Landowner/hunter dispute... revisited

[newbury]

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.

Unless they are Vice-President.

 

[johnrex62]

Then again, it could be another case of an "evil gun which shot somebody with no human intervention" ;-0

yep. Musta been one of them thar "A Salt Rifles", they aint got no good upbringing an turrible table manners to boot!

 

[Jstpssng]

yep. Musta been one of them thar "A Salt Rifles", they aint got no good upbringing an turrible table manners to boot!

Yep... biggest problem is that they never got a good beating when they were young'uns. ;-)

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

Once again, it's a matter of interpretation; in this case what we read in the media. Hunters are walking down a public roadway... someone pulls up and a conversation ensues... apparent adjacent landownergets POed, starts poking his finger in one hunter's face... things escalate further and apparent adjacent landowner grabs hunter in a headlock and knocks out several teeth...

It's all about the spin. It could very easily have been called a justified shooting because his friend was being attacked by an out of control stranger... just one reason for my previous statement that things escalated so fast that nobody really is sure what happened.

 

[Ross71]

It's all about the spin. It could very easily have been called a justified shooting because his friend was being attacked by an out of control stranger... just one reason for my previous statement that things escalated so fast that nobody really is sure what happened.

An out of control but UNARMED stranger.

 

[Ross71]

The noise of a semi-auto or a pump being jacked and that deer is going to be in the next county over.

That's what bolt-action rifles were invented for

 

[Egbert]

An out of control but UNARMED stranger.

Without reading back through this conversation, I'd just like to address this single quote.

Assuming I am in the right, the fact my confrontation might be with an unarmed person is simply a good thing for me. It just makes my act(s) of self-defense more likely to be effective. If my act of self-defense was with a firearm, that is perfectly fine. Sitting on a jury, I would never convict anyone for using maximum force in self-defense.

 

[Ross71]

You ought to read back through this one.

If you were trespassing on someone's land, and the unarmed landowner remonstrated with you, and you shot him, you might assume you were in the right, but you wouldn't be.

 

[Midniteoyl]

Not to mention, again, that the hunters where tracking a deer they had illegally shot already.. That, the argument, then the shooting, whether intentional or not, should mean the hunters get charged. Charge the landowner with assault too if you like, but the hunters should be in real trouble. There is NO EXCUSE for having a gun loaded, safety off, finger in the guard.. The second hunter pointed the gun at the landowner. Plain and simple.

They dont say how long the landowner has lived there, but with the hunters being upset over having hunted there for years, my bet is this is a case of old hunters up against a new landowner. I had that here.. The previous owner inherited the land and a 'old family buddy' who was used to hunting it just wouldn't stop when asked. They clashed a lot. Well, I bought it and he still thought he could set up a stand across from house and shoot across my field in my direction. Um, no..

 

[Jstpssng]

An out of control but UNARMED stranger.

Could you please define "armed"? ( I didn't realise there were so many anti firearm supporters here.) With all due respect if somebody slightly older than me had my father

in a headlock and was literally knocking his teeth out...I would consider it an a-hole macho act if his friend set his gun aside and tried to assist.
I'm not saying that's what happened... I'm just trying to point out that we are basing our opinions on hearsay media reports... LEOs made their decisions based on accepted investigation techniques and STILL couldn't feel comfortable with their findings which is why it went to a grand jury. After all that we still don't have a black and white answer... perhaps it would be better if we threw out our criminal justice system and went back to throwing the accused into deep water; if they float they're guilty, if they sink they're (posthumously) innocent?

 

[Jstpssng]

Not to mention, again, that the hunters where tracking a deer they had illegally shot already.. That, the argument, then the shooting, whether intentional or not, should mean the hunters get charged. Charge the landowner with assault too if you like, but the hunters should be in real trouble. There is NO EXCUSE for having a gun loaded, safety off, finger in the guard.. The second hunter pointed the gun at the landowner. Plain and simple.

They dont say how long the landowner has lived there, but with the hunters being upset over having hunted there for years, my bet is this is a case of old hunters up against a new landowner. I had that here.. The previous owner inherited the land and a 'old family buddy' who was used to hunting it just wouldn't stop when asked. They clashed a lot. Well, I bought it and he still thought he could set up a stand across from house and shoot across my field in my direction. Um, no..

Where do you get the idea that it was "illegally shot"?!?