Hunter Killed By Friend's Bullet, Not Bear Attack

[Fred Fuller]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44648280/ns/us_news-life/#.Tn_RxK64Ys1
Bullet, not bear, killed hunter in Mont. grizzly attack
Autopsy reveals apparent accident as companion tried to save friend
======

Self defense, or defense of another, might not always involve a human assailant. But defense at close quarters is not necessarily something a lot of us think about, or try to prepare ourselves for. It might be a good idea to give some of those issues a bit of consideration, if it hasn't been done already. A stationary shooter practicing on a stationary target really isn't getting very well prepared to deal with the kind of furball real life often delivers in a defensive situation.

While I've always said I'd rather be killed by my friends than by my enemies, I'd really rather it not happen as it did in the story linked above...

fwiw,

lpl

 

[rondog]

Well, THAT would suck.....

 

[RevDerb]

I think that I would rather die from a single gun shot than to be mauled to death by a grizzly.

 

[rayban]

I think that I would rather die from a single gun shot than to be mauled to death by a grizzly.

I'm with you on this one Rev.

 

[Fred Fuller]

C'mon, folks. The point is staying alive here. Let's talk about how to that, shall we?

lpl

 

[Loosedhorse]

As you know, Lee, there was an another thread here about mountain lion attacks. I advocated for shots far away from the cat's head, as the head would likely be engaging the body of the attacked.

During the time I was in Afica, a similar thing happened to a PH on an elephant hunt (not in my camp): he was attacked by his quarry, then shot by his client. When I left, he was still alive, in hospital. And there are other infamous cases, as well.

In Africa, they talk of "shooting the animal off" someone: basically walking up to the animal (standing on top of the prostrated victim) and using a near muzzle-contact shot. Anything else is deemed too uncertain in that type of scuffle.

And, no, using the old "Shoot up here among us, and give one of us some relief" ain't great advice, even if quite funny.

 

[AOK]

Knowing what is beyond your target doesn't just pertain to missed shots or going through the walls of your home. When visualizing different situations such as animal attacks or rapes I act decisively but am conscious of over penetration (primarily for the victim). If others are around also trying to help it would make it even more difficult to determine the proper location and angle of attack.

There is so much to be said for close quarter training. While my close quarter training has all been with me being the victim I'd love to find some trainings with helping other victims. Much may seem like common sense but as many individuals know, you don't know what you don't know.

 

[AOK]

In Africa, they talk of "shooting the animal off" someone: basically walking up to the animal (standing on top of the prostrated victim) and using a near muzzle-contact shot. Anything else is deemed too uncertain in that type of scuffle.

.

There certainly could be situations where you firearm basically becomes a lead injector (maybe an attempt for near muzzle contact changes and your firearm in right into the aassailant). With that said an issue that could arrive is your firearm going out of battery. Good close quarter training can teach you how to handle this situation as well.

 

[Ankeny]

C'mon, folks. The point is staying alive here. Let's talk about how to that, shall we?

How about a little situational awareness to start with? When I read this clip from the article...well.

...Bell shot and wounded what he thought was a black bear. He and Stevenson tracked the 400-pound grizzly into thick cover, where it turned on the men.

I shoot a lot of moving target scenarios in competition, and I practice getting off the X. But when you get right down to it, the best training for a scuffle is force-on-force.

Good close quarter training can teach you how to handle this situation as well.

I agree. Learning in a controlled situation is a start. Applying that information in a dynamic situation is not the same thing. Even with the best training, there is still the possibility of collateral damage and/or failure.

 

[Fred Fuller]

there was an another thread here

Actually that thread wasn't here as in ST&T, it was in General ( http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=615456 ) and IMHO didn't really do a lot to answer the questions regarding the best approach to extricating someone else from an attack in progress, be the assailant human or animal.

I'm assuming we can agree that shooting the victim IS NOT a good approach... what can we do that offers a better solution or solutions?

lpl

 

[Double Naught Spy]

How about a little situational awareness to start with? When I read this clip from the article...well.

It was a cascade/chain failure. First was Bell the shooting of an improperly identified bear.
Second was shooting it in a manner that did not kill it.
Third was chasing the wounded wrong type of bear into the denser brush.
Fourth was Stevenson yelling at the bear to distract it from Bell instead of shooting the wounded bear (where was Stevenson's own gun?).
Fifth was Bell blasting away at the bear after Stevenson's distraction technique worked too well and the bear grabbed ahold of him and as a result, one of the shots killed Stevenson.

Stevenson could have been alive today had any one of these events in this series not occurred. Even worse, these guys had two other hunting partners whom they split from earlier that morning. Quite likely they could have called them in first before starting their track of the wounded bear. After all, they had phone service where they were. Ty Bell called 911 with his phone.

In a situation where a bear is chomping on your buddy, non-lethal force might have been more appropriate to use as well, such as bear spray. Probably neither hunter carried anything like bear spray.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Some guy near my town was killed by a friend trying to help him slaughter a hog with a rifle. It seems that the hog got loose and one man shot at on the run it and missed but the bullet skipped of the dirt and hit his buddy killing him.

He broke rule four.

 

[Loosedhorse]

With that said an issue that could arrive is your firearm going out of battery.

The firearms generally employed in the situation I referenced would be bolt actions and double rifles--hard to knock out of battery. However, easier to knock off aim or even out of your hands, so sure: be close enough but not too close.

Also, your point underlines one reason to prefer a revolver rather than semi-auto for woods defense.

Another reason to carry bear spray. Your friend will cuss you if you bear spray him, but that's still better than shooting him.

 

[Deaf Smith]

It was a cascade/chain failure. First was Bell the shooting of an improperly identified bear.
Second was shooting it in a manner that did not kill it.
Third was chasing the wounded wrong type of bear into the denser brush.
Fourth was Stevenson yelling at the bear to distract it from Bell instead of shooting the wounded bear (where was Stevenson's own gun?).
Fifth was Bell blasting away at the bear after Stevenson's distraction technique worked too well and the bear grabbed ahold of him and as a result, one of the shots killed Stevenson.

Stevenson could have been alive today had any one of these events in this series not occurred. Even worse, these guys had two other hunting partners whom they split from earlier that morning. Quite likely they could have called them in first before starting their track of the wounded bear. After all, they had phone service where they were. Ty Bell called 911 with his phone.

In a situation where a bear is chomping on your buddy, non-lethal force might have been more appropriate to use as well, such as bear spray. Probably neither hunter carried anything like bear spray.

Sums it up nicely.

Deaf

 

[scythefwd]

Honestly, this sucks.. but imagine what the friend is going through right now...

 

[RevDerb]

I defer to the experts.

 

[scaatylobo]

A contact shot is the ONLY answer as far as I am concerned.

If that "friend" is not dear enough for you to STEP UP AN IN,then back off and throw rocks.

And if you do step up,plan on the bear/cat etc now attacking you.

Bring enough gun,and be prepared - or stay home.

I dont believe that "bear spray" is appropo in that circumstance where a bear THAT large is actually eating/chomping on you.

A point blank shot ,taken by the victim into the head of that bear might have done the job.

BUT this is a sad story and I feel a bit sorry for the shooter,I would feel REALLY sorry if he had stepped up and still had a bad ending.

 

[Manco]

Get real close (contact distance), continue to follow the four rules of gun safety (#4 in particular--be sure of your target and what's beyond it), and try not to miss. As I said in the recent mountain lion thread, I'd stay away from shooting the animal's head because of the danger to the mauling victim and the fact that the bullets may not penetrate (especially in the case of bears). Trying to stop a predator from killing somebody is obviously not the same as delivering a kill shot on an incapacitated animal because the former typically move around quite a bit more.

 

[littlebluevette]

And this is what they are concerned about?

The bear also died. It is illegal to kill grizzly bears, and the case is under investigation by wildlife agents.

 

[KodiakBeer]

The issue, as I pointed out in the thread about my own mauling, is that hunters typically have something like a 3X9 variable scope. That means that at these ranges you are totally blind. You don't even have decent point-shooting capability because the scope mounted on the barrel becomes an obstruction and a hindrance.

If you're going to hunt in grizzly country, get something like a 1X5 scope.

 

[Zoogster]

In a purely defensive scenario defending a third party being attacked I have long felt the ideal reaction is the open fire on the rear end of the animal. Whether shooting from above and down into the animal which would cause me to aim for the spine, or presented only with a side view where I would aim for organs and/or hips.
This gives some distance from the individual being attacked by the head of the animal, and many animals would cease the attack, while if the animal does not cease its attack immediately its mobility and ability to pivot and use leverage in its attacks should be serious hindered and the option to take more decisive shots before running out of ammo or if it turns on you is there.
Considering a violent dog attack is more likely than a bear for most people, the technique to safely stop a similar attack by a dog in the process of say mauling a little child should be considered by anyone, even those not in in the wilderness.


However this strategy of unloading on the rear end is with firearm with a decent capacity.
With remaining rounds you can close the distance and try to deliver more effective shots if the initial ones to its back half do not stop the attack.
Hunting laws are such that capacity is often greatly restricted, far more than in a typical defensive scenario.
Firearms can be single shot rifles, doubles, as well as limited to capacity of 3 or 5, depending on jurisdiction and the prey being pursued.
In that case you may not have enough rounds, or additional rounds to respond if the shots to less effective parts of its body do not stop it.
This means you may be unable to adjust your strategy after some initial shots, and so the initial shot needs to be more effective, even if posing a greater risk to the individual being attacked.

This means the strategy that may be decent if someone is being attacked near your home, such as unloading multiple rounds into parts of the animal far from the victim, can be inadequate to save someone being attacked in the wilderness.

 

[tarosean]

basically walking up to the animal (standing on top of the prostrated victim) and using a near muzzle-contact shot.

I agree with this.. animal or human attacker they will be preoccupied with the actual attack to where you can get point blank shot off.

I posted the above link and original links in the Mountain Lion thread to show that anything can happen.

Sad outcome that should have been avoided

 

[sidheshooter]

I've followed this one, as well as another Griz shooting, since I live fairly close to, and like to play in, the idaho panhandle. I cant offer much that hasn't already been said, either here or in the cougar thread. So far as the guys under discussion, doublenaught indeed summed it up. Regarding counter attack strategies, I like this quote from loosedhorse, regarding targeting on a big predator, in the other thread:

The standard for ANY defensive shooting is: shoot what's available for as long as it's available unless something better becomes available.

I guess that's my plan, should I be so unlucky.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Thanks for the citation, but I got the quote from Clint Smith (not sure where he got it from; he might've thought it up).

 

[kgpcr]

Lots of people here who are talking about what they would have done and how the guy screwed up. Well i wonder how many of you have even seen a grizz in the wild but less been attacked. No he did not do the best job but untill you have been in some kind of real firefight you have no idea how you will do. A lot of tough guys on some of these forums that talk a good story but thats about it