• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hunter accidentally kills another hunter; should she face criminal charges?

Should she face criminal charges?

  • Total voters
    53
I voted no. I kinda figure that's a risk you assume.
 
Voted yes. Doesn't matter if it was an accident, it's gross negligence manslaughter. I don't know if jail time is necessarily the right solution but she should certainly face criminal charges imo.
 
Depends on the totality of the circumstances. Also, charged is one thing, convicted is another.
 
X Factor said:
Here's the story;

South Carolina hunter shoots and kills a man she mistook for wild hog | News | postandcourier.com

Clealy an accident so not a murder but should she be charged with manslaughter, something else, or nothing at all? Attaching poll.
Click to expand...

Fledermaus said:
What charges?
Click to expand...

That would depend on South Carolina law, and apply under Involuntary Manslaughter. Generally defined as:

[T]he unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

I'd say she might be subject to liability for Criminally Negligent Manslaughter:

It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

She was hunting at night, and this requires a higher degree of care since (as in this case) the assumption should be that other hunters may be in the area and identification of the target must be certain before firing a shot.

I's say that would be the determining factor when the Prosecutor's office makes a decision.
 
Last edited:
X Factor said:
Here's the story;

South Carolina hunter shoots and kills a man she mistook for wild hog | News | postandcourier.com

Clealy an accident so not a murder but should she be charged with manslaughter, something else, or nothing at all? Attaching poll.
Click to expand...

I thought its the hunter's responsibility to make sure they are aiming at an appropriate target. Seems like some penalty is warranted. It also said the victim was on private land. Does that mean she shouldn't have been shooting in that direction?
 
It depends. As long as it was an accident and the hunter was hunting in a lawful manner observing all hunting safety regulations, then he should not be charged. Though he may well face a civil lawsuit.

My grandfather was 3 times on two separate occasions while turkey hunting. The first time the guy that shot him was illegally hunting turkey with buckshot. My pawpaw was shot, he yelled, and the guy shot him again. I told him he must have still had the call in his mouth or something. He was gut shot and it like to have killed him. The guy that shot him was charged with illegally hunting with buckshot.

The third time he was shot, he was shot from about 20 steps by the guy he was hunting with. He was shot from the shoulders through the face.

He loved turkey hunting though and did it until the day he died.
 
Seems like an accident unless there's more to the story (i.e. she knew him and staged this "accident").
 
This is a tough one. I could definitely see this as manslaughter. Hunting at night imo is too dangerous. If people were held accountable for accidents like this it would give them more reason to exercise caution when handling a weapon. She should have taken more time to verify that she was indeed aiming her gun at one of her intended targets before pulling the trigger. I vote yes to manslaughter, I doubt a jury would convict though.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
I'm struggling here to justify how, in any way, that could possibly be described as that particular fallacy.
Click to expand...

She hit his head, yet could not define between a human and a pig. She aimed at a rough mass through a night vision device. That it hit his head and not his ass is likely chance more than "sniper" accuracy.
 
The fact that he was on private land seems important and something nobody is discussing. You are free to walk around like a hog all night every night if you like and nobody should be shooting at you... and a night vision scope?

Shouldn't their be a law regarding being able to positively ID what you are shooting at?

Should camera's be part of the scope so that investigators can see exactly what the shooter shot at?
 
Fledermaus said:
She hit his head, yet could not define between a human and a pig. She aimed at a rough mass through a night vision device. That it hit his head and not his ass is likely chance more than "sniper" accuracy.
Click to expand...

This is my issue, if she couldn't accurately distinguish what her target was then she had no business pulling the trigger and to me signifies negligence. For all she knew it could have been someone's dog.
 
Fledermaus said:
She hit his head, yet could not define between a human and a pig. She aimed at a rough mass through a night vision device. That it hit his head and not his ass is likely chance more than "sniper" accuracy.
Click to expand...

OK, I understand that.

It's not, however, even remotely that fallacy.

The Texas Sharpshooter has to do with data points, and how they're misapplied and given unjustifiable statistical weight.

I think, perhaps, in this case, it could be the as-yet-unrecognized "South Carolina Idiot Tard-Shooter Fallacy".
 
Bodhisattva said:
The fact that he was on private land seems important and something nobody is discussing. You are free to walk around like a hog all night every night if you like and nobody should be shooting at you... and a night vision scope?

Shouldn't their be a law regarding being able to positively ID what you are shooting at?

Should camera's be part of the scope so that investigators can see exactly what the shooter shot at?
Click to expand...

There doesn't really need to be a law against it, take this case. There is a law on the books that can be used to prosecute her based on manslaughter. We don't need extra laws, not having a positive Id of what you are shooting is negligence in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom