Someone forgot Rule #4


PDA






sumpnz
September 30, 2005, 12:55 PM
Be sure of your target and what's beyond.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9541458/

If this truely was an accident, and not intentional, this "friend" is going to spend a long time in jail. If it was intentional I hope he gets the death penalty.

If you enjoyed reading about "Someone forgot Rule #4" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PATH
September 30, 2005, 01:16 PM
Hanging is too good for someone who acts like Ted Kennedy! :fire:

Tory
September 30, 2005, 01:49 PM
who:

1. Shot someone;

2. Due to their own disregard of basic safety rules;

3. PROMISED help; and

4. Then fled.

The first was about 5 weeks ago; a Mass. hunter in NH. Now this homicidal cretin. In each case, their subsequent inaction should elevate a negligent homicide to Murder One - reckless disregard.

"Jasper" sentences for each. :what:

MrTuffPaws
September 30, 2005, 01:52 PM
How the *&#$ do you think some human is a squirrel?

torpid
September 30, 2005, 01:54 PM
To be fair, the victim did look rather squirrel-like.

.

Hawkmoon
September 30, 2005, 01:59 PM
The first was about 5 weeks ago; a Mass. hunter in NH. Now this homicidal cretin. In each case, their subsequent inaction should elevate a negligent homicide to Murder One - reckless disregard.
I share your outrage, but I fail to see how the subsequent inaction could possibly raise that charge to murder 1. First degree murder requires both intent and premeditation.

This is clearly a case of negligent homicide. The failure to seek assistance may tack on an additional charge or three, but I don't think it will raise it to first degree murder.

Does anyone recall what the disposition was for that nurse in Texas who hit a pedestrian and then left him to die in her garage because she was afraid to call for help? I would expect this to play out similarly.

Car Knocker
September 30, 2005, 02:07 PM
To be fair, the victim did look rather squirrel-like.

Kinda lost the High Road there, didn't you?

middy
September 30, 2005, 02:27 PM
Coward! :cuss:

20cows
September 30, 2005, 03:03 PM
Investigators initially believed he had just died in the woods :what:
People "just die in the woods" around there often?!

I'm callin' BS on the "accidental" shooting. Two shots, one in the heart. :fire: One shot is an accident. A second, apparently carefully aimed, is murder.

Tory
September 30, 2005, 03:30 PM
"I share your outrage, but I fail to see how the subsequent inaction could possibly raise that charge to murder 1. First degree murder requires both intent and premeditation."...The failure to seek assistance may tack on an additional charge or three, but I don't think it will raise it to first degree murder."

You clearly need to review the matter:

1. Victim is shot by a "hunter" claiming he was shooting at squirrels. Regardless of whether squirrels are even in season and whether the "hunter" has a license, he fired at LEAST twice at the victim (2 hits);

2. Killer scores TWO hits - one in the HEART - which indicates intent;

3. Killer confirms that he has hit and seriously wounded a human;

4. Killer promises victim to obtain aid; and

5. Then goes off to play games and party while his victim slowly dies alone in woods.

THAT pattern of conduct suggests the INTENTION of killing the victim.

At the very least, your assertion that "This is clearly a case of negligent homicide" is legally untenable and intellectually absurd. Read it for yourself:

Reckless disregard 1. Conscious indifference to the consequences of an act....3 The intentional commission of a harmful act or the failure to do a required act when the actor knows or has reason to know of facts that would lead a reasonable person to realize that the actor's conduct both creates an unreasonable risk of harm to someone and involves a high risk of probability that substantial harm will result.

Black's Law Dictionary (8th Ed.) 2004

A "reckless disregard" killing is Second Degree Murder; not mere "negligent homicide." :scrutiny:

On the facts given, your claims of "an additional charge or three" and cavalier dismissal of the gravity of this act just don't wash. :barf:

sturmruger
September 30, 2005, 04:17 PM
It is squirrel season here in WI it opened on Sept 17th. I was out this weekend and can't imagine how you could mistake a bow hunting human for a squirrel!! He must have been shooting from over 50 yards and was using open sights. When I am hunting I use a 3-9X scope and can literally see the eyes of the little buggers before I fire. Why wouldn't he at least summon some help??

seanmc42
September 30, 2005, 05:38 PM
Considering he was shot TWICE - I think it was intentional.
Guy should die. Period.

As a society we have a responsibilty to KILL all those who commit senseless acts of violence.

torpid
September 30, 2005, 06:02 PM
Kinda lost the High Road there, didn't you?

Yeah, I usually try to keep it more above board, but sadly it is a better defense than the shooter has.

.

Stinkyshoe
September 30, 2005, 06:12 PM
That is very tragic. Stay safe folks...it is our responsibility.

dolanp
September 30, 2005, 06:22 PM
Investigators initially believed he had just died in the woods there was no blood to indicate foul play, and he had been shot with a .22-caliber rifle, which left only small wounds, Quirin said. Then authorities saw the camcorder tape.

So are they saying they wouldn't have figured out he'd been shot unless they had the tape? :confused:

I sure hope not.

seanmc42
September 30, 2005, 07:44 PM
Well, if there were no visible wounds - why would they?
Do you think our tax money should be spent on autopsies
for EVERYONE that dies?

LaEscopeta
September 30, 2005, 09:10 PM
As a society we have a responsibilty to KILL all those who commit senseless acts of violence.Said without a trace of irony.

Do you think our tax money should be spent on autopsies
for EVERYONE that dies?Yes. I think there should be a death certificate signed by a MD for every death. If the MD has been treating the deceased, and they can determine the cause of death without an autopsy, one is not needed. If someone thought to be healthy turns up dead, I think we need a doctor to figure why they died. I think we can afford this, and it is tax money well spent.

GregGry
September 30, 2005, 11:56 PM
Wow another sad story from my state...

First degree murder requires both intent and premeditation.

That is incorrect, in my state, premeditation is not a requirement to get the first degee.

Straight from the memory bank of my mind "whoever causes the death of another human being with the intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a felony, Class A.

Hawkmoon
October 1, 2005, 01:22 AM
That is incorrect, in my state, premeditation is not a requirement to get the first degee.

Straight from the memory bank of my mind "whoever causes the death of another human being with the intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a felony, Class A.
You didn't identify your state. Not all states differentiate between first degree murder and second degree murder, I believe. Even if they do, I rather imagine both would be considered class A felonies.

But I wasn't trying to cite any state's law, I was responding to the statement that the shooter should be convicted of first degree murder. My point was that if the guy was shooting at what he thought was a squirrel, premeditation certainly wasn't there, and his intent was to shoot a squirrel not to shoot a human being, so it appears that intent wasn't there.

So we have a dumba$$ who didn't verify his target, and whose actions AFTER the shooting were reprehensible. I agree with all of that. I just don't see how it can possibly be spun into first degree murder. I don't even think it makes the grade as second degree murder. (Or, if the state doesn't differentiate, I don't see it making the grade as murder at all.)

Mnemesyne
October 1, 2005, 01:31 AM
imho toast em...people like that don't deserve to live.....accidental my backside....... :cuss:

Tory
October 1, 2005, 01:54 AM
"I don't even think it makes the grade as second degree murder. (Or, if the state doesn't differentiate, I don't see it making the grade as murder at all.)"

You have obviously chosen to ignore the facts and law set forth above to rationalize your decision. How transparently irresponsible and pathetic.....

Hawkmoon
October 1, 2005, 02:16 AM
You have obviously chosen to ignore the facts and law set forth above to rationalize your decision. How transparently irresponsible and pathetic.....
The following is from a follow-up report on the shooter's appearance in court.
Russell Robert Schroeder III, 24, said nothing during his 10-minute appearance before Monroe County Circuit Judge Steven Abbott on charges of first-degree reckless homicide and first-degree reckless injury.
Apparently the prosecutor also chose to ignore the facts and law as you see them. I assume I can count on you to contact the prosecutor forthwith and set him straight as to the law in his jurisdiction? Surely you won't leave the county with a "transparently irresponsible and pathetic" prosecutor ...

Tory
October 1, 2005, 11:58 AM
"Apparently the prosecutor also chose to ignore the facts and law as you see them."

Hardly. The prosecutor brought FIRST DEGREE MURDER charges against the maggot, per your own post:

"first-degree reckless homicide"

This is precisely what I stated in my original post:

"their subsequent inaction should elevate a negligent homicide to Murder One - reckless disregard."

But hey; thanks for playing. Now enjoy the home version of our game... :rolleyes:

Hawkmoon
October 1, 2005, 02:35 PM
Tory --

For your information, first degree reckless homicide is NOT first degree murder.

If you don't believe me, call the prosecutor's office and ask them.

The following are from the state statutes as accessed directly from the State of Wisconsin's web site. It appears that Wisconsin uses the term "intentional homicide" rather than "murder," but the fact remains that's not what the guy was charged with.

940.01 First-degree intentional homicide.
940.01(1)
(1) Offenses.
940.01(1)(a)
(a) Except as provided in sub. (2), whoever causes the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a Class A felony.

--------

940.02 First-degree reckless homicide.
940.02(1)
(1) Whoever recklessly causes the death of another human being under circumstances which show utter disregard for human life is guilty of a Class B felony.

--------

940.05 Second-degree intentional homicide.
940.05(1)
(1) Whoever causes the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or another is guilty of a Class B felony if:

940.05(1)(a)
(a) In prosecutions under s. 940.01, the state fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigating circumstances specified in s. 940.01 (2) did not exist as required by s. 940.01 (3); or

940.05(1)(b)
(b) The state concedes that it is unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigating circumstances specified in s. 940.01 (2) did not exist. By charging under this section, the state so concedes.

940.05(2)
(2) In prosecutions under sub. (1), it is sufficient to allege and prove that the defendant caused the death of another human being with intent to kill that person or another.

----------

940.08 Homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire.
940.08(1)
(1) Whoever causes the death of another human being by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon, explosives or fire is guilty of a Class G felony.

MechAg94
October 1, 2005, 03:58 PM
Sounds like they couldn't uncover any evidence that he had murderous intent when he shot. Just the suspicious circumstances of the shooting and the fact that he was an idiot.

Tory
October 1, 2005, 10:02 PM
From the latest newspaper coverage on this fiasco:

"Without the tape, there's no telling how long it may have taken investigators to realize Hammes had been murdered, Monroe County Sheriff Pete Quirin said Thursday -- the same day of Hammes' funeral."

For those who missed it: MURDERED

As opposed to the repititious rationalization of it being merely "... a case of negligent homicide." :scrutiny:

Hawkmoon
October 1, 2005, 10:20 PM
Perhaps the reported who wrote the story will accompany you when you visit the prosecutor to explain why he filed the wrong charge, then.

Newspapers use the term "murder" with abandon. The fact that a media report characterized it as a murder hardly overrides the fact that the prosecutor filed lesser charges.

rustymaggot
October 2, 2005, 05:16 AM
the linc at the top of this thread is nonoperational. lets say for argument sake that the shooter legitimately mistook the guy as a squirrel and shot twice. thats a unfortunate accident and the shooter is guilty of reckless endangerment. then the failure to report an accident that he himself was the cause of results in the conspiracy to conseal a crime. since the crime was that he killed someone makes it murder. its only an accident untill you try to get away with it, then its as bad as the lawyers want to make it for you.

bottom line, if you have a accident you report it immediately. it all goes back to intent. the shooters intent went from accident to murder as soon as he failed to call medics. he intended for the guy to die when he left him there, and he caused the injury in the first place. murder as far as i see it.

Bobshouse
October 2, 2005, 09:52 AM
Definately looks like an accident to me... shot once in the hip and again in the heart, big ass squirrel there. The kid captured his shooter on video earlier, you honestly believe the shooter didnt know he was there...I don't think so, he knew exactly who and where he was shooting.

rustymaggot
October 2, 2005, 11:17 AM
the linc didnt work for me. i have not seen or read anything past whats been written in the thread. is there a working linc to the story?

sumpnz
October 2, 2005, 12:02 PM
rusty - link works fine for me.

If you enjoyed reading about "Someone forgot Rule #4" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!