Hunter who fatally shot another after mistaking him for an elk sentenced to 7 months

Cameron SS said:
Agreed 100%

Again you are mischaracterizing what was said. Its not that gun crimes are treated lightly compared to non gun crimes, its tha legal owners are treated lightly compared to non legal owners.

But your right, most claims for and against are supported by cherry picked google results. To do a proper study is tine consuming and tedious and I have yet to find skmeone inclined to do it, just to win an internet debate. Myself included.
Click to expand...

We will have to agree to disagree about whether my question, aimed at fleshing out why someone held a certain opinion, was a mischaracterization. His answer could have offered the clarity being sought.

For comparison and amusement, a very recent cherry picked careless use case (involving a horrible handgun!) during a non-fatal "hunting" accident:

Alberta man wins appeal of jail sentence for careless use of handgun during ###

12 months imprisonment imposed at trial, one year conditional sentence on appeal.
 
Last edited:
Trimmer 905 said:
Not the same thing by a long shot. Stan Jonathan took a shot at a deer across a field in failing light,missed and hit a hunter on a watch inside the tree line out of sight.
Click to expand...

That is what he claims.Most people that shoot another hunter have a similar story, because it seems preferable to admitting that they mistook a hunter for an animal.
 
The article says:
"Adamko pleaded guilty ...to unauthorized possession of a firearm." (c)
I'm curious if they conducted a proper investigation to find out how the accused got the firearm.
I believe, the one who gave/sold the rifle to an authorized person deserves strict punishment,
obviously, Adamko didn't have PAL and hunting education courses, so what would you expect from an ignorant person with a firearm?
The right way to stop this from happening in the future to find and persecute the person who handed him the rifle.
 
RangerPark said:
When I go out with the bow I worry about my camo being good enough to get within 30 yards of a deer. Reading articles like this makes me think I should worry about being visible to idiots 200 yards away instead.
Click to expand...

Reading about this specifically makes me even more of a believer in the blaze orange hunting garb required here in the East. Deer don't see colours and I want to be as visible as possible to people with centre fire rifles. Other contrasting colours might be very well, but blaze is best and there is nothing else like it for the woods and brushland. I confess that there have been times during rifle deer season when I was stepping out of heavy brush onto a road and stuck my orange cap on the end of my gun barrel and poked it out ahead of me, for the benefit of anyone who was staking out the length of the road. Grouse hunting and deer hunting are not always a good safety mix.
 
ArthurA said:
The article says: "Adamko pleaded guilty ...to unauthorized possession of a firearm." (c) I'm curious if they conducted a proper investigation to find out how the accused got the firearm. I believe, the one who gave/sold the rifle to an authorized person deserves strict punishment, obviously, Adamko didn't have PAL and hunting education courses, so what would you expect from an ignorant person with a firearm? The right way to stop this from happening in the future to find and persecute the person who handed him the rifle.
Click to expand...
[emphasis mine]

You can't make that assumption. In fact, I believe the judge noted that Adamko was an experienced hunter (in another article previously linked.) He may have had an expired PAL, and it doesn't sound like he didn't have a hunting license (in turn suggesting he had the proper hunter education course). No doubt he did something stupid, but even the best trained and most experienced folks always run that risk.
 
Dukester said:
He shot the hunter at like 7 in the morning. The only thing failing was the investigation.
Click to expand...

stubblejumper said:
That is what he claims.Most people that shoot another hunter have a similar story, because it seems preferable to admitting that they mistook a hunter for an animal.
Click to expand...

The OPP investigation along with Band Police got it right. The Judge said so.
 
Myself, I don't understand shooting at "something" without knowing that it is exactly what you are after. Maybe it's all my years of bowhunting...I'm the first to admit, to the dismay of my hunting partners, that I'm purposefully slow on the draw when rifle hunting.
Bulls only, non cull/trophy class deer...unless you eyeball them how do you know whether to touch one off on them or not?
 
RangerPark said:
When I go out with the bow I worry about my camo being good enough to get within 30 yards of a deer. Reading articles like this makes me think I should worry about being visible to idiots 200 yards away instead.
Click to expand...
I agree with you and won’t go out bow hunting when a rifle season is open but poachers go out any time so I guess I should be concerned about that as well.
 
Bigbubba said:
There was a very similar case in ONT in 2006 when a hunter shot at a deer (which was never found IIRC) and a single pellet from his shotguns shots (2) struck a hiker and killed her.

He was found Not Guilty of manslaughter.

Obviously there was no intent on his part to harm a person.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/deer-hunter-acquitted-in-woman-s-shooting-death-1.456122
Click to expand...

And once again, they only have the shooter's word, that there was a deer. And if I recall the details, the woman was wearing white mitts, which if waved, could look like the tail of a whitetail deer running away. As well the shooter was a well known long term resident, which may have been a factor in people believing that he actually shot at a deer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom