• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Young hunter who killed hiker gets 30 days

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,247
Location
, South Carolina, USA
imported post

You probably recall there was much discussion about this case on here when it happened. The results are in.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31860742/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/



MOUNT VERNON, Washington - A teenage hunter who shot and killed a hiker he mistook for a bear has been sentenced to 30 days in juvenile detention and 120 hours of community service.

Tyler J. Kales, then 14, was hunting with his older brother in August when he shot 54-year-old Pamela Almli of Oso, who was trekking on the popular Sauk mountain hiking trail north of Seattle.

Kales, who has since turned 15, apologized to the victim's family at Friday's sentencing and said he hoped they could forgive him.


The victim's sister, Gail Blacker, told him that "in one second you destroyed everything."
Kales, of Concrete, was convicted last month of second-degree manslaughter with a firearm.

Skagit County Superior Court Judge Susan Cook also sentenced him to a year of probation and said his community service must include four hours of hunting safety education.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

I missed the discussion the first time around so I think I'll throw in...



"Mandatory trainings violates my rights!!!!1!!"

"Age requirements are arbitrary and violate my rights!!!!!!!!"

:quirky



And how the hell do you mistake a person for a bear, at any distance, at any age?
 

thx997303

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
2,712
Location
Lehi, Utah, USA
imported post

Wait a second there, they're talking about hunter safety, not gun training. There is nothing in the constitution specifically about hunting.

Though one could stretch something and get it in there. But it is not an enumerated right.

So hunters safety training is not a violation of our rights.

And really, I don't believe hunters safety really makes anyone much safer.

This guys just a little slow I think.
 

thorvaldr

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
263
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
imported post

Once more, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting. Hunting is a potentially dangerous activity often, as in this case, carried out on public land and utilizing a public resource (the game). The government has every right to institute age limits, and require training and safety equipment. A hunters safety card is a reasonably priced permit to use a public resource just like a drivers license.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

I forgot, guns are suddenly more dangerous when hunting. :quirky

If the kid mistakes old ladies for bears during a non-threatening hunt scenario,then I can't even imaginehow (in)accurate his split-secondself-defense thought process would be.
 

chiefjason

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
1,025
Location
Hickory, NC, ,
imported post

AWDstylez wrote:
And how the hell do you mistake a person for a bear, at any distance, at any age?

The term used around here is a "brush shot". It's a terrible idea and violates the know your target rule of gun safety. The term seems to have developed when folks shoot at the brush that is moving thinking it is the animal they are after. So you never technically "mistake" the victim for the animal. It's worse, you fire at an unknown target into brush you cannot see. That seems to be the predominate way these things happen.

Also, some folks will investigate the movement with a scoped rifle. Which has you pointing a loaded rifle at an unknown target.

When I was around 15 I had a guy walkeddown a draw where I was hunting. I had the gun up, pointed in his direction, waiting for something to show itself. I never saw the blaze orange vest till he stepped out of the rhododendron thicket. He never saw me, but it scared me something serious. Valuable lesson learned there. You have to be extra careful on public land, especially multi use areas.
 

thx997303

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2008
Messages
2,712
Location
Lehi, Utah, USA
imported post

Yes, hunting is a much more dangerous activity than going about your daily life armed.

Usually, when hunting you have a loaded rifle in your hands, while walking through rough terrain, looking to actively kill an elusive animal, while others you don't know do the same thing.

And once again, the second ammendment is not about hunting.

And yes, the kid needs to go through some training. We all are proponents of training, just not mandatory training.

The kid has some bad judgement.
 

GWRedDragon

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
252
Location
Arlington, Virginia, USA
imported post

The right to bear arms does not include the right to shoot innocent people or animals on public land :uhoh:

It says right there in the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms is for the keeping of a citizen-militia. Thus the 2nd amendment protects your right to have arms and do exercises that ensure your ability to fight in a militia against whoever threatens the people.

Banning shooting ranges would not be allowed. Banning 'assault weapons' or pistols would not be allowed. Banning carry of military firearms in any area, including forests and such, would not be allowed.

Banning hunting on public lands would be allowed. Banning guns designed solely for hunting which have no military purpose would be allowed.

Just my take on the 2a :lol:
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

thx997303 wrote:
And yes, the kid needs to go through some training. We all are proponents of training, just not mandatory training.


I support laws too, just not when they're requirements... or when I have to follow them... or when I don't like them... or...

So when I say "support," I guess what I really mean is that I just hope Joe Moron will be responsible and decide to do it himself. Now that's misplaced trust if I've ever seen it.

There's a reason things are made mandatory, so stuff like this happens less often.



Loaded rifle -loaded pistol... don't see the difference.

Rough terrain with five people per square mile -tile floor of the mall with 5 people per square yard... different? Sure. One less dangerous than the other... yea, the mall has infinitely greater disaster potential.

Scoping out animals in the bush with all the time in the world to plan, think, and act - nearly instinctual self-defence action requiring literally split-second decision making with impeccable judgment... different? Sure. One less dangerous than the other... yea, the hunting scenario is low stress, simple, and done in your own time and comfort zone, the self-defence scenario is anything but.


Again, let's get a little common sense drilled in peoples' heads before giving them guns, and let's keep the guns away from kids becausethey can't tell a bear from a woman.
 

N00blet45

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
475
Location
Walton County, Georgia, ,
imported post

GWRedDragon wrote:
The right to bear arms does not include the right to shoot innocent people or animals on public land :uhoh:

It says right there in the 2nd amendment, the right to bear arms is for the keeping of a citizen-militia. Thus the 2nd amendment protects your right to have arms and do exercises that ensure your ability to fight in a militia against whoever threatens the people.

Banning shooting ranges would not be allowed. Banning 'assault weapons' or pistols would not be allowed. Banning carry of military firearms in any area, including forests and such, would not be allowed.

Banning hunting on public lands would be allowed. Banning guns designed solely for hunting which have no military purpose would be allowed.

Just my take on the 2a :lol:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -2nd Amendment, US Constitution

While I do agree that the 2nd amendment was meant mainly to protect man portable arms of war rather than weapons designed for killing game I still have a problem restricting arms in any way. The second part says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not make any exemptions or exclusions nor does it mention any types of arms, just arms. So it must apply to all arms, not just those designed for military use and not just firearms either.

The first part of the amendment is called a prefatory clause. It states why the amendment exists. It doesn't modify it to only include arms specifically designed for militia use. It simply states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. This clause is used as justification for the people being armed, not as the measure of what qualifies as acceptable use. If it was that it only meant weapons used by militias then a lot of common firearms could be argued against (some shotguns, some pistols, .22 rifles, revolvers, etc).
 

GWRedDragon

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
252
Location
Arlington, Virginia, USA
imported post

N00blet45 wrote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." -2nd Amendment, US Constitution

While I do agree that the 2nd amendment was meant mainly to protect man portable arms of war rather than weapons designed for killing game I still have a problem restricting arms in any way. The second part says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not make any exemptions or exclusions nor does it mention any types of arms, just arms. So it must apply to all arms, not just those designed for military use and not just firearms either.

The first part of the amendment is called a prefatory clause. It states why the amendment exists. It doesn't modify it to only include arms specifically designed for militia use. It simply states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. This clause is used as justification for the people being armed, not as the measure of what qualifies as acceptable use. If it was that it only meant weapons used by militias then a lot of common firearms could be argued against (some shotguns, some pistols, .22 rifles, revolvers, etc).
Well, I think what 'arms' they were talking about does matter. Should a person be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? It has no bearing whatsoever on a militia, does it, and it poses a serious threat: someday the technology for such WMDs may be so trivial that even a lone crazy person would be able to easily recreate it. If we do not restrict such 'arms', at that point society is doomed.

I think it is safe to say that such 'arms' were nowhere within the imagination of the people who ratified the 2nd amendment. So in translating what they were trying to say to modern technology, it helps to look at the purpose of the 2a in the first place: to allow the people the weapons needed to fight a war against tyranny, either from abroad or from home. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think the most logical place is at 'weapons suitable for normal infantry troop use', though I would be willing to entertain an alternate 'anything designed for combat other than WMD' theory as well.
 

N00blet45

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
475
Location
Walton County, Georgia, ,
imported post

GWRedDragon wrote:
Well, I think what 'arms' they were talking about does matter. Should a person be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? It has no bearing whatsoever on a militia, does it, and it poses a serious threat: someday the technology for such WMDs may be so trivial that even a lone crazy person would be able to easily recreate it. If we do not restrict such 'arms', at that point society is doomed.

I think it is safe to say that such 'arms' were nowhere within the imagination of the people who ratified the 2nd amendment. So in translating what they were trying to say to modern technology, it helps to look at the purpose of the 2a in the first place: to allow the people the weapons needed to fight a war against tyranny, either from abroad or from home. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think the most logical place is at 'weapons suitable for normal infantry troop use', though I would be willing to entertain an alternate 'anything designed for combat other than WMD' theory as well.
So we go from not for hunting to not including nukes? We shouldn't allow people to have nukes because they're too effective against the government but hunting rifles aren't allowed because they're not effective enough?

It can be assumed that the word "arms" in the 2nd amendment refers to personal weapons, man portable.

A nuclear weapon is an entirely different beast, you can't go to the hardware store and buy the parts and just make one. If that were true Iran would have had one a long time ago, as well as all the other crazies in the Middle East and Africa. As it is now only twenty some odd countries have the technology, knowledge, and funding to create nuclear weapons.

One could argue against planes and and tanks too. Even though they are readily available to the public they still aren't everywhere. They cost way too much for anyone but collectors to have them.
 

shad0wfax

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,069
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
imported post

GWRedDragon wrote:
Well, I think what 'arms' they were talking about does matter. Should a person be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? It has no bearing whatsoever on a militia, does it, and it poses a serious threat: someday the technology for such WMDs may be so trivial that even a lone crazy person would be able to easily recreate it. If we do not restrict such 'arms', at that point society is doomed.

I think it is safe to say that such 'arms' were nowhere within the imagination of the people who ratified the 2nd amendment. So in translating what they were trying to say to modern technology, it helps to look at the purpose of the 2a in the first place: to allow the people the weapons needed to fight a war against tyranny, either from abroad or from home. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think the most logical place is at 'weapons suitable for normal infantry troop use', though I would be willing to entertain an alternate 'anything designed for combat other than WMD' theory as well.

What was the most powerful weapon available to the colonists at the time of the American Revolution?

The Cannon was the weapon of mass destruction of the late 1700s. The militia had in fact buried a cannon at Concord specifically to resist the British troops.

Thus by absolutely logical extension, the well-regulated militias should have Strykers with a M68A1E4 105 mm cannon, M2 or MK240 HMG or MMG respectively and MK19 40mm launchers. The well-regulated militias should also have M1A1 or M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks and M2/M3 Bradley Tracked Armored Fighting Vehicles. All of the variants of the HMMWV (including ones with TOW missiles) are necessary to the security of a free state as well.

In fact, the only thing Congress has specific rights to that the states do not is the power to manage the Navy.

Why did our founding fathers choose to have the Navy seperate from the states? Because it was capable of projecting power abroad and it was capable of fighting wars abroad. Since only Congress has the power to declare war, it makes sense that Congress would control the means of projecting power to foreign countries.

Thus, by logical extension, the long range capabilities of the Air Force (especially long range bombers and air to air refueling tankers) are something I believe Congress should control. However, I believe fighter jets and short range aircraft, such as helicopters, are definitely within the militias rights to control as they only protect local areas and do not project armed might abroad in terms of foreign conflict. (At least not without the aid of aircraft carriers or air to air refueling tankers, which would both be controlled by Congress.) Long range nuclear weapons, such as ICBMs should logically be controlled by Congress.

To make a long story short, a standing army is unconstitutional and all of the weapons employed by the US Army should fall under the control of each individual states well-regulated militias. Furthermore, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear such arms should not be infringed.

Yes, I'm making a case for private ownership of M203 40mm grenade launchers. Yes, I'm making a case for private ownership of RPGs, Mah-Deuce, M240s in turrets on top of vehicles, etc. It's constitutional.
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

I don't know why any non-hunterwould want to go trapesing around in the woods during hunting season anyway. I sure as hell don't do it. Too much of a chance of a hunter taking a shot he shouldn't.

I'd like to know how one mistakes a hiker for a bear too. Obviously, this kid didn't get a good look at his target before he pulled the trigger.

When I was a kid in school, the game warden came out to the school and conducted hunter safety classes. They always stressed to "be sure of your target" and never shoot into a bush. They even had a film to demonstrate how easy it would be to mistake another hunter, in or behind a bush or other foilage,for game.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,121
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:
I don't know why any non-hunterwould want to go trapesing around in the woods during hunting season anyway. I sure as hell don't do it. Too much of a chance of a hunter taking a shot he shouldn't.
Back before I knew anything about hunting I would go hiking during deer season in Pennsylvania completely ignorant that guys with rifles were in the area looking for something to shoot at.

Once I found out I was way more careful, but the problem is that if you're a non-hunter you may not even be aware that hunting is going on at the moment.

Then there is the annoyance of having to arrange outdoor activities around the schedules of hunting seasons, which is a pain.

Unless the hunting grounds are made off-limits to non-hunters and posted as such hunters will have to deal with the hassle of having other people around and they will have to be sure of what they are shooting at.

It would be nice if you could truly rely on hunters to not shoot at you, but that's not reassuring enough for me. Especially when the hunters you stumble across are angry that you've chased the game away.
 

GWRedDragon

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
252
Location
Arlington, Virginia, USA
imported post

shad0wfax wrote:
What was the most powerful weapon available to the colonists at the time of the American Revolution?

The Cannon was the weapon of mass destruction of the late 1700s. The militia had in fact buried a cannon at Concord specifically to resist the British troops.

*snip*

To make a long story short, a standing army is unconstitutional and all of the weapons employed by the US Army should fall under the control of each individual states well-regulated militias. Furthermore, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear such arms should not be infringed.

Yes, I'm making a case for private ownership of M203 40mm grenade launchers. Yes, I'm making a case for private ownership of RPGs, Mah-Deuce, M240s in turrets on top of vehicles, etc. It's constitutional.
This argument seems quite logical.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

shad0wfax wrote:
GWRedDragon wrote:
Well, I think what 'arms' they were talking about does matter. Should a person be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? It has no bearing whatsoever on a militia, does it, and it poses a serious threat: someday the technology for such WMDs may be so trivial that even a lone crazy person would be able to easily recreate it. If we do not restrict such 'arms', at that point society is doomed.

I think it is safe to say that such 'arms' were nowhere within the imagination of the people who ratified the 2nd amendment. So in translating what they were trying to say to modern technology, it helps to look at the purpose of the 2a in the first place: to allow the people the weapons needed to fight a war against tyranny, either from abroad or from home. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I think the most logical place is at 'weapons suitable for normal infantry troop use', though I would be willing to entertain an alternate 'anything designed for combat other than WMD' theory as well.

What was the most powerful weapon available to the colonists at the time of the American Revolution?

The Cannon was the weapon of mass destruction of the late 1700s. The militia had in fact buried a cannon at Concord specifically to resist the British troops.

Thus by absolutely logical extension, the well-regulated militias should have Strykers with a M68A1E4 105 mm cannon, M2 or MK240 HMG or MMG respectively and MK19 40mm launchers. The well-regulated militias should also have M1A1 or M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks and M2/M3 Bradley Tracked Armored Fighting Vehicles. All of the variants of the HMMWV (including ones with TOW missiles) are necessary to the security of a free state as well.

In fact, the only thing Congress has specific rights to that the states do not is the power to manage the Navy.

Why did our founding fathers choose to have the Navy seperate from the states? Because it was capable of projecting power abroad and it was capable of fighting wars abroad. Since only Congress has the power to declare war, it makes sense that Congress would control the means of projecting power to foreign countries.

Thus, by logical extension, the long range capabilities of the Air Force (especially long range bombers and air to air refueling tankers) are something I believe Congress should control. However, I believe fighter jets and short range aircraft, such as helicopters, are definitely within the militias rights to control as they only protect local areas and do not project armed might abroad in terms of foreign conflict. (At least not without the aid of aircraft carriers or air to air refueling tankers, which would both be controlled by Congress.) Long range nuclear weapons, such as ICBMs should logically be controlled by Congress.

To make a long story short, a standing army is unconstitutional and all of the weapons employed by the US Army should fall under the control of each individual states well-regulated militias. Furthermore, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear such arms should not be infringed.

Yes, I'm making a case for private ownership of M203 40mm grenade launchers. Yes, I'm making a case for private ownership of RPGs, Mah-Deuce, M240s in turrets on top of vehicles, etc. It's constitutional.


Wow, that was pretty solid. Thumbs up to you, sir.
 
Top