Grand Jury is to seek an enditement-it is not a trial. The attorney does not have be impartial, rather has to provide a justification to bring charges and present whatever info needed to attain that goal. It might even be considered counter productive if it were a presentment of all facts as it might undermine some measure of effectiveness/merit in risking a "go to trial" count and prosecution rates (e.g. "annual review"). Just what I'm guessing and opinion at the moment.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

gunderwood · Post by **gunderwood** » Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:24:56

GeneFrenkle wrote:IANAL, so I'm probably very wrong. As I understand it, the purpose of the Grand Jury is to seek an enditement-it is not a trial. The attorney does not have be impartial, rather has to provide a justification to bring charges and present whatever info needed to attain that goal. It might even be considered counter productive if it were a presentment of all facts as it might undermine some measure of effectiveness/merit in risking a "go to trial" count and prosecution rates (e.g. "annual review"). Just what I'm guessing and opinion at the moment.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The grand jury is the citizens protection against an out of control justice system. The grand jury is there to see if there is sufficient evidence to bring the accused to court over. There are several problems.

1. The government has perverted it into being a rubber stamp. Most people don't know why they are there and the impression the government gives to juries is that they have to pass a bill. The government also only tells part of the story that they like. This is from direct experience. In the end the government nearly always gets their charges. One bill we tried to reject was withdrew by the prosecutor. Of course, we didn't see it again (multi-month gig), but I'm sure the next grand jury did. At some point that prosecutor will get his bill through a grand jury.

2. Most people just want to get done as fast as possible. They also schedule it in such a way that they push for a rubber stamp.

3. The average jurist is under the impression and the LEO will even allude to it that they wouldn't be seeking a bill if the person wasn't guilty.

Etc. The grand jury is so perverted at this point that a bill of indictment means next to nothing.

Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF