Posted on 09/30/2005 4:55:13 AM PDT by lunarbicep
According to the story on CNN.com, the guy claims he thought he was shooting at a squirrel. They also say that, after saying he was going to get help, he instead went to a birthday party, went home to play video games, and then went to work.
"Only if yer mostly blind and dizzy enough."
The guy didn't seem too bright.
"You want to hunt? ID YOUR TARGET! You have zero right to demand other people dress as you see fit to dress them, because you think blasting phantoms is a valid thing to do."
You know that and I know that. I doubt more than 50% of those out there hunting even think about that.
I really doubt the guy made a conscious effort to shoot a human if he identified him, unless there is a motive involved.
So true. I like to walk in the woods behind my home (we live in a semi rural area) and during hunting season, my husband won't let me go back there without orange hat, vest and so on....
He's being charged with reckless homicide and reckless injury. That's appropriate, because he fired at something he didn't ID.
" I doubt more than 50% of those out there hunting even think about that."
That number is closer to less than 3% in WI. We insist hunters be responsible and hold them accountable for reckless and negligent action.
let's hope so, what sociopathic and depraved indifference to life he showed by his actions.
I agree 100%. On one thread recently about a bunch of young men illegally hunting, and often leaving the deer to die slowly, I told of a buck who wanders on my property (rural, no fences, and I have no dog) who someone shot with an arrow. It stuck in his right hind quarters for several weeks, but it finally sloughed out and he appears to be healing. Viciously and needlessly cruel.
I understand. The first part was a fatal error. The second part was even worse. But I can imagine someone who could make both errors, and still not see it as justice to take his whole life for what was a mistake, and then a mistaken reaction to that mistake. I realize someone died. And if it'd been someone close to me, I might feel different. Maybe I'd want to see what kind of person he is. Or else I just shouldn't be on a jury.
There is premeditation. The hunter knew if he did not call for help the victim would die. Isn't that the difference between between first degree murder and, say, manslaughter?
Well thats a tough one...after all they both have Horns don't they ?
Sounds a bit like an episode that happened to a certain senior senator from Taxachusetts back in 1969. This a$$wipe will probably get off based on that precedent.
Yeh--I forgot about bear season. But if the kid was shot with a .22, Schroeder sure wasn't bear hunting.
Thanx for the additional info. Saturday was a drizzley, rainy overcast day in central Wisconsin--i.e., visual conditions were not the best. But that's not an excuse--only more reason to be doubley sure of the target and what is beyond.
< Maybe I'd want to see what kind of person he is. Or else I just shouldn't be on a jury. >
Well, if I ever get into trouble I'll pray you're on my jury. LOL. Otherwise, no, you don't belong on a jury. Even the worst lawyer can make the vilest of the vile LOOK sympathetic.
Likewise.
You missed that I pointed out exactly what you said. :-)
"I recall wondering how they ever got their licenses...we had to complete a course, written test, and shooting test.I imagine that they obtained their licenses via the simple passing of cash. It always seemed that many things happened in NYC that wouldn't fly out in the country where I lived.
"Hunting with dogs is not hunting. The only skill you need is the ability to fire a weapon."
Yup - barenaked and a rock is what hunting is all about.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.