Bear Hunter Shoots Hiker in Washington State

[Nia Schmald]

John wrote:
"We should not legislate based on feelings."

Here is a point where we agree. Legislation should be based on facts and not anecdotes and any remedies should be studied to determine whether or not they actually do any good. I would love to see real statistics on the number of people out hiking around hunters against the numbers of deaths and injuries. To my knowledge no such data exists.

However, it is a fact that a large portion of people who use the wilderness (about 100% on this board) who use the wilderness do not feel safe. That suggests that the issue deserves further inquiry.

I would think it reasonable that hunting licenses fund the collection of data like I suggested above. Once we have the data, we can look at the root causes of the accidents, and then look at any possible changes to equipment and or the regulations. This is exactly what we did with driving to significantly reduce accidents. I think it would be just as effective with hunting.

[Rod Lawlor]

Mike ,

Are you sure of your stats here? By my reckoning, you're claiming that 1 in every 300 people in the US is killed each year by medical malpractice? So if you live to 75, the chances of being killed by a doctor is one in four.

(of course, by the same reckoning the chances of being shot dead by the time you are 75 is only 1 in 333)

Edited by mikeinfhaz on 08/20/2008 17:20:59 MDT.
(in the usa, anually)

Murder committed using firearms accounts for less than 10,000 victims and the accidental firearms death toll is little more than 1,000. About 120 or so kids under 14 are killed by gunshots.

The medical system mortalities break down this way: adverse drug reactions: 106,000; medical error: 98,000; bedsores: 115,000; infection: 88,000; malnutrition: 108,000; outpatients: 199,000; unnecessary procedures: 37,136; surgery-related: 32,000.

SO – maybe we should BAN DOCTORS?

[Cayenne Redmonk]

The hunter pleaded not guilty to first degree manslaughter charges in court Wednesday.

link

[Christopher Holden]

"The teen, whom The Seattle Times is not naming because he is charged as a juvenile, faces up to nine months in juvenile detention if convicted."

Wow.

[Bob Bankhead]

The news report in Portland said he could be in juvenile detention until he is 21 if convicted. This is a major felony case.

[Dean F.]

Well, heck, I guess the US justice system actually worked.

Huh.

I never would have thunk it. I expected either an outlandish over-reaction, or dismissal of all charges, not a manslaughter conviction. That said, I'm not sure that locking the kid up until he is 21 would be justice. Juvie manufactures hardened criminals. This kid may be a viciously negligent moron, but he probably isn't a hardened criminal. If we lock him up in juvie for the next 11 years, he will walk out a 21-year-old hardened criminal. I don't think justice would be served.

Perhaps a 9-month (or shorter) stay to scare him witless, then probation until age 21, and loss of the right to own a gun (as for a felony) would, in fact, be appropriate.

[Stephen Parmenter]

"The papers I read say the area was clear with no trees or obstructions to vision, the fog was light, they said that they had the target in the crosshairs of the scope, she was shot in the head, she was shot from 120 yards away.

I don't believe the hunter ever genuinely mistook the hiker for a bear."

This would suggest it wasn't a stupid hunter at all, but a kid who knew what he was doing, and wanted a thrill, with no regard for human life.

[Dean F.]

Uh, WHAT would suggest this? The sentence? His plea? I don't understand, Stephen.

Killing someone through foolish or reckless action is nonetheless a crime. It is called manslaughter. (As opposed to murder, which is illegally intentionally taking a life.)

[Lynn Tramper]

Where statistics HAVE been available, they suggest that hunters who are using a scope when they spot their 'prey' are twice as likely to mistakenly shoot someone as hunters who site their prey through movement or sounf and then verify their prey with binoculars. It is not unrealistic that this kid made the same mistake as many other hunters, ie trusting his rifle scope to identify his prey.

[derek parsons]

still manslaughter though. with hunting comes great responsiblity. this kid has the training, knew he should have verified with binoculars, which he didn't.

if it was intentional, i don't think they would have ran back and told anyone.

also, not sure how old the brother was, if it was an adult, he should share some of the burden, if not, why were these kids hunting without adult supervison.

dumb.

[Rick Dreher]

FWIW they were meeting the bare minimum of Washington State law, which is a hunter under sixteen must be accompanied by another hunter sixteen or older. The older brother was sixteen. Mind you, the shooter could have been as young as eight.

I suspect the Washington law will be considerably different a year from now.

[Bob Bankhead]

If, as proported above, juvenile detention facilities turn out hardened criminals at 21, then it is logical to assume that any period of incarceration – even 6 months – there will move him further down that road. What punishment could the courts inflict that would equal or exceed him having to live the rest of his life with this event?

That said, both boys are still minors. I believe this makes their parents legally responsible for their actions and fiscally liable for any damages resulting from same. If true, both parents could potentially be facing jail time and/or financial ruin if the victim's family gets vindictive.

A lose-lose situation for all involved.

[Dean F.]

"Fiscally liable" is probably accurate, but "legally responsible" has limits. To get jail time the parents would have to be charged with a crime, and I'm not sure what crime they could be charged with. (Though district attourneys are notorious for their "creative" interpretation of the law.)

Negligent homicide? Hmm. That would be a tough sell to a jury, since the boy was hunting legally. Perhaps there is more to the story- if, for example, the boy in question had a notorious reputation for poor judgement or aggressive behavior or a psychiatric history, or whatever, in which case letting him go off into the woods with a loaded firearm and no adult supervision might be considered negligent. But I didn't hear about any such situation.

> What punishment could the courts inflict that would equal or exceed him having to live the rest of his life with this event?

If he is a good kid with a normal human psyche, who commited an honest though horrible mistake? Not much. If he is a little beast who just wanted to see if he could get away with killing someone and claiming it was an "accident"? Quite a bit.

Mind you, I have no reason to suspect the latter- I'm merely brainstorming. Most likely he is just a typically irresponsible teenager who made a bad call with horrific consequences. Certainly, most Western justice systems make allowances to the effect that children are not fully responsible for their actions in the way that competent adults are. That is why we have juvenile courts, etc.

But would you, Bob, advocate no criminal decisions against ANYONE who was "really sorry" about what he did? That only goes so far, too. Our courts are not only about rehabilitation, no matter what some on the left would have you beleive. Nor are the courts always about punishment, as some on the right would have you beleive. But sometimes they have to at least be about justice.

I am certain that others will disagree but, from what little I know of this case, IMHO justice dictates that the kid suffer materially a bit. (If I were the person he killed I know that I would want the careless little snit to suffer, if only to teach him to be more careful.) Plus, if he really IS a good kid, this will help him. The truly penitent are often haunted when they "get away" with something this horrible. They NEED to be punished if only symbolically to fully come to terms with what they have done and move on with their lives. It provides closure.

[Earl Barcome]

In the 20th century, 56 million humans have been erased from earth post governments taking of firearms from the people. Whether or not a gun is necessary to ones life is totally up to the person, no one else. As we continue to let our governments control the whole of our lives, the freedoms we enjoy in America will surely be erased also…

[Author]

Posts