Thread: Mistaken for game hunting accidents and human factors report

Originally Posted by Ranger 888

The problem I have with this judge is that she has sent the wrong message to all hunters-so, if I do stuff up big time and blow away my mate, I'll walk free.
The guy that shot his son did not stare intently for 20 minutes at "the deer" and view it from several different angles before he carefully took the shot as he claimed in Court- he saw a movement, thought it was a deer because he "wanted" it to be a deer, brought his rifle up and "Bang".Often, we come under the influence of buck fever because we may have hunted unsuccessfully for hours and seen nothing, and our frustration and anxiety over rules our common sense. I agree with the last post- given the right circumstances, it could happen to most of us.

Rubbish .... thats even more ridiculous that suggesting that tougher sentences would act as deterrent. Because that father was found to be not negligent, I'll just go out and blaze away? Deterence (fear of punishment) doesn't work for intentional crime, no chance of it working for unintended outcomes...

People shoot things because they think its something they are hunting. People are often careless, but not all are.... no-one will really know in any incident what that person experiences, but anyone who has had anything to do with people's recall of what has happened to them, knows that what people experience varies from person to person, when all are seeing the exact same scenario. Any policeman interviewing witnesses knows that to be true. It's the courts job to determine negligence. That court on balance called not... like R93 the 20 minutes thing makes you wonder, but remember the test is beyond all reasonable doubt.... the prosecution have to establish negligence for it to be applied...

The best chance of building awareness, is regular reminders of the trauma. So, frequent shootings are prescribed, not frequent court cases. Who thinks that is a good idea? If we are more aware we should be more likely to be careful. Proof of that is drink-drive social marketing.... they advertise outcomes, not court sentences. Who actually knows what the likely penalties are for varying drink driving offences.....? I haven't got a clue, thats not what stops me....