In Bear country, no.
That is not very neighborly of you. How much of the country do you own?
In Bear country, no.
Days-old newborn shot in head in apparent hunting accident
This is definitely tragic. And these hunters should be charged with murderDoes that count against the bag limit?
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
I take it you don't understand the elements of murder.This is definitely tragic. And these hunters should be charged with murder
Sounds like manslaughter 2 to me. Assuming the baby dies. We may be getting a little ahead of ourselves here.They had to have known there was a house there and in no way should they have fired in that direction, The bullet trajectory would definitely have been of such they were close enough to realize this would happen,
Even such as a 7 mill mag at 500 yards would drop close to 4 feet putting it on a down ward spiral. and it drops faster and more then that at a further distance, so they if hunting on any farm land they should have known and seen the house.
They were probably drinking as an excuses, but well any smaller sized gun would have had the bullet dropping at a steeper angle, making it almost impossible for a person using commonsense to have hit those people.The gun had to have been at a very close range, or hit something and bounced off, but highly unlikely, or they new the people and possibly thought they could play a game and get away with it, Now that is my own opinion, am I wrong, I don't know, I still think they should have realized exactly what they were doing, It is not the guns fault, It was the person who pulled the trigger who is to blame.
I still believe one has to be responsible for their actions. They will probably be found guilty.
I pray to God when I hunt this will never happen to me. or anyone else.
Are we? Never pull the trigger except it be safe for all.I take it you don't understand the elements of murder.
Sounds like manslaughter 2 to me. Assuming the baby dies. We may be getting a little ahead of ourselves here.
Calling something murder when nobody's dead? Yeah, that's pretty much the definition of "getting ahead of yourself."Are we?
Still ain't homicide until somebody dies.Never pull the trigger except it be safe for all.
Are these people who fired their guns, doing what some idiots do, Play the game of sound shooting, the bushes are moving here, Bang. Probably not or did they? But why was the trigger pulled in the first place? They had to have known they were near a house if hunting on farm land. This type of irresponsibility will loose it for good hunters.
This is definitely tragic. And these hunters should be charged with murder
They had to have known there was a house there and in no way should they have fired in that direction, The bullet trajectory would definitely have been of such they were close enough to realize this would happen,
.
You also typically need a dead person.Not sure that would "fly" in a court of law! To my knowledge, to be charged with murder there has to be intent with the exception as the result of a serious crime being committed. Mere stupidity seldom results in a murder charge. Perhaps you might curb the histrionics. -![]()
You also typically need a dead person.
Yeah, but focus here. Without a dead person you don't have ANY degree of homicide: murder, manslaughter, negligent, nothing. And this case lacks that one essential element from which all else springs. . . a corpse.Even then, in Canada you would still need another half a dozen criteria, or it just won't "fly". We don't have laws against stupidity here.
To murder is to remove something that was to beCalling something murder when nobody's dead? Yeah, that's pretty much the definition of "getting ahead of yourself."
Still ain't homicide until somebody dies.
To murder is to remove something that was to be
This child has lost that which it should have had
If you were standing with one foot near a cliff and it started (cliff) to slip away.
Have you got what lost?
This is already set in motion. You cannot murder a dead body. The child is being murdered, It is in the process of being devalued of it's life, That is what is being called murder not a dead body.
I will mention this as I just previously did,To murder is to remove something that was to be
This child has lost that which it should have had
If you were standing with one foot near a cliff and it started (cliff) to slip away.
Have you got what lost?
This is already set in motion. You cannot murder a dead body. The child is being murdered, It is in the process of being devalued of it's life, That is what is being called murder not a dead body.
I will continue to back away slowly.I will mention this as I just previously did,
Yeah, but focus here. Without a dead person you don't have ANY degree of homicide: murder, manslaughter, negligent, nothing. And this case lacks that one essential element from which all else springs. . . a corpse.
Heck, without a corpse you don't even have death.