Woman fatally shot by boy hunting bear

Status
Not open for further replies.
At 120 yards shooting distance, hunter orange would have been meaningless in the reported fog. The boy would not have been able to see the orange at that distance and as such would have taken the shot anyway.

One of the more uninformed statements on this thread. Of course he would have been able to see the orange, especially through his scope. The argument for blaze orange is even more apparent in this situation, as opposed to closed wooded areas.
 
I'll second this:
At any rate, I won't argue with those who say blaze orange is a good idea. But as a hiker and responsible hunter, I don't think even the slightest hint that the hiker bears some responsibility for her own death should be allowed to stand.

All of you should be falling over yourselves to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of this kid without excuses or conditions.

It's my opinion that he should be charged with 2nd degree murder and tried as an adult. He knew what he was doing when he chambered a round and his actions were deliberate.
You gotta draw the line somewhere.
 
All of you should be falling over yourselves to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of this kid without excuses or conditions.

It's my opinion that he should be charged with 2nd degree murder and tried as an adult. He knew what he was doing when he chambered a round and his actions were deliberate.
You gotta draw the line somewhere.

As a teacher one of my biggest frustrations is when my students don't bother to actually read what is written. Reading comprehension is an important skill one that should be continually cultivated throughout life.

I have looked back through this thread and have yet to see anyone BLAME the lady for the kid shooting her. It is his fault! Seems that some cannot stand the fact that a little common sense MIGHT have helped to stop this from happening! Might have helped keep her alive IN SPITE of this kids mistake!

We are ALL responsible for our own safety and personally if wearing a little Orange helps keep me from getting shot then I am willing to do so. It makes sense, and the two main points/lessons that we should all learn from this is 1st to make sure that we ALL follow the 4 main rules of gun safety, and 2nd that we do whatever we can to help others to be able to identify us whenever out in a hunting/shooting environment! Because AFTER you get shot, you might be able to point fingers and blame towards who shot you or you might not.
 
That, right there, is the problem. Claiming this woman lacked common sense because she *gasp* went for a walk without being fully prepared for the possibility that someone might intentionally point a rifle toward her and pull the trigger...

It's obnoxious, mate, and it does indeed attempt to place some of the blame for her death onto her own shoulders.
 
That, right there, is the problem. Claiming this woman lacked common sense because she *gasp* went for a walk without being fully prepared for the possibility that someone might intentionally point a rifle toward her and pull the trigger...

It's obnoxious, mate, and it does indeed attempt to place some of the blame for her death onto her own shoulders.

OK mate, do you wear a seat belt? Do you have insurance against uninsured drivers? Do you have fire extinguisher for jic of a fire? Or wait a minute, just wait, how about do you own a GUN jic someone wants to attack you or your family?

Oh come on, what is obnoxious is some people on this site who decide that they are the high and mighty ones who can decide what is or is not in good taste! It has been said over and over again the boy is at fault! The fact is that we should all do our best to take safety measures specifically BECAUSE some people are stupid, some people are careless, and because it can even happen to you! But then again if you don't believe that then feel free to NOT buckle up, to not carry insurance, or a fire extinguisher, or heaven forbid a gun! :rolleyes:
 
Yes, I do have a gun in case I need to protect myself. If I did not, and someone blindsided me on the street and killed me, I have a feeling some of you folks would be along to tell me it's my fault for not having a gun: "I mean yeah, sure, the bad guy was in the wrong and all, but man, what kind of an irresponsible idiot wouldn't have a gun with him while in public?"
 
Yes, I do have a gun in case I need to protect myself. If I did not, and someone blindsided me on the street and killed me, I have a feeling some of you folks would be along to tell me it's my fault for not having a gun: "I mean yeah, sure, the bad guy was in the wrong and all, but man, what kind of an irresponsible idiot wouldn't have a gun with him while in public?"

Well if you are traveling in a high crime area, where you legally could carry, you have a carry permit, and you knew you were headed there, then I would think it foolish for you NOT to carry. Not your fault you got killed, but foolish to not carry.

Your choice, I guess, but I don't think it is a good analogy.

This would be more like walking to change your target when you know the line is hot and being surprised when someone fires. During hunting season people are in the woods with guns, like it or not it is just that way! That makes it a good idea to make sure that everyone sees you and knows you are there. Didn't make it her fault she got shot, but it might have helped the kid to see her, and correctly identify her so that he did not shoot her.
 
It's my opinion that he should be charged with 2nd degree murder and tried as an adult. He knew what he was doing when he chambered a round and his actions were deliberate.

Wow. I completely disagree with your statement. Manslaughter, perhaps. Second degree as an adult. You're wacked.

His fault? Certainly. He'll live with it the rest of his life.
 
Common sense says that one should make oneself as easy to identify in the hunting woods as possible!

One more time... this was not hunting woods. She was shot while on a very well traveled hiking trail (probably pretty exposed for the boy to get the shot to begin with).

the boy was with his 16-year-old brother on a ledge looking down onto a hiking trail when Pamela Almli stopped on the trail to put something into her backpack. The 14-year-old boy mistook her for a bear and fired one shot, which killed her, Reichardt said.
 
Wow. I completely disagree with your statement. Manslaughter, perhaps. Second degree as an adult. You're wacked.

His fault? Certainly. He'll live with it the rest of his life.
__________________


2nd degree murder would fit the crime, what about her life?
 
One more time... this was not hunting woods. She was shot while on a very well traveled hiking trail (probably pretty exposed for the boy to get the shot to begin with).

How do you figure this. It was a legal hunting area!
 
One more time... this was not hunting woods. She was shot while on a very well traveled hiking trail (probably pretty exposed for the boy to get the shot to begin with).

How do you figure this. It was a legal hunting area!

Most of Washington State, in terms of area, is a legal hunting area. He was on a ledge, looking down, and shot her as she was bent over on a well-traveled hiking trail. It wasn't "hunting woods", it was an well-worn open trail area. This wasn't a heavily wooded area with someone walking among the trees. On any given day there are individuals and families walking up and down this trail during daylight hours.
 
This was reported earlier...
3. The woman was killed while standing on the trail. Near the trail head. 4. There are regulations about where a hunter can hunt, and which directions they can shoot when near a trail.

I expect the investigation will reveal more in time.
 
One of the more uninformed statements on this thread. Of course he would have been able to see the orange, especially through his scope. The argument for blaze orange is even more apparent in this situation, as opposed to closed wooded areas.

Really? Who said the hunter had a scope? Do you have information on the incident not otherwise posted here? Nobody has shown a scope was used. That information hasn't been released.

If the hunter had a scope and this was an open terrain shot as you are suggesting, then he bloody well should have been able to identify his target as a person and not a bear. 120 yards just isn't that far. With a scope, the viewed distance would be a fraction of that. With a 3x scope, the viewed distance would be just 40 yards. With a 6x, just 20 yards. Come on! If he did have a scope, then the transgression is even greater.

Even worse is the fact that she was with another person. There were two hikers!


He'll live with it the rest of his life.

Big deal. So will her family, but she won't.
 
TCB wrote:
As a teacher one of my biggest frustrations is when my students don't bother to actually read what is written. Reading comprehension is an important skill one that should be continually cultivated throughout life.

I have looked back through this thread and have yet to see anyone BLAME the lady for the kid shooting her. It is his fault! Seems that some cannot stand the fact that a little common sense MIGHT have helped to stop this from happening! Might have helped keep her alive IN SPITE of this kids mistake!

Look man, you herd kids for living and maybe that's getting you worked up into some sort of a lather over my statement about him being tried as an adult.
But, talking about my reading comprehension is really pretty poor, as baits go.
I'm probably the worst person you could have picked out of this thread to have some sort of Yu-Gi-Oh! resume smackdown with in that respect (writer). So, let's move on and save you some face, shall we?

I said this:
All of you should be falling over yourselves to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of this kid without excuses or conditions.

It's my opinion that he should be charged with 2nd degree murder and tried as an adult. He knew what he was doing when he chambered a round and his actions were deliberate.
You gotta draw the line somewhere.
Perhaps you should read what I wrote and try to beef up your own reading comprehension, since there is no mention of blaze orange and second guessing her.

That kid carried the power of life and death in his hands when he went out there. Whether he was ready to accept the consequences or not, he was certainly ready to reap the rewards.
He loaded, made ready, aimed, and fired that shot into that woman's body. And, she spent her last minutes or seconds (if she had any) wondering what had hit her, panicking, getting cold, and feeling her life fade from her body- and probably feeling confused as to what was happening.

I find any mention of what she should have done to be distasteful and disrespectful to her, and pandering to him as even the most minuscule of excuse making. And, I refuse to take part in it.

As an entire shooting community, we should have enough respect for tragic death to not engage in this kind of nonsensical "woulda, coulda, shoulda" behavior, since we are the ones who constantly remind each other that there is a lawyer and a social penalty attached to every bullet we fire should it go wrong (or even right, on occasion).

And, we should be very eager to ostracize shooters who are stupid enough to shoot another human being unintentionally, whether 14 or 40.

I stand by my assertion that he should be tried as an adult under the charge of 2nd degree murder because I can't bring myself to say "well, it was an accident" when it was not. And, that's the justice I'd demand for myself were I shot and killed (if that were possible) or for my immediate family.
You may disagree, and you're certainly welcome to do so. But, manslaughter doesn't fit the crime, imho. Perhaps then, we'll have a rash of years without people dying from hunting "accidents" as more people check their targets and try less to shoot through the brush or fog.

As an avid backpacker and hunter, the life that saved may be my own. And, if locking that kid up for murder saves my life because someone double checks their target instead of paying lip service to the 4 rules, so be it.
 
The local paper says that the shooter and his brother were on a ledge overlooking the trail. Not the best place for a stand. Insinuating that this is in any way the hikers fault is ludicrous.
 
From the US Forest Service trail information:

Because of its easy accessibility, the trail is heavily used.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/recreation/activities/trails/mbrd/mbrd_0613.htm

As I've stated numerous times here, if you want to categorize this area it was a hiking zone where you can hunt. People are free to hike anywhere in this state, and in many cases those are hunting lands too. But this particular incident is sort of akin to hunting in an area which is known to be popular for family picnics. People are expected in this area, frankly a lot more than black bears. I see bears far away, but not usually near popular hiking areas.
 
Last edited:
Look man, you herd kids for living and maybe that's getting you worked up into some sort of a lather over my statement about him being tried as an adult.
But, talking about my reading comprehension is really pretty poor, as baits go.
I'm probably the worst person you could have picked out of this thread to have some sort of Yu-Gi-Oh! resume smackdown with in that respect (writer). So, let's move on and save you some face, shall we?

Well now my reading comprehension comment makes even MORE sense.

I said

As a teacher one of my biggest frustrations is when my students don't bother to actually read what is written. Reading comprehension is an important skill one that should be continually cultivated throughout life.

I have looked back through this thread and have yet to see anyone BLAME the lady for the kid shooting her. It is his fault! Seems that some cannot stand the fact that a little common sense MIGHT have helped to stop this from happening! Might have helped keep her alive IN SPITE of this kids mistake!

That was in response to the

All of you should be falling over yourselves to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of this kid without excuses or conditions.

I have still not seen anyone who was NOT putting the responsibility on the boy, it was, is, and will continue to be his fault!

As an entire shooting community, we should have enough respect for tragic death to not engage in this kind of nonsensical "woulda, coulda, shoulda" behavior, since we are the ones who constantly remind each other that there is a lawyer and a social penalty attached to every bullet we fire should it go wrong (or even right, on occasion).

IMHO this is exactly what we should be doing. Trying to figure out ways to help prevent this from happening ever again. As shooters we should all know and religiously follow the 4 main safety rules, even with that in an uncontrolled shooting environment such as an hunting area.

As an avid backpacker and hunter, the life that saved may be my own. And, if locking that kid up for murder saves my life because someone double checks their target instead of paying lip service to the 4 rules, so be it.

Well you help make my point. If wearing a little blaze orange helps to make you easier to identify as NOT an animal then it very well may save your life!
 
IMHO this is exactly what we should be doing. Trying to figure out ways to help prevent this from happening ever again. As shooters we should all know and religiously follow the 4 main safety rules, even with that in an uncontrolled shooting environment such as an hunting area.
Enforcement of the 4 main safety rules (unfortunately but undeniably) repeatedly fails us. So what might be proposed to "prevent this from happening ever again"?

What I fear is something ridiculous, not limited to something like this:
RKBA does not include hunting. Hunting is a priveledge. With increased population density the sport of hunting must take a back seat to general public safety. Even hunters are at risk because there are too many hunters too close together. Thus all hunting will be prohibited on public land.

Further hunting on private land will be regulated:
a) All prospective hunters must receive training and demonstrate proficiency at least every 5 years.
b) Solo hunting is prohibited. Each hunter must be accompanied by a spotter who verifies targets and keeps a record of each shot on the forms provided by game management officials. Spotters must be certified hunters and at least 21 years of age. Spotters may not carry a hunting weapon.
c) Hunters under 30 years of age may not hunt during the first week of the season. They may serve as spotters during the first week.
d) blah, blah...

And don't forget, the "Safe Hunting Association" in conjunction with SPCA supports using life-like targets rather than live game in your enjoyment of the great sport of hunting.

Prevention is going to take more than 4 rules and orange clothes. And if we don't do what's needed, we inevitably will get more help from anti's than we care to imagine.

The relationship between hunting and RKBA should also be considered. If we lose ground with hunting because we can't (or won't) make it safer, then it could give the anti's leverage in working against RKBA. At some point, is it conceivable that it might be in the best interest of RKBA to distance itself from hunting?
 
The relationship between hunting and RKBA should also be considered. If we lose ground with hunting because we can't (or won't) make it safer, then it could give the anti's leverage in working against RKBA. At some point, is it conceivable that it might be in the best interest of RKBA to distance itself from hunting?

Agreed. In this particular case the family of the victim was compassionate towards the shooter. This was likely due the the victim and family being from a small town near the area where hunting is common. Had they been from a major metropolitan area it is quite likely that lawsuits would be flying and "ban all guns" would be shouted loud and clear.
 
TCB
I have still not seen anyone who was NOT putting the responsibility on the boy, it was, is, and will continue to be his fault!
Fastidiously ignoring the other 4 words in my sentence. Comprehension, sir. Your own argument against me that you cannot even fulfill yourself.
There's a lot of "Yeah, he shot her, but." And, the ",but" is the part I think is reprehensible.
Well you help make my point. If wearing a little blaze orange helps to make you easier to identify as NOT an animal then it very well may save your life!
Actually, no I don't make your point.
My overall point is that every hunter has the responsibility of owning their act of shooting, whether it's a squirrel, deer, paper target, or human. Responsibility is on the shooter.

Will blaze orange help? Has it lessened accidents over the years?
People still sustain gunshot wounds every year during deer seasons across the nation while wearing it.
The only real fix is behind the trigger.

Currently, we have a problem with hunters who are so overly eager to kill something- anything- so they can be in the club that they take too many chances. The penalty of a shooting has to outweigh the benefit of standing around in the wal-mart parking lot bragging about the bear you killed.
Hence: 2nd degree murder charges.

Blaze Orange? Not a solution.
 
Part of this debate may be coming from regional variations in how hunts are done. I've noticed this coming up in earlier threads. Folks on the other side of the Mississippi tend to think of hunting areas as limited, often private, reserves. The idea of a hiker bouncing around in such a place is outrageous, since they would likely be trespassing. The hunting season is limited and very active, with tens of thousands of hunters descending on small woodlots to shoot at deer.

For the west, the situation is radically different. There are enormous USFS and BLM tracts on top of huge state forests where hunting is allowed. In my own state these areas are larger than most Eastern states. There are fewer hunters and the seasons tend to be more spread out and less intense with shooting. There's a wider array of game to go after. In my own experience here and in Oregon it's rare to see other hunters at all--or anyone else--once you are in your area. Orange isn't even required in AK to my knowledge.

In this particular case, the shooting was in the Cascades near a trail. I've hiked on similar trails in Washington and Oregon thousands of times in my life. Hiking in the PNW is extremely common and the idea of making the hikers wear orange to go on Cascade trails is laughably absurd. Backpacking and hiking has very deep roots in that region and the trails are more like highways during peak months (like now for example) Hunters simply have no more business shooting towards trails than they do shooting towards highways. There are ample off-trail areas where people can hunt.
 
As is common with multi-page threads, this one has descended into contentiousness and personal insult.

End of thread.

If some sort of "true facts" come from the investigation, somebody feel free to start an update.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top