Kids (legal!) solo hunting leads to woman shot in the head!

[ArfinGreebly]

Punishment

Years of prison for the parents?

Seriously?

You mean, like when a 16-year-old has an accident with the family car, and we put his parents in jail?

Like that?

You know, sometimes an accident is just an accident.

Sometimes there isn't a "crime."

Sometimes there simply isn't a "punishment" that will fix a damned thing.

Sometimes in life, crap happens.

I'd hate to be the family of the woman who was shot, but I would not be looking to "take it out on someone."

The kid got introduced to manhood rather abruptly, and this will be a life changer for him.

I don't think there is any "punishment" that will "make it all okay" in this case.

If I were sitting on the Bench for this one, I'd be looking for some way to salvage this kid, not ruin his life.

Some kind of restitution might be appropriate.

If the kid had been felling a tree and it landed on a stranger, killing her, you wouldn't have people hollering for blood.

Punishing accidents doesn't buy us anything.

Learn from it. Make sure others learn from it. Try to heal those involved to whatever degree is possible.

 

[Zoogster]

Something I would bet the hiker was unaware of - and if so, she should share some of the culpability.

The woman shares no blame in being shot on a public trail because it was hunting season.
Hunters use public land, many types of hunting are open year long like some varmint hunting. Hunting season does not mean suddenly hikers need to change thier use of public land. It is not a shooting range, it is the wilderness. The presumption in the wilderness is not that anyone should always expect bullets to fly past them. The presumption is that hunters need to control where thier bullets go.
Some hunters, photographers or even members of PETA may be out there even making animal calls sounding just like the animal you are hunting. That does not make them in any way liable for your failure to follow the 4 rules.



Hunting in the fog means someone will need to be much closer to ID thier target both for safety and for humane shots even against the right target.
The shooter failed to do that in this case and he and his parents should be entirely liable for that failure. They should lose everything they have if it is necessary to pay the funeral costs, medical costs if any, and give some level of financial assistance to the family of the killed woman.
Sending your kid out to hunt with a firearm means you trust him with all your possessions, and should be willing to lose your assets if he makes a mistake.

Whether it is criminal is for the courts to decide, but there is absolute 100% civil liability for the boy's actions. In some states the parents have more liability for thier children than others. In others the child has all or most of the liability, and will retain whatever debt he owes for the number of years it takes to repay it.
Either way, he was 100% responsible for the actions he took.

 

[Kindrox]

aside from I am not lazy or drunk (thanks for the derogatory generalization of people you don't know... very media-like of you)

My question was a bit rude, but I am curious at the answer about why a 14 year old was (sent?) out to hunt alone. It seems like a father would want to be there?

At the bottom of this, I don't know that people below age 18 should not be able to hunt alone on public land. 10 is rediculus, 12 is rediculus, frankly 14 is too. But 16-18, in the right place? It might not bother me.

We have juvenile laws and juvenile punishments, however, for a reason.

 

[conw]

You mean, like when a 16-year-old has an accident with the family car, and we put his parents in jail?

Like that?

16 is the accepted age of personal responsibility with regard to cars. I personally don't see a need for such clear lines, but rather a self-regulating system where parents can grant their child permission to to a given activity, but with the courts set up to handle the case in such a way that greater negligence on the part of the parents (in preparing the child inadequately, or misjudging the child's skill) equals a harsher penalty.

You know, sometimes an accident is just an accident.

True. In my hypothetical, if the parents were able to demonstrate that they had reason to believe their son was responsible enough to handle a gun alone, and a reasonable person would agree, their liability would be limited. If they weren't, they would face proportionately greater penalties.

Punishing accidents doesn't buy us anything.

Yes it does. Deterrence. Some people make choices because they believe they know the right thing to do, and some people make choices based on the penalties or consequences of their actions. Most people fall right in the middle. I'm not advocating legislating morality, I'm advocating a system (with regard to ALL risky activities and minors insofar as parental responsibility) that reflects the reality of these situations: that there is no "clean line" (16 yrs old, or 18 yrs old) where a child goes from being NOT AT ALL RESPONSIBLE (a minor in current terminology) to TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE (an adult). Sure, we can stick to 18 as the max age for a minor, but a sliding scale before that age would reflect reality much better than the current system.

 

[dirt_j00]

Some parents work for a living.

 

[Dave Workman]

Kindrox:

I think your outrage is misplaced. Kids age 14 and older have been hunting on their own in Washington state for years. Decades, even. This is the first time in my memory that I can recall a kid of that age being involved in a fatal hunting mishap, so there were tens of thousands of OTHER kids who didn't do anything wrong.

What you're doing is the same thing the Brady bunch does: One guy with a gun, or a CPL, kills someone or commits a crime, we're suddenly all bad guys, that it?

I have written bunches about this incident. It was an aberration.

 

[Officers'Wife]

It goes back to basics, I know of some 10 years old that I would be absolutely comfortable with hunting without supervision. I know of some that are seniors in high school that scare me to death looking at rifles in a gun shop with the owner and adults watching them closely.

Perhaps it's a personal bias but all of the former are farm kids that have been given responsibility for either livestock or operating machinery. Both of the latter are town/city kids that have had everything handed to them without effort on their part.

In response to the story, hunting in a fog is irresponsible at any age. I can only hope there are dire consequences for both parents and child. Holding all children responsible would be even more irresponsible than the child's act.

Selena

 

[Kindrox]

Years of prison for the parents?

Seriously?

You mean, like when a 16-year-old has an accident with the family car, and we put his parents in jail?

Arfin,

You can send your legally licensed 16 year old child to the store in your car. There is a process for doing this, and processes to handle accidents.

I don't think the outcome is the same if you hand your 14 year old the car keys and send him to the store. Would you want the outcome to be the same?

Do you seriously want me to be able to hand a gun to my child, send him out in public, and if he kills people, chalk it up to a learning experiance? I know you don't belive this. There are laws against negligence for a reason. You have a duty of care to your fellow man.

 

[mcdonl]

Maine rules read

"Hunters to be accompanied. Junior hunters (10 years of age or older and under 16) may hunt with firearms only in the presence of their parent or guardian or an adult who is at least 18 years of age. Any person who accompanies a junior hunter, other than the parent or guardian, must either possess a valid Maine hunting license or have successfully completed a hunter education course. That presence must be unaided by visual or audio enhancement devices, including binoculars and citizen band radios."

I have hunted with several of my nephews, and my oldest daughter when she was 10, after passing the safety course as well as my own "safety Course".... as indicated before, following the SIMPLE rules of handling firearms would have avoided this.... I know for a fact that I have seen the largest deer ever seen in the world SEVERAL times, but sadly I could not identify the target and backstop enough to take the shot....

 

[Kindrox]

Dave,

At age 14 I was living in Whatcom County, Washington, as a boy on a farm. I have had access to a loaded firearm in my house since age 9. I had no business on state land, alone and armed with a gun. If you want your kids to hunt by themselves, buy your own land. Otherwise, go with your 14 year old, or send him with an adult you trust.

following the SIMPLE rules of handling firearms would have avoided this

That is the root of the problem here. Don't expect KIDS to always follow simple rules. If kids could always follow simple rules, they would be called adults. You need to take responsibility if you give them a gun.

 

[dirt_j00]

I had no business on state land, alone and armed with a gun.

But you don't speak for all responsible 14 y/o hunters.

If you want your kids to hunt by themselves, buy your own land.

No -- if YOU don't want kids to hunt by themselves, get the law changed. This young man was engaged in a legal activity during the time of the accident.

If kids could always follow simple rules, they would be called adults.

No -- they would be called perfect, or at least responsible adults. Many irresponsible adults have shot people while hunting too. Adults don't get a pass.

 

[Officers'Wife]

That is the root of the problem here. Don't expect KIDS to always follow simple rules.

Blanket statements are seldom correct. Some kids, not all but some, can be expected to follow simple rules with proper training. If this were not the case, our species wouldn't have survived to the bronze age.

If kids could always follow simple rules, they would be called adults.

And yet the prisons are full of alleged adults that couldn't or wouldn't follow simple rules, yet after release they are afforded most of the assumptions of maturity as others their age.

 

[Polar Express]

Before I address anything about this 'debate', I wish to put it out there that this event in every was is a tragedy, one that I hope never occurs again. I am sad for the family of the lady that died, and sad for the young man that accidentally killed her, and his family. What a sad burden to carry. I genuinely feel bad for him.

That being said, I do not know this young fella, but it appears his parents thought he was responsible enough to hunt alone. I read the article written by the national writer on (msnbc I think it was) and many of the blog-type replies to the article. Many replies were stating that ‘one should be at least 16 to hunt alone’, some of them referenced the standard driving age of 16. From my point of view, this is where it gets muddy. More people die every year from unsafe auto driving than from firearms, (especially 'hunting specific' firearms accidents) so, to me, this clearly displays a flaw in their argument. I believe a car is far more dangerous than a firearm. On a regular basis, I see up-close and first hand what car accidents can do. But I don't believe there is an age where you automatically become responsible enough for any particular activity. To me this concept applies to consuming alcohol, driving, shooting, hunting, camping, serving in the military, getting married, or having a child. The key is our maturity level, which is heavily determined by parenting.

In this country, the age of legal accountability is 18 years old. We have chosen to draw a line at that point. That date can be debated for many pages, but that is for another time. So we've set this 'line' at 18 years, not 17 yrs, 364 days, but 18. Are variances made? Yes. (why, I have no idea, I'm not a lawyer) But ultimately, until a child reaches that 'date', the parents of said child are responsible for the actions of the child. (my argument in support of corporal punishment) Do I want the parents to be sued? No. It doesn't fix anything. Do I want the kid put in prison? No. I don't think he belongs there, not for this. It has been accepted from the beginning his act was not malicious, certainly strong in effect, but not malicious. I'm not a believer that a 'group hug' fixes things, but in this case it appears that in this kid's darkest time (now) is when he really needs mentorship and guidance (not cell-mates) if he's to learn from this and lead a healthy, productive life. I suspect he would benefit from counseling.

I know kids that were driving $250K combines when they were 10, (it would have been sooner if they could reach the pedals) and they were plenty mature to be issued a drivers license by 14. Because of my job, I also regularly see grown adults that should not be allowed outside without a safety harness and a helmet because they have no idea of personal responsibility or accountability for their actions. (My dad and I joke that there should be a test one must pass before being allowed to have a child!)

When I was a kid, I was raised around firearms. Safety was always paramount. I took a hunter safety course as soon as I was old enough. ..still have the card somewhere. I would have taken it sooner if the rules were different then. I did better on the exam than my dad did, and we still laugh about that. But in the household I was raised in, responsibility was a serious issue. Sadly, many homes now joke about it, and want the Gov't to legislate more rules to keep them safe.

I live not too far from where this happened. I too, grew up hunting in the Washington Cascades, albeit, most of my hunting was on the Eastern side, not Western, but our home was exactly in the foothills on the West side.

By the way, have we defined "alone" in this particular case? Was an adult 10 miles away, still at home, 100 yards on the next ridge, or 20 yards away in the draw? The terrain on the Western foothills of the Cascade range could mean that a supervising adult could be only 30 feet away around a couple bushes, and not be able to assist the shooter in identification or safe procedures. I went for several years with my dad, carrying nothing but a backpack.

Now, I feel bad for the family of the "hiker". (notice the quotes? ) I really do! There's no way to know for sure since she is no longer able to field questions, but her actions indicated she was not aware of hunting season or area, or perhaps she was but did not RESPECT what that meant. You want to go "hiking" during the hunting seasons? Then maybe it’s a smart idea to stay on well-marked trails, (she did not) and most importantly, wear something that clearly displays you are a human being (she was not). Should the hunter have been sure of his target? Yes. I suspect he thought he was, and he clearly was not.

Folks, freedom does not equal safety. The more rules we put in place, (or allow the gov't to put into place) the less freedom we have. And I firmly believe in this. That being said, part of me wants to support a mandatory rigorous hunter education and safety course ANYONE must pass before being issued a public-land hunting license/tag. (But I also firmly believe a much more comprehensive and demanding drivers’ education program should be mandatory before being allowed to acquire a public street drivers license.) As much as I hate to say it, I’m still not sure that hunting is a right, (certainly firearm ownership is), and driving is absolutely a privilege, not a right.

....just my thoughts on the matter,

Again, my thoughts and sympathies go out to the survivors of the lady, and the lad who will carry this burden around forever.

-PE

 

[61chalk]

Education not age is whats important....far more adults have shot an killed others in hunting accidents...are last VP almost killed someone, so does anyone want to ban hunting for adults...?....didn't think so. I was hunting alone long before I was a teen, had a great Dad that educated me.....I would rather hunt with a 12 yr. old that grew up with
guns than some one my age..48..that had just bought their first gun...anyone here want to hunt with the former VP...?...This was a terriable accident.

 

[TheFallGuy]

I think all parties involved are responsible here. Almli shouldn't have been hiking during hunting season. Perhaps she didn't know. A sign at the trailhead could inform hikers of hunting seasons. People should wear blaze orange to prevent being mistook for game whether they are hunting or not. The kid failed to ID his target properly. The conditions were foggy. How dense is the forest? The kid made a bad call. Any hunter could do it.

 

[Zoogster]

Now, I feel bad for the family of the "hiker". (notice the quotes? ) I really do! There's no way to know for sure since she is no longer able to field questions, but her actions indicated she was not aware of hunting season or area, or perhaps she was but did not RESPECT what that meant.

I think all parties involved are responsible here. Almli shouldn't have been hiking during hunting season.

You should go back and read my previous post. It is public land.
Some hunting is open all year long. The presumption is always that hunters are responsible for their rounds and where they go.
If hunters cannot live with that attitude then hunting will simply be banned in many areas, and others will restrict hikers. Cutting the land available to both to just a fraction. Who will get more? Well in some areas, like those not far from Seattle I imagine the designer coffee drinking, Prius driving, PETA member, "Green everything" types will get most of the land, and hunters will just be screwed.

There is hunting seasons for some animal types, but it is always a hunting season for something. Whether it is deer, bear, rabbit, or some varmint like coyotes or things considered pests.
Most of the population does not hunt, but they do own that public land.
With attitudes that expect people to watch out for hunters instead of hunters watching out for others, you will simply see many areas closed to hunting and reserved for the much larger number of tax paying citizens that drive out from their congested cities to recreate in the woods.

 

[Kindrox]

With attitudes that expect people to watch out for hunters instead of hunters watching out for others, you will simply see many areas closed to hunting and reserved for the much larger number of tax paying citizens that drive out from thier congested cities to recreate in the woods.

Golly, with rational thinking like that Zoog, you are going to get called anti-hunting and accused of being a gun grabber :banghead:.

I think what Fallguy and a few others mean, is the public should not be on public land because then irresponsible shooters might get into trouble for their actions. Funny how we want the public to respect our gun rights, at least until we kill them. Then it's their fault!

 

[sonier]

wow..... look 50 years ago this didnt happen. near EVERY KID WHO HUNTED did so at a very young age. you go hunting and you shoot your first squirrel. you realize at that point wow it actually died. Kids arnt being taught any more on what happens when you shoot a gun. Parents are hiding guns instead of taking a kid to the range or there back yard and make sure the kids dont play with them. I think kids should be taught more at a younger age. instead of banning and controling access of guns lets give kids more responsibilities and reteach this generation. Stop hiding them and teach your kids or family or whoever you want about gun safety. i got that lecture very well when i was a kid.

Also has it ever occured to people these days that sometimes someone just wanted to shoot someone? it happens, maybe this kid actually wanted to kill this person. god forbid but it happens

 

[Kindrox]

My point, which I did not articulate as clearly as I should, is that we give adults more freedoms than children because adults are capable of exercising good judgment, time in and time out. I didn't say they always do, but that they are capable. And as such we hold them to a higher standard then children when they fail to exercise good judgment and someone gets killed.

Children, as a class of citizenry, are not capable exercising good judgment, time in and time out. As such we restrict their freedoms but then also don't give them adult punishments when they fail.

My entire objection to the solo hunting of a 14 year old is the solo part. I understand that even with the presence of a responsible adult something bad might happen. But at least a very reasonable, responsible step was taken to prevent harm.

The only justification I have seen for allowing solo hunting of children is that bad things about it don't get reported in the news very often. Even if it is actually true that child solo hunting does not result in very many deaths, I don't see it as a justification. Many things children could be legally doing (but arn't allowed) probably would not result in deaths. For example, why not let children of any age marry, drive, travel, get abortions (legal some places I know!), sign contracts, smoke, drink, star in porn, have sex with adults, ect ect as long as the child was "educated" before hand?

Most of the things on that list would not result in very many deaths, are being done NOW by "responsible" children, and arn't being done very responsibly by some adults.

Ergo, under the logic espoused by pretty much everyone I see in favor of child solo hunting, those in favor of child solo hunting should be in favor of removing all age restrictions of just about everything on my list above. If you are, at least I can respect that you are consistent in your logic. If not, you would strike me as a hypocrite.

 

[61chalk]

Kindrox....help me out...are you saying immorral things like, child sex, child porn, child drinking is somehow similar with hunting? The above are immoral an Illegal, hunting alone
at a certain age is not illegal, nor proven immoral. Please explain how these got all lumped together...You've totally lost me here...???????

 

[NickEllis]

My point, which I did not articulate as clearly as I should, is that we give adults more freedoms than children because adults are capable of exercising good judgment, time in and time out. I didn't say they always do, but that they are capable. And as such we hold them to a higher standard then children when they fail to exercise good judgment and someone gets killed.

Children, as a class of citizenry, are not capable exercising good judgment, time in and time out.

Blatantly and patently an untrue statement. Hunting is not rocket science, and by following basic rules can be extremely safe. Kids can be trusted to follow these rules just as well as adults. I don't think you understand the reality of a hunting situation. The complexity of driving a car in traffic is exponentially more complicated. This is proven by the thousands of kids that hunt like this year in and year out without incident.

A 12yo properly trained to basic hunting safety (four basic rules!!) is much safer than a 16yo on a public roadway with potentially hundreds of life-changing decisions at any given time.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Straw Man

The only justification I have seen for allowing solo hunting of children is that bad things about it don't get reported in the news very often. Even if it is actually true that child solo hunting does not result in very many deaths, I don't see it as a justification. Many things children could be legally doing (but aren't allowed) probably would not result in deaths. For example, why not let children of any age marry, drive, travel, get abortions (legal some places I know!), sign contracts, smoke, drink, star in porn, have sex with adults, ect ect as long as the child was "educated" before hand?

That's quite the Straw Man argument you have there.

Children have hunted -- many of them solo -- for generations.

Most of the other things you suggest . . . not so much.

This kid broke a safety rule. There are a number of people I'd have a "remedial chat" with about this, including his parents and the guy who taught his Hunter Safety class.

The urge to DO SOMETHING to "fix the problem" is what results in sweeping, broad-brush legislation that causes all kinds of stupid collateral damage.

Let us not encourage that.

The system (if it can be called that) which we have used for generations is not "suddenly broken" because of this incident.

As a culture we accept certain risks in trade for certain freedoms. Every so often, one of those risks is confirmed by actual events. We drive. People are killed in car wrecks. We fly. People are killed in plane crashes. We boat and water ski. People drown and otherwise killed. We hunt. People are killed by stray and wrongly aimed gunfire. We skydive. People are killed by equipment failures and bad luck. We climb mountains and explore caves. People are killed in falls and cave-ins.

We do what we can to minimize injury and death as we pursue happiness through our work and recreation.

It's tempting to buy into the "if it just saves ONE life" reasoning, but that's a hugely flawed argument that presumes safety and security are the ultimate goal of living. They are not. A complete absence of risk is not "living."

It is necessary for the continued survival of the human race that self sufficiency be taught to children as early as possible. Hunting is very much a part of that. There will always be risks.

As a society, over the last forty years or so, we have managed to prolong adolescence and the irresponsibilities of youth until nearly age 30 -- and, in some instances, beyond that. We have allowed ourselves to accept this concept that "children can't be responsible" and have gone to ever-greater lengths to protect them from real life. As you may have surmised, that's not working out well as a social and cultural pattern.

"More protecting" isn't the answer. Better training is.

 

[Kindrox]

I didn't put the list together as a moral play, just things that, using the justifications for solo child hunting as put forth in this thread, could also be justified under the same reasons.

Namely, things that

A. An adult is ligally doing it irresponsibly
B. At least one child is doing "responsibly" what ever that means to the poster
C. Something that is not killing a significant portion of the children that participate.

Again, I'll try to be as clear as I can. If solo child hunting is justified by A, B, and C, then using the same rationals A, B, C, some or possibly all of my list is also justified for children.

 

[RoostRider]

I know I shouldn't reply to the trolling.... but.....

My question was a bit rude, but I am curious at the answer about why a 14 year old was (sent?) out to hunt alone. It seems like a father would want to be there?

You seem to do a great job of making up imaginary stories to fill the holes all by yourself....

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I agree; they should be supervised, particularly with a centerfire, if under 14 or 15. Maybe under 11 or 12 with a .22.

Most importantly, hunter safety education course must also be taken and passed, and maybe even a refresher course required again when 17, or something like that. Did this kid pass hunter safety education at 14? No kid should ever be hunting in the woods, ever, with or without a supervising adult, without having first passed the required hunter safety education course. I have a hard time believing this kid took such a course, and still made such a terribly negligent mistake. There needs to be a test administered at the end of the course day, too, with a pass/fail grading.

I also think that in places where hikers are allowed to roam alongside hunters on public lands, (a) the hikers should be warned that hunting is occurring there, and (b) they should be strongly encouraged to wear hunter orange, and waive responsibility as far as sueing the state, if they choose to not wear hunter orange. Obviously, they cannot and should not waive responsibility as to a negligent hunter.

Truly a tragic, tragic deal on all fronts.