Woman shot while mountain biking

[peakbagger]

https://www.boston.com/news/local-n...shot-woman-riding-bike-on-new-hampshire-trail

No indication on if she had high visibility fabrics on like hunters orange. I realize there is no legal requirement for the rider to do so but I would rather be safe then shot at.

 

[hikerbrian]

From the linked article:

"Investigators have talked to the hunter. It’s unclear if he will be charged."

We obviously don't have all of the details, but I just don't understand this statement.

 

[TCD]

There are many possible circumstances; and there is such a thing as an accident. It's not automatic that the hunter is to be prosecuted.

Maybe she was wearing this:

 

[Lost Dad]

It is a regional thing. I split my time between MA & ME. In MA nobody even considers that hunting might be an option; people rarely wear orange. In ME, you don't go outside in the fall without wearing Blaze orange; especially in November. I'd take it a step further and recommend not wearing white in November. A number of years ago, a woman was killed by a hunter while hanging her laundry outside to dry. Despite the fact that she was right near her house, the court of popular opinion found her to be guilty as she was wearing white mittens.

In hunting season, I think that a good offense is best....I don't ever want to be caught saying, " maybe I should have worn my blaze orange"

 

[egilbe]

From the linked article:

"Investigators have talked to the hunter. It’s unclear if he will be charged."

We obviously don't have all of the details, but I just don't understand this statement.

Because people who accidently shoot someone are not automatically guilty of a crime.

 

[TJsName]

I hope this person is going to make a full recovery.

I was taught that you don't pull the trigger unless you're certain what you're shooting at and what's beyond your target. I hope this standard is taught to everyone who uses a gun, but I'm not familiar with what it takes to get a hunting license/gun permit. I'd be interested if someone could elaborate.

Blaming a person for getting shot because of what the victim was wearing is a great way for a perpetrator to absolve themselves of guilt (external attribution), but it fails to address the situation objectively. My hunch is this was an accident, which typically requires multiple things to go wrong. Pinpointing those factors and assessing responsibility is complex and difficult. Assigning any portion of blame to the victim based on a single (and as of now, unknown) factor is irresponsible. Should you wear bright colors in hunting season to improve your visibility? Yes. If you don't, does it mean it's justified if someone shoots you? No.

 

[peakbagger]

When someone gets in a car accident unless there is probable cause the drivers don't necessarily get arrested. Generally F&G takes awhile to investigate and they could file charges later on as they generally aren't worried about flight risk. Far more folks killed on the roads by two or three ton weapons then in the woods. I will take a walk in the woods during hunting season with orange on over a drive down 495 or 128 in Mass where every other driver appears to be glued to a cell phone, checking facebook or texting away while waving in and out of the passing lane 20 feet from my bumper. it comes down to folks will accept very high risks through shear repetition while much lower risks are feared as they are not familiar.

Of course even though criminal charges aren't filed that doesn't mean the hunter is off the hook, civil damages generally require a far lower bar to be crossed so litigation by the injured party is a good possibility.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

NH Fishing and Game always says "You OWN that bullet once you pull the trigger", which is another way of saying I was taught that you don't pull the trigger unless you're certain what you're shooting at and what's beyond your target.

Tim

 

[Ken MacGray]

Know what you're shooting at, no exceptions. The hunter should be charged.

 

[TomK]

I think it is hard to argue that the person who pulled the trigger should not bear civil liability for damage caused by his actions.

But criminal liability is another matter. Even if negligent.

I am aware of a fairly recent, very high profile case where the investigating agency declined criminal prosecution even though they determined that there was gross negligence, because they also made a determination that there was no intent to break any law.

I think that same line of thinking is likely to fit here.

TomK

 

[TJsName]

I think it is hard to argue that the person who pulled the trigger should not bear civil liability for damage caused by his actions.

But criminal liability is another matter. Even if negligent.

I am aware of a fairly recent, very high profile case where the investigating agency declined criminal prosecution even though they determined that there was gross negligence, because they also made a determination that there was no intent to break any law.

I think that same line of thinking is likely to fit here.

TomK

That's a hard standard to be consistent on. Some laws are broken by an act, while others are broken by a failure to act. The line between 'not intending to shoot someone' and 'not following reasonable safety precautions' is thin when it results in someone else getting injured.

 

[CaptCaper]

The Hunter probably was following or stalking a Deer right at that point that he shot.. The press doesn't tell that... it just makes him look like an idiot.

 

[Will]

The Hunter probably was following or stalking a Deer right at that point that he shot.. The press doesn't tell that... it just makes him look like an idiot.

Absolutely!

Many is the time I've seen a Woman biking down the strEet and I've said to Myself, wow that looks like a DeeR. Easy mistake tO make.

Actually, does hunting have anything to do with it? Criminal or civil? One person shoots another; whether in a restaurant or a backyard or a city street; seems to me the courts would apply the same principles. Lots of responsibility when you've got a gun in your hands. Except when you've raised a gun in self-defense, you should always be trying very hard not to shoot anybody, seems to me.

 

[Raven]

The good news is that the original report says she is in good condition. This could have been tragic. My guess is we have a family thankful to be together today given they could have potentially lost a daughter, sister, mother, aunt, friend.

We likely have a hunter in a state of absolute fear, remorse, and regret probably really questioning why he took that shot when it wasn't clear.

Instead of blaming the woman for not having orange and blaming the hunter for his poor judgment, maybe there should be a conversation about where it's okay for hunting and bike paths to coexist.

There are many people in the woods in NH these days. But I think there is far less of an understanding of the rules of hunting from both hunters and non. I did not hunt growing up but have always been around firearms. We were taught how to be in the woods in fall. So were the hunters.

Maybe this is a good reminder to all of us. Take care before pulling that trigger and be smart and wear orange if you don't want to look like game.

 

[egilbe]

There was acase a few years ago of a woman shot and killed while sitting on her balcony. It was determined that the bullet came from a handgun fired in a range two miles away. Is that person also guilty of a crime? Accidents happen. People find a way to.kill themselves in all sorts of stupid ways. Is every death automatically the result of a criminal act? Or, is it only when someone is shot with a firearm?

 

[JToll]

It is a little early to draw any conclusions. Was the woman wearing orange? What time of day did this happen? Was she on a bike path? If so did the hunter shoot across the bike path?

 

[TCD]

Agree with JToll. Lots of folks racing to draw conclusions when we have no idea of the facts. Article has minimal info. Not even sure where this happened... "Near" a certain park means almost nothing. Wait for info before drawing conclusions.

 

[sierra]

Man, some of you guy's should be on his jury if it comes to that. He shot a woman on a bike, he should be held to a criminal standard for sure. Not to mention, she should be talking to a good lawyer to sue his dumb ass. As a hunter, not only should you 100% know what your target is, you should also know, where your bullet will end up, if you miss.

 

[egilbe]

Did he intentionally shoot her? Did he know there was a bike path in the area? Was he shooting at a deer and missed? Until then, it's an accident.

 

[peakbagger]

Man, some of you guy's should be on his jury if it comes to that. He shot a woman on a bike, he should be held to a criminal standard for sure. Not to mention, she should be talking to a good lawyer to sue his dumb ass. As a hunter, not only should you 100% know what your target is, you should also know, where your bullet will end up, if you miss.

The proud American tradition of "guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion"? I have been on juries and the instructions on a criminal trial is innocent until proven guilty. Do you propose getting a rope and a bunch of bike riders, deputize them as deputy sheriffs and hang the individual off the nearest tree branch?

The limited press on this is that F&G is reconstructing the event to rule out accidental causes. That means collecting facts that support or don't support various scenarios. These are accident, negligence and deliberate. If the individual who pulled the trigger had a sniper nest and was aiming for human prey, he would be in jail with probable cause or out on bail. F&G must have decided that this event hasn't risen to that level and thus have decided to investigate and then file charges as appropriate.

Sure the individual who was shot can get a lawyer and I expect the lawyer will definitely try to make some bucks off the deal but I am glad that F&G approaches this objectively.