SonofaBITCH! (outrage over "innocent" state trooper who shot Norton woman)

[namedpipes]

How many years did Cheney get?

Doesn't count. The guy he shot was a lawyer. Nobody cared.

 

[jefftk]

If I recall correctly, didn't another hunter get shot last year, in Danvers maybe? and I think one in NH as well?

Did anyone get charged criminally in those incidents?

 

[GM-GUY]

Dick Cheney was caught in a bad spot. His hunting buddy walked ahead of the line and Cheney swung slightly outside his zone - combination of 'negligence'. The woman was walking her dog, it's all on the shooter.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

What was the crime he was charged with? A hunting law, or some kind of assault?

 

[hankster]

Accidents happen. When your deliberate actions contribute to the accident, it isn't simply an accident anymore.

Driving too fast for conditions (rain / gravel)

Driving impaired. (But Occifer! It was only ONE drink!)

Driving at night without your lights working.

This trooper continued hunting after the end of the season and into dusk. At least that's the way I recollect the discussion. He contributed. Maybe not a lot, but some.

As far as "Cop or not, no one should be made a criminal over an accident like this" I agree. Yet at the same time, any ordinary citizen *would* have been convicted of something or at least been ruined financially before anyone could even contemplate a civil suit.

Sorta like driving a state vehicle at 108mph on Rt. 190 and "accidently" totally it at 530 or so am ?

 

[Deleted member 12999]

A hunting law, MGL Chap 131 sec 60

So, at best, the penalty is loss of hunting license if I read correct? I suspect the civil suit will hurt more.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

No, The penalities for Chap 131 are found in section 90, IIRC it calls for up to 6 mos HOC.

Oh. I read the mgl and it only stated loss of licesse for up to 5 years. No reference to s. 90

 

[xtry51]

Not surprised.

 

[davemata]

You know, we called it. We knew there wasn't going to be anything happening to him.

Really sad. I bet his house would make a great place to dump gut piles when the season opens up.

 

[Jose]

So with that rationale everyone who gets in a car wreck should be charged with reckless driving and driving to endanger. There is a thing called discretion.

Cop or not, no one should be made a criminal over an accident like this. Civil court will hit his wallet, as it should.

Someone who did nothing to deserve it is DEAD because some douchebag cop let one fly at the sound of leaves in a bush.

And you have the nerve to defend the guy......

 

[Deleted member 12999]

Someone who did nothing to deserve it is DEAD because some douchebag cop let one fly at the sound of leaves in a bush.

And you have the nerve to defend the guy......

She died?

 

[MtRiverCharlie]

NO!!!

With 1 Million in medical bills she might as well have..

 

[BigMike]

Saw her on the news this morning. Her and her husband are tactfully pissed.

 

[Jose]

She died?

I thought she had. But she didn't. So what?

I'd love to be able to put a bullet in someone and laugh about it while I get away with it in court, but I don't have a badge.

 

[Deleted member 12999]

I thought she had. But she didn't. So what?

I'd love to be able to put a bullet in someone and laugh about it while I get away with it in court, but I don't have a badge.

Easy killer. I was just asking. I thought I missed an update.

 

[jgeebs413]

Here's the lady that got shot I'd say fair game http://www.funfoll.com/data/content/ff_3009_0.jpg

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Just curios, why was what transpired criminal? Wasn't it a hunting accident?

The outrage is over the fact that pretty much ANY non-LEO accident in which someone is shot results in criminal charges, as the ballistically induced subcutaneous aperture is considered prima facia evidence of criminal negligence.

I'm sure his assets were in his wifes name, or put into a trust immediately, so everything he owns is untouchable.

Any transfer done with the anticipation of using said transfer to avoid litigation can generally be reversed by counsel under the doctrine of fraudulent conveyance. The problem is that is can be much harder to get at the money, and assets thusly shielded are much less attractive to contingency fee counsel that would vastly prefer a judgement against an insurance company.

 

[TayNinh_66]

Any transfer done with the anticipation of using said transfer to avoid litigation can generally be reversed by counsel under the doctrine of fraudulent conveyance. The problem is that is can be much harder to get at the money, and assets thusly shielded are much less attractive to contingency fee counsel that would vastly prefer a judgement against an insurance company.

Agree on recent transfers, but even then, a court isn't going to leave the spouse homeless or penniless, so unless the shooter has significant cash assets woman can win the civil suit but collect nothing. Wouldn't a cop, in a high risk career, automatically put everything in wife's name and thus out of reach?
I would assume any type of umbrella insurance policy would not pay in cases of negligence?

Paolilli mentioned 21 MGL 17c. Does that confer absolute immunity to the landowner? Did landowner lawfully permit statie to use her land for hunting? Did she display reckless conduct by allowing an untrained hunter to hunt after sundown? Probably never prevail in a trial but landowner may go bankrupt defending the case so wouldn't a landowner in a similiar situation settle out of court?

Hard to imagine that this statie is going to walk after completing destroying the women's hip so that she can never walk normally again.

 

[MisterHappy]

AFAIK, the law on use of your land by persons that are not charged to do so, gives you a free pass. If your land is not posted, then a hunter on it is not "trespassing" until you tell them to go away.

So. Hunter walks onto into your woodlot, shoots Bambi, leaves. You never knew s/he was there, and there was no law broken.

All of this is presuming, of course that there are no towm ordinances along the lines of "No Hunting without Landowner [written] permission"...then all you need the OK. But again, if there's no payment, the landowner is "safe".

The EPO at the Hunter Ed course went into this in detail - if it's posted, and your deer ran onto it with an arrow in it, you don't go on the property - he said to call the EPOs, and they will get it, because for them it's not trespassing, for you it is.

 

[Jamie]

Sorta like driving a state vehicle at 108mph on Rt. 190 and "accidently" totally it at 530 or so am ?

I see what you did there.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

In Massachusetts if you are hunting and you shoot a doe instead of a buck by accident you will get a ticket for the game violation, have to pay a fine, and you will lose your deer.

If you are a state trooper and shoot a human being you are free and clear. Criminally anyway.

Bob

 

[dhuze]

I just they pursue a civil suit against him. This whole story infuriates me to no end. I don't care what the circumstance was. He did NOT identify his target. He did NOT aim for a kill shot. He shot at motion period! If it was someone other that a member of law enforcement you can bet your ass they would be charged and convicted.

Maybe one day he will be in the woods and get shot. Then everyone can say, "Oh well" and see how he feels.

 

[Jose]

Maybe one day he will be in the woods and get shot.

Best possible outcome

 

[hankster]

I see what you did there.

Glad someone's awake !

 

[MisterHappy]

This is one angle that, in the "Some Animals are More Equal" mindset, gets missed.

The venue ( the woods) matters.

Should it? I dunno. If you're hunting, then, IMO, you're accepting a higher level of risk....at a ski slope, you accept a higher level of risk when you put on the skis, than when you sit on a bench.

The twist in this is that the injured party was a dog-walker.

As I've said before ( in the other thread, I think): I wear orange in hunting areas, whether I'm hunting or not. If one lives in an area that has hunting, then I think that its a good idea. It should not be mandated, and every hunter should positively identify the target from nose to tail. But it's still a good idea.

Because mistakes happen.

 

[George D]

An accident is when someone with no medical history of seizures has one and accidentally squeezes the trigger. Making an aimed comitted shot at an unknown target in the dark is asshattery.

 

[shootback]

That's it! If the law only applies to "most" of us. I choose to one of the people who is exempt from the law.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

Actually not so, My second or third year on the job as A Natural Rersource Officer (Before the name change to EPO) I investigated a hunting accident in Maynard, one hunter shot his friend in the foot with some kind of bird shot shooting through the brush at what he thought was a rabbit. I presented the case before The Clerk-Magistrate of Concord District Court. The clerk "declined to issue the complaint".

I agree the vast majority of these hunting "accidents" are declined for prosecution, regardless of the shooters profession.

One of the biggest issues I have with it is the sheer negligence of it. I hunted that day in Central Mass. It was a heavily overcast day that transitioned from sleet to freezing rain to rain. On a day like that he took a shot that was about 45 minutes AFTER sunset (if you actually look up the time for sunset onthat day). I don't know how the hell he could have seen anything.

Bob

 

[dhuze]

This is one angle that, in the "Some Animals are More Equal" mindset, gets missed.

The venue ( the woods) matters.

Should it? I dunno. If you're hunting, then, IMO, you're accepting a higher level of risk....at a ski slope, you accept a higher level of risk when you put on the skis, than when you sit on a bench.

The twist in this is that the injured party was a dog-walker.

As I've said before ( in the other thread, I think): I wear orange in hunting areas, whether I'm hunting or not. If one lives in an area that has hunting, then I think that its a good idea. It should not be mandated, and every hunter should positively identify the target from nose to tail. But it's still a good idea.

Because mistakes happen.

She was also on her own property, not that it matters either way.

Know your target and what is beyond.

What happened is entirely his fault. He shot "at" an unidentified target with an unaimed shot. If he had truly been aiming and not shooting in the direction of something unknown he would have shot her dog.

 

[Coyote33]

I don't think anyone believes he intentionally shot her. Doesn't that make it an accident. Besides, that isn't the discussion here.

What IS the discussion, is that a woman got shot, and nothing happened to him because of who he knows, through what he does for a living. If that had happened to someone from another vocation, there would most likely have been different treatment. THAT is where people have a gripe. Had he chosen a certain career path, this same man would probably have been in jail all along since it happened.