We're getting married, Weevie and me.
Just saw in the Times that the hunter who shot a wildlife watcher has been cleared of assualt. The incident was described as a tragic accident.
I honestly couldn't say if it is a good or bad outcome.
Last edited by RemMag; 27-08-2004 at 01:59 PM.
Registered User
Well even though it should have never happened in the first place, im glad that it was recognised as an accident, i mean, whats going to have a better effect on the public, the headline 'fox shooter cleared' or 'fox shooter convicted of assault with firearm'. I hope this doesnt sound insensitive, im just putting it how it is in my view.
Fair do. But he should lose his ticket. He has shown himself to be irresponsible. Sure he's learned his lesson no doubt but IMHO he was negligent.
.
I do believe that the police and the CPS were very much remiss in calling it assault in the first instance. Assault presuposes intent on the part of the person committing the offence. How on earth could they show any degree of premediatation?
Until there is an offence of 'careless use of a firearm' on the statutes (other than deliberate wounding, etc) then 'accidental injury' was/is the only possible outcome.
Even so, it behooves all of us to be more careful about our choice of target/target recognition/presence of an adequate backstop in future.
"I would laud the day when there is a rifle in every cottage in England." Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil.Your 'local' hospice needs your charity. Please give until it hurts..I made this
weird, it double posted. See below!
Last edited by LagomorphHunter; 27-08-2004 at 06:30 PM.
Yup, you do have to be very careful.
I use a NV Scope, and it's great for spotting eyes, however its so temping to shoot thinking its a rabbit. Fortunately I've held back, until I can see an outline. Once I had what turned out to be a young badger in the sights. Great to watch once I had a clearer picture, but I could have so easily assumed, like our fox hunter, and wounded it (not to mention the law infringement) etc etc.
Basically its curbing your enthusiasm and excitement. Not always easy!
LHunter
Ferreting season soon
Mrs LHunter's new ferret.
Banned
I agree he was negligent, obviously. Should he lose his licence? I would hope not. I doubt that anyone will be more careful than him when out shooting now. Revoking a firearms certificate should be on a need basis rather than a punishment.Originally posted by Gary C
Fair do. But he should lose his ticket. He has shown himself to be irresponsible. Sure he's learned his lesson no doubt but IMHO he was negligent.
Registered User
Interesting point, and that's probably why the case has been kicked out.Originally posted by Dirty-Harry
I do believe that the police and the CPS were very much remiss in calling it assault in the first instance. Assault presuposes intent on the part of the person committing the offence. How on earth could they show any degree of premediatation?
Until there is an offence of 'careless use of a firearm' on the statutes (other than deliberate wounding, etc) then 'accidental injury' was/is the only possible outcome.
Even so, it behooves all of us to be more careful about our choice of target/target recognition/presence of an adequate backstop in future.
The bloke was still assaulted, whether there was intent or not. If you're pointing and then discharging a high powered rifle at something you had better be sure what it is you're shooting at. It was quite evident that the shooter in this case did know what he was shooting at 100%, if he had, he would either have lowered the rifle and not released the shot or killed a fox.
Still, I get your point.
I agree with Gary and he should lose his ticket. The shooter will probably still get his ass sued.
Dazz
Good message to the other FAC holders eh ?
Go be careless, kill somebody and as long as you say sorry you can keep your ticket because we feel you wont do it again !
He did something so stupid he must be punished. Not criminal but so careless he is not fit to have an FAC
Registered User
Edit: cant be arsed to start a fight over something that has already happened, it wont change anything.
Last edited by Whippet.22; 27-08-2004 at 07:38 PM.
Registered User
Been quiet here again for a day or two!
Registered User
i agree, totally mate. fair enough it was a terrible mistake but he should of not fired until he was sure what it was he had in his sights.Originally posted by Gary C
Fair do. But he should lose his ticket. He has shown himself to be irresponsible. Sure he's learned his lesson no doubt but IMHO he was negligent.
Fireman Sam
Exactly if your not 100% sure of the target then you should'nt pull the trigger, should you?Originally posted by gaz gun man
i agree, totally mate. fair enough it was a terrible mistake but he should of not fired until he was sure what it was he had in his sights.
Kev
You laugh at me because I'm strange I laugh at you because your stupid!
A Turkey is for Christmas not for life.
Registered User
nope, with any rifle you have to be sure of a clean kill, and with rimfire you have to be double certain of your backstop.
when using rim all i could think about was where would that round end up.
how he could just fire from only seeing the eyes i dont know, especially at night!
Not firing until your sure of what you have in your sight seems a a very good idea.
Has anyone any thoughts on not putting your rifle up until you know what you're pointing it at? I've never felt terribly happy about making identification through a 'scope.
Or am I being characteristically overcautious again?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote