Bow hunter fatally shot in San Juan National Forest

[Oak]

Guilty of criminally negligent homicide

 

[Toldyaso]

That is the proper outcome. There are no accidental shootings. There are only intentional or negligent ones.

 

[CowboyLeroy]

Boy I saw this in the new post I thought they got anothern

 

[NAHMINT]

No safety blaze orange required in B.C, But I buy and wear a new blaze orange ball cap every year. whenever I'm in the ''hills''.
last year where a few of us old guys shoot clays and b.s, a fellow was shot dead with a centerfire riflewhile riding on his dirt bike with some friends and his son.........the death is still being investigated by the mounties..........

 

[Mallardsx2]

He’s lucky that he’s not going to spend 20+ years in jail.

 

[COEngineer]

He’s lucky that he’s not going to spend 20+ years in jail.

I don't think jail time is going to do anyone any good in this case, although I wouldn't have an ounce of pity for him. I would rather see him sentenced to community service that includes talking at hunter safety classes for the rest of his life. Also, I assume there will be a civil case that will go after him financially. Nothing will bring the dead hunter back to his family, so I think the best outcome is public awareness and private restitution.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

I don't think jail time is going to do anyone any good in this case, although I wouldn't have an ounce of pity for him. I would rather see him sentenced to community service that includes talking at hunter safety classes for the rest of his life. Also, I assume there will be a civil case that will go after him financially. Nothing will bring the dead hunter back to his family, so I think the best outcome is public awareness and private restitution.

Totally disagree, just completely.

Prison for a long time.

 

[COEngineer]

Totally disagree, just completely.

Prison for a long time.

From the article: "The sentence for criminally negligent homicide, a Class 5 felony, is one to three years in prison, or probation. Probation can entail up to 90 days in jail. A fine of up to $100,000 may be imposed."
So, I guess it depends on what you mean by a "long time." I think I would be suicidal after a day in prison.
Maybe you're right, a couple years of sitting in a cell thinking about how bad he F'ed up would be good for him.

 

[noharleyyet]

It would also be good for the current revolving door policy in urban populaces.

Will there be an archery orange statute instituted?

From the article: "The sentence for criminally negligent homicide, a Class 5 felony, is one to three years in prison, or probation. Probation can entail up to 90 days in jail. A fine of up to $100,000 may be imposed."
So, I guess it depends on what you mean by a "long time." I think I would be suicidal after a day in prison.
Maybe you're right, a couple years of sitting in a cell thinking about how bad he F'ed up would be good for him.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

From the article: "The sentence for criminally negligent homicide, a Class 5 felony, is one to three years in prison, or probation. Probation can entail up to 90 days in jail. A fine of up to $100,000 may be imposed."
So, I guess it depends on what you mean by a "long time." I think I would be suicidal after a day in prison.
Maybe you're right, a couple years of sitting in a cell thinking about how bad he F'ed up would be good for him.

There are have been way to many people on the forum talking about getting shot at/shot over this year. These sentence terms don't seem that different than those for poaching, though obviously poachers seem to get off light.

Seriously though compare this to the Bowmar thread, killing someone has a lesser fine than poaching a turkey and a couple bucks?

 

[DouglasR]

There are have been way to many people on the forum talking about getting shot at/shot over this year.

and how much of that is just truckers talking shit on the cb?

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

and how much of that is just truckers talking shit on the cb?

~69% - 420%

 

[DouglasR]

~69% - 420%

Meant in jest, but prob pretty accurate.

 

[Irrelevant]

There are have been way to many people on the forum talking about getting shot at/shot over this year. These sentence terms don't seem that different than those for poaching, though obviously poachers seem to get off light.

Seriously though compare this to the Bowmar thread, killing someone has a lesser fine than poaching a turkey and a couple bucks?

A couple points.
1. I wonder what the victims family thinks about this punishment? How is the victims family made whole, or even society in general, how do they benefit from this sentence?
2. How is increasing the punishment for this one person actually going to dissuade others from negligence? Why did he shoot him in the first place? It wasn't because he was a bad guy, or that it was some calculated risk. He was genuinely just a greedy idiot and ended up killing someone. How are you limiting future greed with his punishment? He'll never hunt again either way.
3. I don't see the similarities between poaching, which is premeditated and calculated theft from the State, and this case at all except that they both involve a gun.

 

[OntarioHunter]

Let me see if I can recall my university criminology class correctly. The purposes of punishment, in no order of significance, are:

1. Get a criminal out of circulation and protect society (incarceration or otherwise limit freedom [e.g. banned from hunting]).

2. Deter others from same criminal activity (fines, incarceration, publicity)

3. Rehabilitate the offender (counseling during incarceration and/or as a condition of probation).

4. Compensation. However, this is usually a matter for civil courts. Whether criminal punishment should take into consideration damage to victims has always been a thorny issue. Does that constitute "unusual" punishment? On the other hand, is it fair for victims to be forced to incur legal costs in civil court to obtain compensation from someone who's already had his day in court once and been convicted? Should the victims have to relive it all over again? Are they not then the ones being cruelly punished?

And finally, when imposing a sentence the court needs to consider if the punishment might cause more harm than good, particularly for society. Ex convicts have historically not done well when put back into societal circulation. Will putting someone away for a long time just put another burden on society down the road?

I can understand why it will take a couple of months to decide what to do with this guy. It's complicated.

 

[buckbull]

And finally, when imposing a sentence the court needs to consider if the punishment might cause more harm than good, particularly for society. Ex convicts have historically not done well when put back into societal circulation. Will putting someone away for a long time just put another burden on society down the road?

Yeah, not a whole lot of rehabilitation going on.....

"The most recent government study of recidivism reported that 82% of people incarcerated in state prison were arrested at some point in the 10 years following their release, but the vast majority of those were arrested within the first 3 years, and more than half within the first year."

Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2022

The big picture on how many people are locked up in the United States and why

www.prisonpolicy.org

 

[jejack26]

It makes me shake my head. I wonder what argument he used to defend it as an accident. He obviously wasn't concerned about bullet placement. Just one of many reasons me and mine stay out of the woods opening weekend. Tragic for a young man and his family

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

A couple points.
1. I wonder what the victims family thinks about this punishment? How is the victims family made whole, or even society in general, how do they benefit from this sentence?
2. How is increasing the punishment for this one person actually going to dissuade others from negligence? Why did he shoot him in the first place? It wasn't because he was a bad guy, or that it was some calculated risk. He was genuinely just a greedy idiot and ended up killing someone. How are you limiting future greed with his punishment? He'll never hunt again either way.
3. I don't see the similarities between poaching, which is premeditated and calculated theft from the State, and this case at all except that they both involve a gun.

I mean what are the answers to 1 and 2 for any crime?

Taken to the extreme, if you gave him the death penalty I bet that would get folks attention. So to that end there is some amount of penalty that has an effect. Obviously punishment should be proportional so it needs to be scaled down a bit.

My 2 cents is we waaaaaaaay over punish for crimes that only effect the person (drugs) and then way under punish for crimes that effect others.

 

[Irrelevant]

I mean what are the answers to 1 and 2 for any crime?

When the crime is between two parties the US system typically removes the victim from the equation and the State assumes that role. Punishment is often irrelevant to crime and the victim, thus preventing the victim from gaining anything from the offender. There are a lot of relatively recent social research that shows in that system everyone loses. There is a recent push toward more of a restorative justice format for punishment that allows the victim to decide punishment.

Restorative justice - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Taken to the extreme, if you gave him the death penalty I bet that would get folks attention. So to that end there is some amount of penalty that has an effect. Obviously punishment should be proportional so it needs to be scaled down a bit.

I don't think there is great scientific support for the idea that punishing someone else is going to be an effective deterrent for others future crimes in todays society. Maybe it worked in the past when we publicly hung people, cut off their hands (or heads), etc.

Why does a person not break a law? Is it because they know it is the wrong thing to do or because they've logically evaluated the potential punishment they might receive? I bet the vast majority of people don't know what the current punishment is for most crimes, thus we are not relying on that aspect to prevent crime, but instead the societal pressures of right and wrong. How are those best bolstered? Many have argued by actually reforming criminals and empowering them to rejoin their communities.

I used to feel more like you, but shifted my position relatively recently, especially with regard to negligence, which almost by definition, is an act that was not thought through, thus immune to any logical evaluation of consequences.

 

[EKYHunter]

Not exactly related, but I believe we need to execute way more criminals in this country. Specifically, rapists and those who sexually abuse children.