TexasCHLforum.com

Two separate shooting accidents have resulted in felony verdicts.

In one case, in New York, a hunter shot at a deer. The shot hit and killed a baby inside a mobile home nearly 400 yards away. The weapon is described as a .300 caliber Winchester Magnum rifle. He accepted a plea bargain shortly before his jury trial would have begun, agreeing to a sentence of 2 to 8 years.

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.d ... -1/SITEMAP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In another case, in Montana, a man accidentally shot a friend in the face while they were playing with handguns (my choice of words). He accepted a plea bargain to felony criminal endangerment. He received probation and will get the equivalent of deferred adjudication if he keeps his nose clean for six years.

http://www.kxmc.com/News/393483.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

- Jim

Both of the above incidents bring us back to a previous post where the meaning of the words "accident" and "negligence" were highly debated. Which word do you think more accurately describes these two incidents?

I don't want to get into a semantic debate. They are accidents in the sense of unintended events.

In my opinion, the hunting accident is at least recklessness, and it could be argued that it was criminal negligence. I think every state has required hunter safety education for decades now, and everyone should know that every bullet stops somewhere, and in the case of a rifle, it can be a mile away.

I think the other one was criminal negligence, and the guy got off very lucky.

- Jim

Unfortunately, every criminally negligent hunting incident requires a cause of action for prosecution.

Will try to avoid diving into the "accident" vs. "negligence" debate too far again. But my take is the hunting incident is more "accident". Agreed, you MUST know your background. But that is a one-in-a-million chance that bullet misses and hits a baby. Of course, 400 yards away doesn't sound like much (hunter conceivably could have seen this trailer) but we don't know all the details (could've been dense forest or bushes or whatever). Still the hunter is at fault. Period. Just seems slightly less negligent to me, not knowing all the details.

The two morons "playing with guns" is pure negligence and stupidity. Plain and simple.

I think the better semantic debate is there was no verdict in either case because they plead guilty instead of going to trial.

You are correct. I should have said "convictions."

Same end result.

- Jim

Without debating the meaning of "is", both incidents violated the four (4) safe gun rules. Now enters the question of "ignorance", "accident", "stupidity", "incompetence" and/or "negligence". In any event, both of these actors, and perhaps the sellers, got off light.

Oldgringo wrote:Without debating the meaning of "is", both incidents violated the four (4) safe gun rules. Now enters the question of "ignorance", "accident", "stupidity", "incompetence" and/or "negligence". In any event, both of these actors, and perhaps the sellers, got off light.

that they both got off light.
The article said that the hunter could see the houses from his tree stand and was certainly aware of them.

Taibi could have seen the homes from his view from the tree stand

And the last guy simply fits in the category of..."stupidity"

-geo