Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Hunting Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 09-20-2017, 07:02 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 270person View Post
Tough. First rule of hunting is we don't shoot unless we're sure of the target. Who in their right mind mistakes a human being for an elk or a moose? Obviously someone who didn't sure of his target.

Nobody intends to kill others while they're driving drunk either. But they still do it as a result of. No different.

Charge him with manslaughter. We all have to, or should have to, be held accountable for mistakes we make in life and pay the price. Being sorry isn't enough.
Good point, when a drunk driver kills someone, most people are demanding harsh punishment for the offender, yet some people want to go easier on someone that kills another person by pointing a firearm at them, and pulling the trigger. The person that pulls the trigger is not impaired, and he is conscious of what his firearm is capable of, unlike the drunk driver, who is not capable of thinking rationally due to being impaired. The person that shoots another person by accident should be treated at least as harshly as an impaired driver, if not more so.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-20-2017, 07:27 AM
Xbolt7mm Xbolt7mm is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: south calgary
Posts: 2,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
Good point, when a drunk driver kills someone, most people are demanding harsh punishment for the offender, yet some people want to go easier on someone that kills another person by pointing a firearm at them, and pulling the trigger. The person that pulls the trigger is not impaired, and he is conscious of what his firearm is capable of, unlike the drunk driver, who is not capable of thinking rationally due to being impaired. The person that shoots another person by accident should be treated at least as harshly as an impaired driver, if not more so.
Your consistent if anything, we get it,, hang him from the closest tree! Who needs an investigation to find a cause. There are circumstances where a person can do nothing illegal where a person ends up dead, let the law decide before you run for the rope.

Last edited by Xbolt7mm; 09-20-2017 at 07:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-20-2017, 07:36 AM
CaberTosser's Avatar
CaberTosser CaberTosser is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 19,417
Default

I agree with 270person and Elkhunter, while the young fellow might have done the right thing following his having done the wrong thing it sure does not negate the crime. Of course he is going to be feeling horrible about this for the remainder of his life and he might well give up hunting forever, but taking a life by committing such a negligent act cannot go unpunished. We have an over abundance of people barely getting punished for absolutely awful crimes, there has to be better precedent in sentencing as a deterrent to others. This guy did the wrong thing while sober, so in my mind that's as bad or worse than the drunk driver comparison because he was lucid when he did it. He colossally failed at being responsible and someone else and all of their loved ones have paid the price. I don't think it warrants as much of a sentence as if a murder was committed intentionally and with malice, but it certainly calls for much more than a slap on the wrist. It's a firearm people, and he was clearly wreckless with it.
__________________
"The trouble with people idiot-proofing things, is the resulting evolution of the idiot." Me
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-20-2017, 07:42 AM
JDK71 JDK71 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,556
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 270person View Post
Tough. First rule of hunting is we don't shoot unless we're sure of the target. Who in their right mind mistakes a human being for an elk or a moose? Obviously someone who didn't sure of his target.

Nobody intends to kill others while they're driving drunk either. But they still do it as a result of. No different.

Charge him with manslaughter. We all have to, or should have to, be held accountable for mistakes we make in life and pay the price. Being sorry isn't enough.
you are right
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-20-2017, 07:50 AM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,411
Default

Drunk driving is a criminal offense and has absolutely nothing to do with what happened here, a tragic accident. If you kill someone while committing a criminal offense it proves intent from the get go. A perfect example would be armed robbery and if you killed someone during the act.

What it would be the same as is the hundreds of people that kill others on the roads every year by being careless. This would include driving too fast for road conditions that we are all guilty of from time to time.

Tar and feathers for this kid is ridiculous. You people are like the antis. Life is a fragile thing and people will carelessly be killed or seriously injured today doing a variety of activities. It is sad and preventable in most every case. If stupidity becomes criminal there will be many missing from the forum here and doing hard time.

Because death and/or injury is so uncommon in our pastime we all want to run around looking for answers and more prevention. We are all going to die and some will die tragically but lets keep things in perspective before the powers to be are jamming through some more useless regulation.

AND for the guy that said they are passing out PALS like driver's licenses; that is truly ridiculous and should be ended. Motor vehicles are much more dangerous than firearms and the training should be much more thorough. Road crashes are the leading cause of death among our youth and effect all of us. If the youth involved here was killed in a preventable car accident (like most often is the case) we wouldn't even be discussing it let alone wanting to string up the kid that made the horrible error in judgement.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-20-2017, 08:21 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Drunk driving is a criminal offense and has absolutely nothing to do with what happened here, a tragic accident. If you kill someone while committing a criminal offense it proves intent from the get go. A perfect example would be armed robbery and if you killed someone during the act.
Shooting at an object that has not been identified, and that may be human, is careless use of a firearm, which is in itself a criminal offense. So if you kill someone while being careless with a firearm, you are killing them while committing a criminal act. Just like a drunk driver, you may not intend to commit a criminal act and kill someone, but it still happens, and you should still be held accountable for your actions.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-20-2017, 08:45 AM
R3illy R3illy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,006
Default

how do you defend someone who kills someone? Accident or not they cant ignore this. Did they even charge the guy yet? What would they be waiting for.

It's interesting to see how people want the book thrown at the metis fishermen, how people want to shoot dead thieves on their properties or have poachers hung by the trees but when a guy shoots and kills someone people show compassion by not wanting the guy charged.

But lets throw the book at far less serious crimes. Makes you wonder.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-20-2017, 09:05 AM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,411
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
Shooting at an object that has not been identified, and that may be human, is careless use of a firearm, which is in itself a criminal offense. So if you kill someone while being careless with a firearm, you are killing them while committing a criminal act. Just like a drunk driver, you may not intend to commit a criminal act and kill someone, but it still happens, and you should still be held accountable for your actions.
Yet careless use of a motor vehicle, while being much more dangerous, is not criminal. If you are ever wondering why. It is because do gooders like yourself that truly believe they are above mere mortals decided to make criminal everything related to those dangerous and blood thirsty guns. Storing one safely in the closet like has been done for a 100 years is also criminal. But you don't care about that, you just like to argue.

Two young men went out to do what we all know and love. They were very much like us and/or our sons and daughters just a day or two ago. One got too excited with buck fever after spotting an animal, maybe tripped unexpectedly while looking for an animal or maybe though he saw something he did not. He made a mistake. He sat with the victim, no doubt for some length of time and no doubt suffered more than any of us can imagine. The suffering continued through the night and will haunt him for the rest of his life.

Do you truly think that dragging him and his family through the legal system at tax payer's expense is the right thing to do at this point, and to what end? Do you think in all your wisdom we have a habitual repeat offender here that needs to punished into remorse and held in captivity to protect the public? With thousands of drug dealing scum on our streets that through pushing fentanyl alone have killed over 2500 youths in the last year, do you truly believe we should focus our legal vengeance on a young man from Saskatchewan that just wanted to go hunting for the day?

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-20-2017, 09:15 AM
wildwoods wildwoods is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Location
Posts: 4,961
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3illy View Post
how do you defend someone who kills someone? Accident or not they cant ignore this. Did they even charge the guy yet? What would they be waiting for.

It's interesting to see how people want the book thrown at the metis fishermen, how people want to shoot dead thieves on their properties or have poachers hung by the trees but when a guy shoots and kills someone people show compassion by not wanting the guy charged.

But lets throw the book at far less serious crimes. Makes you wonder.
Pretty wide brush you paint with. Did you actually research to see who were the folks wanting books thrown at lesser crimes? And no, not everyone wants to hang the thief in his yard. This is apples and oranges. Malicious crime vs an accident. Try again

As far as not charging him yet- there could be dozens of reasons. Maybe improbable but we havent heard details yet. Maybe he was sitting behind a decoy when he was shot? Perhaps caught a ricochet? We need to wait and see
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-20-2017, 09:23 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Two young men went out to do what we all know and love. They were very much like us and/or our sons and daughters just a day or two ago. One got too excited with buck fever after spotting an animal, maybe tripped unexpectedly while looking for an animal or maybe though he saw something he did not. He made a mistake. He sat with the victim, no doubt for some length of time and no doubt suffered more than any of us can imagine. The suffering continued through the night and will haunt him for the rest of his life.
Do you truly think that dragging him and his family through the legal system at tax payer's expense is the right thing to do at this point, and to what end? Do you think in all your wisdom we have a habitual repeat offender here that needs to punished into remorse and held in captivity to protect the public? With thousands of drug dealing scum on our streets that through pushing fentanyl alone have killed over 2500 youths in the last year, do you truly believe we should focus our legal vengeance on a young man from Saskatchewan that just wanted to go hunting for the day?
And a similar argument can be made for the person that stopped by a bar after work for a beer after a hectic day at work. He is just like us, he has a family and he was having a good time, he stayed too long, and he drank just enough to put him over the legal limit. And then he got into his vehicle, intending to drive home to his family, and he caused an accident that resulted in someone being killed. Yes he will suffer, the fact that he caused the death will haunt him for the rest of his life.
Do you think that dragging him and his family through the legal system at the taxpayers expense is the right thing to do at this point, and to what end?
My point is that we have two situations, with so much in common, yet some people want to crucify one person, and go easy on the other one, when neither person intended to commit a crime, or cause anyone to be hurt. They both made a mistake, and in both cases a life was ended as a result, so why such a different attitude towards them?
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 09-20-2017, 09:31 AM
JDK71 JDK71 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,556
Default

it is a sad case but he shot at something when he was not sure what it was
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-20-2017, 09:50 AM
gevarm guy gevarm guy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 239
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MK2750 View Post
Yet careless use of a motor vehicle, while being much more dangerous, is not criminal. If you are ever wondering why. It is because do gooders like yourself that truly believe they are above mere mortals decided to make criminal everything related to those dangerous and blood thirsty guns. Storing one safely in the closet like has been done for a 100 years is also criminal. But you don't care about that, you just like to argue.

Two young men went out to do what we all know and love. They were very much like us and/or our sons and daughters just a day or two ago. One got too excited with buck fever after spotting an animal, maybe tripped unexpectedly while looking for an animal or maybe though he saw something he did not. He made a mistake. He sat with the victim, no doubt for some length of time and no doubt suffered more than any of us can imagine. The suffering continued through the night and will haunt him for the rest of his life.

Do you truly think that dragging him and his family through the legal system at tax payer's expense is the right thing to do at this point, and to what end? Do you think in all your wisdom we have a habitual repeat offender here that needs to punished into remorse and held in captivity to protect the public? With thousands of drug dealing scum on our streets that through pushing fentanyl alone have killed over 2500 youths in the last year, do you truly believe we should focus our legal vengeance on a young man from Saskatchewan that just wanted to go hunting for the day?

For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
Agree and well said...
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-20-2017, 10:09 AM
R3illy R3illy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,006
Default

at what point in your fire arms training did you fail to remember that you are responsible for every bullet fired? I guess we need to change the training if that's not the case.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-20-2017, 10:26 AM
oiler_nation oiler_nation is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
And a similar argument can be made for the person that stopped by a bar after work for a beer after a hectic day at work. He is just like us, he has a family and he was having a good time, he stayed too long, and he drank just enough to put him over the legal limit. And then he got into his vehicle, intending to drive home to his family, and he caused an accident that resulted in someone being killed. Yes he will suffer, the fact that he caused the death will haunt him for the rest of his life.
Do you think that dragging him and his family through the legal system at the taxpayers expense is the right thing to do at this point, and to what end?
My point is that we have two situations, with so much in common, yet some people want to crucify one person, and go easy on the other one, when neither person intended to commit a crime, or cause anyone to be hurt. They both made a mistake, and in both cases a life was ended as a result, so why such a different attitude towards them?
Well said. You owe a duty of care to fellow drivers and fellow hunters. The comparison is a completely fair one. I personally would hate to see another young man's life destroyed over this (more than it already will be), but I have to recognize my own hypocrisy because I would take a completely different view towards a drunk driver. One could argue a drunk driver is making a conscious choice to act reckless, while this young man acted in the heat of the moment, however the counter argument is that the duty of care an individual owes to fellow hunters when holding a weapon designed to kill is even higher than that owed to fellow drivers.

Terrible situation for sure. I am not sure that throwing the book at this kid accomplishes anything positive, but if charges are filed the kid may have an uphill battle.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-20-2017, 10:28 AM
Xbolt7mm Xbolt7mm is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: south calgary
Posts: 2,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
And a similar argument can be made for the person that stopped by a bar after work for a beer after a hectic day at work. He is just like us, he has a family and he was having a good time, he stayed too long, and he drank just enough to put him over the legal limit. And then he got into his vehicle, intending to drive home to his family, and he caused an accident that resulted in someone being killed. Yes he will suffer, the fact that he caused the death will haunt him for the rest of his life.
Do you think that dragging him and his family through the legal system at the taxpayers expense is the right thing to do at this point, and to what end?
My point is that we have two situations, with so much in common, yet some people want to crucify one person, and go easy on the other one, when neither person intended to commit a crime, or cause anyone to be hurt. They both made a mistake, and in both cases a life was ended as a result, so why such a different attitude towards them?
No its not a similar argument at all. The drinker took lots of time preparing to do something illegal. One of them did intend on committing a crime and has nothing in common with the other. The drinker did intend to commit a crime, drinking and driving is a crime. The preceding action around both issues is where you are flawed. Sitting at a bar drinking for 3 hours, or even one and knowing you will drive away after is a planned illegal event and if an accident happens and someone dies then you killed someone while committing a crime, impaired driving. Walking around the woods during hunting season with a gun is not a pre meditated crime, totally different situations that require different solutions, its hard to believe the differences between the two are not clear.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-20-2017, 10:36 AM
Xbolt7mm Xbolt7mm is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: south calgary
Posts: 2,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oiler_nation View Post
Well said. You owe a duty of care to fellow drivers and fellow hunters. The comparison is a completely fair one. I personally would hate to see another young man's life destroyed over this (more than it already will be), but I have to recognize my own hypocrisy because I would take a completely different view towards a drunk driver. One could argue a drunk driver is making a conscious choice to act reckless, while this young man acted in the heat of the moment, however the counter argument is that the duty of care an individual owes to fellow hunters when holding a weapon designed to kill is even higher than that owed to fellow drivers.

Terrible situation for sure. I am not sure that throwing the book at this kid accomplishes anything positive, but if charges are filed the kid may have an uphill battle.
So then it would make perfect sence to compare almost anything to drunk driving. A construction worker is working on the top floor of a high rise and stumbles on a extension cord on the floor and his hammer falls from his hand and drops down to the ground and kills a pedestrian. He knows the hammer was not to go over the side but it did. Duty of care says he was to control his tools. It was an accident as was the poor situation on this thread, Drunk driving is not an accident and if any of you think so I hope you get nailed with impaired driving as you have no concept between right and wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-20-2017, 10:41 AM
angler1 angler1 is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Drayton Valley
Posts: 272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1899b View Post
Back in 1989 Evan Skoljas from Norway was killed while bear hunting not far from Mariana Lake. I have a picture on an old computer that is currently out of commission of a steel pole and Evans picture in plexiglass on it where this happened as I used to hunt the area often as I grew up in McMurray. It remains unsolved to this day.

https://youtu.be/W_1hBhxt9nc
Was this not a guided hunt? Being from out of country. No mention of one.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-20-2017, 10:44 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xbolt7mm View Post
No its not a similar argument at all. The drinker took lots of time preparing to do something illegal. One of them did intend on committing a crime and has nothing in common with the other. The drinker did intend to commit a crime, drinking and driving is a crime. The preceding action around both issues is where you are flawed. Sitting at a bar drinking for 3 hours, or even one and knowing you will drive away after is a planned illegal event and if an accident happens and someone dies then you killed someone while committing a crime, impaired driving. Walking around the woods during hunting season with a gun is not a pre meditated crime, totally different situations that require different solutions, its hard to believe the differences between the two are not clear.
So you are telling us that every person that has a drink and then drives plans on committing an illegal act? Or is there a legal limit that allows a person to have a drink or two, and then drive legally? So nobody actually stops at a bar with the intention of having one or two drinks and then has an extra drink or two without realizing that the extra drink took them above the legal limit? Not everyone that is legally impaired realizes that they are legally impaired, and not everyone that is legally impaired intended to become legally impaired.

As for how long the person has to think about doing something, should it matter if the person looked at the object that he was going to shoot at for a split second, or for a few seconds, or for a minute, or for several minutes? If you can't identify the object, it doesn't matter how long you look at it, you shouldn't pull the trigger. And when you do pull the trigger, you are usually intending to pull that trigger, and to kill something, and an intentional act is not an accident. It may be negligence, but if you intended to pull the trigger, it isn't an accident.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.

Last edited by elkhunter11; 09-20-2017 at 10:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-20-2017, 10:52 AM
oiler_nation oiler_nation is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 127
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xbolt7mm View Post
So then it would make perfect sence to compare almost anything to drunk driving. A construction worker is working on the top floor of a high rise and stumbles on a extension cord on the floor and his hammer falls from his hand and drops down to the ground and kills a pedestrian. He knows the hammer was not to go over the side but it did. Duty of care says he was to control his tools. It was an accident as was the poor situation on this thread, Drunk driving is not an accident and if any of you think so I hope you get nailed with impaired driving as you have no concept between right and wrong.
I don't think you understand what duty of care means. The question you have to ask in your example is what would a reasonable construction worker do in that situation. Duty of care does not mean that you have to be perfect, it just means you have to meet the standard of the theoretical "reasonable person". In the case of a driver, a reasonable person would not slam back 6 drinks in an hour and go for a drive. Likewise, a reasonable hunter walking around with a firearm does not point and shoot before identifying the target and what lies beyond it.

Accidents are always going to happen, but the legal question is did the individual satisfy the reasonable person test.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-20-2017, 11:20 AM
Xbolt7mm Xbolt7mm is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: south calgary
Posts: 2,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oiler_nation View Post
I don't think you understand what duty of care means. The question you have to ask in your example is what would a reasonable construction worker do in that situation. Duty of care does not mean that you have to be perfect, it just means you have to meet the standard of the theoretical "reasonable person". In the case of a driver, a reasonable person would not slam back 6 drinks in an hour and go for a drive. Likewise, a reasonable hunter walking around with a firearm does not point and shoot before identifying the target and what lies beyond it.

Accidents are always going to happen, but the legal question is did the individual satisfy the reasonable person test.
Thats my point, we dont know if the hunter did actually shoot on purpose and at what, could have been a deer with the victim all camo'ed up behind and not visible, there is lots of possibilities that do not involve him breaking a law. All im saying is let the police do their job instead of heading for a rope,chair and a branch on social media.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-20-2017, 11:27 AM
Xbolt7mm Xbolt7mm is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: south calgary
Posts: 2,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
So you are telling us that every person that has a drink and then drives plans on committing an illegal act? Or is there a legal limit that allows a person to have a drink or two, and then drive legally? So nobody actually stops at a bar with the intention of having one or two drinks and then has an extra drink or two without realizing that the extra drink took them above the legal limit? Not everyone that is legally impaired realizes that they are legally impaired, and not everyone that is legally impaired intended to become legally impaired.

As for how long the person has to think about doing something, should it matter if the person looked at the object that he was going to shoot at for a split second, or for a few seconds, or for a minute, or for several minutes? If you can't identify the object, it doesn't matter how long you look at it, you shouldn't pull the trigger. And when you do pull the trigger, you are usually intending to pull that trigger, and to kill something, and an intentional act is not an accident. It may be negligence, but if you intended to pull the trigger, it isn't an accident.
I'm not telling "us" anything, your views do not represent "us" as a group as is the same with my views, clearly, I disagree with you. And yes any person who goes to a bar and has more than one drink would know they are in danger of being over the legal limit of impairment. Its a planned event that was calculated as they ordered the drink and consumed it. Once again, you assumed he aimed at him and shot him, you dont know that at all and you are not part of the investigation team, let them do their job and im sure they will get it right. Thats why we have laws and a justice system or you would have him swinging from a rope already.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-20-2017, 11:31 AM
MK2750's Avatar
MK2750 MK2750 is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sylvan Lake
Posts: 3,411
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3illy View Post
at what point in your fire arms training did you fail to remember that you are responsible for every bullet fired? I guess we need to change the training if that's not the case.
Nobody is saying it is right or that the young man is not responsible. He made a horrible mistake, there is no excuse and he no doubt knows that. He has and will continue to suffer enough. A witch hunt and public lynching will only punish his family and the hunting community as a whole.

Our legal system is designed for rehabilitation not punishment. This being right or wrong is something for each to decide on their own but I would be shocked if even the family of the deceased is out for vengeance or feel the young man needs rehabilitation.

Each of us will face judgement. I for one will ask for forgiveness, others may choose to argue for eternity.

I find it strange that the results of a single action are so much more important that the action itself. In the 1950s, 60s and 70s you would be hard pressed to find even one adult driver that had not consumed at least some amount of alcohol and drove a vehicle. Had they killed someone they would still be suffering today but those, like myself, that avoided this fate have all but forgotten the incident or dozens of incidents.

Firearms are always pointed somewhere and when walking in the bush this is not always up or down. Stuff happens, although highly unlikely, to some very good people.

One evening I was sitting on a cut line watching a buck chasing a small group of does around. To my left is a quarter that I know I am the only one allowed and to the right is a posted quarter of bush that is rarely hunted by the owners relative that lives in the south part of the Provence. The nearest road is a half mile.

This is not a silly young buck but a mature animal that I have only seen once before scouting. Finally he is out on the cut line and standing still. I dip behind a tree I am leaning on pretty much back to him, set down my binoculars and come slowly back around the tree with my rifle up. The buck was paying too much attention to me as behind him about 30 yards, was a hunter with rifle raised, ready to fire, directly at the buck and me. I quickly pulled behind the tree expecting to hear BOOM but nothing happened. I wouldn't have blamed the other hunter as I was literally hiding behind a tree in his line of fire. I spotted him immediately behind the buck but only because I had been looking that way with the binoculars for the last half hour. If not would I have even noticed him? A mature buck and a bunch of does didn't and they were a lot closer than me.

Within 15minutes it was too dark to shoot and the other gentleman I were talking. We had both pointed rifles in the other's direction and we were both quite shaken by it. He could not believe that I was there so close to that buck and I couldn't believe he was able to stalk that close. We both agreed it could have been much worse and I would bet that many would not have noticed the other in the excitement of the moment.

Since that day (I was in my 20s) I have never continued to hunt until last light or started until the sun is up and visibility is perfect, except for waterfowl. In heavy spruce, on an overcast day with no snow on the ground it is too dark for me to be shooting a rifle at first and last light. No matter what the law states I am haunted by that incident 30 years later, no lynching required.

Be safe out there guys. If you think accidents can't happen to you and choose to believe that bad things only happen to extremely stupid or reckless individuals, you are wrong. Let's not make it dead wrong.

Last edited by MK2750; 09-20-2017 at 11:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-20-2017, 11:40 AM
elkhunter11 elkhunter11 is online now
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Camrose
Posts: 44,842
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xbolt7mm View Post
I'm not telling "us" anything, your views do not represent "us" as a group as is the same with my views, clearly, I disagree with you. And yes any person who goes to a bar and has more than one drink would know they are in danger of being over the legal limit of impairment. Its a planned event that was calculated as they ordered the drink and consumed it. Once again, you assumed he aimed at him and shot him, you dont know that at all and you are not part of the investigation team, let them do their job and im sure they will get it right. Thats why we have laws and a justice system or you would have him swinging from a rope already.
No we don't know the details yet, but some people we already posting that because of what he will go through if he did shoot the other hunter, we should go easier on him. All that I am saying, is that this situation should be treated like any other situation where a life was lost. If there was some strange ricochet or something of that nature then this may be a simple accident, but if he did mistake the other hunter for an animal, and he aimed at and shot him dead, then he is guilty of a crime and should be treated as a criminal.
__________________
Only accurate guns are interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-20-2017, 11:50 AM
waterninja waterninja is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: edmonton
Posts: 11,434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xbolt7mm View Post
Your consistent if anything, we get it,, hang him from the closest tree! Who needs an investigation to find a cause. There are circumstances where a person can do nothing illegal where a person ends up dead, let the law decide before you run for the rope.

Yeh, I really don't think the fellow went out into the bush with murder on his mind. I'm not excusing him in any way and he certainly deserves to be punished for his carelessness, but it sounds more like a careless tragic accident rather then a premeditated killing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-20-2017, 12:19 PM
Xbolt7mm Xbolt7mm is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: south calgary
Posts: 2,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkhunter11 View Post
No we don't know the details yet, but some people we already posting that because of what he will go through if he did shoot the other hunter, we should go easier on him. All that I am saying, is that this situation should be treated like any other situation where a life was lost. If there was some strange ricochet or something of that nature then this may be a simple accident, but if he did mistake the other hunter for an animal, and he aimed at and shot him dead, then he is guilty of a crime and should be treated as a criminal.
But we dont know that so why even say it
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-20-2017, 12:22 PM
1899b's Avatar
1899b 1899b is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sherwood Park Ab
Posts: 6,279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by angler1 View Post
Was this not a guided hunt? Being from out of country. No mention of one.
I believe it was but no mention of the outfitter or guide. Maybe when it happened the outfitter or guide was mentioned in the news story but I cannot remember. Was a while back for sure.
__________________
An awful lot of big game was killed with the .30-06 including the big bears before everyone became affluent enough to own a rifle for every species of game they might hunt.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-20-2017, 12:23 PM
R3illy R3illy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,006
Default

everyone's saying the guy who killed him will be traumatized... we dont know this and why does how he feels matter? Regardless of how he may feel your thoughts shouldnt be on the hunter who killed someone. It should be on the hunter who died thanks to the reckless actions of someone.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-20-2017, 12:32 PM
Xbolt7mm Xbolt7mm is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: south calgary
Posts: 2,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R3illy View Post
everyone's saying the guy who killed him will be traumatized... we dont know this and why does how he feels matter? Regardless of how he may feel your thoughts shouldnt be on the hunter who killed someone. It should be on the hunter who died thanks to the reckless actions of someone.
The dead fellow has no feelings so i guess there is nothing to have thoughts about, his family, obviously and a different story, but you never said that and you have no idea if his actions were reckless at this point. Maybe they were but thats not your call or mine, let the investigation unfold and we will see.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-20-2017, 12:37 PM
The Spank The Spank is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 553
Default

I met a woman two years ago whose husband had been killed by a stray bullet while repairing a fence on their farm. She said it had been twenty years and nobody ever came forward or was found. Investigation showed the hunter and farmer were out of sight from one another due to the lay of the land and police figured someone shot at a deer, missed and the bullet struck her out of view husband. She found him after she went looking for him when he didn't come in for dinner.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-20-2017, 01:02 PM
R3illy R3illy is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xbolt7mm View Post
The dead fellow has no feelings so i guess there is nothing to have thoughts about, his family, obviously and a different story, but you never said that and you have no idea if his actions were reckless at this point. Maybe they were but thats not your call or mine, let the investigation unfold and we will see.
oh I see we dont know if it was reckless but you want everyone to feel sorry for the guy who killed someone. You dont know anything except that we should all feel bad for the guy who is still alive. You know nothing other then this guy feels terrible there for we should support him.

That's ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.