Hunter Killed By Friend's Bullet, Not Bear Attack

[Kiln]

As sad as this is I honestly don't hold the shooter at fault. I absolve him of all guilt because, in the end his intent was to save his friend and in the same situation I probably would have done the same. There's no way I could have stood by and let my friend or brother be mauled by an extremely large and dangerous animal if I thought there was any way to stop the attack.

Who can honestly say that in the same situation where your buddy was being severly injured by a very large and dangerous animal that your mind would be completely clear and thinking about the consequences? If you were extremely afraid and worried about the survival of your friend would you not do whatever you thought was necessary to save him?

I'm sure that all the guy was thinking was "Oh my god my friend is relying on me to get this beast off of him and I can't let him down." as he fired those shots.

I don't hold him responsible at all and while he probably should have been more careful, I can't say for sure that I would have thought clearly in the exact same circumstances and done any different. Within the circumstances I'd honestly say that I believe he did the right thing regardless of the end result. The difference between a fool and a hero is the result. If he'd shot a foot higher he'd have killed the bear and been a hero but since he didn't he's the guy that accidentally killed his buddy.

If I knew the guy I'd shake his hand and thank him for trying to protect his friend.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I absolve him of all guilt because, in the end his intent was to save his friend

Again, we are not in his mind. If he was convinced that the shot he took was the only shot he had (couldn't close distance or get a better angle because of terrain, or didn't have time because the friend's head was in the bears mouth), and fully understood that he would probably kill his friend but had no better choice, then I'm with you.

But those are a lot of conditions. If he took the shot without taking a moment to consider consequences and alternatives, then (IMHO) his intent doesn't excuse his result.

No one has suggested he had anything but innocent intent. But good intent plus a panicked shot (if that's what happened) is not what I want from a hunting partner. JMHO.

I'd honestly say that I believe he did the right thing regardless of the end result. The difference between a fool and a hero is the result. If he'd shot a foot higher he'd have killed the bear and been a hero...

But the result is influenced by the technique. We'll never know if he had taken an extra half-second to adjust his aim, what might have changed. It is not just pull the trigger and hope for the best.

Presumably, those of us who carry for SD would shoot to prevent a loved one being killed by an attacker. Such a situation will also be an emotion-filled, do-something-right-now emergency. But I don't think anyone's prepared to argue that as long as your intent is to save your loved one, it doesn't matter that your bullets kill her.

Staying calm and taking a good shot in that situation is not going to be easy. But it is our only real hope. And that should be our mindset. JMHO.

 

[Kiln]

Loosedhorse: I somewhat agree but honestly a bear moves extremely fast, the shot might have been clear when the decision was made to pull the trigger and then the animal moved. It takes a second to react and sometimes a clear shot is fired even when it no longer was.

There are alot of things we don't know about the circumstances so there is no real point to arguing but for me, I hope if I'm out hunting and I get attacked by a bear that my friend tries to shoot the critter and get it off of me...even if the results aren't in my favor.

Of course a little more caution could have saved this guy's life, if they had been more alert and aware they probably wouldn't have gotten taken by surprise.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I somewhat agree but honestly a bear moves extremely fast, the shot might have been clear when the decision was made to pull the trigger and then the animal moved...

There are alot of things we don't know...

+1.

 

[Deaf Smith]

As noted, doing the right thing isn't always easy. Just because you buddy is being mauled does not mean you are absolved of responsibility for your actions, especially if said actions were negligent. Yes, Good Sam laws exist. They specificially do not protect against incompetence, especially in cases where the action results in the death of the person injured.

Idaho's Good Sam law says...


Assuming it applies in this case, would Ty Bell's actions of shooting Steve Stevenson in the chest be considered grossly negligent? Are SWAT snipers held accountable when they shoot the victim instead of or in addition to the perp? Sure enough.
$3.9 million paid to Andrea Hall's family when a LEO sniper shot and killed her. It was a tough deal, high stress, and the sniper was acting in good faith, but that did not absolve civil responsibility for the taking of the life.

But the sniper doesn't pay a dime DNS. The city/state did.

When a LEO shoots through a bad guy and hits a innocent victim, they don't throw him in jail (and most civilians if in the same situation are not thrown in jail as it is not a form of gross negligence.)

Like I said, we will see how this turns out.

Deaf

 

[kgpcr]

A lot of people thump thier chest and talk of what they would have done when i suspect they would have filled their pants had this happen to them.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

But the sniper doesn't pay a dime DNS. The city/state did.

Only because he acted on behalf of the government.

When a LEO shoots through a bad guy and hits a innocent victim, they don't throw him in jail (and most civilians if in the same situation are not thrown in jail as it is not a form of gross negligence.)

We are not talking about being thrown in jail. We are talking about responsibility in the context of Good Sam laws which primarily deal with civil actions which you specifically mentioned. Just because the state may not choose to pursue criminal negligence charges does not mean there isn't still civil responsibility.

Like I said, we will see how this turns out.

Stevenson's family may opt not to sue. That is their choice. If they do opt to sue, then we will see about fault and responsibility from a legal standpoint.

 

[Sav .250]

No body knows for sure how they would re-act. The shooter was trying to help but it didn`t work out. Anybody can second guess the guy but being there and watching the attack is a horse of another color.
I doubt many have had the experience of their buddy being attacked by a bear and having to step up and take the shot. That guys mind must have been racing! There is no practice for that type of thing. Plus. the worst part, he has to live with it.

 

[Loosedhorse]

There is no practice for that type of thing.

There is and there isn't.

When I went dangerous game hunting, I spent time practicing head shots on a 1/3 size target, at distances as close as 10 yards. I used a competition timer, that would beep to start me (from a low, shouldered ready) and give me my splits to add "pressure."

Never needed to do it for real (we've already talked about wounding the bear instead of killing it with the first shot), but after a while I developed confidence and a good sense of what an accurate emergency shot would feel like (though not much sense of what I would feel like, I suppose). As well as a REALLY good sense of just how important the first hunting shot was.

So there is and there isn't. But you can do what you can. Chance will have her say, but you can try to leave as little to her as possible--because she's fickle, and sometimes she'll side with the animal.

But as the saying goes: the harder you work, the luckier you get.

 

[Fred Fuller]

We stress the importance of getting good training here in ST&T for a lot of reasons. Learning to successfully perform various shooting drills under at least a bit of pressure is one of those reasons. Granted there is little that can really compare to real life as far as imposing stress/pressure to perform is concerned, but shooting in front of a class made up of fellow shooters you don't know personally while being pushed to perform by a genuinely professional instructor can at least give a shooter an idea of what it takes in real life to get the job done. And that stress level simply isn't going to happen on the flat range when practicing alone or with a friend or two, at least not in my experience.

An Awerbuck class plus http://www.yfainc.com/mirage.html = stress inoculation*, in my book anyway...

lpl
===

*Not familiar with the term stress inoculation? Read the article at http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/02/13/lessons-in-survival.html .

 

[wheelgunslinger]

Most people never see anything more violent than a high school fistfight. Some see killings. But, the whole scenario of a wild predator attacking a person is altogether different and sparks a whole other set of hard-wired responses.

A lot of people thump thier chest and talk of what they would have done when i suspect they would have filled their pants had this happen to them.

Yeah, but I don't see a lot of that here. We're getting legal analyses and strategic analyses for the most part.

Hard to train for those rare predatory moments when you're the other white meat.

 

[KodiakBeer]

But the result is influenced by the technique. We'll never know if he had taken an extra half-second to adjust his aim, what might have changed. It is not just pull the trigger and hope for the best.

He probably had something like a 3x9 scope which prevented him from aiming. Such a magnification at ranges measured in feet, means you are absolutely blind. I can only suggest you try it - turn on your TV and standing a few feet away try and pick a target from the moving images on the screen.

In this scenario, I think we might blame the tool set as much as anything else. 95% of hunters over-scope their rifles. That hardly matters when you're up against deer or elk, but when you are following up a wounded bear you have made a terrible mistake.

 

[twofifty]

I don't see this scenario unfolding as if the bear was a static target. Not likely in a mauling, I'd guess.

If this happened in a thicket of thorny Devil's Club, there is little opportunity for the rescuer to reposition himself for a safe shot, if such a thing was possible.

I don't imagine the bear happily chowing down while bent over the victim - that may happen after the prey is dead. The reality is probably very dynamic. Maybe the bear was shaking the victim, having grabbed him in its mouth. Perhaps the bear was taking repeated swats which would of course toss the victim in and out of the rescuer's sight picture - that's IF he could attain a scoped sight picture on a moving tangle of bear and man. It was probably like a scene out of a Hanna-Barbera Tasmanian monster attack.

What a nightmare.

 

[Loosedhorse]

He probably had something like a 3x9 scope

You could be right. Tracking a wounded animal, and in brush at that, with such a scope would be another heavy mistake--shall we also suppose he left it on 9x?

I can only suggest you try it

Tried it a long time ago. That's why I have a 1x variable one one rifle, a 2x variable on another, and a 2.5x fixed on a third. All in QD rings with iron sights on the gun.

Tactics are important, but good equipment can help.