Bullet went between me and neighbor!

[Impureclient]

Hmmm many people in here willing to endanger the life of others in order to not disturb their back yard fun time, interesting.
Now I'm beginning to see why the public outdoor ranges are so few and far between. With that lax attitude, I now see why people become anti-gun range so easily.
"Oh look I almost died, I better go talk to those silly neighbors again." This attitude is why people are afraid of us shooting our guns. If I had to give up shooting
in my backyard so a hundred yards away there wasn't some idiot shooting at me, then so be it.
I think the phrase "a couple bad apples can ruin the bunch" applies here. Good luck to Owen and his family's lives, they need it with neighbors like that.

 

[Nushif]

I think there is a significant difference between being willing to endanger peoples lives and not calling the police for your neighbor breaking every law on the book that you can get your hands on.
Nobody here is downplaying that it has to stop. But a few of us here are saying that it is unwise to throw rocks at yor neighbor for their imperfection.

 

[Harley Quinn]

This thread is why many just don't care for gun folks

When you pull the trigger, you are responsible

Regards

 

[Remo223]

This thread is why many just don't care for neighbors. It seems pretty obvious to me the individuals advocating "CALL THE COPS NOW" are not looking for a solution. They are looking for revenge. I can not stand people like that. You've shown your colors here and I will remember.

 

[Impureclient]

What color is representative for "I don't like dying"? I need to start wearing that around to ward off the reckless people who endanger the lives of others in the name of their leisure activities.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by rellascout: You are ASSUMING that you are going to get a positive result from both of your approaches.

No, I am not; I simply stated that I hink that it is the best way to start out. If it does not work, you have to do something different.

You ASSUME that your neighbor is reasonable.

I said that is reasonable to start out by assuming that one's neighbor is reasonable. He may prove not to be, and that will require a different approach.

Furthermore you assume that the shooter wants your help.

No, I do not. I said that it would be good idea to offer it. I also said that the it was highly unlikely that the police would offer it.

You have misrepresented the argument of the opposing view.

Well, I cannot really tell what your argument is ("we always ensure safety of range before firing a single shot"--I agree with that idea; "anyone who does not is an idiot and I am sorry but deserves to be called out for their mistake"--he may not be an idiot, but I agree with your conclusion; "we do not lose our gun rights because people report these types of events we loose our gun rights because these types of things happen far too often and go uncorrected increasing the chances of a more tragic result"--I agree; "I am not saying that I would call the police..." OK then, what would you do?; "why are so many people giving him a pass?--who is?

I have, however, suggested that there is a better way to try to address the problem than calling the police.

And I have explained why that approach, if it proves successful, could solve the problem more quickly, more effectively, and with less fall out than by calling the police.

If I thought for a moment that dealing directly with the neighbor had little chance of working before I had tried it, I would not go that way. If I thought that calling the police would accomplish anything positive, I might consider that. heck, it may prove necessary, as a last resort.

I have lived in the city and in the country; in the city, I have been faced with analogous situations three times (air rifle practice, archery practice, and a stray bullet from somewhere.

I called the police about the bullet, and they didn't even write down what I said. The took the bullet but did not package or identify it. I dealt with the other issues by speaking to the neighbors, and that worked in both situations.

 

[rellascout]

And I have explained why that approach, if it proves successful, could solve the problem more quickly, more effectively, and with less fall out than by calling the police.

That is not how you presented it. Read your own words again..... You are making assumptions over simplifying the scenario and then making declarative statements by begging the question. You determined your conclusion and then warped the premises to fit.... poor logic does not convience intelligent people to agree with you IMHO.

Let's look at two courses of action:

Scenario One: One calls the police:

The caller explains the situation to the police dispatcher;
the dispatcher takes the call and assigns a priority;
a unit is dispatched to the scene when one becomes available;
the unit makes its way to the neighbor's property and makes contact with the neighbor;
the officer tells the neighbor about the complaint and advises the neighbor to make sure that his bullets do not endanger anyone again.


Scenario Two: One contacts the neighbor:

The caller explains the situation to the neighbor;
the caller makes the neighbor aware that he cannot accept further risk.


Does anyone not see that the second approach will address the problem far more quickly?

Is it not likely that if the caller were to go the extra mile and offer assistance in changing the set-up, the resultant "fix" would most likely yield more effective risk reduction?

Does anyone really objectively believe that calling the police is the better alternative?

You did not make an open ended statement. You made a declarative statement and then challenged anyone and everyone to counter. I countered and you have done nothing but ducked, dodged a weaved. Your argument is circular. It is your opinion but sorry unless I already agreed with you have not convinced me or anyone else IMHO to think differently which sadly was your intention. Was it not?

Well, I cannot really tell what your argument is ("we always ensure safety of range before firing a single shot"--I agree with that idea; "anyone who does not is an idiot and I am sorry but deserves to be called out for their mistake"--he may not be an idiot, but I agree with your conclusion; "we do not lose our gun rights because people report these types of events we loose our gun rights because these types of things happen far too often and go uncorrected increasing the chances of a more tragic result"--I agree; "I am not saying that I would call the police..." OK then, what would you do?; "why are so many people giving him a pass?--who is?

You missed the point. When I stated "you have misrepresented the argument of the opposing view" it has nothing to do with what I have said. It is addressing your words not mine.

As to your direct question:

If I know the individual I would go over and speak with them. I would inform them and correct them and make it clear that if there are any indications that they are not shooting in a safe manner the police will be called. I would then call the police and tell them what happened and that I had a conversation with the neighbor and if it went well state that I believe it will not happen again but they should be aware of the activity.

If I did not know the neighbor the waters get murky. I certainly would not have talked the other party who heard and saw the shot from calling the police if that was their choice. IMHO by doing so the OP has put themselves in a position of liability. They have assumed ownership of the situation. If the other neighbor continues to shoot in an irresponsible way and shoots someone the rest of the story will come out. If someone deems you could have helped prevent an accidental shooting and did not I personally would not want to be you.

No, I do not. I said that it would be good idea to offer it. I also said that the it was highly unlikely that the police would offer it.

No you again made a declarative statement. based on an aseumption:

Did you or did you not state: Is it not likely that if the caller were to go the extra mile and offer assistance in changing the set-up, the resultant "fix" would most likely yield more effective risk reduction?

Again back to my original objection that you are assuming that the person cares...

I love this one....Oh the ironies of all ironies...you called the police in the identical situation. LOL Was it the last resort?

I called the police about the bullet, and they didn't even write down what I said. The took the bullet but did not package or identify it. I dealt with the other issues by speaking to the neighbors, that worked in both situations.

"why are so many people giving him a pass?--who is?

Look at how many people are saying its was a ricochet. He probably did not know. It was a mistake..... blah blah blah. Read the thread there are more than a few giving this reckless action a pass. Those who want to hold this person accountable are being told they are wrong overbearing neighbors and that they are not taking an effective course of action.

 

[rellascout]

This thread is why many just don't care for neighbors. It seems pretty obvious to me the individuals advocating "CALL THE COPS NOW" are not looking for a solution. They are looking for revenge. I can not stand people like that. You've shown your colors here and I will remember.

I cannot stand people who are unwilling to hold other people accountable for their actions. The cost of freedom is risk and RESPONSIBILITY IMHO those you are criticizing this reckless shooter are simply looking to minimize their risk and are calling/asking for the shooter to act responsibly and take responsibility for their actions.

Would it change your opinion if the OP had been hit by the round?

 

[mdauben]

Owen Sparks just demonstrated perfectly how civility and a good talk can solve a lot of things.

Er... just how did he demonstrate that? By his own account, there is no guarantee that the shooter even heard him, let alone that the activity will not be repeated.

If the shooter was not discharging the firearm unlawfully, I 'm not at all sure just what it is that people who would call the police think that that would do that they could not accomplish more effectively by themselves.

Even if "discharging a firearm" is not illegal in and of itself, at the very least I would think what the shooters were doing arguably constituted "reckless endangerment" in most juristictions. So yes, the shooter probably did in fact commit a crime that the police could and should act on.

I'm sorry, but if my neighbor is engaging in an activity that threatens the life of me and my family, whether deliberately or through stupidity, I refuse to take chances on it happening again. I'd rather live with a disgruntled neighbor than not live at all.

 

[Kleanbore]

Rellacout, I'm going to ingore the rest of your argumentative post and address just this:

In response to "why are so many people giving him a pass?--who is?": Look at how many people are saying its was a ricochet. He probably did not know. It was a mistake.....

It seems to me that unless there is some indication that the shooter was deliberately shooting into the OP's property, he probably did not know, and it was a mistake.

It may have been a very stupid mistake.

It may have been a ricochet; that would result from a mistake also, but depending upon the circumstances, it may have been a much more understandable one.

It was a mistake that one cannot afford to have repeated.

But saying that is not "giving the guy a pass."

It is identifying possible causes of the stray bullet.

Those who want to hold this person accountable are being told they are wrong overbearing neighbors...

I have no idea what you mean by "hold him accountable".

Is your objective to punish him somehow? Do you think that that would ever happen? Are you under the impression that the officers might take the guns away?

In a rural setting, with only a complaint to work with and depending upon the local ordinances, it is likely that the most that the police will do is inform the neighbor of the complaint and perhaps issue a citation. If you think that the latter would comprise "holding him accountable", so be it, but it really would not address the OP's problem very well.

I should think that the real objective is to stop further rounds from going astray as quickly as possible. That's what I would want.

...and that they are not taking an effective course of action.

There are two aspects to this.

The first is the timeliness in which the problem can be solved. If you really think that calling and talking to a dispatcher, having the call prioritized, waiting for the next available unit, sending a unit out to find the neighbor, and having the officer tell the neighbor about your call would be quicker than making the call yourself, I cannot understand why.

The second has to do with how effectively the problem is solved.

Having a policeman inform the neighbor that there had been a report that a bullet had left his property and advise him to exercise due care may lead to a viable solution--or not. And the OP may feel comfortable after the police had visited the neighbor--or not.

Personally, as a very safety minded person who knows quite a bit about guns and gun safety, I would prefer to (1) get the solution started without waiting for a car to get to the neighbor's house; (2) at least try to ascertain for myself how the neighbor intended to minimize the risk of recurrence, offering my help if he were inclined to accept it; and (3) try to confirm that the problem had been solved.

If I were to call the neighbor and also call the police, and if the police were duty bound to investigate, (2) and (3) would cease to be available to me.

 

[EmGeeGeorge]

"you have shown your colors here and I will remember"

What?

 

[rellascout]

Kleanbore,

I will consider your post a ricochet and leave it at that. Sorry but the shooter was negligent and irresponsible. He committed a crime. Without a doubt he broke the law. You want to give him a pass because he is a neighbor, fellow shooter etc....

People are convicted of manslaughter all the time even thought it is an accident. People are held accountable everyday for the possible outcomes fo their reckless behavior for example "reckless driving" even if their actions did not result in actual harm.

Make excuses... post more and more reasons why this individual is not held to the same standard. Give him a pass because he shares your hobby but next time the other side talks about the irrationality of gun owners, their refusal to be accountable etc... remember they are talking about you and the other people like you on this board who are circling the wagons instead of holding people accountable.

Again would you be saying the same thing if the OP was attending the funeral of his neighbor? IMHO the nature of the crime and the level of stupidity would not have changed. Sorry but intentions do not dictate the moral and real life consequences of our actions.

 

[Sam1911]

Sorry but the shooter was negligent and irresponsible. He committed a crime. Without a doubt he broke the law. You want to give him a pass because he is a neighbor, fellow shooter etc....

Seems to me we don't want to give him a pass, we want to convince him to STOP what he's doing. No harm, no foul -- YET -- so getting him to stop is the appropriate resolution.

If he won't stop what he's doing, then getting the authorities involved is the next logical, and immediate step.

People are convicted of manslaughter all the time even thought it is an accident.

Er...but not if they didn't actually kill anyone.

People are held accountable everyday for the possible outcomes fo their reckless behavior for example "reckless driving" even if their actions did not result in actual harm.

Sure. But I've had incidents where a vehicle was operated in a distracted or otherwise unsafe manner and nearly impacted mine. Both drivers stopped, made sure all were ok, no harm was done, driver "at fault" apologized profusely and left the scene contrite and visibly chastened by the near calamity he'd almost caused.

No one needed to call the cops and report that there had almost been an accident. While some vehicular codes probably had been broken, my concern in the matter was that no one was hurt, and the "at fault" driver understood his mistake and gave some indication that he was less likely to make that mistake again. (Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn't. Not much I can do about "maybe.")

None of us are perfect. We all make mistakes -- more often than we'd like those mistakes may technically break some law. (It is neigh impossible to live life without inadvertently breaking some laws along the way.) Through a great deal of grace, most of our mistakes are not fatal or even cause harm. Through even more grace, we are not forced to pay a debt to society for every one we make. Through a combination of grace, wisdom, and the counsel of friends and others, we may even learn from our mistakes and be better for it.

Again would you be saying the same thing if the OP was attending the funeral of his neighbor?

No, obviously not. Have some sense of proportion. You are leaping from causing an potential hazard to involuntary manslaughter. The severity of the outcome (a few tree leaves disturbed --vs.-- death) may be up to the whims of chance, but the difference is absolutely real.

IMHO the nature of the crime and the level of stupidity would not have changed. Sorry but intentions do not dictate the moral and real life consequences of our actions.

Again, there were no consequences of his actions. No one was hurt. A mistake was made and could be rectified --potentially faster and with a better resolution -- as simply as through a polite conversation.

 

[Art Eatman]

Reading through this thread in response to a reported post, I gotta say that all in all, Owen Sparks is doing a lot better for realistic thinking than a lot of posters.

I would add that if the whizzing bullet had come past me, I would go over to the shooter's house and politely inform him as to what had happened. I would likely have him believe that I thought that it was accidental, and that I thought he'd like to know so he could figure out a better backstop.

When you smooth-tongue somebody who's done an unintentional wrong, you keep them from working up that artificial mad that some folks do when they're in the wrong. The old "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" deal.

That way you can avoid having a hostile neighbor. Better to have a neighbor who might be at least mildly grateful that his messup didn't cause any major hassle...

Owen and the lady--as well as the shooter--were lucky. The deal is to try and make that luck permanent.

No guarantees, of course, but I can tell you that my way has been working for over a half a century.

 

[Owen Sparks]

I am the original poster and I am convinced that it was a ricochet as we were roughly at a 45 degree angle to the ravine behind the neighbor’s property where he was shooting. The sound of the passing bullet was a distinctive whiz that only comes from a tumbling bullet. It probably skipped off a twig or branch like a bank shot in pool. There has not been one shot fired this evening so evidently he got the message and has reconsidered the safety of firing into the woods.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, let's hope so. (And lets let us stop arguing over it as the situation seems at least temporarily resolved.)

Owen, if you don't mind, perhaps keep us posted of developments that occur. It would be very good to know what transpires when you do speak to the owner/shooter man-to-man, and whether you do decide that the local Sheriff or PD need to be involved.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by rellascoutSorry but the shooter was negligent and irresponsible.

He may have been negligent--or not. The fact of a stray bullet does not prove that. Do you have an objective basis for the assertion?

Negligence has a legal meaning.

He committed a crime. Without a doubt he broke the law.

Which law? How?

People are convicted of manslaughter all the time even thought it is an accident.

No, NO, NO! Where did you get that erroneous idea? There is a very distinct difference between accidental homicide and manslaughter.

Not that it is relevant here. The bullet did not hit anyone. And that is a very important fact.

Again would you be saying the same thing if the OP was attending the funeral of his neighbor?

No.

IMHO the nature of the crime and the level of stupidity would not have changed.

Your opinion notwithstanding, the nature of (and the fact of) the crime would have changed a great deal.

Sorry but intentions do not dictate the moral and real life consequences of our actions.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but except in the case of some Federal laws, intentions are the crux of criminal legal judgements.