Landowner/hunter dispute... revisited

[300UGUY]

Here in NH, it's not required to ask permission to hunt un-posted land from the owners; but it's considered a courtesy that only scum would ignore. I always figured that if you couldn't be bothered to ask people living next to the property who the owners are, and ask the owner for permission; then you don't have what it takes to be a good hunter since you won't have studied the animals you're hunting.

NH has a regulation that prohibits hunting within 300 feet of a building without the permission of the owner. I see any strangers within 300 feet of my house with a firearm, they get one warning before I go to lethal response. Of course I'm a combat vet and have an excuse for being a wee bit anti-social.

Michigan requires a 150 yard distance from a structure.

 

[Ross71]

I know American laws are considerably different to Britain, (and I'm not saying the British laws are right, reasonable or sense) but surely "you shot a visibly unarmed man at close enough range that you scorched his clothing" whether accidental or not, is either criminal negligence or attempted murder. I tell my boys-if you point a gun at someone, they have to assume you intend to use it, and have every right to use any means available to stop you.

 

[Midniteoyl]

Exactly! Even if the guy did grab it and caused it to go off, the hunter was A) pointing it at him, B) had it loaded, C)had the safety off, and D) had his finger inside the guard.. ALL no-no's

 

[aczlan]

Exactly! Even if the guy did grab it and caused it to go off, the hunter was A) pointing it at him, B) had it loaded, C)had the safety off, and D) had his finger inside the guard.. ALL no-no's

The story that the lawyer will tell is:
A. My clients gun was pointing at the ground until he grabbed it
B. My client was about to unload it as he was at his vehicle (or was about to go out and hunt after just loading it)
C. The safety got pushed in my clients struggle to retain his firearm
D. My client's finger accidentally ended up in the trigger guard when the gun got twisted in my clients struggle to retain his firearm
Without proof to the contrary, its hard to prove otherwise.

Aaron Z

 

[dmccarty]

I know American laws are considerably different to Britain, (and I'm not saying the British laws are right, reasonable or sense) but surely "you shot a visibly unarmed man at close enough range that you scorched his clothing" whether accidental or not, is either criminal negligence or attempted murder. I tell my boys-if you point a gun at someone, they have to assume you intend to use it, and have every right to use any means available to stop you.

It is going to depend on the laws of the state. I don't know the law in the state in question, but in NC, I THINK he would have been charged.

Later,
Dan

 

[Jstpssng]

It is going to depend on the laws of the state. I don't know the law in the state in question, but in NC, I THINK he would have been charged.

Later,
Dan

The overall gist of the article was that it's unclear exactly what happened, which is why nobody was charged. The only people who know for sure are the one's who were there... and it sounds like things escalated out of control so fast that even the they aren't sure what happened.

 

[dmccarty]

The overall gist of the article was that it's unclear exactly what happened, which is why nobody was charged. The only people who know for sure are the one's who were there... and it sounds like things escalated out of control so fast that even the they aren't sure what happened.

From the reports I read, including the last one, it was quite clear what happened. The hunters attacked the landowner and the landowner got shot by one of the hunters. NC has a statute that fits that situation. That the hunter shot the landowner is not disputable. The landowner said the hunter shot him, the DNA evidence showed the hunter pulled the trigger, and the rifle was the hunter's. I have seen no mention that the deadly force was justified. If anyone had justification to use deadly force it was the landowner, since the hunters were armed and out numbered him.

NC has a statute under that would apply in this situation. Simply put, the hunter shot the landowner and inflicted serious injury, which is all the NC statute requires to be charged. A jury might not have convicted but that is a different conversation.

There was a case here decades ago where a young, newly wed woman went for a jog one morning when she was murdered. The teenage thug that killed her admitted that he wanted to "make love" to the woman, which she did not want to do, so she ran away and he shot her in the back. The POS jury let the guy off with lesser murder charges and I don't think they convicted him of rape either. It was an open and shut case but the jury let the thug off with the lessor charges. You never know what a jury will do...

Later,
Dan

 

[Ross71]

As a Brit, I'm all for law abiding folks having access to firearms. I do think, however, that if you do not behave responsibly with guns, you shouldn't be allowed them.

In this case, it would appear that the landowner was shot by a man who at the very least was being irresponsible. You don't chamber a round until you intend to fire it. That is how accidents can happen. You keep the safety on until ready to fire, that's why it is called a safety. You can load and cock your gun in the time it takes to raise it to your shoulder. Or in the time it takes to draw a bead on your target. You have a moment to be calm, ensure you have a clean shot at a valid target, rather than that heart thumping excited moment when you are thinking GOTHIMHURRYKILLSHOOTQUICKDON'TLETHIMGETAWAY.To do otherwise is inviting accident.

You go stalking deer in the forest with a chambered round, cocked and the safety off, trip on a tree root, or slip on wet undergrowth, drop your gun and one can almost guarantee that the result will be the worst possible outcome- if you are alone, you'll shoot yourself. With a friend, he'll get shot. If there is just one other person in the same million acre forest they are certain to be 50 feet away and directly in the firing line.

If I shoot someone accidentally, I would expect that my guns will be taken away and I won't be allowed to have access to guns any more. When I was in the army a ND (negligent discharge) was a punishable offence. 2 ND's and you went to jail.

Ross

 

[slowzuki]

We have the same problems with hunters. They generally aren't from the area, are in groups and act belligerently to landowners knowing the response time of forest rangers is within a day or so. They always will state they where lost or accidentally trespassed because you have to prove intent to convict them. They will be sitting next to the posted sign (12" red disc), watching a field with 2 more posted signs in the middle of the field and if you confront them, oh I didn't know. If their eyesight is so bad they probably shouldn't have a gun.

 

[Dr_Zinj]

Not a problem to have a round chambered. It's practically mandatory for bird hunting; where you don't have time to chamber, aim, and shoot before the bird is out of range. And I don't know anyone who deer hunts without having a round chambered already. The noise of a semi-auto or a pump being jacked and that deer is going to be in the next county over.

You DO need to keep the safety on, your fingers out of the trigger guard, and the weapon pointed in a safe direction though.

I have to agree with Ross71. There's no valid excuse for 'accidentally' shooting someone. The shooter in all those cases deserves to lose their weapon and hunting privileges.