20 November 2009

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

Lemme make this as simple as I possibly can... "Never let the muzzle cover anything you're not willing to destroy."

If you back your car outta your driveway without verifying that there is no one behind you... and you kill someone... that's simply not excuseable.

Similarly, if you pull a trigger, without verifying your target AND backstop... and that round kills an innocent bystander... that's manslaughter.

*


9 comments:

Justin Hoffer said...

Agreed. Strange that a judge would have let this go.

Frances said...

Is the judge a hunter?

Neo Conservative said...

*
"frances asks... Is the judge a hunter?"

well, frances... that would make even less sense, wouldn't it?

if you're out in the bush hunting... the last thing you want is somebody out there who doesn't positively identify his/her target before pulling the trigger.

here are the 3, er... bulletproof rules of firearms safety...

1) "all guns are ALWAYS loaded"

2) "never let the muzzle cover ANYTHING you're not willing to destroy"

3) "be sure of your target"

*

Rural and Right said...

This happened in the township I live in, It was a very unfortunate incident. The hunters were from outside the area and the lady who was killed was walking through a small county forest with a white jacket on in during hunting season, all small forest tracts are now off limits to hunters due to this incident.

I am surprised that he was found not guilty, although he did not intend to shoot the hiker, he did IMHO shoot at her thinking he had seen the flash of the tail of a white tailed deer.

As for the Judges statement "Justice Howden wasn’t convinced, going so far as to point out that the evidence showed he didn’t aim in her direction at all." ... come on now, he seen the flash of white and fired at it with out looking at what the flash of white was.

Neo Conservative said...

*
"r&r says... he did not intend to shoot the hiker"

which is why the charge was manslaughter and not murder. unfortunately... this one is not about intent... it's about "negligence".

more to the point, especially to anyone with proper firearms training... it's about negligence causing death.

this was 100% preventable.

*

Anonymous said...

Yep, not identifying the target means he was negligent.

Of course, this is based on the fact that we do not know all of the facts as presented in the case.

But when I pull the trigger on ANYTHING, it's because I've identified it as my desired and intended target. Period.

Frances said...

Neo - my thoughts were that if the judge was a hunter, he might be more sympathetic to a percieved mistake by the accused. I admit to being confused as to how an expert could say so authoritatively that the hunter didn't aim at the hiker.

kursk said...

Having a combined usage wooded area during hunting season is asinine as well.

Neo Conservative said...

*
well, frances... i guess it depends on whether you're specifically hunting something like a deer... or just blasting away at anything that moves.

in the first instance... you come away with venison... in the second... just carnage & grief.

the thing is... kursk makes a pretty important point here... combining hunting & hiking in the same wooded area certainly isn't the smartest idea i've ever heard.

*