Hunter Acquitted in Shooting Death of Woman

Unless the woman was wearing a deer costume or walked infront of the deer as he was taking the shot, the hunter is negligent and should pay a price for it. No excuse for taking a "sound shot" and if you cant tell a human from a deer you shouldnt be hunting at all.
 
From the Criminal Code. "Manslaughter is culpable homicide that is not murder. A culpable homicide is a blame worthy action that results in the death of another person." I can see the Crown appealing the decision on grounds of misapplication of the law.



The more I think about this the more upset I get.

It's called binoculars ! Maybe I'm a little out to lunch but if you see branches shaking or hear a twig snap and your first thought is to pull the trigger, you're in the wrong sport.

Flier or not, if you're using a shotgun then you need to be extra careful because there is more than one projectile.

And finally, the comments about it being the woman's fault are totally inappropriate. She was on public land, doing something that is not prevented by the law. I don't care if you only get two weeks to hunt out of 52, we as hunters are responsible for our own actions. We bitck and complain about the government controlling us with too many hunting regulations and firearms legislation and then you guys come on here and call for more rules and regulations.
 
Didn't lose his gun privileges ... hunting license ?

Wonder if he'll be out there again somewhere ? :eek:

It doesn't matter. There are a few hundred (Thousand ?) more just like him, doing a good job.

Recently, I was invited to go deer hunting with a group of hunters North of Peterborough, Ont. All have been hunting for 20-30 years. Had no problem trespassing into other people's property even after being told not to, warming up with cold beer and than firing at sound and movements in the woods, with non or close to non visual, not installing the tag and waiting to see if they can get away with it .....among others. I had enough and walked back to the truck and spent the rest of the day watching beautiful fall trees.

Their attitude was like "what is your problem?" and mine was like "YOU!"

that was a really bad day and I came back with my gun clean and my tag in my pocket. I will chose my hunt bodies wiser.

Please do not pretend that this is an isolated case and there are only a few of them around. How about this very site? Just go back a few pages in this thread and other threads (The farmer being shot in B.C. by trespassers comes to mind) to find their apologizers. I am not trying to judge this guy, but talking about this culture that 'boys will always be boys and ... and "it is not OK but it happens".

unless the hunting community comes down hard on these guys, these things won't go away.
 
None of us know exactly what happened and IMHO that means that none of us should be judging anybody. The judge heard all the evidence and pronounced the man NOT GUILTY, end of story!
Kim
 
The judge heard all the evidence and pronounced the man NOT GUILTY, end of story!

The judge had no clue,proven by his referring to the shotgun as a rifle.And he used the excuse that it may have been a flier pellet that killed the woman.How far can a stray pellet veer off course at less than 50 yards?

Instead, Justice Peter Howden suggested it might have been a stray pellet from his rifle, known as a "flyer" that struck Schmid in the abdomen as she walked along a public recreational trail on a beautiful sunny day that first day of hunting season.

This case reminds me of the O.J.Simpson trial.
 
Absolutely amazing!!

Unfortunately it is amazing in a bad way,it gives the general public the idea that all hunters are careless people that shoot at anything that moves and they aren't going to be held responsible if someone is killed as a result.Not good publicity at a time when we are trying to get rid of the long gun registry.
 
We will All pay for this incorrect Judgement

He was guilty of manslaughter. Period!

Mark my words well, the general public will NOT spend money on BLAZE ORANGE to protect themselves, THEY WILL BAN HUNTING.

This is going to give untold AMMO to the antis.

We have virtually given the cucks our heads on a plate.
 
He was punished , certain crown lands are now posted "no hunting".

HE wasn't punished,ALL HUNTERS were punished for HIS stupidity.

Mark my words well, the general public will NOT spend money on BLAZE ORANGE to protect themselves, THEY WILL BAN HUNTING.

This is going to give untold AMMO to the antis.

Exactly my point.

We have virtually given the cucks our heads on a plate.

Actually the judge handed them our heads on a plate,regardless of his intentions.

The end result will be more closed areas,and perhaps even more useless firearms/hunting regulations.
 
Back
Top Bottom