Another teen dies from Hunting Accident

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

Seen it on the local news that a teenager was killed while hunting with his Grandfather..

My heart goes out to the family that lost their son..I hope I will never have to deal with something like that..

What I do not understand is that this man said.. he seen something in the bushes move and took a shot.. is that normal shooting at stuff you cannot see? I do not hunt nor do I know how to hunt deer or anything.. but why shoot at something you cant see or know what it is..granted, they should have worn Orange.. but being behind a bush or some thicket. .would that have mattered?

I dont know why but this story really bothered me as it was really preventable..

who is at fault here ?

I am sure the dude who shot and killed the teenager feels horrid and wished he could take it back but why take a shot at a moving bush?

Its just really sad..and all to common it seems

Friends remember KY teen killed in hunting accident | wbir.com

[Parrothead]

Prayers to the family....

this stuff scares me--i don't hunt but i think a orange hat/vest would be cheap insurance while in the woods during hunting season. I often worry about this type of situation while in the woods hiking/biking/etc. Maybe a orange vest for the lab would be a good idea also..............

[Guest pfries]

Identify your target and know what is beyond it.

Rules to always be followed weather at the range, hunting, or whatever.

My thoughts go out to the family as well, terrible needless tragedy.

I would dare say he is at fault by all means in all manners.

I went out to help track one that a friend shot on Thanksgiving morning at my place, it was not a clean shot she was still moving when I caught up with her. I took the saftey off my rifle and then put it back on. The direction I would have had to shoot and the distance through the wood line was not enough to make me feel safe as a neghbor has horses in the adjoining field and there was only about 120 yards to the fence line. I pulled out the hand gun, always, always think.

Edited November 29, 2011 by pfries

[mikegideon]

Identify your target and know what is beyond it.

Rules to always be followed weather at the range, hunting, or whatever.

QUOTE]

This. It's real simple. Shooting a brown person is every bit as careless as shooting an orange one.

[Guest WyattEarp]

if you can't identify what you're shooting at, don't pull the trigger. I'll be surprised if charges aren't filed for negligent homicide.

[enfield]

I count 4 acts of negligence: 1. victim didn't wear orange, 2, grandfather didn't wear orange, 3. grandfather didn't make victim wear orange, 4. shooter didn't identify his target.

There were no accidents involved - it was all assignable negligence.

I wonder if the kid took the hunter safety course?

Edited November 29, 2011 by enfield

[DaveTN]

Prayers to the family.

A 15 year old kid is dead because of the reckless act of another hunter. A Jury should decide his fate.

[Dolomite_supafly]

There is but one person to blame here, the hunter (Rowland) who shot and killed the child. He shot onto an adjacent property when he killed the child.

Can't blame the child or the grandfather for not wearing orange. And honestly with a hunter shooting at moving bushes I am not sure an orange vest or hat would have really made a difference.

At a bare minimum the hunter should loose all access to firearms for life. He should not be allowed to get another hunting or fishing license for the rest of his life. Auction off all his firearms, hunting and fishing related items with the proceeds going to the child's family.

As far as time in jail he should spend some, I wouldn't say the rest of his life but enough time to greatly impact the rest of his life. Perhaps 3-5 years in prison then probatoin for the remainder of his life.

It was completly avoidable by Rowland and he should held accountable.

Dolomite

[M4sherman]

I have seen way to many 30-50lb deer brought into the plant not to wear orange. Alot of these guys are just taking shots at anything orange

[mikegideon]

Yep, the deer died because he couldn't paint himself orange. Other than that, he looked like everything else that moves.

[oldogy]

Many safety violations here, some mentioned above. The grandfather is already dying a thousand deaths over this accident and will continue to do so.

oldogy

[BrasilNuts]

The blame/responsibility is on the man that pulled the trigger.

In my opinion wearing orange or not wearing has nothing to do with the fact that young man is dead.

The gun did not go off on it's own, that man made a conscious decision to pull the trigger and he should be held liable.

What a stupid waste.

[Grunt67]

Several violations here.

TN law requires 500sq. inches of orange, including on the head. Neither the boy or Grandfather

had either.

"If" this was a buck only hunt, a legal buck must have antlers a minimun of 3 inches. You

have to clearly see a deer to tell if a buck has 3" of antlers. Hard to do even then.

"If" this was an antlerless hunt, you still have to clearly identify the target.

None of this happened. Plenty of blame to go around.

Wearing orange hasn't always prevented an idiot from shooting either.

[Guest WyattEarp]

I count 4 acts of negligence: 1. victim didn't wear orange, 2, grandfather didn't wear orange, 3. grandfather didn't make victim wear orange, 4. shooter didn't identify his target.

There were no accidents involved - it was all assignable negligence.

I wonder if the kid took the hunter safety course?

sorry, I disagree. 3 counts of lack of common sense (which is not a crime), and 1 count of negligence.

wearing orange is not required by Tennessee law as noted in the article, and I'm sure hindsight is 20/20 for the Grandfather, and that's something he's gonna have to live with for the rest of his life, but to say it was negligent, that's a tough one in my book when there really was nothing done wrong from a legal standpoint. morally, maybe. but there's a lot of people who don't practice common sense or do morally questionable things.

IMO, the hunter had no right to fire when he couldn't see what he was shooting at. How did he even know what he was shooting at was in season? If he was hunting deer, how does he know it wasn't a baby cow in the bushes that had gotten loose or strayed off? or a coyote, or a raccoon? or a protected animal on the endangered species list?

[Grunt67]

sorry, I disagree. 3 counts of lack of common sense (which is not a crime), and 1 count of negligence.

wearing orange is not required by Tennessee law as noted in the article, and I'm sure hindsight is 20/20 for the Grandfather, and that's something he's gonna have to live with for the rest of his life, but to say it was negligent, that's a tough one in my book when there really was nothing done wrong from a legal standpoint. morally, maybe. but there's a lot of people who don't practice common sense or do morally questionable things.

IMO, the hunter had no right to fire when he couldn't see what he was shooting at. How did he even know what he was shooting at was in season? If he was hunting deer, how does he know it wasn't a baby cow in the bushes that had gotten loose or strayed off? or a coyote, or a raccoon? or a protected animal on the endangered species list?

From TWRA website:

Fluorescent "Blaze" Orange Requirements

Hunters must wear on the upper portion of their body and head a minimum of 500-square inches of daylight fluorescent orange (blaze orange), visible front and back, while hunting big game except on archery-only and turkey hunts. (A hat and vest fulfills requirements.) Blaze orange camo is legal if it contains 500 square inches of fluorescent orange. In those areas where the archery-only deer season dates overlap with another big game gun season (i. e. bear or boar), archers are required to wear 500 square inches of daylight fluorescent orange (TCA-70-4-124).

[M4sherman]

Sorry but orange or not the Hunter did not confirm his target before he opened fire. It is simply a case of a over excited hunter shooting the first thing that moves.

[Caster]

There is but one person to blame here, the hunter (Rowland) who shot and killed the child. He shot onto an adjacent property when he killed the child.

Can't blame the child or the grandfather for not wearing orange. And honestly with a hunter shooting at moving bushes I am not sure an orange vest or hat would have really made a difference.

At a bare minimum the hunter should loose all access to firearms for life. He should not be allowed to get another hunting or fishing license for the rest of his life. Auction off all his firearms, hunting and fishing related items with the proceeds going to the child's family.

As far as time in jail he should spend some, I wouldn't say the rest of his life but enough time to greatly impact the rest of his life. Perhaps 3-5 years in prison then probatoin for the remainder of his life.

It was completly avoidable by Rowland and he should held accountable.

Dolomite

I agree and would add. I pray this guy lives a long life. I hope he lives to be atleast 100 years old. I hope and pray his mind holds clear and dementia never darkens his door. Jail time isn't enough and executing him does nothing. Strip him of his rights, pray he lives for a long time and remind him constantly that his idiocy took some poor mothers child away.

I just don't understand how a man could be so stupid. These people should not be allowed to breed.

Prayers for the family. With a little luck the kid is hunting some serious Upland game in the Elysian fields right now.

[10-Ring]

Absolutely senseless, the court system should really hang Rowland out to dry. There is no excuse for this at all.

[shortround]

From TWRA website:

Fluorescent "Blaze" Orange Requirements

Hunters must wear on the upper portion of their body and head a minimum of 500-square inches of daylight fluorescent orange (blaze orange), visible front and back, while hunting big game except on archery-only and turkey hunts. (A hat and vest fulfills requirements.) Blaze orange camo is legal if it contains 500 square inches of fluorescent orange. In those areas where the archery-only deer season dates overlap with another big game gun season (i. e. bear or boar), archers are required to wear 500 square inches of daylight fluorescent orange (TCA-70-4-124).

'...while hunting big game...'. The article says that it isn't clear what they were hunting. One of them was apparently carrying a .22 and the other a .243.

[Grunt67]

'...while hunting big game...'. The article says that it isn't clear what they were hunting. One of them was apparently carrying a .22 and the other a .243.

That's true. Could have been hunting both, who knows at this point. I was just pointing

out what the law is regarding orange/big game, FWIW.

Maybe we can get an update when the investigation gets further along.

Senseless tragedy regardless.

[DaveTN]

Why all the hoopla about orange; it isn’t even a factor here. The kid was on his Grandfathers property, if he had just been playing out in the field he wouldn’t be required to wear orange; but he would be just as dead.

Nothing can justify pulling the trigger on a target you have not positively identified.

[Guest WyattEarp]

From TWRA website:

Fluorescent "Blaze" Orange Requirements

Hunters must wear on the upper portion of their body and head a minimum of 500-square inches of daylight fluorescent orange (blaze orange), visible front and back, while hunting big game except on archery-only and turkey hunts. (A hat and vest fulfills requirements.) Blaze orange camo is legal if it contains 500 square inches of fluorescent orange. In those areas where the archery-only deer season dates overlap with another big game gun season (i. e. bear or boar), archers are required to wear 500 square inches of daylight fluorescent orange (TCA-70-4-124).

from the article.

"According to Chester Ellison of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Tennessee hunting laws do not require small game hunters to wear orange during big game season. It is open season now for deer, as well as several small animals. TWRA is not sure at this point what Smith and Duffield were hunting. They were carrying a .22 rifle, which would be appropriate for small game, and a .243 high powered rifle, which could be used to hunt deer."

[shortround]

Why all the hoopla about orange; it isn’t even a factor here. The kid was on his Grandfathers property, if he had just been playing out in the field he wouldn’t be required to wear orange; but he would be just as dead.

Nothing can justify pulling the trigger on a target you have not positively identified.

My thoughts exactly.

[vontar]

One owns the bullet once fired. One needs to know the target and that is safe beyond.

When I am out hunting and set up my spot. I know my firing directions and if there are any questionable areas I should not fire. I also try to know of any hunters that may be in the general area such as the direction Dad is hunting.

As the Story said a KY teen. I wonder if they had out of State hunting license to be hunting in Claiborne county TN?

Edited November 30, 2011 by vontar

[10-Ring]

I wonder if they had out of State hunting license to be hunting in Claiborne county TN?

Don't think an out of state license would have saved him, if he didn't already have one.