Another teen dies from Hunting Accident

[jtmaze]

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

Well said. I grew up in rural West TN and we(my friends and I) played in the woods year round. My mom always made sure I wore orange during hunting season no matter how hard it made it to hide from your friends. But safety 1st.

JTM🔫

Sent from my iPhone

[greenego]

One of my college professors said he would never go in the woods during deer season because of hunters. A follow classmate began defending deer hunting and told him how wrong he was. I read my classmate obituary a couple years later, kill while deer hunting. That was almost 40 years ago.

Please be careful out there.

[Guest capt usa]

The grandfather and grandson had .22s and a .243 rifle, sounds like they were squirrel hunting (no orange needed) untill they saw a deer (then orange needed). In my opinion, that's why they had two guns. Yes, they should have had on orange since they had a big game rifle (but who knows, maybe they were coyote hunting with it).

No hunting license needed for grandchildren under the age of 16 hunting on grandfathers land. You must be a TN resident if your the landowner or child.

As far as a hunters saftey course, sounds like Mr. Rowland was the one who needed it, he's 66 years old which means he grandfathered in and didn't have to take it. I grandfathered in and have taken it three times (probably again when my 9 yr old takes it next year).

To make a clean kill (ain't that what we're supposed to do), you need a clear sight picture to the target. You should aim small and miss small, not spray and pray.

Mr. Rowland is 100% at fault for not knowing his target and what's behind it.

[R_Bert]

The guy who shot the boy is facing charges - Claiborne County hunter faces charges in teen's death » Knoxville News Sentinel

Edited December 20, 2011 by R_Bert

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

Glad to hear it..

Sadly, some judge will have a soft heart and because of his age he will get probation .. or nothing at all..

I hope not tho

[Guest FTG-05]

#1: I wish the papers and media would call this what it is: negligent homicide, not an "accident".

#2: I fervently wish that the shooter spends a good portion of his remaining time and money on this earth for negligently shooting this kid. There is simply no excuse for this. He was 45 yards away from a human being and he still pulled the trigger!!!

[Guest nysos]

Different situation, lets say that.....

I am sitting in my house about to clean a rifle. I don't clear the rifle because I think it is already unloaded, and as a result end up cranking off a shot that goes out my front window. The round hits a kid walking down the road in front of my house. Charges would be brought against me and I would go to jail.

I don't see how the fact that hunting has any bearing on this. The only thing that may have been an attribute is the kid wearing camo, so it would have made it harder to ID him. So that means Rowland should have waited til he saw whatever was in the brush, come out of it before shooting.

Trigger happy over anxious hunter....I wonder if he was sitting up in a tree stand with a six pack to keep him company that afternoon?

[ttocswob]

FWIW: From 2011 Hunting and Trapping guide page 14:

“FARMLAND OWNER LICENSE EXEMPTION”

“…Landowners and their children hunting on their parent’s land under this exemption are also exempt from Hunter Education Certification requirements and blaze orange requirements.”

Despite the news article, the grandfather was not required to wear orange on his own property. In any case, the responsibility lies solely with the shooter.

[mikegideon]

FWIW: From 2011 Hunting and Trapping guide page 14:

“FARMLAND OWNER LICENSE EXEMPTION”

“…Landowners and their children hunting on their parent’s land under this exemption are also exempt from Hunter Education Certification requirements and blaze orange requirements.”

Despite the news article, the grandfather was not required to wear orange on his own property. In any case, the responsibility lies solely with the shooter.

He shot an unidentified moving target. Orange is irrelevant in this case. I don't disagree with its use, since it can prevent someone from taking a shot when another hunter may be behind a valid target. I think that was the original intent anyway.

[ttocswob]

Agreed that orange is irrelevant - but the TWRA guide contradicts this statement from the article, as Mr. Duffield was on his own property:

Duffield and Rowland were required by state law to wear a minimum of 500 square inches of orange while engaged in a deer hunt. Because Smith's weapon is not suitable for hunting deer, he was not required to wear orange.

IMO, the sheriff can't see criminally negligent homicide thru his orange colored glasses.

[DaveTN]

IMO, the sheriff can't see criminally negligent homicide thru his orange colored glasses.

The DA and a Grand Jury did.