felony assault


PDA






fordman650
December 6, 2006, 02:18 PM
a while back i put in a thread about wearing orange and how the hunter getting shot in the back 7mm bullet went in the back leaving a fist size hole exited out his arm ,he is out of the hospital now . he wasn't wearing orange and i don't know if it would have helped or not i would like to think it would have anyway the hunter that pulled the trigger shooting at a deer and missing went thru the bursh hitting the other hunter was charged be the grand jury with felony assult for not knowing what was beond where he was shooting. as hunters i would like to see what you think of this and is it just to charge him
Larry

If you enjoyed reading about "felony assault" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
wolf_from_wv
December 6, 2006, 03:45 PM
Always know what is beyond your target. That is a prerequisite for taking a shot while hunting.


(Wearing orange while in the woods during deer season is mandatory here, also...)

asknight
December 6, 2006, 05:08 PM
Grammar? Spelling? Punctuation?

Is it legal to hunt in the state that he was hunting without orange?

Lonestar
December 6, 2006, 05:24 PM
Grammar? Spelling? Punctuation?

Watch those personal insults and cut the guy some slack:rolleyes: . I had no problems understanding the post.

7mm magnum ??? That round has alot of ummph and can travel real far. I guess it come down to if it was an accidental shooting or if the shooter was negligent in some way. If the shooter was being an idiot randomly shooting thru the brush, he should be found guilty. If he was taking a shot at a deer and just missed or overpenetrated, it was an accident.

quatin
December 6, 2006, 05:28 PM
From what I read on tpwd you still need a safe background in case you overpenetrate or miss. That accident is still negligence.

kungfuhippie
December 6, 2006, 06:12 PM
The shooter (they're both hunters) was in violation of at least 2 of the 4 basic rules, not aware of his backstop or his target. Orange. no orange, over penetration (unless an incredible deflection occured i.e. 90 degrees and 100') are not excuses. I don't know about it being a felony, but I'm not the one who makes that call. Glad to hear the wounded is doing better. The shooter is the type that keeps me off my mountain bike at certain times of the year (even in orange with a bell) I read about a mtn. biker being shot by hunter who told police that he was sure it was a deer, "people can't move that fast":banghead: It's real sad when someone goes to jail for being criminally dumb.

Il Duca
December 6, 2006, 06:28 PM
I agree with the late, great John Wayne: "Life is hard. Life is harder if you're stupid." It applies to both of them.

fordman650
December 6, 2006, 06:48 PM
sorry asknight that im not as smart as you but you really have a way of making people feel good.
it is not required to wear orange in Oregon
i don't know if it was a mag

ambush
December 6, 2006, 08:07 PM
Personally, I would not consider this a felony. Unless of course, it is determined that the shooter did it on purpose. In that case, I'd upgrade the charge to attempted murder. At the very least, I'd say the shooter's hunting days are all but over.

asknight
December 6, 2006, 08:19 PM
<Cleaned up by Art>

Now, back on the original topic; I don't think you can assign any blame on either party since it's not required by law to wear orange. Murphy's Law, and all of that. If you don't want to be mistaken for a target, don't appear as one.

mio
December 6, 2006, 08:20 PM
have to wear orange here but i think its a good idea to anyway...dont know if that hunter was wearing camoflage or in a good blind or otherwise unseeable so dont know if the person shooting him could be charged or not also was there a riccochet involved? how far beyond the deer was he? lots of variables that it could be an accident or negligence

Old Fuff
December 6, 2006, 08:38 PM
The issue on the table is negligence while hunting.

High Planes Drifter
December 6, 2006, 09:24 PM
I understood the post; there were a few errors, but it was readable. Lay off of the guy and lets get this on topic asknight.

I dont know that I would be so hard on the shooter. The victim wasnt wearing orange (not a crime, but a factor); and you cant prove it would not have been a factor, Fordman. What time of day did the accident (Im calling it an accident) take place? Felony Assault, at least as far as I know, is a deliberate crime. Intent has to be proven. Can intent be proven, is there any evidence? Im guessing not.

H&Hhunter
December 6, 2006, 11:04 PM
<Art's earlier efforts. :) >

As far as the felony assault charge. I can hardly see how this can be a prosecutable offense as there was no intent, no premeditation, and several other key factors missing. It was obviously an accident. But I'm sure in today’s world some idiot, leftist DA can see clear to prosecute any and all “gun toting rednecks” no matter the circumstances.

Chawbaccer
December 7, 2006, 08:17 AM
Under ORS 163.160

That law provides that:
"(1) A person commits the crime of assault in the fourth degree if the person:

"(a) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to another

TYhats what I found with a quick Google.

Caimlas
December 7, 2006, 06:40 PM
This is how I see the shooter as messing up (at the very least):

- Didn't know his target area, or what was beyond it
- He missed - took a shot he couldn't make

Those are mistakes, but not big mistakes on their own - it's pretty much modus operandi for most hunters, it seems (a hunter pointed his rifle at me, from 100 yards away, on Sunday, despite me wearing an orange hat and vest - if I hadn't yelled "don't shoot" who knows what would've happened).

That said, it's possible the shooter didn't even know the other guy was there, and had no way of knowing. If there were pines or heavy brush between them, orange would not have mattered if they both came in before daybreak.

My guess? The shooter saw movement and took a shot, negligently. This kind of thing is apparently all too common, and I blame the overall societal expectation that people not take responsibility for their actions - indeed, there doesn't seem to be many people with responsible mindsets any longer.

rock jock
December 7, 2006, 08:57 PM
We don't know all the circumstances surrounding this case but my inclination would be that the shooter should be charged.

This is precisely why I do not hunt public land. I don't know about other states, but in Texas hunters on public land = 95% yahoos.

S&Wfan
December 8, 2006, 01:04 AM
It sounds like there's enough evidence for the Grand Jury to decide to try the guy on a felony charge. Conviction is another matter altogether.

In either event, the shooter will probably go through his life savings defending himself . . . and that's the price he'll pay for screwing up someone else's body for life.

There are so many types of hunters. Most are very careful where they place their bullet and thus require a good sight picture of the deer before they'll fire. However, there are also a bunch of "snap-shooting" yahoos in the woods too . . . folks who'll crank a round off whether they can make a clean hit or not.

If the guy proves to be one of those irresponsible and dangerous yahoos . . . he'll be convicted, I HOPE!

There's NEVER a good reason to crank a stray round off in the woods without a positive ID of the target . . . and without a good sight picture on the correct vital area too!!! To me, failing to do this is indefensible.

T.

LAK
December 8, 2006, 06:22 AM
Perversion of law; a crucial element of any crime against persons such as assault is intent. And were there an element of intent, attempted murder would be more appropriate.

Otherwise it is an accident; and in the absence of any specific applicable law governing negligent acts, civil suit material only.

If the law is permitted to be peverted along with the "anything goes when it comes to... " mentality for the convenience and gratification of a few people now, it will be regretted by a great many people down the road.

---------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

redneck2
December 8, 2006, 08:12 AM
It's easy to sit here at the keyboard and say how stupid someone is for taking a shot. Be a good idea to know the facts, but I guess that never got in the way of most opinions.

I was camo'd head to toe, standing in an opening in the woods (bow season). Made some noise so my friend could find me. He looked right in my direction twice and never saw me until I started walking towards him, and he knew I was in the area.

I don't care if orange is mandatory or not. You're a fool if you don't wear it while gun hunting deer, upland birds, rabbits. Applies to pretty much everything except turkeys and ducks. Even during turkey season, once I whack a bird I put an orange marker on it.

Art Eatman
December 8, 2006, 05:29 PM
Start a thread about the media's accuracy in some news story about guns, and folks come out of the woodwork, posting about how the media never gets it right and how you can't rely on the story.

So, when something like this event crops up, why do folks want to take the story as having all the factual information necessary to form an opinion?

Personally, I get a bit fed up with Internet speculation--which is part of why I close a number of threads.

Like this one.

:), Art

If you enjoyed reading about "felony assault" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!