# USDA Forest Service Officer Shot, Killed While On Duty



## _BuckMaster_

USDA Forest Service Law Enforcement Officer Christopher Arby Upton, 37, of Monroe Georgia was shot and killed by a hunter who was coyote hunting and mistook him for game at the Ocmulgee Bluff Equestrian Recreation Area in Jasper County around 11 p.m. Friday, according to Robin Hill, Georgia Department of Natural Resources.

The recreational area is located on the Oconoee Ranger District of the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest.  

Two people were hunting coyote with a high-powered rifle equipped with night vision and apparently mistook the officer for game, after the shooting, the hunters dialed 911 and reported a hunting incident, according to a Georgia DNR news release. 

The release said the shooter, Norman Clinton Hale, 40, of McDonough, GA, and an observer Clifford Allen McGouirk, 41, of Jackson, GA, are being investigated.



"This is a tragic incident where the loss of a Federal officer's life could have been avoided," said Steven Ruppert, Special Agent-in-Charge for the Southern Region of the Forest Service, "This is a devastating loss for Chris' family, our agency, other law enforcement officers and his friends and neighbors in Monroe." 

Hill said Upton was shot one time, in the head and died immediately.

"The standard procedure for a hunter is to identify your target and then shoot," said Homer Bryson, Law Enforcement Colonel for Georgia DNR Wildlife Resources Division, "The hunter failed to do this and mistook the officer for game. He then shot and instantly killed the officer."





"The investigation is being conducted jointly by the Forest Service and Georgia DNR," said Hill.



Hill said no charges have been made.



According to the release, Upton was a 4-year veteran of the Forest Service and had previously worked as a game warden for the Department of Defense, US Marine Corps, at Beaufort, South Carolina, and as a conservation officer, game warden and pilot with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. 



He is survived by his wife, Jessica, and a 4-year-old daughter, Annabelle.


----------



## Jeb

My thoughts and prayers to the officers family. 
                             Jeb


----------



## BROWNING7WSM

Charge him


----------



## timberghost1

this kinda stuff is why i dont hunt public land,,,,accidents dont just happen,they are occured....


----------



## arcame

what a shame, how many coyotes have you ever seen that walk upright.   throw him under the jail!!!!!


----------



## SELFBOW

This is dad, no coyote is worth this.


----------



## injun joe

Probably ought to wait to hear the facts before we hang somebody. It's a tragedy for 3 families.


----------



## injun joe

Alright, let me change that to say I'll wait on ALL the facts before I convict them on five paragraphs in a news article while an investigation continues. My prayers go out to this man's family.


----------



## Michael F. Gray

This is terrible, and we should support the victim's family and those others involved with our Prayers. I would not wish to be responsible for such an accident, and suspect it will weigh heavily on those gentleman.


----------



## one_shot

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=75897&catid=153


----------



## BThunder

Thoughts and prayers go out. 

There's NO EXCUSE for not positively identifying your target BEFORE you shoot!


----------



## Gunny146

I knew Chris, what a shame. I 'll be interested to see what comes of the investigation.


----------



## DEERFU

What a flippin' shame! I don't know the officer but I do know a lot of night shooting goes on in the area. I was camped adjacent to the NF of hwy 83 from Fri. night till today and heard shot all weekend and all at night! Several this morning before dawn and close by were definitely high powered rifles. My prayers go out to all the families involved. And to think I was worried about something as simple as breaking a leg in a stump hole.


----------



## GAJoe

I started coyote huntin' at night, limited to a 6V spotlight by law. I  never felt comfortable with it. I would see eyes but couldn't make a positive I D. Felt like it would be easy to get caught up in the excitement of the moment and make a mistake trying to get a shot before the opportunity passed. I imagine that played a role here. Like they say "Once you pull that trigger you can't take that bullet back." I retired from night huntin' after only a few times; decided to stick to daylight hours only. 

Prayers go out for all three families tonight.

Ask yourselves before you pull that trigger:
"Do I know for sure what I'm shootin' at?"
"Do I know this is a safe shot without any doubt?" 
"Is this bullet going to be stopped safely if I miss my target?"
If you can't answer all three a positive "YES" then you have no business taking the shot.

I've been seein' a lot more threads about new coyote hunters this season with many mentioning night huntin'. Y'all be careful and safe.
GAJoe


----------



## Cornbread-58

I could be wrong, but I don't think human eyes reflect light like that of nocturnal animals. I know I have never seen them reflect while out at night. Just a thought.

 There is more to this story than what is in those few paragraphs. There is only 3 people who know excatly what happened, and tragicly one of them is no longer with us (R.I.P). Not a single one of us reading this was there.   Let the investagation run it's course. The truth will come out. 

 Having said that, I still say fault falls on the hunter, BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND BEYOND.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

Cornbread-58 said:


> I could be wrong, but I don't think human eyes reflect light like that of nocturnal animals. I know I have never seen them reflect while out at night. Just a thought.



You are absolutely correct.

There is no excuse for sending a round down the tube without proper ID of the target.

To properly ID any target you should account for all anatomy of the animal you are shooting, i.e. four coyote legs, one coyote tail, one coyote body & one coyote head.

You follow that rule and there will be no "I thought he was a coyote" stories.

There is no excuse for this shooting. It doesn't matter how good of a man the shooter was/is, he screwed up. The result was that he killed a man who, by all reports, was a fine man who is needed by his young family.

We are all human and we will all screw up many times in our lives and we all must pay for our errors.

I feel a sense of shame  every time I read where a member of this community tries to defend the indefensible.

It is a very sad editorial on our heritage and our sport.


----------



## Jake Allen

That is terrible, what a shame.
My prayers for this officer's family.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

Mike,

I am not familiar with that property but I do not believe that it is in a WMA.

If not, it falls to the rules and regulations of the National Forest Service.


----------



## 5HwnBoys

See how hard it is to tell the hunter in the background in broad daylight if he didn't have an ORANGE VEST ON. Imagine the same scenario at night. Anyone in the woods *needs to wear an orange vest* for their own safety including USGA Forest Service Officers. It ain't worth being shot at just because someone mistook ya for an animal and it'll make anyone with bad intent think twice since they'll have a harder time convincing anyone they thought it was an animal . I think this coulda been avoided! None-the-less it has already happened and our prayers go out to the families of all involved.


----------



## Throwback

So now if someone don't have on an orange vest 24/7 in the woods or shining a flashlight 360 degrees all the time somehow it's partially/all their fault? 

Have we devolved so far as hunters that every living thing in the woods that isn't a potential target needs a big "don't shoot me" sign on it? 

T


----------



## Randy

Throwback said:


> Have we devolved so far as hunters that every living thing in the woods that isn't a potential target needs a big "don't shoot me" sign on it?
> 
> T


Yes according to our legislators.


----------



## Cornbread-58

Mechanicaldawg said:


> You are absolutely correct.
> 
> There is no excuse for sending a round down the tube without proper ID of the target.
> 
> To properly ID any target you should account for all anatomy of the animal you are shooting, i.e. four coyote legs, one coyote tail, one coyote body & one coyote head.
> 
> You follow that rule and there will be no "I thought he was a coyote" stories.
> 
> There is no excuse for this shooting. It doesn't matter how good of a man the shooter was/is, he screwed up. The result was that he killed a man who, by all reports, was a fine man who is needed by his young family.
> 
> We are all human and we will all screw up many times in our lives and we all must pay for our errors.
> 
> I feel a sense of shame  every time I read where a member of this community tries to defend the indefensible.
> 
> It is a very sad editorial on our heritage and our sport.




In no way was I defending the shooter. Thats what I meant when I said " having said that, I still say the fault falls on the hunter, BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND BEYOND."


----------



## 5HwnBoys

Throwback said:


> So now if someone don't have on an orange vest 24/7 in the woods or shining a flashlight 360 degrees all the time somehow it's partially/all their fault?
> 
> Have we devolved so far as hunters that every living thing in the woods that isn't a potential target needs a big "don't shoot me" sign on it?
> 
> T



Don't get me wrong T, I agree the shooter should have been sure of his target. But you'll also have to agree that not all hunters out there are safe. In that regards wouldn't you also agree that by knowing so, it would be better if we all use the SAME SAFETY standards of using an ORANGE SAFETY VEST as a precautionary measure. Better to err on the side of caution.


----------



## Throwback

5HwnBoys said:


> Don't get me wrong T, I agree the shooter should have been sure of his target. But you'll also have to agree that not all hunters out there are safe. In that regards wouldn't you also agree that by knowing so, it would be better if we all use the SAME SAFETY standards of using an ORANGE SAFETY VEST as a precautionary measure. Better to err on the side of caution.



There are multiple people shot EVERY YEAR IN GEORGIA and they are shot THROUGH an orange vest. 


IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT. 


T


----------



## silent soul

Thank you T, you understand this incident and the others like it with great clarity.


----------



## javery

That's a bad situation all the way around.Pray for that rangers family and the one that done the shooting.They made a terrible mistake,which they'll pay for one way or the other.I can't imagine they'll get off the hook legally,and it will be on their minds from now on.It's already been said to make a positive ID on your target,plain and simple!


----------



## tournament fisher

my prayers go out to the family. this guy had no idea what he was shooting at. it could have been a deer and its not deer season. very sad.


----------



## Mr Mike

I can not imagine the pain, confusion and loss to the Officers family. I can only give my thoughts and prayers for them. A good man died doing what he loved most besides his family. It does not matter why it happened. This is FINAL . Nothing can make it easier for the family, only time and love can maybe ease the burden of a life lost . A Man now lying still never to feel or love again. A Man who took an oath to serve and protect . A Hero.


----------



## 5HwnBoys

Throwback said:


> There are multiple people shot EVERY YEAR IN GEORGIA and they are shot THROUGH an orange vest.
> 
> 
> IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT.
> 
> 
> T



You shoulda given classes to the morons who mistook him for an animal! Maybe they might have learned a thing or two and we wouldn't be here discussing their asinine mistake that took someones life. I still feel everyone should be required to use an orange vest! Do you buckle up before you drive as a Safety Precaution? Why, shouldn't every other driver on the road be able to handle every incident that might occur while driving? And shouldn't they also know better and not drive while intoxicated?
OSHA might have something to say about this practice of going into the field with no OrangeVest.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

5HwnBoys said:


> OSHA might have something to say about this practice of going into the field with no OrangeVest.



Dear lord!

That was meant to be a joke? Right?

Please tell me that you are not serious!!!

Never mind. There is no way a sane, grown man has suggested that OSHA should get involved in anyway with LE or hunting!

Absolutely unbelievable!


----------



## 5HwnBoys

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Dear lord!
> 
> That was meant to be a joke? Right?



A sane, grown man would realize no organization is untouchable when it comes to the safety of their officers.
Leland PD never thought OSHA would investigate them regarding the safety of their officers. 
http://www.wwaytv3.com/node/14910

I'll bet ya DNR will eventually start requiring their officers to use the vests as a safety precaution. It may not be this week or this year but it will eventually be put into place. SAFETY FIRST!!!


----------



## BThunder

balvarik said:


> OK,my Georgia Sportsman.
> When is it legal to hunt with a High powered Rifle on WMA land???
> 
> My understanding is the lands are open for tool(shotgun/rifle/archery/BP)of choice but only for what is in season??
> 
> So if no special permit area for hogs and small game closed on  28Feb2010,Turkey season was not open and as such would not the activity that resulted in the tragic shooting be a illegal activity???
> 
> Would someone with personal knowledge of that WMA please enlighten me with what was open and legal activity for that WMA.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Mike



I have read that this incident took place on National Forest land. So far, I haven't read anything that indicates there was any illegal activity going on. So, the high powered rifle and night hunting was within the law. 


Ofcourse, the investigation is far from over -  I'm sure.


----------



## BThunder

balvarik said:


> OK,my Georgia Sportsman.
> When is it legal to hunt with a High powered Rifle on WMA land???
> 
> My understanding is the lands are open for tool(shotgun/rifle/archery/BP)of choice but only for what is in season??
> 
> So if no special permit area for hogs and small game closed on  28Feb2010,Turkey season was not open and as such would not the activity that resulted in the tragic shooting be a illegal activity???
> 
> Would someone with personal knowledge of that WMA please enlighten me with what was open and legal activity for that WMA.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Mike



I have read that this incident took place on National Forest land. So far, I haven't read anything that indicates there was any illegal activity going on prior to the incident. So, the high powered rifle and night hunting was within the law. 


Ofcourse, the investigation is far from over -  I'm sure.


----------



## Throwback

5HwnBoys said:


> A sane, grown man would realize no organization is untouchable when it comes to the safety of their officers.
> Leland PD never thought OSHA would investigate them regarding the safety of their officers.
> http://www.wwaytv3.com/node/14910
> 
> I'll bet ya DNR will eventually start requiring their officers to use the vests as a safety precaution. It may not be this week or this year but it will eventually be put into place. SAFETY FIRST!!!





#1 he did not work for DNR. 

#2 it was at NIGHT. Makes about as much sense as requiring them to use a flashlight in the daytime. 




T


----------



## EEFowl

You can't see colors, including orange, at night.  You can't see colors with night vision equipment.  The only way you can see colors is if there is light present.  

EF


----------



## 5HwnBoys

*Prayers go out to the Officers Family. Didn't mean to hijack the thread and get off track. **I just hope unfortunate incidents like this can be avoided in the future.** 

*


----------



## Throwback

we all do 5HB.


T


----------



## 5HwnBoys

We here on GON ought to start a collection for the Officers Family. I can just imagine what their going through.


----------



## bigreddwon

EEFowl said:


> You can't see colors, including orange, at night.  You can't see colors with night vision equipment.  The only way you can see colors is if there is light present.
> 
> EF



Its kind of silly, but we have to wear them during deer season while using thermal hunting hogs at night.. Can't even tell its orange until a lights on.


----------



## Campingman

5HwnBoys said:


> We here on GON ought to start a collection for the Officers Family. I can just imagine what their going through.



Here is some information on the Memorial Service and Gifts if you are interested.  http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/uptonService.php


----------



## CROOKED RIVER

Before I pass judgment, I need to know all the facts. Did anyone ever think that there may have been a coyote between the shooter and the officer? I dont know this for a fact but I would bet there is more to this story than we know. 
I know some will say: you need to know what's beyond your target, Do you always know whats behind your target? 100yrds, 200 yrds, half a mile I think not.
Think of it this way, have you ever seen a wreck, where a car hit the only tree in a half mile. I have and its a complete accident.
 Im sure a few people loose there lives to stray bullets every year, not saying it was stray, only the shooter and the good LORD knows fure sure. 
 As of right now it sounds like a traject accident to me, and if the shooter could take it back im sure he would. 
My thoughts and prayers go out to both familys involved


----------



## Joe Moran

Does anyone here know the Uptons? Reason I ask, is I think he may have lived on my street. Last Saturday, my daughter & I took a quick ride around the subdivision, and there were about 4 or five game wardens in a driveway on my road. I live in Monroe, and I know there is a ranger in my subdivision.
I'd like to know, so that we could bring them supper one night.


----------



## Derek Edge

Sad, sad situation on both sides of the coin.


----------



## MFOSTER

i hunt with good binos only look in scope to kill in daytime with all the publicity of using night vision at night everybody wants to try but are unwilling to purchase and spend what it takes so they purchase the cheap and basically all they can detect is movement if that much less identify the target please let this be a lesson to all gen 3 or stay with your red light my heart and prayers are for all the families that this tragedy has affected


----------



## Joe Moran

Found out last night, that the Uptons do live on my street. My wife is going to bring them supper on Monday.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

Good job Joe.


----------



## Ihunt

None of us should point fingers or place blame.Send prayers only!!!!!!!


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

5HwnBoys said:


> Don't get me wrong T, I agree the shooter should have been sure of his target. But you'll also have to agree that not all hunters out there are safe. In that regards wouldn't you also agree that by knowing so, it would be better if we all use the SAME SAFETY standards of using an ORANGE SAFETY VEST as a precautionary measure. Better to err on the side of caution.



I agree,I believe everybody that goes in the woods has an equal responsibility to be as safe as possible whether your a hunter or some type of conservation officer.If I know there is a strong possibility of hunters in the area of where I am,especially in the woods at night,I have to use better judjement and take appropriate safety precautions to better my chances of walking back out of the woods alive.I also don't think it was a good idea to go in the woods at night anyway when I obviously know hunters are present unless I was there for something more than just to check for liscense or permits.That could be done back at where thr hunters vehicle is parked.With that said,I think the hunters should have used better judgment as to making sure of their target.Night hunting on public land is imho dangerous and should not be allowed since things like this tragic event is more likely to happen again w/ the potential for other hunters to be in the same area unknown to other hunters.Both sides made mistakes.A fine man paid for his mistake w/ his life.The hunter that pulled the trigger has to pay for his also.Unless it was a deliberate act they shouldn't be locked away for it and destroy another family.My prayers go out to both the officers family and the hunters as well.


----------



## Mauser Man

Tragic incident and it was avoidable. It is my understanding that one cannot hunt coyotes on the Oconee national forest during a closed season. Everything closed out there on Feb 28.  Read the regulations.......(Can someone prove otherwise?)
That being the case this incident was totally avoidable in that these two guys shouldn't have been out there in the first place. Not only should they have not been out there BUT they were using a .223 which on the ONF is illegal to use for coyotes (outside of deer season during daylight hours)(your restricted to muzzleloaders, shotguns with # 2 shot or smaller and rimfire weapons, ie a .22, .17. or .22 magnum).

So lets take a look at this incident: 2 guys poaching coyotes (or was it really deer?) with night vision, armed with a .223 during a closed season and were being investigated by a LEO.

One can only speculate what drew the officer's attention to these two guys (perhaps an electronic predator caller?) And he gets killed???????????????????

Sound like MURDER to me or at the very least MANSLAUGHTER!!!!!!
These two clowns need to get locked up and have the key thrown away on them.

Unfortunately for the rest us we'll have to bear the wrath of the FEDS down there now next season. Not to mention more legislation probably aimed at restricting night hunting with night vision. And why? Because two idiots breaking the law shot and killed a game warden when they shouldn't have been out there in the first place.

A totally avoidable incident. These two clowns need to pay, BIGTIME. And knowing the FEDs,  they will.


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

There are other reports apparently that the Officer was on his hands and knees possibly wearing night vision hisself which would have made him look like a coyote.If the guys who shot were as guilty as the poster above states,they would be sitting in jail till the investigation is finished.


----------



## claymaster007

Apparently Mauser Man doesn't bother to read the regulations. There is no closed season on coyotes or feral
hogs. They may be hunted year round. Maybe he should spend more time reading than ranting and dropping suttle accusations about something he has no knowledge about.


----------



## Throwback

CUTT'EM 76 said:


> There are other reports apparently that the Officer was on his hands and knees possibly wearing night vision hisself which would have made him look like a coyote.If the guys who shot were as guilty as the poster above states,they would be sitting in jail till the investigation is finished.



I guess you've never heard of an investigation before. They're funny here in GA about getting their crap straight before arresting someone. 

T


----------



## kelbro

Joe Moran said:


> Does anyone here know the Uptons? Reason I ask, is I think he may have lived on my street. Last Saturday, my daughter & I took a quick ride around the subdivision, and there were about 4 or five game wardens in a driveway on my road. I live in Monroe, and I know there is a ranger in my subdivision.
> I'd like to know, so that we could bring them supper one night.



He did live in Monroe.  I don't know where.


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

Throwback said:


> I guess you've never heard of an investigation before. They're funny here in GA about getting their crap straight before arresting someone.
> 
> T



If he had commited a crime to start w/ like the other the other poster said he would have been arrested already and likely at the time of the incident.Trust me I know plenty about how investigations work.


----------



## Throwback

CUTT'EM 76 said:


> If he had commited a crime to start w/ like the other the other poster said he would have been arrested already and likely at the time of the incident.Trust me I know plenty about how investigations work.



Oh ok. 


T


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

Throwback said:


> Oh ok.
> 
> 
> T



If they had been poaching or hunting on federal land out of season or doing anything else illegal besides shooting a conservation officer,they would have been arrested and bail would have been set.It's apparent law enforcement believe it was an accident.The bottom line a good man was killed because of carelessness on  both sides.If you want to hunt at night do it on private land where you can know for the most part your the only ones hunting there.Anybody can be out in the woods on public land and you'd never know,It's just to big of a chance to take.It should be mandatory for wardens and conservation officers to wear orange or something that will show up at night.I'm not saying it's the case here ,but there's to many idiots especially on public lans that will shoot at movement or sound even hoping to luck up and kill something.If it's true that the officer was on his hans and knees,I can see how he could've been mistaken for a coyote.


----------



## hound dog

Ihunt said:


> None of us should point fingers or place blame.Send prayers only!!!!!!!



This is a smart man. My prayers are sent out to both sides.


----------



## claymaster007

Cutt'em got it right. Mistakes were made on both sides and
tragically a man lost his life. No crime, no malice, no intent to kill or injure,just a tragic accident. I can't figure for the life of me why someone would approach a varmint call in the dark. Does not make sense for an experienced game warden to do that. God bless both families.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

I believe you folks that are taking up for the shooter are going to be in for a bit of surprise when the results of the investigation are made public.


----------



## Throwback

CUTT'EM 76 said:


> If they had been poaching or hunting on federal land out of season or doing anything else illegal besides shooting a conservation officer,they would have been arrested and bail would have been set.It's apparent law enforcement believe it was an accident.





http://www.gon.com/article.php?id=1816&cid=158

http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2001/04/08/out_311731.shtml

T


----------



## littletime

just drop it. no one knows the real story. I believe there are several mistakes in all the stories above. PRAYERS GO OUT TO ALL FAMILIES.


----------



## LIB MR ducks

Mechanicaldawg said:


> I believe you folks that are taking up for the shooter are going to be in for a bit of surprise when the results of the investigation are made public.



I agree Jeff. Also the two men were arrested. There is a lot to this story that has not come out yet. Let's wait for everything to be released before we all rush to judgment.


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

Throwback said:


> http://www.gon.com/article.php?id=1816&cid=158
> 
> http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/2001/04/08/out_311731.shtml
> 
> T



What does this have to do w/ what I said?


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

I'm certainly not taking up for the shooter.Just saying w/ the story I have read,it seems tragic mistakes were made on both sides.It's plain and simple.If somebody knows more about this feel free to fill us in.


----------



## dadsbuckshot

balvarik said:


> After the investigation of the tragic mistake by the shooter,charges will be brought forth in both a criminal and then a civil proceeding.
> 
> Look at the charges also to be set in the criminal case to be in Federal court,not in the Georgia State Court.
> 
> Mike



They will probably be charged in both Federal and State courts..... 

Just like Mr. Vick in Virginia with his little dog petting zoo...

More charges equal more leverage with prosecution...


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

balvarik said:


> Very simple.
> 
> Just post the credible source where upon you(CUTT'EM 76)found the Officer was doing anything that would constitute a "mistake"!
> 
> 
> It is so simple that a New England liberal and a Texas conservative would agree!
> 
> NEVER SHOOT AT SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE NOT POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED!!!!
> 
> I've spent enough time behind a AN PVS-2/AN PVS-4 and what people look like in my scope.
> 
> The shooter needs not to be in the field ever again with any firearm/BP.
> 
> Mike



I'm not arguing w/ anybody and agree that you shouldn't shoot at something you haven't positively identified.I have posted more than once that I thought the shooter was in the wrong as well,but it's clear the officer made mistake as well even if he wasn't down on all fours.You do not go in the woods at night where you know for a fact hunters are present especially w/o taking precautions to make sure you will not be mistaken for the animal the hunters are hunting. Even though there might not have been a rule or requirement for the officer to wear orange or a some other form of equipment to at least help the chances that he would not have been mistaken for a coyote or whatever,had precautions been taken, he could possibly still be alive w/ his family.I'm certainly NOT anti-law enforcement,I was a reserve deputy for 6 years and would be a payed officer now if I hadn't permanently screwed up my back during training.If it comes out from investigations that this was more of a deliberate shooting I say it's time for the death penalty,but so for from what I've read that's not the case.Mistakes were made on both sides.It's very hard to positively identify your target 100% at night in the woods as it is.


----------



## mattdavis

LIB MR ducks said:


> I agree Jeff. Also the two men were arrested. There is a lot to this story that has not come out yet. Let's wait for everything to be released before we all rush to judgment.



where has it been stated that they were arrested?


----------



## EEFowl

> where has it been stated that they were arrested?


In the same news articles that say the LEO was sneaking around in  the brush on his hands and knees.

EF


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

mattdavis said:


> where has it been stated that they were arrested?



Right here:

THEY WERE ARRESTED.


----------



## Shivesy

Mauser Man said:


> Tragic incident and it was avoidable. It is my understanding that one cannot hunt coyotes on the Oconee national forest during a closed season. Everything closed out there on Feb 28.  Read the regulations.......(Can someone prove otherwise?)
> That being the case this incident was totally avoidable in that these two guys shouldn't have been out there in the first place. Not only should they have not been out there BUT they were using a .223 which on the ONF is illegal to use for coyotes (outside of deer season during daylight hours)(your restricted to muzzleloaders, shotguns with # 2 shot or smaller and rimfire weapons, ie a .22, .17. or .22 magnum).
> 
> So lets take a look at this incident: 2 guys poaching coyotes (or was it really deer?) with night vision, armed with a .223 during a closed season and were being investigated by a LEO.
> 
> One can only speculate what drew the officer's attention to these two guys (perhaps an electronic predator caller?) And he gets killed???????????????????
> 
> Sound like MURDER to me or at the very least MANSLAUGHTER!!!!!!
> These two clowns need to get locked up and have the key thrown away on them.
> 
> Unfortunately for the rest us we'll have to bear the wrath of the FEDS down there now next season. Not to mention more legislation probably aimed at restricting night hunting with night vision. And why? Because two idiots breaking the law shot and killed a game warden when they shouldn't have been out there in the first place.
> 
> A totally avoidable incident. These two clowns need to pay, BIGTIME. And knowing the FEDs,  they will.



I just wanted to chime in on this subject for just a minute. First off by saying that I feel for all that are involved and that they all have been in my prayers for the past few days. 

I've read all that I can on this accident and really haven't read about alot of concrete information or imformation that has been published by the media. I do agree with what some of what Mauser Man has written above but I do have a few questions about his statement. 

Mauser Man states that  "Everything closed out there on Feb 28." I know that most if not all of Ga. WMA land does shut down the small game hunting season on that date which does include coyotes, but were they on WMA land? Is the whole Oconee National Forrest a WMA? I'm not familair with the ONF.

Thanks:
Shivesy


----------



## Thompkins1

mattdavis said:


> where has it been stated that they were arrested?



the leo's are amongst us.


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

Regardless of each of our opinions,I think we can all agree that three families lives are forever changed for the worst.We should lift them up in prayer and do what we can to make life a little easier for them.Also,take a look at your family's each night before you go to bed.Thank the Lord for them and tell them how much you love them.We see proof everyday that it's true what the Lord tells us.We are not promised tomorrow and neither are they.

Sorry for the mushy stuff.


----------



## MIG

The fact the consequence of an act may not be the desired consequence (that is, the end result is unintended) does NOT render the act itself an "accident".  Accidents are unavoidable, unforseen, and involve no human intervention.

Regardless of circumstance, a shooter has a legal and moral obligation to properly identify a target before pulling the trigger.  The shooter alone is responsible for the round - where and what it hits and any damage it causes.   Failure to ID the target (and what is in front of, behind, or around it) is never an excuse nor is it ever an "accident".


----------



## BThunder

Shivesy said:


> I just wanted to chime in on this subject for just a minute. First off by saying that I feel for all that are involved and that they all have been in my prayers for the past few days.
> 
> I've read all that I can on this accident and really haven't read about alot of concrete information or imformation that has been published by the media. I do agree with what some of what Mauser Man has written above but I do have a few questions about his statement.
> 
> Mauser Man states that  "Everything closed out there on Feb 28." I know that most if not all of Ga. WMA land does shut down the small game hunting season on that date which does include coyotes, but were they on WMA land? Is the whole Oconee National Forrest a WMA? I'm not familair with the ONF.
> 
> Thanks:
> Shivesy



Mauser Man is reading and referring to the regulations regarding WMa's. National Forrest Regulations are completely different. Those idiot hunter's were NOT violating any GAME laws in anything I've read so far.

You can hunt at nights on National Forrest.
You are not firearm restricted , unless a big game season is in --and there wasn't. So there 223 was legal as well.

Again- my thoughts and prayers go out to both families.


----------



## Philbow

The officer was shot in the Ocmulgee Bluff Equestrian Recreation Area. Are there any hunting restrictions in this specially designated area or is it treated as any other non-WMA national forest area? I cannot find any special restrictions for this area in the Forest Service or DNR web sites but it would seem to be an area that would have received additional restrictions. Just asking.


----------



## Throwback

CUTT'EM 76 said:


> What does this have to do w/ what I said?



Article #1



> Col. West said the hunter was taken into custody for an extensive interview, and that he cooperated fully with investigators, but that he may face game-violation charges as well as a charge of misuse of a firearm while hunting once the investigation is completed. Misuse of a firearm while hunting, if serious harm is done, is a felony charge which carries a $5,000 fine and imprisonment of no less than a year and no more than 10 years.
> 
> “Based on what we know, we’ll sit down with the local DA. The decision to pursue charges is in a large part in their court,” Col. West said. “We’re certainly going to pursue prosecution, but that decision may not be in our hands.”



Article #2



> to check an area in Lowndes County where illegal bait had been discovered.
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> The shooter, meanwhile, awaits possible criminal charges in the case.
> 
> The Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the DNR Critical Investigation Reconstruction Team reconstructed and mapped out the accident as part of their report to the district attorney and grand jury, Capt. Hensley said.
> 
> The case is scheduled for presentation to grand jurors later this month. Possible charges that could evolve from the incident include felony misuse of a firearm, Capt. Hensley said.



T


----------



## EEFowl

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by EEFowl
> In the same news articles that say the LEO was sneaking around in the brush on his hands and knees.
> 
> EF
> 
> Post it or a link to said article.
> 
> As I have tried to find any mention of "the Officer on all fours" and after searching better than thirty articles by "News agency's"(not forums and lay-persons idea's) without finding even a mention of such activity by the Officer,that entire premise that the Officer was crawling around on all fours sounds like hearsay bull.
> 
> Mike



I was being facetious.  None of those "facts" are mentiones in any news article but some posters have assumed that those facts are true.

EF


----------



## HandgunHTR

For those wondering where the "sneaking around" comments are coming from, here is a link to the article.

Read the 5th paragraph.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest...game-officer-under-investigation?v=1268054732


----------



## HandgunHTR

Yep, no excuse.

 I just wanted to set the record straight on where the comments were coming from.


----------



## River_Rat2238

CUTT'EM 76 said:


> If it's true that the officer was on his hans and knees,I can see how he could've been mistaken for a coyote.



You do not belong in the woods, sir! 

I hope, for everyone's sake, that you didn't think through this comment very well before you typed it.

When you pull that trigger, YOU BETTER BE 110% SURE BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT IT IS IN FACT THE ANIMAL YOU ARE HUNTING!!!!!!!!!!!!  

I'm thinking we might should start making hunter safety courses a lot more vigorous. 

This incident was ABSOLUTELY avoidable, and the only person to blame is the one who pulled that trigger, It's plain and simple.

My thoughts and prayers are with the victim's family.


----------



## coontreeinhook

balvarik said:


> Well I have hunted yotes since 1974 and have NEVER misidentified my target.
> 
> No such thing as a mistake!
> 
> You identify your target before your finger moves into the trigger guard and touches the trigger.
> 
> Unless this Officer was in a Wyle E Coyote costume crawling around on all fours,the shooter should be hammered hard and shown no leniency when sentenced.
> 
> Just my personal opinion from a person who hunts all about public land up north.
> 
> 
> Mike




Yea, well everyone wants to be tough on crime until its someone that they know. Why should you show no leniency? If it was your brother, father, son... etc that killed a man wouldnt you want some leniency to be used in their trial?


----------



## coontreeinhook

CUTT'EM 76 said:


> I'm not arguing w/ anybody and agree that you shouldn't shoot at something you haven't positively identified.I have posted more than once that I thought the shooter was in the wrong as well,but it's clear the officer made mistake as well even if he wasn't down on all fours.You do not go in the woods at night where you know for a fact hunters are present especially w/o taking precautions to make sure you will not be mistaken for the animal the hunters are hunting. Even though there might not have been a rule or requirement for the officer to wear orange or a some other form of equipment to at least help the chances that he would not have been mistaken for a coyote or whatever,had precautions been taken, he could possibly still be alive w/ his family.I'm certainly NOT anti-law enforcement,I was a reserve deputy for 6 years and would be a payed officer now if I hadn't permanently screwed up my back during training.If it comes out from investigations that this was more of a deliberate shooting I say it's time for the death penalty,but so for from what I've read that's not the case.Mistakes were made on both sides.It's very hard to positively identify your target 100% at night in the woods as it is.




I agree 100% and everyone on here wants to throw the shooter under the bus. If it is both of the peoples mistakes how can you charge one person with the death of the man? Take away their hunting licenses and let them drink their lives away.


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

River_Rat2238 said:


> You do not belong in the woods, sir!
> 
> I hope, for everyone's sake, that you didn't think through this comment very well before you typed it.
> 
> When you pull that trigger, YOU BETTER BE 110% SURE BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT IT IS IN FACT THE ANIMAL YOU ARE HUNTING!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> I'm thinking we might should start making hunter safety courses a lot more vigorous.
> 
> This incident was ABSOLUTELY avoidable, and the only person to blame is the one who pulled that trigger, It's plain and simple.
> 
> My thoughts and prayers are with the victim's family.



Oh,I thought through it very well.If it is in fact true that the officer was in a "prone "position or on all fours as was stated in more than a couple articles and was in fact wearing night vision as well,then he could have very well looked close like what they were hunting which they were hunting legally in a legal manner.The legality of this method of coyote hunting should really looked at.There is know way hunting this way that you can make 100% sure what your shooting at is indeed what it is supposed to be.There is also no way to be sure of what is behind the target as well.There was no immediate need to come in contact w/ those hunters that night,they could have been checked after they were back at there vehicle.The officers superiors should have required other safety equipment for performing his job at night as well.There were mistakes made on BOTH sides that night even if the officer wasn't in a prone position.No matter your position who was at fault ,both families deserve our prayers not just the officers.


----------



## LIB MR ducks

Yes they were hunting coyotes legally. However they could not legally take a fox or bobcat. So if all they shot at were "eyes" as has been stated then it proves they were not concerned with properly identifying their target.


----------



## EEFowl

STOP using made up facts to support your week arguments that this must have somehow been the victims fault.  WHAT NEWS ARTICLES STATE THAT THE VICTIM WAS ON ALL FOURS/CRAWLING ON THE GROUND/ ON HANDS AND KNEES IN THE BRUSH?  There are none!  These statements are only found in the public comments sections and on web boards.  Unless you were there STOP making these assumptions to validate your position.

The judicial system is going to "throw the shooter under the bus" using coontreeinhook's terms.  I'm throwing the victim blamers under the bus for their week, illogical and non-fact based attempts at justifying their "not totally the shooters fault" position.

EF


----------



## EEFowl

Also, a grown man on hands and knees on the ground would be the size of a adult bear, not a bobcat, fox, or coyote.

EF


----------



## dawg2

coontreeinhook said:


> I agree 100% and everyone on here wants to throw the shooter under the bus. If it is both of the peoples mistakes how can you charge one person with the death of the man? Take away their hunting licenses and let them drink their lives away.



NO it isn't.  You never pull the trigger unless you know what you are "killing."


----------



## LEON MANLEY

No poll needed to find out how many people think that it's alright to shoot randomly at shining objects in the dark. They are on these 4 posts admitting that they would have done the same or have done the same and would like for the shooter to get a slap on the hand and sent home.  
This is not the only incident, the 16 year old boy that shot his "buddy" with an arrow in the back of his neck in the broad open daylight ( I thought he was a turkey). People wanted to defend this kid and feel sorry for him. It is time to stop making excuses for people with poor judgement.  
My survey says that I don't want to hunt within ten miles of these people that want to justify the shootings.


----------



## seaweaver

EEFowl said:


> STOP using made up facts to support your week arguments that this must have somehow been the victims fault.  WHAT NEWS ARTICLES STATE THAT THE VICTIM WAS ON ALL FOURS/CRAWLING ON THE GROUND/ ON HANDS AND KNEES IN THE BRUSH?
> 
> EF





where are the facts that he was standing like a biped?
Instant death is what I thought I read...that could be a heart shot...or a head shot...both a 4'+ ft above the ground...unless he was a midget.
Given that he was a Marine, it stands(!) that he could have been short... But a standing man...even w/ poor IR gear looks like a man...

Mike...some might not have as much experience as you in shooting men w/ IR gear... I'll bet these guys did not...
And what reason would they have to expect a biped to come to a varmint call? (kudos to the guy that came up w/ that).

cw


----------



## seaweaver

dawg2 said:


> NO it isn't.  You never pull the trigger unless you know what you are "killing."


Yote don't stand around to allow to sniff....
Perhaps we should outlaw yote hunting as it is the one hunted game where the hunter must be as quick as his quarry...or at least at night...
That way a hunter can see a yote in orange.
cw


----------



## buckfever14

One of the first lessons in boot camp on the rifle range I learned was to properly identify a target before even putting my finger on the trigger!  

At the end of the day you are responsible for where that round goes that leaves your barrel, so before sending one down-range you have to know what your shooting at or you simply wait until a possible target can be acquired and identified! 

I've been hunting for about 15 years now and I've never been approached by a Game Warden in the woods except for the time I saw one while riding my four wheeler in the everglades, but he was in his vehicle and wasnt wearing any orange.  

I've spoken to many outside the woods but have never been in stand and had one walk up on me.  My question is do they normally wear orange in the woods?


----------



## Throwback

And now class, we have learned that if someone is moving around in any way in the area where someone is hunting varmints, it's OK to shoot them. 



T


----------



## seaweaver

and...if you are prowling the woods at night in the presence of men w/ guns and hunting...it's best not to aid in identifying yourself as non game and simply trust that those  unknown fellows have plenty of experience in discerning men in their sights at night from game.

cw


----------



## Throwback

If I was a victim, of ANY crime, I sure wouldn't want  some of ya'll on the jury. 





T


----------



## seaweaver

balvarik said:


> So a LEO must have a light on when investigating something on their/in their area??
> 
> Yep let us give the low-life's a chance to see the LEO.
> 
> Nope it is idiots like the shooter of the Ranger,who need to be banned from ever being afield with any firearm/BP!
> 
> 
> Mike



No...an LEO should take  precaution as if he were in a free fire zone.( in those circumstances)
We have not heard evidence that he added to the incident and if he did we will never hear of it. He as a human is not infallible.
We have heard of his nature on the other thread and he sounded pretty human to me.


T...I'm exactly the type of guy you would want on your jury as I would be reserving blame until I had all the facts.
I have no assigned guilt to either party as as i have not the facts. There are plenty here that don't need all the facts and might fit on your jury...depending on which side of the isle you are sitting on.




cw


----------



## dawg2

seaweaver said:


> Yote don't stand around to allow to sniff....
> Perhaps we should outlaw yote hunting as it is the one hunted game where the hunter must be as quick as his quarry...or at least at night...
> That way a hunter can see a yote in orange.
> cw


I am very aware of how a coyote acts.  But I can assure you a man "crawling" (if he was) moved nor looked nothing like a yote.  You can rationalize it anyway you want, but the guy that pulled the trigger was WRONG.  Your logic justifies "ground checking" anything that you can pick up at night with NV.


----------



## Razorback

http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/UptonPhotoGallery.php

Link to memorial service from last Saturday.


Razor


----------



## EEFowl

> I would be reserving blame until I had all the facts.
> I have no assigned guilt to either party as as i have not the facts.



seaweaver, isn't making assumptions that the victim must have done something to contribute to the incident kind of like assigning partial blame to the victim?  Seems that way to quite a few of us here.

EF


----------



## EEFowl

Someone explain what is a "free fire zone".  How is one declaired, are signs required, what are the rules in these areas - for shooters and others, is there a minimum distance/range this zone must be.  I don't think I have ever heard of these but am interested in knowing more.  I would hate to end up in one of these "free fire zones" unknowingly.  They sound like they may be dangerous, or fun, depending on what end of it you are in.  

EF


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

balvarik said:


> Sir,
> 
> A free-fire zone in U.S. military parlance is a fire control measure, used for coordination between adjacent combat units.
> The definition used in the Vietnam war by US troops may be found in field manual FM 6-20:
> 
> A specific designated area into which any weapon system may fire without additional coordination with the establishing headquarters.
> 
> 
> That help you any?
> 
> Mike



Mike,

EEFowl was making reference to seaweaver's use of the term in a previous post where he insinuated that Office Upton was at fault.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

Sorry. Didn't mean to  insult your intelligence. 

I just thought you two were missing one another's points and sarcasm.


----------



## Ta-ton-ka chips

HandgunHTR said:


> For those wondering where the "sneaking around" comments are coming from, here is a link to the article.
> 
> Read the 5th paragraph.
> 
> http://chronicle.augusta.com/latest...game-officer-under-investigation?v=1268054732



Glad I hadn't posted in this thread earlier. I've never understood the lack of prosecution for shooting hunters and the overused term "accident. I would have blasted the shooters and demanded the death penalty for them

Per the Augusta Chronicle article;


> According to the their accounts of the incident, Upton was behind a berm, using binoculars, and the binocular lenses apparently looked like eyes through the men's night-vision scopes.



I really hope the Feds can truly re-enact this incident. I don't know what a head with night vision looks like while looking through another set of night vision goggles. It may be possible that the officer looked like a yote if all they could see was a head with glowing eyes. It's possible this murder really was an accident


----------



## Throwback

Ta-ton-ka chips said:


> Glad I hadn't posted in this thread earlier. I've never understood the lack of prosecution for shooting hunters and the overused term "accident. I would have blasted the shooters and demanded the death penalty for them
> 
> Per the Augusta Chronicle article;
> 
> 
> I really hope the Feds can truly re-enact this incident. I don't know what a head with night vision looks like while looking through another set of night vision goggles. It may be possible that the officer looked like a yote if all they could see was a head with glowing eyes. It's possible this murder really was an accident




Well that is well and good but he didn't have night vision according to the latest articles. 


T


----------



## coontreeinhook

balvarik said:


> From being behind a AN PVS-2/AV PVS-4 and taking a mans life,I know what a man looks like prone,walking,sitting and running!!!
> 
> For some IDIOT to guess at what he was shooting at and take a mans life is unforgivable!
> 
> It is not for me to grant forgiveness for such a heinous act that is so very preventable by just THINKING.
> 
> My kin?
> We think and are not so gluttonous that we have to guess at what we shoot at!
> 
> awi cha ohunka chante(Those without conscious/a soul )
> Lakota term for those who kill without thinking.
> 
> Mike



The last time I checked, a man named Mike wasnt ever given the authority to forgive another mans mistakes. These men will go to their graves thinking about the ripple effect of their actions all of their life, and then be judged after they die. Not here by you, and I dont think that the officers family would appreciate any animosity towards anyone involved in this accident. I dont care what kind of gun you operated, it doesnt give you the right or the power to forgive anyone, because in all truth, nobody cares who you forgive or dont. Sorry.


----------



## seaweaver

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Mike,
> 
> EEFowl was making reference to seaweaver's use of the term in a previous post where he insinuated that Office Upton was at fault.



wrong Jeff,
it was the reference from Mike's post prior to mine...
reading and comprehension are not requirements for posting soooo.


_seaweaver, isn't making assumptions that the victim must have done something to contribute to the incident kind of like assigning partial blame to the victim? Seems that way to quite a few of us here.

EF _


The correct word is _could_...not _must_...and No. It is  not assigning partial blame to the victim.It is saying that the data is not complete enough to EXCLUDE partial blame.


cw


----------



## EEFowl

> the data is not complete enough to EXCLUDE partial blame.


What?  Using that kind of logic you could also say the data is not complete enough to EXCLUDE total blame on the shooter.  
It is completely illogical to say that since you do not know certain facts about the incident then you are going to assume that another set of facts exist although there is no evidence to show that that do.

EF


----------



## snake bite

The guy that pulled the trigger is a good friend of mine.  I have been biting my tongue not to post something but I can't stand it any more.  It was an accident and I can assure you that remorse is an understatement of what he is feeling.  I have hunted with him for years and he is as safe of a hunter as I have ever hunted around.  I am going to clear up a few things for all the assumer's out there that believe everything that they here on the news and in the paper.  Everything  they were doing was legal.  They had an electronic predator call running full blast for about 20 min and the LEO was out there on a stake out for meth-alcohol disturbances in the area.  He then tried to sneak up on the field where they were hunting.  Obviously knowing there were hunters there and being a LEO he had to have known,  at 11pm there was a good chance that night vision equipment was being used.  He put himself in a very bad situation that if he would have announced himself or walked into the area with a flash light, this would have never happened.  Scanning the area with the night vision scope, something reflected back at him the same color as coyote eyes, low to the ground moving back and forth coming through the brush and tall grass was seen.  The  shooter then made a decision to take the shot at what he thought was a coyote.   Once they reached what they thought to be a coyote and finding  every hunters worst nightmare, they called 911.  He believes the officer was using night vision binoculars which reflected back at him exactly like every other coyote he has ever shot.  They were detained and released later that night.  I can only imagine the pain that both families are going through.  One lost a good man and the other has to deal with what has happened for the rest of his life.  I pray that something good come out of this, that everyone would make sure of there target and that LEO would take a closer look at there safety in nighttime situations.   A hat with reflective material, a vest with reflective material would be a good idea to incorporate into there uniform.


----------



## claymaster007

I bet the anti-hunters and anti-gun folks are having a good time at our expense. Most of these post have condemed the shooter. I agree that he did not completely indentify his target. Try to put yourself in his place. He was on the back of his pickup truck with an electronic caller playing. He was expecting a coyote to come to him. Why on earth would an experienced game warden/ forest ranger respond to a varmint call? Does not make sense to me or anyone that I have discussed this with. Mistakes were made on both sides. The officer should have indentified himself or returned to his vehicle and approached them in it.  The shooter should have completely identified his target. Anyone that has varmint hunted at night has encountered a similar situation. God bless both families.


----------



## seaweaver

EEFowl said:


> What?  Using that kind of logic you could also say the data is not complete enough to EXCLUDE total blame on the shooter.
> It is completely illogical to say that since you do not know certain facts about the incident then you are going to assume that another set of facts exist although there is no evidence to show that that do.
> 
> EF





No...I have assigned partial blame to the shooter...I just have not ruled out complicity of the Ranger.

_
It is completely illogical to say that since you do not know certain facts about the incident then you are going to assume that another set of facts exist although there is no evidence to show that that do._

If we do not know all the facts...as there is much that has been left out...then there has to be (get this) Not another set of facts...but more to add to the first....and there is evidence...to show that we don't have it all.

Sorry, I just cannot make blanket statements of guilt...w/o all the facts...
there are those here that can. (Those are the people you don't want on a jury T.)

If you gott'em...don't hold back.

cw


----------



## seaweaver

balvarik said:


> He had the NVG rifle sight but who had the NVG scope-bino's for ID'ing targets and non-targets???
> 
> Mike




we know exactly what they had and did not have now?
Is that a rule to have both when night hunting?

cw


----------



## Cornbread-58

Wow! I never knew so many people lived in glass houses, and they seem to be real popular in Minn. Just be careful cutting your grass, you could sling a rock at your own house.

Again only 3 people were there that night, and they are the only ones who ACTUALLY know what happened. Thats why we now have an on going INVESTAGATION. What happened is not in black and white or green and black for that matter. People were involved, therefore mistakes and, yes, accidents do, can and will happen.

I know this is going to flame some of you guys, but, oh well I'm gonna say it anyway. Being a L.E.O. he should have know far better than the average joe, the dangers of approaching any one under the cover of darkness, who has a gun. Sorry, but it just don't seem like a very wise thing to do. Was checking up on these two hunters worth even a CHANCE that something tragic could happen? In hindsight, NO. All parties involved contributed to this tragic end, knowingly or not. 

Is it the shooters fault? YES, Period.

Was it an accident? YES.

Would I approach someone in the woods at night knowing they had a rifle? My job or not. NO WAY, without making it clear that I was doing so. My life is not worth writing a ticket.

My house ain't glass, and I learned my lesson about throwing rocks.


----------



## EEFowl

> Is that a rule to have both when night hunting?


Not an enforceable rule, but a standard safety rule...never poing a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, never use a scope as a pair of binoculars, be sure of your target ...........

EF


----------



## claymaster007

If this guy is indicted by a grand jury, I hope no hunters are summoned to be on the jury. Most seem to blame him with no complicity to the officer. I am not anti law enforcement, they have a job to do, and a dangerous one at that. God bless them and our military guys.


----------



## HandgunHTR

EEFowl said:


> STOP using made up facts to support your week arguments that this must have somehow been the victims fault.  WHAT NEWS ARTICLES STATE THAT THE VICTIM WAS ON ALL FOURS/CRAWLING ON THE GROUND/ ON HANDS AND KNEES IN THE BRUSH?  There are none!  These statements are only found in the public comments sections and on web boards.  Unless you were there STOP making these assumptions to validate your position.
> 
> The judicial system is going to "throw the shooter under the bus" using coontreeinhook's terms.  I'm throwing the victim blamers under the bus for their week, illogical and non-fact based attempts at justifying their "not totally the shooters fault" position.
> 
> EF



Did you actually read the article that I linked to?  If not, then please do.


----------



## Throwback

HandgunHTR said:


> Did you actually read the article that I linked to?  If not, then please do.



It said he was behind a berm. 


T


----------



## HandgunHTR

I am going to say this one time, and only one time.

If you can't be civil with one another and respectful of the parties involved, this thread will be locked down and infractions handed out.  I understand that this is a hot-button issue for some, but there is absolutely no need for name-calling or insulting of intelligence.

This is the only warning I am going to give.


----------



## hound dog

snake bite said:


> The guy that pulled the trigger is a good friend of mine.  I have been biting my tongue not to post something but I can't stand it any more.  It was an accident and I can assure you that remorse is an understatement of what he is feeling.  I have hunted with him for years and he is as safe of a hunter as I have ever hunted around.  I am going to clear up a few things for all the assumer's out there that believe everything that they here on the news and in the paper.  Everything  they were doing was legal.  They had an electronic predator call running full blast for about 20 min and the LEO was out there on a stake out for meth-alcohol disturbances in the area.  He then tried to sneak up on the field where they were hunting.  Obviously knowing there were hunters there and being a LEO he had to have known,  at 11pm there was a good chance that night vision equipment was being used.  He put himself in a very bad situation that if he would have announced himself or walked into the area with a flash light, this would have never happened.  Scanning the area with the night vision scope, something reflected back at him the same color as coyote eyes, low to the ground moving back and forth coming through the brush and tall grass was seen.  The  shooter then made a decision to take the shot at what he thought was a coyote.   Once they reached what they thought to be a coyote and finding  every hunters worst nightmare, they called 911.  He believes the officer was using night vision binoculars which reflected back at him exactly like every other coyote he has ever shot.  They were detained and released later that night.  I can only imagine the pain that both families are going through.  One lost a good man and the other has to deal with what has happened for the rest of his life.  I pray that something good come out of this, that everyone would make sure of there target and that LEO would take a closer look at there safety in nighttime situations.   A hat with reflective material, a vest with reflective material would be a good idea to incorporate into there uniform.



I know Clint too but not as well as you my brother. I feel for both men and very sorry it happen. I know some times we do things that we want to take back and I know that Clint would love to take that day back but he can't. Clint has to live with it for the rest of his life. But as you said at the end " I pray that something good come out of this, that everyone would make sure of there target and that LEO would take a closer look at there safety in nighttime situations.   A hat with reflective material, a vest with reflective material would be a good idea to incorporate into there uniform."

My prayers still go out to both families.


----------



## Throwback

Or maybe the answer would be to outlaw night vision scopes for hunting.........


T


----------



## seaweaver

snake bite said:


> They had an electronic predator call running full blast for about 20 min and the LEO was out there on a stake out for meth-alcohol disturbances in the area.  ............. Obviously knowing there were hunters there and being a LEO he had to have known,  at 11pm there was a good chance that night vision equipment was being used.  He put himself in a very bad situation that if he would have announced himself or walked into the area with a flash light, this would have never happened.



_Upton was behind a berm, using binoculars, and the binocular lenses apparently looked like eyes through the men's night-vision scopes._-AC

"No...I have assigned partial blame to the shooter...I just have not ruled out complicity of the Ranger."-cw

I'm beginning to form a more defined opinion...


cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

Simply amazing.

Snake bite, your friend told you he was using his rifle scope to identify his target?


----------



## Emmersom Biggens

Some people are so worried about ridiculous, minute details that I think they fail to remember the true victims, the wife and daughter of the officer and the 2 men who have to live with the fact they took part in taking another human beings life. It is not up to us to judge his guilt or innocence, let the judicial system do its job. All we should be doing is remember them all when we go to God in prayer. God bless all involved in this horrible tragedy.


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

Cornbread-58 said:


> Wow! I never knew so many people lived in glass houses, and they seem to be real popular in Minn. Just be careful cutting your grass, you could sling a rock at your own house.
> 
> Again only 3 people were there that night, and they are the only ones who ACTUALLY know what happened. Thats why we now have an on going INVESTAGATION. What happened is not in black and white or green and black for that matter. People were involved, therefore mistakes and, yes, accidents do, can and will happen.
> 
> I know this is going to flame some of you guys, but, oh well I'm gonna say it anyway. Being a L.E.O. he should have know far better than the average joe, the dangers of approaching any one under the cover of darkness, who has a gun. Sorry, but it just don't seem like a very wise thing to do. Was checking up on these two hunters worth even a CHANCE that something tragic could happen? In hindsight, NO. All parties involved contributed to this tragic end, knowingly or not.
> 
> Is it the shooters fault? YES, Period.
> 
> Was it an accident? YES.
> 
> Would I approach someone in the woods at night knowing they had a rifle? My job or not. NO WAY, without making it clear that I was doing so. My life is not worth writing a ticket.
> 
> My house ain't glass, and I learned my lesson about throwing rocks.



I agree.It seems that saying you believe mistakes were made on both side is the same as saying the officer was to blame for his own death to some people.People make mistakes and sometimes it cost the lives of themselves or someone else.I hate it for both families.


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

Emmersom Biggens said:


> Some people are so worried about ridiculous, minute details that I think they fail to remember the true victims, the wife and daughter of the officer and the 2 men who have to live with the fact they took part in taking another human beings life. It is not up to us to judge his guilt or innocence, let the judicial system do its job. All we should be doing is remember them all when we go to God in prayer. God bless all involved in this horrible tragedy.



Good posting.


----------



## EEFowl

> they fail to remember the true victims, the wife and daughter of the officer


And therefore I vigorously defend the honor of that family since the leader and head of that family can no longer do this.

EF


----------



## seaweaver

_Snake bite, your friend told you he was using his rifle scope to identify his target? _-Jeff Young

"Not an enforceable rule, but a standard safety rule...never poing a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot, never use a scope as a pair of binoculars, be sure of your target ..........." EF
_
Some people are so worried about ridiculous, minute details that I think they fail to remember the true victims, the wife and daughter of the officer and the 2 men who have to live with the fact they took part in taking another human beings life._ EB
_
And therefore I vigorously defend the honor of that family since the leader and head of that family can no longer do this._

EF 


how noble...really.
But many of us already noted that...and are looking at the details or lack of ...and withstanding this rigorous defense in difference to the evidence suggesting there is more than meets the eye to this.

cw


----------



## dadsbuckshot

O.C.G.A:
16-11-102
A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he intentionally and without legal justification points or aims a gun or pistol at another, whether the gun or pistol is loaded or unloaded.


----------



## GAJoe

snake bite said:


> The guy that pulled the trigger is a good friend of mine.  I have been biting my tongue not to post something but I can't stand it any more.  It was an accident and I can assure you that remorse is an understatement of what he is feeling.  I have hunted with him for years and he is as safe of a hunter as I have ever hunted around.  I am going to clear up a few things for all the assumer's out there that believe everything that they here on the news and in the paper.  Everything  they were doing was legal.  They had an electronic predator call running full blast for about 20 min and the LEO was out there on a stake out for meth-alcohol disturbances in the area.  He then tried to sneak up on the field where they were hunting.  Obviously knowing there were hunters there and being a LEO he had to have known,  at 11pm there was a good chance that night vision equipment was being used.  He put himself in a very bad situation that if he would have announced himself or walked into the area with a flash light, this would have never happened.  Scanning the area with the night vision scope, something reflected back at him the same color as coyote eyes, low to the ground moving back and forth coming through the brush and tall grass was seen.  The  shooter then made a decision to take the shot at what he thought was a coyote.   Once they reached what they thought to be a coyote and finding  every hunters worst nightmare, they called 911.  He believes the officer was using night vision binoculars which reflected back at him exactly like every other coyote he has ever shot.  They were detained and released later that night.  I can only imagine the pain that both families are going through.  One lost a good man and the other has to deal with what has happened for the rest of his life.  I pray that something good come out of this, that everyone would make sure of there target and that LEO would take a closer look at there safety in nighttime situations.   A hat with reflective material, a vest with reflective material would be a good idea to incorporate into there uniform.



Snake Bite,
            There's no doubt that your buddy screwed up. I just pray that he can bear the load on his shoulders until it eases up. I feel for him and the LEO's family and have been praying for them.
As I stated in an early post that I started hunting coyotes at night several years ago and quickly gave it up for daytime only becouse a 6Volt light (6Volt limit by LAW) doesn't provide enough illumination to hunt safely. I've met many newcomers to the predator hunting sport sence then. I wouldn't dare go into the woods at night where I know these guys are predator huntin'. If they're usin' a light it's too little if they're legal. If they're usin' night vision it may be that cheap pre genIII stuff. If it is good night vision then it's probably mounted on a chambered barrel if they're thinkin' to get a shot 'cause coyotes don't stop long enough to positively identify then chamber your round. I haven't met anyone coyote hunting that is rich enough to own two good night vision scopes (one for the gun and the other for spottin'). That's not to say that these guys on here don't do everything correctly as they would lead us to believe. But I'm sure that for every 1 of them there's 99 others that shouldn't be approached at night without taking precaution to make sure they know someone else is in the woods. And I'm sure that LEO's know that also. For any LEO to walk into this situation without some way of identifying himself is like those people that drive on the interstate in a driving rain with their headlights off; it's an invitation for disaster. There IS a law to have headlights on, but getting hit is the result of  driving in the rain with headlights off not breaking the law. I would say there should be a law or policy for LEO's to identify themselves sence THEY KNOW the visibility is poor. I hope as you that something good can come of this and lives be saved. 

GAJoe
Aren't you perfect guys glad I don't hunt at night.


----------



## Throwback

Isn't it interesting how many people think the LEO, that got shot, is the one that should have "done something" to keep from.....being shot. 






T


----------



## LEON MANLEY

Throwback said:


> Isn't it interesting how many people think the LEO, that got shot, is the one that should have "done something" to keep from.....being shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T





xx2


----------



## below285

Throwback said:


> Isn't it interesting how many people think the LEO, that got shot, is the one that should have "done something" to keep from.....being shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T



God forbid he use a flashlight.  Play stupid games win stupid prizes.   He walked up on two armed guys in the dark.  He took a calculated risk, i assume he knew there was a chance he could get shot but he took that chance and decided not to make his presence known.  Not sayin it's ok he got shot just that all the fault isn't the shooters in my opinion.


----------



## GAJoe

Throwback said:


> Isn't it interesting how many people think the LEO, that got shot, is the one that should have "done something" to keep from.....being shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T



Do you wear orange while deer hunting becouse it's the law?
I would even if it wasn't the law to be safe.

If everyone identified their target properly there would be no need to wear orange. Why is there a law to wear orange in broad daylight?


----------



## Throwback

GAJoe said:


> Do you wear orange while deer hunting becouse it's the law?
> I would even if it wasn't the law to be safe.
> 
> If everyone identified their target properly there would be no need to wear orange. Why is there a law to wear orange in broad daylight?




The bottom line is that hunting at night requires a thousand percent more caution than hunting in the day. 




T


----------



## Throwback

below285 said:


> God forbid he use a flashlight.  Play stupid games win stupid prizes.   He walked up on two armed guys in the dark.  He took a calculated risk, i assume he knew there was a chance he could get shot but he took that chance and decided not to make his presence known.  Not sayin it's ok he got shot just that all the fault isn't the shooters in my opinion.







T


----------



## Sterlo58

*Guilty*

This thread has gone round and round but the only valid issue here is the hunters failed to follow the most important rule in hunting  - POSITIVELY IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET BEFORE SHOOTING. This is critical and the only issue here. They did not ID their target and are guilty. PERIOD

No ifs ands or buts ( or orange vests )


----------



## Sterlo58

below285 said:


> God forbid he use a flashlight.  Play stupid games win stupid prizes.   He walked up on two armed guys in the dark.  He took a calculated risk, i assume he knew there was a chance he could get shot but he took that chance and decided not to make his presence known.  Not sayin it's ok he got shot just that all the fault isn't the shooters in my opinion.



All the fault is definitely the shooters dude. WAKE UP


----------



## Throwback

Sterlo58 said:


> ( or orange vests )



Or mariachi bands or blowing tubas or shining flashlights. 

T


----------



## Sterlo58

Throwback said:


> Or mariachi bands or blowing tubas or shining flashlights.
> 
> T



Thats it. Your a genius. We should all have to bring a mariachi band with us to prevent accidents.


----------



## LIB MR ducks

Sterlo58 said:


> This thread has gone round and round but the only valid issue here is the hunters failed to follow the most important rule in hunting  - POSITIVELY IDENTIFY YOUR TARGET BEFORE SHOOTING. This is critical and the only issue here. They did not ID their target and are guilty. PERIOD
> 
> No ifs ands or buts ( or orange vests )



AMEN!!!


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

below285 said:


> God forbid he use a flashlight.  Play stupid games win stupid prizes.   He walked up on two armed guys in the dark.  He took a calculated risk, i assume he knew there was a chance he could get shot but he took that chance and decided not to make his presence known.  Not sayin it's ok he got shot just that all the fault isn't the shooters in my opinion.



Your lack of appreciation for the danger and sacrifice these men and women face daily on behalf of Georgia's sportsmen and women is appalling and frankly, an embarrassment. 

Your characterization of Officer Upton's work as 'stupid games' is an insult to every man and women who straps on a badge and goes out into this world to protect your rights and resources.

You "assume he knew there was a chance he could get shot"?!?!

The families of those who chose a life as a law enforcement officer live with that "assumption" everyday. They know that every time their husband, son, daughter or brother puts on his/her badge and walks out into the night that they are facing the possibility that someone is out there, doing things they should not be doing and that it may well result in that loved one not returning home.

Perhaps it is something that must be experienced to truly grasp and appreciate but it is a heavy burden for the men and women who face it everyday, yet, they face it and live with that possibility and they do it for you. They Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- sure don't do it for themselves or the "big money".

The reality of that assumption came home to Mrs. Upton and her daughter last week and you defile the memory of her husband and the sacrifice that family made by calling his sacrifice on our behalf a 'stupid game'.


----------



## Sterlo58

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Your lack of appreciation for the danger and sacrifice these men and women face daily on behalf of Georgia's sportsmen and women is appalling and frankly, an embarrassment.
> 
> Your characterization of Officer Upton's work as 'stupid games' is an insult to every man and women who straps on a badge and goes out into this world to protect your rights and resources.
> 
> You "assume he knew there was a chance he could get shot"?!?!
> 
> The families of those who chose a life as a law enforcement officer live with that "assumption" everyday. They know that every time their husband, son, daughter or brother puts on his/her badge and walks out into the night that they are facing the possibility that someone is out there, doing things they should not be doing and that it may well result in that loved one not returning home.
> 
> Perhaps it is something that must be experienced to truly grasp and appreciate but it is a heavy burden for the men and women who face it everyday, yet, they face it and live with that possibility and they do it for you. They Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- sure don't do it for themselves or the "big money".
> 
> The reality of that assumption came home to Mrs. Upton and her daughter last week and you defile the memory of her husband and the sacrifice that family made by calling his sacrifice on our behalf a 'stupid game'.



Could not have said it better. It blows my mind how people justify putting part of the blame on this poor guy when the idjut who pulled the trigger is the only one at fault. 100% at fault.


----------



## Ta-ton-ka chips

Throwback said:


> The bottom line is that hunting at night requires a thousand percent more caution than hunting in the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T



Is it even possible to identify your target with 100% accuracy at night?

And if I was on a jury I would have to personally wear night vision and look at another person who was using binos in order to convict the murderers. What did they really see? Cause I don't know.


----------



## dawg2

Ta-ton-ka chips said:


> Is it even possible to identify your target with 100% accuracy at night?....


It depends.  Several factors involved.  It would depend on what generation of NV were being utilized.  Ambient light conditions, what type (if any) of illuminator.  Distance is a major factor as well.  But yes, you can possitively ID your target at night with the right conditions and equipment.  



Ta-ton-ka chips said:


> ...And if I was on a jury I would have to personally wear night vision and look at another person who was using binos in order to convict the murderers.....


I would expect the lawyers to have everyone take a peek through their equipment.  Doesn't matter if the LEO was using NV, binocs or anything else.  In fact, human eyes will glow with NV at night.



Ta-ton-ka chips said:


> ..... What did they really see? Cause I don't know.



What they saw doesn't really matter.  While I am 100% positive they never INTENDED to shoot a human, the fact is they did.  So that answers my questions.  They did not positively ID their target.  They probably did not have really good equipment OR they overshot the capacity of their technology and shot the first thing they saw, whether it was a pet, deer, possum, or in this case a human being.  They shot at movement.  I don't care about "eye-shine" or if the guy was wearing NV goggles or peering through a binocular.  The fact is they did not positively ID what they were shooting.  They were "brush busting" at the first thing that came by.


----------



## EEFowl

> there should be a law or policy for LEO's to identify themselves sence THEY KNOW the visibility is poor


GAjoe,
Please explain the logistics of how this would work.  Would this "must ID oneself" rule only apply to the GW or to all LEO's, only in the woods or in town too?  Wouldn't it make sence to apply this "rule/law" to hunters too.  The way this type of incident usually happens is, hunter shoots other hunter.  
So are your requesting that there be some kind of government mandate that hunters/LEO's/persons walking dogs/bird watchers, etc continually identify themselves with a light and or orange vest and or verbal salutations, while in a wildlife habitat especally in low light situations so as to not be mistaken for game.  And if continued identification is not done and you get shot then it's partially your own fault.  Or are you just requesting that LEO's continually ID themselves with lights/orange vest/verbal salutations etc.
Please explain this "must ID oneself" rule for those of us who just don't get it.

EF


----------



## LEON MANLEY

below285 said:


> God forbid he use a flashlight.  Play stupid games win stupid prizes.   He walked up on two armed guys in the dark.  He took a calculated risk, i assume he knew there was a chance he could get shot but he took that chance and decided not to make his presence known.  Not sayin it's ok he got shot just that all the fault isn't the shooters in my opinion.



Which article said he walked up on these shooters? He may have already on stakeout when they arrived.


----------



## LEON MANLEY

GAJoe said:


> Do you wear orange while deer hunting becouse it's the law?
> I would even if it wasn't the law to be safe.
> 
> If everyone identified their target properly there would be no need to wear orange. Why is there a law to wear orange in broad daylight?



People get shot through their orange, out of a deer stand (I thought it was an orange turkey)


----------



## EEFowl

> Which article said he walked up on these shooters?


I was wondering that myself.  

EF


----------



## seaweaver

Throwback said:


> Isn't it interesting how many people think the LEO, that got shot, is the one that should have "done something" to keep from.....being shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T



Isn't it interesting how many people think the LEO, that got shot, doesn't have to do anything to keep from.....being shot. 



Throwback said:


> The bottom line is that hunting at night requires a thousand percent more caution than hunting in the day.
> 
> T



On who's part? just the hunter or the ranger in the dark?

_
Please explain the logistics of how this would work. Would this "must ID oneself" rule only apply to the GW or to all LEO's, only in the woods or in town too?_


Knock knock
"who's der?"
"the police"
"police officer... freeze"


yea that would never work....

Isn't it interesting how many people think the LEO, that got shot, doesn't have to do anything to keep from.....being shot. 


cw


----------



## Throwback

seaweaver said:


> Isn't it interesting how many people think the LEO, that got shot, doesn't have to do anything to keep from.....being shot.
> 
> 
> cw



what's more interesting than that is how people think that he knew they had night vision, knew exactly what they were doing and he had all the knowledge that we now have---which was gained from the OTHER person's perspective. 





T


----------



## seaweaver

It's nice to think of Zero tolerance in a situation like this as it tends to generate the notion that it will prevent such occurrences.
But zero tolerance in judging fails.
It does make it easy to assign blame....as it removes discretion on the part of the accuser. You do not have to think using zero tolerance. There is no Judgment...1+1 always= 2...but life is not math.
It is too easy to say "he had the gun, he is to blame" 
That kind of simplicity is naive. It does not account for circumstances.
To say that accidents don't happen is nuts.
The _man_ was not intentionally shot.
The shooter did not intend to kill a human.
The shooter thought he shot a yote right up to the point he was standing over him.
By the same "no Accident" logic the only way to "fully ID" the target is personal inspection and that is not realistic. 

There are _cases_ where certainly there is no such thing as an accident, but that is NOT a blanket statement and those that might consider it so probably have no problem w/ zero tolerance.

This ranger was not shot point blank in the daylight.

Zero tolerance reduces the  most powerful brain on the planet to a simple transistor.


----------



## Sterlo58

*focus*



seaweaver said:


> Isn't it interesting how many people think the LEO, that got shot, doesn't have to do anything to keep from.....being shot.
> 
> 
> cw



Isn't it interesting how some people can't wrap their arms around the concept of knowing 100% without a shadow of a doubt what you are shooting at. That is the only issue here. That is the only factor that should be considered. If you think differently than I don't ever want to hunt in the same county as you. As a matter of fact, you should not be allowed to hunt if you don't understand that concept.


----------



## seaweaver

Throwback said:


> what's more interesting than that is how people think that he knew they had night vision, knew exactly what they were doing and he had all the knowledge that we now have---which was gained from the OTHER person's perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T



I did not say that.
He certainly knew that had to have at least one gun...in hand.....
And they were expecting their quarry...to come to them.


cw


----------



## Sterlo58

seaweaver said:


> It's nice to think of Zero tolerance in a situation like this as it tends to generate the notion that it will prevent such occurrences.
> But zero tolerance in judging fails.
> It does make it easy to assign blame....as it removes discretion on the part of the accuser. You do not have to think using zero tolerance. There is no Judgment...1+1 always= 2...but life is not math.
> It is too easy to say "he had the gun, he is to blame"
> That kind of simplicity is naive. It does not account for circumstances.
> To say that accidents don't happen is nuts.
> The _man_ was not intentionally shot.
> The shooter did not intend to kill a human.
> The shooter thought he shot a yote right up to the point he was standing over him.
> By the same "no Accident" logic the only way to "fully ID" the target is personal inspection and that is not realistic.
> 
> There are _cases_ where certainly there is no such thing as an accident, but that is NOT a blanket statement and those that might consider it so probably have no problem w/ zero tolerance.
> 
> This ranger was not shot point blank in the daylight.
> 
> Zero tolerance reduces the  most powerful brain on the planet to a simple transistor.



When it comes to guns, there should be zero tolerance for not positively identifying your target. If you disagree with that you scare the livin daylights outa me knowin you are hunting in the same state as me.


----------



## seaweaver

I don't think it is a stretch to assume he did not think he had the advantage over the hunters.

cw


----------



## Sterlo58

seaweaver said:


> I did not say that.
> He certainly knew that had to have at least one gun...in hand.....
> And they were expecting their quarry...to come to them.
> 
> 
> cw



How many ways can I say that you are missing the point. What if it was some kids out messin around after dark and not a LEO. THE POINT IS ID YOUR TARGET. The point is not what color the LEO should have been wearing and what show tune he should have been whistling to be noticed.


----------



## seaweaver

Sterlo58 said:


> When it comes to guns, there should be zero tolerance for not positively identifying your target. If you disagree with that you scare the livin daylights outa me knowin you are hunting in the same state as me.





did you forget the circumstances?
It is a noble notion...but is not always applicable to the circumstance. And I did not write the law regarding hunting at night.
So.....let's keep to the living daylight...and your fear will be not as pronounced.


cw


----------



## LEON MANLEY

seaweaver said:


> It's nice to think of Zero tolerance in a situation like this as it tends to generate the notion that it will prevent such occurrences.
> But zero tolerance in judging fails.
> It does make it easy to assign blame....as it removes discretion on the part of the accuser. You do not have to think using zero tolerance. There is no Judgment...1+1 always= 2...but life is not math.
> It is too easy to say "he had the gun, he is to blame"
> That kind of simplicity is naive. It does not account for circumstances.
> To say that accidents don't happen is nuts.
> The _man_ was not intentionally shot.
> The shooter did not intend to kill a human.
> The shooter thought he shot a yote right up to the point he was standing over him.
> By the same "no Accident" logic the only way to "fully ID" the target is personal inspection and that is not realistic.
> 
> There are _cases_ where certainly there is no such thing as an accident, but that is NOT a blanket statement and those that might consider it so probably have no problem w/ zero tolerance.
> 
> This ranger was not shot point blank in the daylight.
> 
> Zero tolerance reduces the  most powerful brain on the planet to a simple transistor.



Well if you make up your own scenario I guess anything is possible. You have no idea what  any of the people involved were thinking before during and after this tragic incident.


----------



## seaweaver

Sterlo58 said:


> How many ways can I say that you are missing the point. What if it was some kids out messin around after dark and not a LEO. THE POINT IS ID YOUR TARGET. The point is not what color the LEO should have been wearing and what show tune he should have been whistling to be noticed.



soooo the ranger has no responsibility for himself? 
cw


----------



## seaweaver

LEON MANLEY said:


> Well if you make up your own scenario I guess anything is possible. You have no idea what  any of the people involved were thinking before during and after this tragic incident.




I'm not making up anything...pleas read...not read into.
i never said I knew what they were thinking. The scant reports and hearsay from contemporaries point to them not discovering the yote was a ranger till standing over him...

Are you suggesting they knew he was a ranger?

cw


----------



## Sterlo58

seaweaver said:


> did you forget the circumstances?
> It is a noble notion...but is not always applicable to the circumstance. And I did not write the law regarding hunting at night.
> So.....let's keep to the living daylight...and your fear will be not as pronounced.
> 
> 
> cw



The circumstances here are not of consequence. Be it dark or daylight. If you don't have a foolproof way if identifying your target, don't shoot. Even a child should be able to grasp that concept. If your night vision equipment or lights don't allow you to make 100% sure of your target then don't hunt / shoot. Simple, isn't it


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

Throwback said:


> The bottom line is that hunting at night requires a thousand percent more caution than hunting in the day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T



So does enforcing hunting and game laws at night.


----------



## seaweaver

Sterlo58 said:


> The circumstances here are not of consequence. Be it dark or daylight. If you don't have a foolproof way if identifying your target, don't shoot. Even a child should be able to grasp that concept. If your night vision equipment or lights don't allow you to make 100% sure of your target then don't hunt / shoot. Simple, isn't it


What is the fool proof method for Id yotes at night?
What do you use?
How do you determine the set of eyes at ground level staring at your call is not a ranger?


cw


----------



## Sterlo58

seaweaver said:


> What is the fool proof method for Id yotes at night?
> What do you use?
> How do you determine the set of eyes at ground level staring at your call is not a ranger?
> 
> 
> cw



If there is not a foolproof way to ID then you should not night hunt.
I don't hunt at night. But if I did I can assure you I would not shoot at eyes.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

Sterlo58 said:


> Isn't it interesting how some people can't wrap their arms around the concept of knowing 100% without a shadow of a doubt what you are shooting at. That is the only issue here. That is the only factor that should be considered.



Actually, that is the only issue/factor that is currently public and is crystal clear. 

I believe there will be other factors and issues forthcoming that, though secondary to the principle of target ID, will be very important in understanding exactly what transpired before and after Officer Upton was shot. 

Not that I have a crystal ball or any inside information. Investigations usually turn up previously unkowns.


----------



## LEON MANLEY

This was a grave MISTAKE not an accident. We have to pay for our mistakes and seek forgiveness for accidents.


----------



## seaweaver

Sterlo58 said:


> If there is not a foolproof way to ID then you should not night hunt.




And the law has addressed this how?

They haven't.
Thus it is subjective. Something to consider when approaching known men w/ guns in the dark expecting their quarry to come to them.




Jeff if you can make allusions to something that might change the current data set, it could have a bearing on everyone's position.

But to simply toss it out there changes nothing.
The martians could land and really complicate things but to bring them into the subject now is simply a distraction...

I don't know why you would do that.........



cw


----------



## seaweaver

LEON MANLEY said:


> This was a grave MISTAKE not an accident. We have to pay for our mistakes and seek forgiveness for accidents.



better word.

cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

seaweaver said:


> How do you determine the set of eyes at ground level staring at your call is not a ranger?
> 
> 
> cw



Chris,

First of all, you do not check out the target with your rifle scope-EVER!

If you decide to foolishly ignore that rule and use your rifle scope as a identification tool the next step would be to check to see if there is a coyote actually attached to those eyes. 

If you cannot see a coyote head, body and legs your next move should never be to shoot a Federal Officer acting in the line of duty.


----------



## Sterlo58

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Chris,
> 
> First of all, you do not check out the target with your rifle scope-EVER!
> 
> If you decide to foolishly ignore that rule and use your rifle scope as a identification tool the next step would be to check to see if there is a coyote actually attached to those eyes.
> 
> If you cannot see a coyote head, body and legs your next move should never be to shoot a Federal Officer in acting in the line of duty.



 that is what I have been trying to say. 

Just because the law does not say identify head legs torso etc. one must use the judgement god gave us when using firearms.


----------



## Throwback

seaweaver said:


> I don't think it is a stretch to assume he did not think he had the advantage over the hunters.
> 
> cw



After reading that, your other posts make a whole lot more sense.  


T


----------



## Sterlo58

Throwback said:


> After reading that, your other posts make a whole lot more sense.
> 
> 
> T


----------



## LEON MANLEY

The ranger, God rest his soul, does not get to tell his side of the story, instead there are a lot of people wanting to insert their assumption of what occurred prior to the shooting and what he should have done or been doing to avoid this incident. They should work the buddy system and when fired upon, fire back. It would be hard to shoot both coyotes at the same time. Then we might have whole story, or at least a ranger's side of the incident.


----------



## EEFowl

> Please explain the logistics of how this would work. Would this "must ID oneself" rule only apply to the GW or to all LEO's, only in the woods or in town too?
> 
> 
> Knock knock
> "who's der?"
> "the police"
> "police officer... freeze"



OK, how does the "must ID oneself" rule work for other hunters?



> the only way to "fully ID" the target is personal inspection and that is not realistic.



seaweawer,
Are you saying the only way to fully ID a target when hunting at night is to ground check the target?  Please tell me your not saying that!  If you are saying that I am assume that since you believe this then that is how you "fully" ID your targets, I see something - through my scope, taking the shot, now lets go see what it was.  Is that how your hunts go?

EF


----------



## T.P.

The only way I see that any facet of this trajedy could have been the officers fault was if he was wearing a coyote suit and howling at the moon. I'm going out on a limb here and assuming he wasn't, so it appears that 100% of the blame goes to the shooter.

I'm unclear as how anyone can place blame on the officer?

 Now if it was a 190" typical that the guy shot thinking it was a coyote, how many folks would think he should get to keep it cause the deer shouldn't have been there in the first place. You know, the deer should've known better than to come sneaking in at night, ain't the hunters fault.... Heck no he'd go staight to jail, and threatened to be burned at the stake.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

Throwback said:


> After reading that, your other posts make a whole lot more sense.
> 
> 
> T



Told you so.


----------



## seaweaver

Wellllll how else do you explain him putting himself in that situation?

Going to....known hunters....in the dark....is not something most people would do....
I know it is Not something I would do.
The risk is too high.....for me. He must have had something different than I to alleviate that risk.
I guess yall have it too as yall don't see that point.



Jeff if you can make allusions to something that might change the current data set, it could have a bearing on everyone's position.

But to simply toss it out there changes nothing.
The martians could land and really complicate things but to bring them into the subject now is simply a distraction...

I don't know why you would do that.........


cw


----------



## seaweaver

EF most of the time hunters are IDed by their orange...
and they generally do not intentionality go to...other hunters
and;

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sterlo58 View Post
If there is not a foolproof way to ID then you should not night hunt.

And the law has addressed this how?

They haven't.
Thus it is subjective. Something to consider when approaching known men w/ guns in the dark expecting their quarry to come to them.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

seaweaver said:


> Wellllll how else do you explain him putting himself in that situation?
> 
> Going to....known hunters..Really? How do you know this is fact?..in the dark....is not something most people would do....
> I know it is Not something I would do.
> The risk is too high.....for meI can certainly buy that.. He must have had something different than I to alleviate that risk.I would say that is about right.
> I guess yall have it too as yall don't see that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cw



I think it is perfectly clear.


----------



## LEON MANLEY

seaweaver said:


> EF most of the time hunters are IDed by their orange...
> and they generally do not intentionality go to...other hunters
> and;
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Sterlo58 View Post
> If there is not a foolproof way to ID then you should not night hunt.
> 
> And the law has addressed this how?
> 
> They haven't.
> Thus it is subjective. Something to consider when approaching known men w/ guns in the dark expecting their quarry to come to them.






So if it is not orange then it's OK to shoot it?


----------



## seaweaver

Going to....known hunters.._Really? How do you know this is fact?._

Jeff back up and read the news postings....
and you don't want to talk about your allusions?


LM....you cannot keep "starting fresh" please keep up.


Mike a yote set up last about 30 minutes. Rangers can check hunters doing this and not ruin a hunt as if where hunting deer.

as there is no requirement to have 2 differnt NV gear or NV spotter...perhaps we should end night hunting in ga.
Or...just require rangers to use different tactics at night.
These guys were not the Meth cookers he was there for. What prevented him from exercising the same caution that you or I would have used knowing there were men w/ guns waiting for game approach in the dark?
The Rangers I have read about(including this one) are not worried about harassment. when you weigh Harassment over the risk of a Mistake...I'll take the harassment on both sides. 
cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

Chris, there is no reference Officer Upton knowingly approaching hunters.

As for my 'allusions', I take it that you believe that the investigation will not turn up any facts that are not already public.

That explains much for people who have yet to gain the experience of discussing an issue with you.

I already knew.


----------



## seaweaver

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Chris, there is no reference Officer Upton knowingly approaching hunters.
> 
> As for my 'allusions', I take it that you believe that the investigation will not turn up any facts that are not already public.
> 
> That explains much for people who have yet to gain the experience of discussing an issue with you.
> 
> I already knew.



Don't wing it Jeff...
Read the news reports.read the inside info. All of it points at the ranger going TO the hunters.
I stated far and early about not having all the data...but I suppose that doesn't work along this line you have chosen...
That explains much for people who have yet to gain the experience of discussing an issue with_ you._


cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

seaweaver said:


> Don't wing it Jeff...
> Read the news reports.read the inside info. All of it points at the ranger going TO the hunters.
> I stated far and early about not having all the data...but I suppose that doesn't work along this line you have chosen...
> That explains much for people who have yet to gain the experience of discussing an issue with_ you._
> 
> 
> cw



No Chris. No report says he knew he was going to a hunter.

As you tend to do, you are making up stuff to suit you.

Even if a news report said it most of us would not blindly accept that as a fact.

Leave it to you to swallow.


----------



## seaweaver

Mechanicaldawg said:


> No Chris. No report says he knew he was going to a hunter.
> 
> As you tend to do, you are making up stuff to suit you.
> 
> Even if a news report said it most of us would not blindly accept that as a fact.
> 
> Leave it to you to swallow.



it's back there Jeffry
It's not like a Crisis study of yours....

cw


----------



## Sterlo58

seaweaver,
I have read thru the posts again. In one or two sentences, what is the point you are trying to make here ?

You have argued with nearly every point of view expressed. Just curious what the main point is you are trying to get across. 

I enjoy a spirited debate, but whats your point?


----------



## EEFowl

Sterlo58,
I think that seaweaver is trying to justify continuing his practice of ground checking his night time kills.  If he finally agrees that the shooter is the only one at fault then in his own mind he must then change his  night time hunting tactics and admit that they were a less safe practice.

EF


----------



## seaweaver

Sterlo58 said:


> seaweaver,
> I have read thru the posts again. In one or two sentences, what is the point you are trying to make here ?
> 
> You have argued with nearly every point of view expressed. Just curious what the main point is you are trying to get across.
> 
> I enjoy a spirited debate, but whats your point?



the bulk of has been to defend exaggerations of my position... that the ranger most likely bears some responsibility.

The "cain't see orange crowd" was a tangent...
The"accident don't happen" is another...
the LEOs are infallible is another.

Jeff is nearly always a petty distraction and he has a chip on his shoulder as I helped shoot down a pet legislative crisis project of his.

Those of us that hold these reservations get the Boy Scout treatment. 
We get chastised. 
We have our points "read into".
We get accused of "blaming the victim". 
We get Judged because we reserve doubt that the blame rests entirely on one person.
We are Judged...(CHRISTIANS?)
We get patronized for hunting"rules" as if we are new to the subject.
We get lots of because we have not rushed to the same conclusion.


ummmm dats about it.

Jeffry...I'm not going to call Snake Bit a liar. He has provided insight to this and he is much closer to the situation than you...so I'll take him at his word.
I'll also take as a character witness the guy on the deleted post who had the intimate contact w/ said ranger.


Sorry...two sentences would not cut it.

cw


----------



## seaweaver

EEFowl said:


> Sterlo58,
> I think that seaweaver is trying to justify continuing his practice of ground checking his night time kills.  If he finally agrees that the shooter is the only one at fault then in his own mind he must then change his  night time hunting tactics and admit that they were a less safe practice.
> 
> EF




another example....
assumptions are pulled from thin air....

EF...I have not once said/suggested/implied..you do anything. 
By doing so....do you think this bolster's your point?
Would my point be bolstered by making assumptions of your character?

cw


----------



## Sterlo58

Sorry feller,
still did not state your main position in this debate. You went into great detail on why you argue certain points with certain members but still have not stated your bottom line stand on this issue. Did not answer my question. 

What is your position on this shooting. What is it that you are arguing in  defense of? You need to be clear on your position if you are gunna argue so passionately.

Just really want to know


----------



## Throwback

I thought the article said he was behind a berm. 


T


----------



## seaweaver

Sterlo58 said:


> Sorry feller,
> still did not state your main position in this debate. You went into great detail on why you argue certain points with certain members but still have not stated your bottom line stand on this issue. Did not answer my question.
> 
> What is your position on this shooting. What is it that you are arguing in  defense of? You need to be clear on your position if you are gunna argue so passionately.
> 
> Just really want to know



that the ranger most likely bears some responsibility.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

seaweaver said:


> the bulk of has been to defend exaggerations of my position... that the ranger most likely bears some responsibility.
> 
> The "cain't see orange crowd" was a tangent...
> The"accident don't happen" is another...
> the LEOs are infallible is another.
> 
> Jeff is nearly always a petty distraction and he has a chip on his shoulder as I helped shoot down a pet legislative crisis project of his.
> 
> Those of us that hold these reservations get the Boy Scout treatment.
> We get chastised.
> We have our points "read into".
> We get accused of "blaming the victim".
> We get Judged because we reserve doubt that the blame rests entirely on one person.
> We are Judged...(CHRISTIANS?)
> We get patronized for hunting"rules" as if we are new to the subject.
> We get lots of because we have not rushed to the same conclusion.
> 
> 
> ummmm dats about it.
> 
> Jeffry...I'm not going to call Snake Bit a liar. He has provided insight to this and he is much closer to the situation than you...so I'll take him at his word.
> I'll also take as a character witness the guy on the deleted post who had the intimate contact w/ said ranger.
> 
> 
> Sorry...two sentences would not cut it.
> 
> cw



This =smoke screen.

You'll accept someone you've never met, and only know of from a couple of posts about an encounter with a man who cited him for illegal activity and who no longer can speak for himself, as a "character witness" without any further check into his background.

That gives us another insight into your desire to blame the law enforcement officer when ever the opportunity presents itself. You'll latch on to the smallest of hairs if it heads in the direction you desire without regard to the scalp full of curls heading the other way.

Good for you!

You are consistent. It seems like you blamed the Ranger who was shot last year down in your neck of the woods for  walking through the woods without his tuba and Mariachi Band.


----------



## seaweaver

Mechanicaldawg said:


> This =smoke screen.
> 
> You'll accept someone you've never met, and only know of from a couple of posts about an encounter with a man who cited him for illegal activity and who no longer can speak for himself, as a "character witness" without any further check into his background.
> 
> That gives us another insight into your desire to blame the law enforcement officer when ever the opportunity presents itself. You'll latch on to the smallest of hairs if it heads in the direction you desire without regard to the scalp full of curls heading the other way.
> 
> Good for you!
> 
> You are consistent. It seems like you blamed the Ranger who was shot last year down in your neck of the woods for  walking through the woods without his tuba and Mariachi Band.



Are you calling snake bit a liar?

seems like?
you mean...you not sure.... but willing to promote the notion anyhow?
That was the basis for a crisis of yours once....

I never met you Jeff...should I take your word on your next crisis?

I can hear the bivalves screaming from my house....
cw


----------



## Sterlo58

seaweaver said:


> that the ranger most likely bears some responsibility.



For some over zealous yahoo that pulled the trigger on what he thought was a coyote. That is so lame it is not even imaginable that you would take that stand. 

What if your teenage child had been out ramblin with some buddies in the woods and got shot by this yahoo. Would they bear some responsibility. If you answer yes to that then I know you are full of baloney. 

Find a real argument that warrants an intelligent debate.


----------



## seaweaver

Sterlo58 said:


> For some over zealous yahoo that pulled the trigger on what he thought was a coyote. That is so lame it is not even imaginable that you would take that stand.
> 
> What if your teenage child had been out ramblin with some buddies in the woods and got shot by this yahoo. Would they bear some responsibility. If you answer yes to that then I know you are full of baloney.
> 
> Find a real argument that warrants an intelligent debate.





sooooooooooooooooo
now the man is an

"over zealous yahoo "



otay........
as... and aside....what's your religion?

_
on what he thought was a coyote_ 
soooooooooo  It's ok now?



cw


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

seaweaver said:


> Are you calling snake bit a liar?
> 
> seems like?
> you mean...you not sure.... but willing to promote the notion anyhow?
> That was the basis for a crisis of yours once....
> 
> I never met you Jeff...should I take your word on your next crisis?
> 
> I can hear the bivalves screaming from my house....
> cw




You claimed that earlier news reports stated that Office Upton was knowingly approaching hunters.

That was not true.

Now you are pointing to the post from a friend of the guy who shot the Federal Officer carrying out his duty and stating that since he says his friend claims that Officer Upton had to know he was walking toward hunters it must be a fact.

You stick to that, despite reports that Officer Upton was behind a berm, another earlier report that he was investigating possible meth lab via stake out, etc.

The facts that we know from the discussions on this forum are very few and very simple.

1. Mr. Hale shot Officer Upton and, by his own admission, did so because he thought he was a coyote.

I said 'few'.

Let me recant. They are singular.


----------



## Sterlo58

seaweaver said:


> sooooooooooooooooo
> now the man is an
> 
> "over zealous yahoo "
> 
> 
> 
> otay........
> as... and aside....what's your religion?
> 
> _
> on what he thought was a coyote_
> soooooooooo  It's ok now?
> 
> 
> 
> cw



All I can say is WOW. I am going to find an intelligent debate somewhere else. You make zero sense. 
Like debating with a rock.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

Sterlo58 said:


> All I can say is WOW. I am going to find an intelligent debate somewhere else. You make zero sense.
> Like debating with a rock.



Told you so.


----------



## Jake Allen

seaweaver said:


> that the ranger most likely bears some responsibility.


 yea, right


----------



## seaweaver

yea too tough...

pray tell....what would care to debate?
how we can pre-judge the shooter?



ooops fox new hour.
cw


----------



## seaweaver

Jake Allen said:


> yea, right


prove he doesn't.
LEO are infallible?
perhaps it's just me...but I won't go near anyone w/ guns hunting at night expecting game to come to them...
I'know its a bit out there.....

but really kids...the new is on.
cw


----------



## seaweaver

oh wait..I though my puter would change time on it's own like my phone...
go ahead Jake.
cw


----------



## LEON MANLEY

seaweaver said:


> Going to....known hunters.._Really? How do you know this is fact?._
> 
> Jeff back up and read the news postings....
> and you don't want to talk about your allusions?
> 
> 
> LM....you cannot keep "starting fresh" please keep up.
> 
> 
> Mike a yote set up last about 30 minutes. Rangers can check hunters doing this and not ruin a hunt as if where hunting deer.
> 
> as there is no requirement to have 2 differnt NV gear or NV spotter...perhaps we should end night hunting in ga.
> Or...just require rangers to use different tactics at night.
> These guys were not the Meth cookers he was there for. What prevented him from exercising the same caution that you or I would have used knowing there were men w/ guns waiting for game approach in the dark?
> The Rangers I have read about(including this one) are not worried about harassment. when you weigh Harassment over the risk of a Mistake...I'll take the harassment on both sides.
> cw




I've been trying to keep up but you have yet to state your position on this matter.
But the question remains (if you don't see any orange then it's ok to shoot).


----------



## LEON MANLEY

balvarik said:


> So a driver coming south down I-85 has a brick tossed off a bridge by a miscreant,that crashes into his windshield and kills him.
> 
> So how much responsibility does the driver assume for driving down a road,having a brick tossed into his windshield,and getting killed??
> 
> 
> Mike



Make it a state patrol man on the clock


----------



## seaweaver

balvarik said:


> So a driver coming south down I-85 has a brick tossed off a bridge by a miscreant,that crashes into his windshield and kills him.
> 
> So how much responsibility does the driver assume for driving down a road,having a brick tossed into his windshield,and getting killed??
> 
> 
> Mike


not remotely the same mike.

which matter LM, there are at  least 3 in that quote.
cw


----------



## seaweaver

balvarik said:


> Explain?
> 
> Foreign object kills Officer while in the line of duty.
> 
> State Trooper killed by a rock while driving is how different from a bullet killing a Ranger?
> 
> 
> Mike



really?

a rock tossed from an over pass killing a man  is the same as a man intentionaly in the danger zone of a man w/ a gun looking to kill something in the dark....

oh.....

cw


----------



## LEON MANLEY

Mike, I think I am gonna let him have this one (I can't keep up)?


----------



## seaweaver

WHAT?...what if we make the rock chucker an ...."over zealous yahoo "



cw


----------



## gobbleinwoods

just for argument's sake.  If it is a trooper who knows that someone is throwing rocks off the overpass and he drives in blindly, does he now bear any guilt by lack of protecting himself?

Not saying he does just asking to make the two scenarios 'more similar' IMO.


----------



## seaweaver

oooo dats goood...
and he still has to be an "over zealous yahoo "!!
cw


----------



## Sterlo58

seaweaver said:


> oooo dats goood...
> and he still has to be an "over zealous yahoo "!!
> cw



like someone else here.


----------



## EEFowl

seaweaver did state his position and has in a previous post, that the officer bears some responsibility.  But what seaweaver has not done is offer some kind of logical, fact based reasons for this position.  Although he did say that LEO's are not infallable, that goes for everyone and is too general an argument.  I think that is what Sterlo58 really wanted him to clairify.  

EF


----------



## killitgrillit

gobbleinwoods said:


> just for argument's sake.  If it is a trooper who knows that someone is throwing rocks off the overpass and he drives in blindly, does he now bear any guilt by lack of protecting himself?
> 
> Not saying he does just asking to make the two scenarios 'more similar' IMO.


----------



## Sterlo58

balvarik said:


> The shooter bears 100% of the responsibility for the death.
> 
> When you look down the sights,acquire your target and squeeze off the round it is all a conscious act.
> Was the shooter under the influence??
> Was the shooter mentally impaired??
> 
> 
> Anyone who can even attempt to justify taking a shot when the target is not clearly identified has no business being afield with a firearm.
> 
> As soon as the report is made public of this incredibly ignorant shooter who failed to follow a very simple principle of identifying the target before touching the trigger,the recipe for crow shall be then published.
> 
> Mike



Mike
I agree but trying to argue with seaweaver is like trying to push a rope uphill.


----------



## claymaster007

Throwback had a great idea,lets just outlaw the use of nightvision. No, on second thought, lets outlaw guns since the gun is what did the killing. Maybe we should just outlaw hunting, and then no one would be out there to catch hunting. Nightvision=tool.  Gun=tool. Bullets=tool. Good common horse sense on both sides= no hunting accidents. For everything else there is Master Card.


----------



## rospaw

gobbleinwoods said:


> just for argument's sake.  If it is a trooper who knows that someone is throwing rocks off the overpass and he drives in blindly, does he now bear any guilt by lack of protecting himself?
> 
> Not saying he does just asking to make the two scenarios 'more similar' IMO.



Your argument with a trooper "KNOWING" that someone is throwing rocks over "THE" (knowing which overpass) overpass and he goes under the overpass at normal speed then YES he does "bear guilt" if he is struck. Because he new there was someone throwing rocks (hunting at night with a caller) and he should have taken more or better caution when coming in the area. He should have gotten off the highway and drove to the overpass (Should have waited for the hunters to leave the area and stop them or approached them from where they drove in/ parked at) Most all the blame is on the shooter. You should know what your shooting at before you shoot. period! And also what is behind what you are shooting at. I see the le doing his job. A very dangerous job he has CHOSEN to do and i thank each and everyone of them that do it for me/us.  Three of my best friends are 25yr plus le and have been friends with them for 20 plus years. I asked them what they thought and not even one of them would go down range of a hunter hunting at night. (one said i want to go home to my family no way i would) I don't blame them i would NOT do it either. They all said we would drive in and check the guys but would have backup with them/lights on.  
I feel very sorry for all involved! Is it an Accident....... that word just does not fit. I don't know what to call it...... stupid......mistake..... can't find a word for it. The whole thing just sucks! 
Ok guys.... i have stepped out in the range now yall can take shots at my thoughts!


----------



## claymaster007

Mike, How do we outlaw the idiots in the field. I am a firearms instructor and I can tell you that there are some people out there that should not own firearms. Every single person that I have spoken to on this matter agrees that mistakes were made on BOTH sides. Mr. Hale did not fully identify his target. Not to make an excuse for him,but look at his mindset. He was playing a varmint call expecting something to come to his call. He was in the middle of US Forest Service Land which is a very secluded area. Probably the last thing on his mind was that a man would be responding to his call. Put yourself in his shoes. I did. I can see how a tragic accident like this could happen. Mistakes made on both sides. Would you as a law enforcement officer go to a varmint call in the middle of the night? If you answer yes,something is amiss.


----------



## Throwback

How do you know he knew they had night vision? 

How do you know he knew they were coyote hunting? 

Do any of you actually think that if he thought he was in the line of fire he wouldn't have moved out of it? 

IF he knew they had night vision, don't you think he would have hid so as  not to be detected at all if he was in fact "sneaking around/crawling around like a coyote"?






T


----------



## LEON MANLEY

How do you know that he had not been in the same spot behind the berm before the shooters arrived or started the call.


----------



## EEFowl

How do you know that the shooters were even using a call?

EF


----------



## Throwback

I wonder what the manufacturer of the scope put in the box about it's capabilities, identifying targets, practice before using, etc. 

T


----------



## seaweaver

EEFowl said:


> seaweaver did state his position and has in a previous post, that the officer bears some responsibility.  But what seaweaver has not done is offer some kind of logical, fact based reasons for this position.  Although he did say that LEO's are not infallable, that goes for everyone and is too general an argument.  I think that is what Sterlo58 really wanted him to clairify.
> 
> EF




Wrong...if you cannot quote directly then don't try to paraphrase as it can change everything...
Do you see the word you left out? it has bearing....

Could the officer have contributed by placing himself in a dangerous situation???
Lets think.

1.Was the Ranger there the whole time in the danger zone?
Doubtful...But I don't know...But I would think he would checked the guys out...prior to finding to their set up and  finding himself in an area that is about to be swept by the barrel of a gun...at night.

2.Did the Ranger place himself in known area of fire?
I think he might have. I don't know the complete methods of cooking meth which is what was stated he was there for... But a field sounds like less than ideal location. 
The rest room was mentioned before and this sound like a better location for cooking meth and a good place to stakeout. From SB's statement, these boys chose a field and ran a predator call which is a known MO for yote hunting. Is it hard to assume the officer left the stakeout at the head to go to the field at the sound of the predator call? No.

4. Is moving towards a known sound that hunters use to call fast moving, sneaky prey is risky? 
Yes

5. Why would anyone assume such a risk to watch hunters?
Not many would...unless they assumed they had some advantage to manage the risk...or they are just nuts.

6. Was the ranger nuts? 
Doubtful, but he was equipped w/ NV gear that would provide a level of advantage.

7. Would this advantage negate risk?
No.

8. Would an officer be aware of Potential hunter in the area?
A good one would. The roads are dirt. The head in the Ocmulgee Bluff Equestrian Recreation Area is in the middle of the parking lot and there are only a few branches off Smith Mill rd that really don't run far and are gated off at Smith Mill. Directly adjacent to this lot is an open area as well as another large open area  just to the west north west. All areas to park to gain access to these fields is in the open. I doubt the vehicle that was driven by the hunters was a Ford escort or what ever the meth heads near Monticello are driving so it stands to reason it looked like a hunters vehicle. I'm sure some meth heads have a Browning decal in their window...but to a trained eye, a Ranger should be able to discern a doper vehicle vs  a hunter's in the woods and determine the threat associated w/ each...at night.

9. Could the officer hear the predator call at range from his stakeout?
Yes. It was cool and the wind was 2 mph from the NNW aiding the call to travel down wind to the head in the parking lot.
There is another field to the ESE of the same parking lot at 350 yards. could the sound travel that far? perhaps as the forest is not thick...but access to this field is gated at Smith mill rd...and thus parking would be on SMrd...again, in the open.

10. Could the officer mistake the sound of a jack rabbit in distress for a couple of giggling meth heads?
Lord I hope not. 


Could the officer unknowingly place himself in a dangerous position?
Very doubtful.

Does a badge and NV goggles alleviate risk w/ intentionally placing ones self in a dangerous position?
Not one bit.
Does the officer assume some risk in choosing to do this.
Yes.

Now ....control yourself...
Don't read any other than what I wrote.
Do not "read into"

I did not say the officer was to blame
I did not say the shooter was not to blame.

I say..the officer may have contributed to the situation...
and thus may bear some responsibility
Based on the data at hand.
cw


----------



## Throwback

> Doubtful, but he was equipped w/ NV gear that would provide a level of advantage.



Seaweaver where do you get this information?



T


----------



## seaweaver

Good lord mike..are those advertiser's pics?
I have 2 gen 1 and they look nothing like that.
I submit it was still dusk when those pics where taken.
W/ a gen 1 like that....why would anyone need a 2 or 3?
just sayin.

cw


----------



## seaweaver

moticello press? I'll look back.
cw


----------



## Throwback

> I doubt the vehicle that was driven by the hunters was a Ford escort or what ever the meth heads near Monticello are driving so it stands to reason it looked like a hunters vehicle



Good God.  

Now you're LOOKING for a reason to blame the ranger. 

T


----------



## seaweaver

no...I thought i saw it some where...but I can amend No 6

6. Was the ranger nuts?
Doubtful, but he MAY have been equipped w/ NV gear that would provide a level of advantage.
and If he wasn't equipped he may have not had a flash light as the hunters did not see it and it was the last of a waning moon.

6A. Could the rangers time in the woods and military service provide this sense of advantage?
yes.

cw


----------



## seaweaver

no you are reading in to...skip to the bottom...i was ready for you.
cw


----------



## Throwback

seaweaver said:


> no...I thought i saw it some where...but I can amend No 6
> 
> 6. Was the ranger nuts?
> Doubtful, but he MAY have been equipped w/ NV gear that would provide a level of advantage.
> and If he wasn't equipped he may have not had a flash light as the hunters did not see it and it was the last of a waning moon.
> 
> 6A. Could the rangers time in the woods and military service provide this sense of advantage?
> yes.
> 
> cw





Could you have absolutlely no idea what you are talking about?

Yes.


----------



## seaweaver

like it or not...the same Qs could be used to validate the ranger as well.....
To absolve him of any share...
cw


----------



## seaweaver

EEFowl said:


> How do you know that the shooters were even using a call?
> 
> EF



Missed this...

based on standard yote hunting...Is it crazy to assume they were simply waiting in the dark w/ NV scope?
If they bought one piece of hardware...is it hard to assume they would not buy something to aid...in bring them yote in?
it could be a long night w/o one.

It was also mentioned by SB and some other posters on the deleted thread that were close to the hunters.
cw


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

Sterlo58 said:


> For some over zealous yahoo that pulled the trigger on what he thought was a coyote. That is so lame it is not even imaginable that you would take that stand.
> 
> What if your teenage child had been out ramblin with some buddies in the woods and got shot by this yahoo. Would they bear some responsibility. If you answer yes to that then I know you are full of baloney.
> 
> Find a real argument that warrants an intelligent debate.



A child would not bear responsibility.Most children don't see danger in the things they do.Unless your saying the officer was child like then your comparing apples to oranges.Surely the officer knew the dangers of what he was doing and how he was doing it.


----------



## EEFowl

So, if I understand you correctly seaweaver, you are saying that the officer may share some blame in this incident and you are basing this on facts that you feel like you can reasonably assume, not facts that you know, and you have outlined your assumptions in your, now ammended, list.

EF


----------



## LEON MANLEY

Nobody but seabiscuit gonna ramble on with far fetched assumptions and lame accusations. (the most reliable info TV and News paper) One makes a lot of noise and the other makes a good fish wrap.


----------



## LEON MANLEY

Do you ever wonder why the shooters have not been charged? It's not a lack of evidence. Time will tell.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg

CUTT'EM 76 said:


> A child would not bear responsibility.Most children don't see danger in the things they do.Unless your saying the officer was child like then your comparing apples to oranges.Surely the officer knew the dangers of what he was doing and how he was doing it.



Regardless of whether or not Officer Upton knew they were there, there is no excuse for a man to look through any sighting device and shoot another man.


----------



## seaweaver

EEFowl said:


> So, if I understand you correctly seaweaver, you are saying that the officer may share some blame in this incident and you are basing this on facts that you feel like you can reasonably assume, not facts that you know, and you have outlined your assumptions in your, now ammended, list.
> 
> EF



Yes. 
You see anything unreasonable in the answers?
These same Qs could be used to absolve him of any responsibility as well...just the answers would have been different.
What are your answers for the same Qs?

As Cuttem reminds us, he was not a "babe in the wood".

Leon your not getting frustrated are you? I see you are starting to slip in ...identifying me.

cw


----------



## Sterlo58

yall still battin this same old battered ball around.


----------



## Thebarber

Seaweaver, 
I respect your opinion and If you had attended the funeral like I did your opinion might be different..


----------



## silent soul

Seaweaver,
what you keep repeating is hearsay from the shooters and their buddies.  All the media is doing is repeating the same.  Officer Upton can't tell his side.  I think it would be instructive to look at a possible scenario:
Officer is set up behind berm for surveillance ( = not moving through the woods).
Truck approaches, cuts off lights, shooter begins scanning with night vision scope, no varmint calling, just scanning for eye shine.

You can fill in the rest.  

But what you CAN'T do is blame the officer!!!!!!!!!!!!

EEFowl, Balvarik, Throwback, Mechanicaldawg keep up the good fight!


----------



## claymaster007

I have a similar senario for you guys, and we have all seen this happen. You approach an intersection and just as you get there, the light turns green giving you the right of way. All of the sudden a vehicle runs the light at the last second and bam T-bone in the side. Now when the cops get there, he will be charged with running a red light and failure to yield the right of way. Do you assume any responibility for the accident? Of course you do. If you had cleared the intersection before proceeding through it, this would not have happened. To suggest otherwise is ignorant. Although you won't be charged with any crime, you could have prevented the accident by clearing the intersection and letting the highway scofflaw get by. To say the shooter is 100 percent at fault is ignorant.


----------



## silent soul

Please explain how the officer assisted in pulling the trigger.  That's the only way he could share blame.  Otherwise, you are stating that by simply being there he is in some way at fault.


----------



## claymaster007

By approaching a varmint call plain and simple. If I were in the woods at night and I am a lot. I hunt hogs and varmints with nightvision equipment. If I hear a varmint call at night I am going to either go away from the sound or identify myself with a flashlight or both. God bless officer Upton's soul, but I can't understand why , as experienced game warden, approach a varmint call. I don't blame him completely, most of the blame goes to the shooter for not completely identifying his target. He made a grave error in judgement,but so did the officer.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

The shooter made an error that cost a man his life, that much is clear.  All of the assumptions and possible scenarios presented here are just that, assumptions and possibilities.  The shooter has stated he fired on the target thinking it to be a coyote, not another human being.  Beyond that statement, we have no idea what really happened or what he saw through his scope that night.  Did he shoot at a shadow or movement? Did he see something even the most experienced of us would have fired upon? Only the shooter knows.

I question the action of approaching hunters you know to be armed and actively seeking targets in the dark without identifying yourself as a human being.  Whether the officer snuck up, walked up, or was already there, he was clearly in range of the hunters without identifying himself.  What was to be gained here? A couple of guys poaching deer isn't worth getting killed over.  

The shooter made a terrible mistake, and; depending on the real circumstances, deserves punishment.  However, I don't believe it disrespectful to the fallen officer to say that he may not have shown the best judgment in the situation.


----------



## silent soul

No, you are wrong.  It is extremely disrespectful to judge the officer.  He is not here to defend himself.  All you have is one side of the story.  You can't simply dismiss that the officer was stationary behind a berm observing a vehicle when he was killed!  You assume the story told by the shooters is the whole truth.  Why are you victim blamers so desperate to defend the indefensible?


----------



## BROWNING7WSM

Wish the fool would get life behind bars.   Completely his fault.. No others !!


----------



## claymaster007

I have read most of the post on this subject. I don't believe that anyone intended any disrespect for officer Upton. I know that my post have not been any disrespect. He was doing his job, a very dangerous one, and late at night. God bless him and his family as well as Mr. Hale's family. There are lessons to be learned here by both hunters and law enforcement. I still say to asssign 100 percent blame on the shooter is wrong. Mistakes and bad judgement seem to have been made on both sides.


----------



## BROWNING7WSM

claymaster007 said:


> I still say to asssign 100 percent blame on the shooter is wrong..



So when you pull the trigger, your not 100% responsible where that bullet goes?  Your not 100% responsible to identify your target and whats beyond that target?


----------



## silent soul

claymaster007 said:


> By approaching a varmint call plain and simple. If I were in the woods at night and I am a lot. I hunt hogs and varmints with nightvision equipment. If I hear a varmint call at night I am going to either go away from the sound or identify myself with a flashlight or both. God bless officer Upton's soul, but I can't understand why , as experienced game warden, approach a varmint call. I don't blame him completely, most of the blame goes to the shooter for not completely identifying his target. He made a grave error in judgement,but so did the officer.



So you know that the officer was approaching a varmint call?  How do you know this?  

Why are you victim blamers so desperate to defend the indefensible?


----------



## BROWNING7WSM

balvarik said:


> People who cannot see the reality of the fact that once your finger squeezes that trigger sending off the bullet/slug/buckshot/fine-shot are a danger to anyone in the field!
> 
> By that way of thinking they have a predisposition that if something goes wrong they are not totally at fault if they shoot the wrong target.




Apparently, there are quite a few...


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

silent soul said:
			
		

> No, you are wrong. It is extremely disrespectful to judge the officer. He is not here to defend himself. All you have is one side of the story. You can't simply dismiss that the officer was stationary behind a berm observing a vehicle when he was killed! You assume the story told by the shooters is the whole truth. Why are you victim blamers so desperate to defend the indefensible?



Disagreeing with you doesn't make me wrong nor disrespectful.  You also have only one side of the story to go on, so why are you so "desperate" to attack any suggestion that the officer himself may have made a mistake?

I'm in no way saying that the shooter wasn't at fault, he shot another human being thinking he was an animal.  Clearly, he made a mistake.

Just as clearly, the officer was in an area being actively hunted at night, however he got there, without identifying himself as a person.  He was obviously in range and visible to the men, who were actively searching for targets.  Why would he not have identified himself with a light or even just calling out if he wanted to "check" the two men, or removed himself to a safe distance if he wanted to observe them?

I think the fact that a law enforcement officer was involved is affecting people's opinions.

Let's look at it a different way:

You're out varmint hunting in the middle of nowhere with some friends, and decide it's getting chilly and you want to head home.  Passing a convenience store, you stop and get a warm, tasty cup of coffee.  Being the good guy that you are, you decide to take some back to the guys, who have no reason to believe that you are going to return.  

Arriving back at the hunting site, you know your buddies could not have possibly seen or heard your vehicle.  Now it's time to deliver the warm, tasty coffee.  They are actively calling varmints and looking for targets.  You have to cross the target zone to reach your buddies.  How do you proceed?

A.)Put on the wifes fur coat (because it's chilly out) that you were supposed to take for storage two weeks ago and crawl towards your friends, just for kicks.

B.)Dang! Forgot my flashlight!  Oh well, I know these guys, I'll just walk briskly toward them and not yell out cause I don't want to scare the coyotes.

C.)I best get my flashlight and be sure these fools know it's me coming and not some creature of the night...

The shooter should not have pulled the trigger, but the officer was taking a risk by placing himself in the field of fire.  I realize law enforcement has duties and obligations, but they don't trump common sense.  

The only sure thing about this incident is that a wife lost a husband and a child lost a father.  That's the worst part of all this.  Mistakes were made on both sides, and they cost a man his life.


----------



## silent soul

Very good.  The assumption that the officer could have avoided this or contributed to it is absolutely ridiculous.  You state that law enforcement doesn't use common sense.  What could you possibly know about wildlife law enforcement.  You don't care that a man who swore an oath to uphold the laws of this Nation was killed by  careless and irresponsible men.

You're correct that a LEO being killed in the line of duty is affecting opinion.  Both for the good and bad.  There are those on this thread that can truly recognize the tragedy for what it is and thankfully they are the majority.  
For those of you who can't help but want to assign blame to the victim based solely what you think you know or want to believe, could it be that you have some deep resentment/dislike/malevolence toward wildlife law enforcement? 

Read this carefully and let it absorb for a moment.

What if the officer was there first.
Hidden behind a berm.
Conducting surveillance.
Truck approaches.
Truck cuts off lights.
Shooter begins scanning for targets with NVG.
within seconds the shooter thinks he sees eye shine.
Shooter sends one down range.
Dead officer.

How is the officer at fault?
Why are you victim blamers so desperate to defend the indefensible?


----------



## silent soul

The only thing sure about this incident is that a LEO died because a shooter failed to identify his target and for some reason there are those that want to make excuses for this action.  It was not a mistake or an accident.  The shooter pulled the trigger on an unidentified target.




Why are you victim blamers so desperate to defend the indefensible?


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

silent soul  said:
			
		

> The assumption that the officer could have avoided this or contributed to it is absolutely ridiculous.



Your absolute refusal to entertain that the officer may have a mistake is equally as ridiculous to me.



			
				silent soul said:
			
		

> You state that law enforcement doesn't use common sense. What could you possibly know about wildlife law enforcement.



No, I simply stated that duty doesn't trump common sense.  I didn't say anything about law enforcement in general not using common sense.  You're the one making the general statements.



			
				silent soul said:
			
		

> You don't care that a man who swore an oath to uphold the laws of this Nation was killed by careless and irresponsible men.



Did you read my posts or not? Where do I come off as not caring about the death of this man.  Why does it matter that he was in law enforcement? Does that make his life worth more than us regular folks?



			
				silent soul said:
			
		

> You're correct that a LEO being killed in the line of duty is affecting opinion. Both for the good and bad. There are those on this thread that can truly recognize the tragedy for what it is and thankfully they are the majority.
> For those of you who can't help but want to assign blame to the victim based solely what you think you know or want to believe, could it be that you have some deep resentment/dislike/malevolence toward wildlife law enforcement?



No, but it does seem that you have some deep resentment towards those who disagree with your opinion or dare suggest that a LEO might make an error.  I have no beef with law enforcement, but I don't worship them either.  They are regular folks who make errors just like the rest of us. 



			
				silent soul said:
			
		

> Read this carefully and let it absorb for a moment.
> 
> What if the officer was there first.
> Hidden behind a berm.
> Conducting surveillance.
> Truck approaches.
> Truck cuts off lights.
> Shooter begins scanning for targets with NVG.
> within seconds the shooter thinks he sees eye shine.
> Shooter sends one down range.
> Dead officer.



You're doing the same thing that you are accusing everyone else of doing, coming up with your own scenario when you don't have all the facts. You're grasping at straws to prove the officer made no mistakes.



			
				silent soul said:
			
		

> How is the officer at fault?



However the officer happened to be there, how is remaining in the field of fire of someone varmint hunting at night without identifying yourself a good idea? The officer is dead, so obviously there was a failure in tactics somewhere.  



			
				silent soul said:
			
		

> Why are you victim blamers so desperate to defend the indefensible?



Why do you so offended by the idea that this officer may have possibly made an error in judgment?

I'll say it again: The shooter should have never fired the shot, but knowingly being in the field of fire of someone varmint hunting at night without identifying yourself is foolish at best.


----------



## rospaw

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Disagreeing with you doesn't make me wrong nor disrespectful.  You also have only one side of the story to go on, so why are you so "desperate" to attack any suggestion that the officer himself may have made a mistake?
> 
> I'm in no way saying that the shooter wasn't at fault, he shot another human being thinking he was an animal.  Clearly, he made a mistake.
> 
> Just as clearly, the officer was in an area being actively hunted at night, however he got there, without identifying himself as a person.  He was obviously in range and visible to the men, who were actively searching for targets.  Why would he not have identified himself with a light or even just calling out if he wanted to "check" the two men, or removed himself to a safe distance if he wanted to observe them?
> 
> I think the fact that a law enforcement officer was involved is affecting people's opinions.
> 
> The shooter should not have pulled the trigger, but the officer was taking a risk by placing himself in the field of fire.  I realize law enforcement has duties and obligations, but they don't trump common sense.
> 
> The only sure thing about this incident is that a wife lost a husband and a child lost a father.  That's the worst part of all this.  Mistakes were made on both sides, and they cost a man his life.



 Very well said! 
I don't think anyone is saying that the hunter is not to blame for this accident/life ending mistake for firing the the round but in this legal night hunt it is very very dangerous to approach or not identify (if he was there before them) hunters hunting this way which puts some blame on the officer for being in that situation. I would think that an LE instructor would NOT teach an officer to act in this manner (approach/stakeout) going by what i have read about the case.? 
I would also bet that if the hunter had missed and the officer was able to let them know he was not a yote that after it was all said and done he would have his but chewed for being in that situation in the first place.  Do you agree with this line?  
If you have "tunnel vision" like some on here that say "you shoot your 100% to blame" no if, and or buts..... sorry but you are nuts in this situation going by what I have read. Put your son, dad, brother, best friend in this hunters shoes (yeah i know they would NEVER do that, they are perfect) and see if you feel the same way about this accident. I'm sure some of the tunnel vision guys can't do this but try it and see what you come up with. Then put your, dad, brother ect in the officers shoes and see if you would advise them to stakeout (if that's what happened) night hunters in there line of fire. Would you ???


----------



## rospaw

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Your absolute refusal to entertain that the officer may have a mistake is equally as ridiculous to me.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I simply stated that duty doesn't trump common sense.  I didn't say anything about law enforcement in general not using common sense.  You're the one making the general statements.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read my posts or not? Where do I come off as not caring about the death of this man.  Why does it matter that he was in law enforcement? Does that make his life worth more than us regular folks?
> 
> 
> 
> No, but it does seem that you have some deep resentment towards those who disagree with your opinion or dare suggest that a LEO might make an error.  I have no beef with law enforcement, but I don't worship them either.  They are regular folks who make errors just like the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> You're doing the same thing that you are accusing everyone else of doing, coming up with your own scenario when you don't have all the facts. You're grasping at straws to prove the officer made no mistakes.
> 
> 
> 
> However the officer happened to be there, how is remaining in the field of fire of someone varmint hunting at night without identifying yourself a good idea? The officer is dead, so obviously there was a failure in tactics somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you so offended by the idea that this officer may have possibly made an error in judgment?
> 
> I'll say it again: The shooter should have never fired the shot, but knowingly being in the field of fire of someone varmint hunting at night without identifying yourself is foolish at best.



Doc........ you told him!  Well done!


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

silent soul said:
			
		

> The only thing sure about this incident is that a LEO died because a shooter failed to identify his target and for some reason there are those that want to make excuses for this action. It was not a mistake or an accident. The shooter pulled the trigger on an unidentified target.



Silent Soul, 

Just so you know, I agree with this statement.  I'm not trying to shift blame from from the shooter, just trying to say that the officer never should have been in a position to be an unidentified target in the first place.


----------



## silent soul

I am offended because there is no proof that the officer did anything wrong!!!!!!  You keep assuming that the officer approached an area where hunting was occurring.  Let's assume that the shooters approached the area the officer was in!

Answer my Question. Why are you so deperate to defend the indefensible?


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

silent soul said:
			
		

> I am offended because there is no proof that the officer did anything wrong!!!!!! You keep assuming that the officer approached an area where hunting was occurring. Let's assume that the shooters approached the area the officer was in!
> 
> Answer my Question. Why are you so deperate to defend the indefensible?



Answering your question:

I'm not defending the shooter, I think that point is clear.  He shot at a target that he had identified as a coyote that turned out to be a human being.  Wrong, cut and dried.

Yes, using your scenario, where the officer is approached by the hunters, perhaps moves to grab a light or otherwise warn the hunters of his presence, and is immediately shot, sure, he's absolutely not in the wrong in any way.

In any other scenario, do you not see the danger of approaching someone hunting at night without identifying yourself?  This isn't a wartime mission or rescuing hostages, it's at most a couple of poachers.  Hardly worth risking a man's life.  

I feel badly for the officer's family and friends, but I can't keep but thinking that he may have made a fatal error in judgment by approaching someone hunting at night.  Two men made errors in judgment that night and one paid with his life.


----------



## LEON MANLEY

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Disagreeing with you doesn't make me wrong nor disrespectful.  You also have only one side of the story to go on, so why are you so "desperate" to attack any suggestion that the officer himself may have made a mistake?
> 
> I'm in no way saying that the shooter wasn't at fault, he shot another human being thinking he was an animal.  Clearly, he made a mistake.
> 
> Just as clearly, the officer was in an area being actively hunted at night, however he got there, without identifying himself as a person.  He was obviously in range and visible to the men, who were actively searching for targets.  Why would he not have identified himself with a light or even just calling out if he wanted to "check" the two men, or removed himself to a safe distance if he wanted to observe them?
> 
> I think the fact that a law enforcement officer was involved is affecting people's opinions.
> 
> Let's look at it a different way:
> 
> You're out varmint hunting in the middle of nowhere with some friends, and decide it's getting chilly and you want to head home.  Passing a convenience store, you stop and get a warm, tasty cup of coffee.  Being the good guy that you are, you decide to take some back to the guys, who have no reason to believe that you are going to return.
> 
> Arriving back at the hunting site, you know your buddies could not have possibly seen or heard your vehicle.  Now it's time to deliver the warm, tasty coffee.  They are actively calling varmints and looking for targets.  You have to cross the target zone to reach your buddies.  How do you proceed?
> 
> A.)Put on the wifes fur coat (because it's chilly out) that you were supposed to take for storage two weeks ago and crawl towards your friends, just for kicks.
> 
> B.)Dang! Forgot my flashlight!  Oh well, I know these guys, I'll just walk briskly toward them and not yell out cause I don't want to scare the coyotes.
> 
> C.)I best get my flashlight and be sure these fools know it's me coming and not some creature of the night...
> 
> The shooter should not have pulled the trigger, but the officer was taking a risk by placing himself in the field of fire.  I realize law enforcement has duties and obligations, but they don't trump common sense.
> 
> The only sure thing about this incident is that a wife lost a husband and a child lost a father.  That's the worst part of all this.  Mistakes were made on both sides, and they cost a man his life.



Man this is so far fetched I can't believe they took the time to type it.


----------



## LEON MANLEY

While assumptions are the main topic of discussion, let's assume that the ranger was behind the berm when the shooter approached the scene. Ranger is in deep cover investigating some sort of illegal activity that had previously been reported. The shooter gets out of the truck looks through the ir scope and sees something to shoot at and fires. Ranger only sees muzzle flash (God rest his soul).


----------



## claymaster007

Doc, you are wasting your time trying to make your point to silent soul or mike. This is like the abortion debate, no one is going to change the other ones position. I have talked with about 40 or 50 people about this and every single one of them agee that mistakes were made on both sides as you and I have both said. Silent soul, I don't know if ofc. Upton came to the call or he was already there. I do know that he was in range. I also am fairly certain that if he had identified himself with a flashlight or whatever, he would still be with us. I am also very certain that if the shooter had positively identified his target he would still be with us. Two mistakes = one dead officer. God bless his soul and that of both families.


----------



## silent soul

Doc,

Do you know the officer approached them?  If you don't know, then why do you keep repeating it?

This is why I've taken up this cause.  All of these assumptions that help to rationalize the killing of a LEO as just a mistake and attempt to lay blame at the feet of a man who can't speak for himself.  

All of you out there that state that you would or would not have done this or that with your 20/20 hindsight.  It makes me sick.  The  whole "serves the sneaky game warden right" mentallity just sickens me.

Why are you victim blamers so desperate to defend the indefensible?


----------



## LEON MANLEY

It is immaterial whether the victim was a ranger or another hunter.


"Well if that guy had not been camouflaged and squawking on that raspy hen call I would not have thought he was a turkey and unloaded a 3.5 inch #4 up side his head." 


    Better yet how about I draw back with my compound bow and shoot him in the back of his neck. 



       If the first thing your projectile comes in contact is a person then you should be held fully accountable for the murder or maiming of the victim.
    It has gotten way too easy for these people that go into the woods on a shooting spree just to kill  or maim something, or maim or kill someone and get pity from from people going on about that poor kid gotta live the rest of his life with the fact that he killed someone. You never know it might not bother them at all.


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

Thebarber said:


> Seaweaver,
> I respect your opinion and If you had attended the funeral like I did your opinion might be different..



The funeral had nothing to do w/ what actually happened.Your letting emotions blur the fact of what actually took place.Btw,since it seems you knew the officer I am sorry for your loss.


----------



## Throwback

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Silent Soul,
> 
> Just so you know, I agree with this statement.  I'm not trying to shift blame from from the shooter, just trying to say that the officer never should have been in a position to be an unidentified target in the first place.



and where do you get the idea he didn't? He was behind a berm what does that tell you? 



T


----------



## CUTT'EM 76

silent soul said:


> Doc,
> 
> Do you know the officer approached them?  If you don't know, then why do you keep repeating it?
> 
> This is why I've taken up this cause.  All of these assumptions that help to rationalize the killing of a LEO as just a mistake and attempt to lay blame at the feet of a man who can't speak for himself.
> 
> All of you out there that state that you would or would not have done this or that with your 20/20 hindsight.  It makes me sick.  The  whole "serves the sneaky game warden right" mentallity just sickens me.
> 
> Why are you victim blamers so desperate to defend the indefensible?



No body has placed all the blame on the officer nor said it serves him right.In fact have been very sympathetic to his family and hate the fact he was killed.Putting all the blame on the shooter is wrong.We as adults have a responsiblility to keep our selves and those around us safe,if we fail to do so then at least some blame could and should be placed on us.There is definately blame for the shooter,no doubt,but some of you act like you are the most perfect hunters that you never do anything wrong in a hunting situation.Nobody is perfect not the officer nor the hunter and to say the hunter should rot in prison or be executed is wrong.


----------



## EEFowl

> just trying to say that the officer never should have been in a position to be an unidentified target in the first place.


Dr. Strangelove,
Would this concept that you subscribe to (never be in a position to be an unidentified target) apply to everyone or just LEO's.  
Doesn't your concept put the burden of not getting accidently killed on everyone.  In other words, it's your own fault if you get accidently shot because you only have control over what you do, you don't have control over what a shooter is going do and how much effort he spends to ID his targets.
Doesn't that really put all the burden on the victims?

EF


----------



## 1222DANO

Punish the shooter very harsh, life inprisonment i'm not a big fan of game wardens sometimes, sometimes i am but this needs to stop we had a deer hunter shoot a woman on the applachian trail and got off. Theres no reason for firing a rifle at an unidentified object no if ands or buts. Make an example then it would put a stop to it everyone would be absolutely sure when they fired if there life was also on the line.


----------



## silent soul

CUTT'EM 76 said:


> No body has placed all the blame on the officer nor said it serves him right.In fact have been very sympathetic to his family and hate the fact he was killed.Putting all the blame on the shooter is wrong.We as adults have a responsiblility to keep our selves and those around us safe,if we fail to do so then at least some blame could and should be placed on us.There is definately blame for the shooter,no doubt,but some of you act like you are the most perfect hunters that you never do anything wrong in a hunting situation.Nobody is perfect not the officer nor the hunter and to say the hunter should rot in prison or be executed is wrong.



No, It's the fact that anyone would try blame the officer in any way that is so frustrating.  I'm not stating the officer is perfect or that I'm perfect.  That has nothing to do with this argument.  Read all of my posts, try to understand what I am arguing.  I'm not posting long winded hypotheticals, just trying to counter any one who states the officer should have done this or should not have done that.  It's not his fault he was killed.  The officer is not responsible for the shooter's actions.

Why are you victim blamers so desperate to defend the indefensible?


----------



## claymaster007

Why is silent soul so quick to make his/her assumptions and no one else can. Do you know that the officer did not approach the hunters position? No one has tried to rationalize the shooter's actions. To say that people on this thread have tried to that is very offensive. To say that we are uncaring and that he derserved what he got for being sneaky is way over the line. Debating you on this thread is like debating a liberal. After you present facts and logic the liberal starts trying to play on you emotion leaving facts, common sense and reasoning in the dirt. Again the shooter bears the brunt of this accident for not completely indentifing his target, but mistakes were made on both sides. God bless there families.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

EEFowl said:
			
		

> Dr. Strangelove,
> Would this concept that you subscribe to (never be in a position to be an unidentified target) apply to everyone or just LEO's.
> Doesn't your concept put the burden of not getting accidently killed on everyone. In other words, it's your own fault if you get accidently shot because you only have control over what you do, you don't have control over what a shooter is going do and how much effort he spends to ID his targets.
> Doesn't that really put all the burden on the victims?
> 
> EF



Let's stick to the topic at hand. I meant that in application to the current discussion only.

Again, I never said the shooter was not liable for his actions, only that the officer may have used poor judgment in his approach.  Being in the field of fire of an active varmint hunter at night with no lights or other id doesn't sound like standard policy to me.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

silent soul said:
			
		

> Doc,
> 
> Do you know the officer approached them? If you don't know, then why do you keep repeating it?
> 
> This is why I've taken up this cause. All of these assumptions that help to rationalize the killing of a LEO as just a mistake and attempt to lay blame at the feet of a man who can't speak for himself.
> 
> All of you out there that state that you would or would not have done this or that with your 20/20 hindsight. It makes me sick. The whole "serves the sneaky game warden right" mentallity just sickens me.
> 
> Why are you victim blamers so desperate to defend the indefensible?



Silent Soul,

Why do you insist that the hunters just appeared on the scene and shot the stationary warden?  Do you know that to be a fact?  If you don't know, why do you keep repeating it?

Show me where in this thread you see evidence of the "serves the sneaky game warden right" mentality.  Not one post that I have read says that or implies it.  Perhaps some have been deleted, but I can't find any.


----------



## seaweaver

silent soul said:


> I am offended because there is no proof that the officer did anything wrong!!!!!!  You keep assuming that the officer approached an area where hunting was occurring.  Let's assume that the shooters approached the area the officer was in!
> 
> Answer my Question. Why are you so deperate to defend the indefensible?





Can you provide proof the officer did everything Right?

or
is that just something covered by the shield?

Why are you so desperate to condemn the indefensible?




Hey Mike...
I see you found a law.
You think this is unavailable?
Maybe...the Law has not seen this.... and this is why they have not been charged?
If were as simple as ...reading what you have highlighted...as simple as saying...
"the trigger man is always responsible"....
then why have they not been charged?

If it where as simple as so many...think it is?


----------



## seaweaver

Hey...where does the notion "sneaky game warden " come from?


is that like the tooth fairy?

cw


----------



## LEON MANLEY

EEFowl said:


> In the same news articles that say the LEO was sneaking around in  the brush on his hands and knees.
> 
> EF



This was in reference to some lame information that someone posted.


----------



## seaweaver

Oh...so this is a new term..Got it.


cw


----------



## silent soul

claymaster007 said:


> Why is silent soul so quick to make his/her assumptions and no one else can. Do you know that the officer did not approach the hunters position? No one has tried to rationalize the shooter's actions. To say that people on this thread have tried to that is very offensive. To say that we are uncaring and that he derserved what he got for being sneaky is way over the line. Debating you on this thread is like debating a liberal. After you present facts and logic the liberal starts trying to play on you emotion leaving facts, common sense and reasoning in the dirt. Again the shooter bears the brunt of this accident for not completely indentifing his target, but mistakes were made on both sides. God bless there families.



What facts have you presented?  How is blaming the victim logical?  Read my posts and play the scenario out in your head, only you be the man behind the berm getting shot in the face.  Now what did you do wrong?

Why are you victim blamers so desperate to defend the indefensible?


----------



## Sterlo58

I have been sitting on the sidelines in this last quarter of play. Let's assume the officer was completely wrong and was doing everything in his power to provoke these hunters into shooting him.  Stop and take a deep breath Seaweed...er I mean Seaweaver. The idjut who pulled the trigger is still responsible for not identifying his target. What is so gall darn hard to understand about this. You are arguing to hear yourself argue. Your argument lacks any reason or rhyme. As a matter of fact, I have not been able to get you to state intelligently what in the world your argument is. 
Good night.


----------



## BROWNING7WSM

Sterlo58 said:


> I have been sitting on the sidelines in this last quarter of play. Let's assume the officer was completely wrong and was doing everything in his power to provoke these hunters into shooting him.  Stop and take a deep breath Seaweed...er I mean Seaweaver. The idjut who pulled the trigger is still responsible for not identifying his target. What is so gall darn hard to understand about this. You are arguing to hear yourself argue. Your argument lacks any reason or rhyme. As a matter of fact, I have not been able to get you to state intelligently what in the world your argument is. You my friend are an idjut. PERIOD
> Good night.



Agreed


----------



## Shivesy

Sterlo58 said:


> The idjut who pulled the trigger is still responsible for not identifying his target. What is so gall darn hard to understand about this.



I haven't read where seaweaver or any member on this topic has stated that the hunter is not responsible for not identifying his target. What is so hard for you to understand about this 
This is a very important topic and we have been warned once, if I remember correctly, from the administration here at GON and we will be warned no more. So if your not ABLE to control your words please don't post anymore and ruin it for all that are keeping up with this topic!


----------



## Shivesy

balvarik said:


> No-one is calling names to anyone on this board
> 
> 
> Mike




"You my friend are an idjut. PERIOD"

Mike what do you call that! Just keep it civil so we can keep reading up on the debate.


----------



## wmahunter

I to have been sitting on the sidelines but am ready to voice an opinion now. 

I have read all of the posts and believe that seaweaver and the Dr. make the most sense...at least to someone willing to have a slightly open mind about this which totally leaves out several of you...you know who you are.

YES the shooter is responsible for his shot. I have heard NO ONE say otherwise.

YES it is POSSIBLE that the LEO didn't use the proper amount of caution and therefore made it easier for the shooter to make a mistake...still no excuse but might have been less likely to have happened if the LEO used more caution.

All the facts will come out eventually and then we will see who had the better feel for this situation and who got it more right in these arguments/discussions.

I would bet that the shooter will be charged.

I would also bet that the LEO's superiors will make some policy changes which will discourage future LEO's from getting into this same type of situation.

The shooter will be charged because he didn't use all the necessary precautions before pulling the trigger and killed a man in the process.

The policies will be changed because, unlike some here, the powers that be will realize that the LEO could have used more caution and possibly still be alive and they don't want this situation to ever repeat itself.

All of this is just my opinion and you can go ahead and blast me now.

I am sure that this post will not permanently change anyones opinion because after all..."A man convinced against his will remains a man unconvinced still"


----------



## Throwback

It would be prudent to wait till some kind of investigation is completed before making your final determination. What you have right now is rumor, guesses, what someone "said" and "heard" and what was printed in a few papers, based on preliminary investigation. 

T


----------



## LEON MANLEY

With it being acceptable (in some opinions) to shoot people that don't readily identify themselves,wear orange, or shine a flashlight, might reduce the hunting pressure on public land. It could at least reduce the number of hunters.
        If you hear someone in the bushes Sat. am calling a turkey and they don't state that they are in fact a person, it will be ok to shoot them and it will be their fault.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Leon Manley said:
			
		

> With it being acceptable (in some opinions) to shoot people that don't readily identify themselves,wear orange, or shine a flashlight, might reduce the hunting pressure on public land. It could at least reduce the number of hunters.
> If you hear someone in the bushes Sat. am calling a turkey and they don't state that they are in fact a person, it will be ok to shoot them and it will be their fault.



Really?  Let's try and be a bit more respectful in this thread.


----------



## LEON MANLEY

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Really?  Let's try and be a bit more respectful in this thread.






Try being a little more realistic.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Dr. Strangelove said:
			
		

> Really? Let's try and be a bit more respectful in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leon Manley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try being a little more realistic.
Click to expand...


Oh, I see.  Being respectful isn't happening, is it?


----------



## Sterlo58

Cooler head prevails this morning. Sorry Seaweaver, I have amended my thread. You  are a tenacious debater. 
That is better. No more name slinging, I promise.


----------



## EEFowl

I'll change Leon's post a little.  Victim blamers see if this suits your needs better.

With it being not totally the shooters fault to shoot people that don't readily identify themselves,wear orange, or shine a flashlight, might reduce the hunting pressure on public land. It could at least reduce the number of hunters.
If you hear someone in the bushes Sat. am calling a turkey and they don't state that they are in fact a person, it will be partially their fault if you decide to shoot them as a not fully identified target.

I think that should make yaul feel better.

EF


----------



## claymaster007

To silent soul. I have put myself in the ranger's position. If I were behind the berm as has been reported, and within 80 yards of the hunters, I would have stayed behind the berm where I could not be seen. If a caller was being used as has reported, I know what that is and I know that the hunters were expecting a predator to come to their position, I would not approach them without shining a light or making my presence known to them in some way. We did an experiment last night at my home. My son took my night vision monocular and a set of binoculars down range, and I looked at him through the nightvision scope on my rifle.(rifle was unloaded and bolt removed). When I looked at him, the monocular and the binocular lit up just like a coyote's eyes. I can see how a mistake could be made, not saying that he is not guilty of not completely identifiying his target. He is guilty of that. Most people with any common horse sense can see that mistakes were made on both sides. God bless both families.


----------



## Shivesy

claymaster007 said:


> To silent soul. I have put myself in the ranger's position. If I were behind the berm as has been reported, and within 80 yards of the hunters, I would have stayed behind the berm where I could not be seen. If a caller was being used as has reported, I know what that is and I know that the hunters were expecting a predator to come to their position, I would not approach them without shining a light or making my presence known to them in some way. We did an experiment last night at my home. My son took my night vision monocular and a set of binoculars down range, and I looked at him through the nightvision scope on my rifle.(rifle was unloaded and bolt removed). When I looked at him, the monocular and the binocular lit up just like a coyote's eyes. I can see how a mistake could be made, not saying that he is not guilty of not completely identifiying his target. He is guilty of that. Most people with any common horse sense can see that mistakes were made on both sides. God bless both families.



I ask this question with sympathy for the LEO and his family. Why would he be looking thru a set of binos at 11:00pm/nightime, in total darkness? That just doesn't set with me very well.


----------



## LEON MANLEY

EEFowl said:


> I'll change Leon's post a little.  Victim blamers see if this suits your needs better.
> 
> With it being not totally the shooters fault to shoot people that don't readily identify themselves,wear orange, or shine a flashlight, might reduce the hunting pressure on public land. It could at least reduce the number of hunters.
> If you hear someone in the bushes Sat. am calling a turkey and they don't state that they are in fact a person, it will be partially their fault if you decide to shoot them as a not fully identified target.
> 
> I think that should make yaul feel better.
> 
> EF


Thanks, it was late. 
              I may have been wrong, I'll bet the hiker on the Appalachian Trail was sneaking along acting like a deer and should share the blame with the careful shot placing hunter.  


          I'll bet the young man duck hunting and was shot from 200 yards away was probably acting like a deer hoping the ducks would come in (it worked for the guy doing the shooting)



          All they had to do was tell these shooters that they were in fact people and the whole incident would have been avoided.


----------



## Jeffriesw

claymaster007 said:


> To silent soul. I have put myself in the ranger's position. If I were behind the berm as has been reported, and within 80 yards of the hunters, I would have stayed behind the berm where I could not be seen. If a caller was being used as has reported, I know what that is and I know that the hunters were expecting a predator to come to their position, I would not approach them without shining a light or making my presence known to them in some way. We did an experiment last night at my home. My son took my night vision monocular and a set of binoculars down range, and I looked at him through the nightvision scope on my rifle.(rifle was unloaded and bolt removed). When I looked at him, the monocular and the binocular lit up just like a coyote's eyes. I can see how a mistake could be made, not saying that he is not guilty of not completely identifiying his target. He is guilty of that. Most people with any common horse sense can see that mistakes were made on both sides. God bless both families.



X's 2, It is real tragedy for all involved. I Pray the Lord's Grace and Mercy on both Families..


----------



## LEON MANLEY

Some people claim that mistakes were made by both parties. 
We don't know that 100%.
We do know without a shadow of a doubt the shooter made a grave mistake.
The rest may come out in the investigation.


----------



## Shivesy

balvarik said:


> You never conducted night-time operations?
> 
> Ambient light from moon and bounce-back lightning from cities allow you to see.
> 
> Mike




Mike
Yes I have conducted many nightime operations as a Ranger in the U.S. military. We did not use binos for this purpose and never would have even thought to do so.


----------



## Shivesy

Was the LEO using nightvision binos by any chance?


----------



## seaweaver

No fouls taken here. 


 Originally Posted by silent soul 
I am offended because there is no proof that the officer did anything wrong!!!!!! You keep assuming that the officer approached an area where hunting was occurring. Let's assume that the shooters approached the area the officer was in!

Answer my Question. Why are you so deperate to defend the indefensible?


Can you provide proof the officer did everything Right?

or
is that just something covered by the shield?

Why are you so desperate to condemn the indefensible?


Hat tip wmahunter,

And I think you are right about policy changes. But ...er...I was about to say I'd be surprised that this type of incident has not already occurred...but the Yote is fairly new as well as NV gear...but on a Fed level...it might have come close in some other form..some where in the US.

cw


----------



## Buck111

Maybe we all need to wear orange Saturday morning. Wouldn't want to mistaken for a treestump or bush.


----------



## claymaster007

Mike you are absolutely wrong about a K9's eyes shining. My dogs eyes shine with the IR illuminator just like a coyote or fox or bobcat. The binos that the ranger had apparently gave off the same reflection. For those of you that have never used night vision equipment, stay out of this, you only show your ignorance.


----------



## silent soul

Hey Clay and Sea,

For the record, and remember this has been my whole argument;
You believe the officer made mistakes that led to his death (this is the part I refer to as victim blaming) and that even though you have no proof, you feel certain that this must be the case, there could not be any other possibility.


----------



## EEFowl

Hey, I just want to say that.......... oh wait, I've never used night vision equipment, I'm so sorry for my ignorance.

EF



> For those of you that have never used night vision equipment, stay out of this, you only show your ignorance.


----------



## EEFowl

For those of you who don't know basic firearms safety and hunting safety rules stay out of this, you only show your ignorance. 

EF


----------



## LEON MANLEY

EEFowl said:


> For those of you who don't know basic firearms safety and hunting safety rules stay out of this, you only show your ignorance.
> 
> EF



x2


----------



## dadsbuckshot

Using night vision is not really hunting is it?..? I know folks don't like coyotes, but you should at least leave some sport to it. You know actually calling something in - wearing camo - trying to be as quiet and still as possible while getting the animal close for the kill ... Much like bow hunting. In my opinion taking an animal or coyote with night vision is much like shooting a turkey over corn.... Again where is the sport in this practice? 

If you would like to share your opinion feel free, but this practice is not for me....


----------



## Jake Allen

claymaster007 said:


> Mike you are absolutely wrong about a K9's eyes shining. My dogs eyes shine with the IR illuminator just like a coyote or fox or bobcat. The binos that the ranger had apparently gave off the same reflection. For those of you that have never used night vision equipment, stay out of this, you only show your ignorance.[/QUOTE]
> 
> Easy, big fellow, please.
> No call for that.
> Thanks.


----------



## wmahunter

Here's what I see of this issue so far other than the fact that is getting awful close to turning into a name-calling post:

Some seem to think the shooter was the ONLY ONE who could have prevented this tragedy and some seem to think that it is POSSIBLE that both the shooter and the LEO could have HELPED prevent it. I still have not seen anyone say that the shooter was right AND the LEO was wrong although some seem to be arguing as if that has been written.

Sometimes I find it easier to understand something (read: see the other persons viewpoint) by looking at it under a different context.  Lets say that I am driving through an intersection and I have the green light. Someone runs the red light the other way and t-bones my truck killing me. No one would argue that the other driver was at fault but it can also be true that if I had looked at the other traffic and seen him not slowing down then I might have used evasive maneuvers and avoided the collision.  Still not my fault but I would be alive to tell about it.   

And YES I do look before entering intersections and similar to Mike who has 10 years of using NV in the military and is very proficient with it, I have 45 years of accident free driving experience...some of which is due to what is known as defensive driving.

I look out for the other drivers because I know that some of them are not going to be looking out for me.... same way I always use a flashlight when going to or from my deer stand in dark or poor light conditions...why give someone the chance to mis-identify me when I can make real sure they know I am NOT a deer?

Was the LEO using "defensive driving" in the way in which he was doing this surveillance? I don't know but IF he was not and IF he had done so then it is POSSIBLE that he would still be with us.

Why is it so difficult for some to accept that being "defensive" can be a good thing in many aspects of our daily lives..not just driving?

JMHO


----------



## Shivesy

balvarik said:


> Forget about the entire idea of "what the shooter might have seen" and just think about one single aspect of the CRIME.
> That is the negligent discharge of a firearm that took a mans life!
> 
> 
> Hunting is not "catch and release"!
> 
> 
> Mike



Mike
I agree with your statement that the hunters were negligent in discharging a firearm that took a mans life. I'm still trying to understand this whole situation. Do you think that these 2 hunters went out that night to take a mans life on purpose?


----------



## seaweaver

Dr,Shiv...
Your patience in attempting to aid SS in understanding the narrowness block is commendable.
I can only reduce it to a mentality of infallibility.

cw


----------



## LEON MANLEY

Shivesy said:


> Mike
> I agree with your statement that the hunters were negligent in discharging a firearm that took a mans life. I'm still trying to understand this whole situation. Do you think that these 2 hunters went out that night to take a mans life on purpose?



Time will tell.


----------



## LEON MANLEY

Looks like there are a lot of folks that "hunt" with the notion that it is not a crime to recklessly discharge a firearm without properly identifying the target. I thought most of the brush shooters retired back in the 70's. Thats not the case, they just stopped talking about it until someone gets killed or maimed, then they come to the shooters defense knowing that they do the same thing and would like to get a free pass in the case they kill or maim someone.


----------



## wmahunter

balvarik said:


> Forget about the entire idea of "what the shooter might have seen" and just think about one single aspect of the CRIME.
> That is the negligent discharge of a firearm that took a mans life!
> Mike



I am not going to forget about what the shooter might have seen because even though I know I am not going to shoot something that I have not positively identified, I still could be on the receiving end of the shot and hope that this tragedy could at least help me to have learned a little bit about how to be safer and protect myself better. 

I strongly believe in learning from mistakes...hopefully others instead of mine.


----------



## LEON MANLEY

wmahunter said:


> i am not going to forget about what the shooter might have seen because even though i know i am not going to shoot something that i have not positively identified, i still could be on the receiving end of the shot and hope that this tragedy could at least help me to have learned a little bit about how to be safer and protect myself better.
> 
> I strongly believe in learning from mistakes...hopefully others instead of mine.



don't hunt public land


----------



## molly

*What I see with Night Vision*

For what its worth this is what I see with my Night Vision Gen. 3.  I can see a coyote coming 300 yds and know its a coyote (there is no question about it).  If I`m useing my IR light the coyotes eyes will shine a very light green in color but it doesn`t effect them in coming in closer.  When hunting with Night Vision I place a caller (FoxPro) about 40yds away from me, the coyotes I have killed at will come within 100yds of the caller before it will start circle`n to get down wind.  At 100 or even 200 yds I can tell what color it is all over its body.  Most of the time I want let a hunter shoot untill the dog is within a 100yds to make sure he can kill it.  You have to be a really good shot to hit a coyote off sticks (I use Primos trigger tripod).  When I spot a coyote coming to the call and he is 200yds or less I put the hunter on the gun and instruct him when to shoot.

Joe is right...a spot`n scope is needed when you have a person doing the shooting....I`m getting myself a PVS-14 Gen-3 equiped with a IR light to spot with....this will help direct the shooter where the coyote is and when to shoot....too many hunters are useing the cheap NV scopes Gen-1 and Gen-2 and you can`t see that well with em.   No I`m not rich....but when it comes to safety $8000.00 is cheap compared to a life.   If there is anyone out there thats making committs about what happened and has never looked into a NV scope I will be glad tomeet all of you somewhere as a group and let you see what its like to look into a good NV socpe.


----------



## claymaster007

To Jake Allen (moderator). When I made the comment about them showing their ignorance, I did not mean that in a malicious way. Ignorant means lack of knowledge or not knowing. I would have said stupid if I were trying to be ugly.   To wmahunter, I used the same analogy about approaching an intersection in one of my earlier threads. That is a good analogy and I agree with you, although you have the right of way, clear the intersection before preceeding through it.  To dadsbuckshot. It is obvious to me that you have not had any or very little experience hunting coyotes at night. When we hunted the coyotes at night using the red light, we killed about 5 or 6 for every 100 that we called up. Artificial lights scare the daylights out of the coyotes. When we started using nightvision, our percentage of kills per coyotes called up probably went up to 40 percent vs 5 or 6 percent. It gave us a tremendous advantage over the light, but to say its like sitting on a corn pile and shooting a turkey is vastly overstated. On second thought it just might be ignorant.


----------



## wmahunter

LEON MANLEY said:


> don't hunt public land



Why not?  It's public and I am helping pay for it. I know the risks and do what I can to protect myself from them.

I could just as easily say to you "don't ever ride in a car and then you won't ever be in an auto accident" but it seems to make more sense just to say "drive careful"


----------



## Cornbread-58

Don't worry about it as not every man has it in them to walk towards the guns/firing.

That is why it takes a certain "caliber" of man.

Mike[/QUOTE]

Baiting? 

Out of respect for everyone else on the board, I will not respond with a witty remark about someone's man "caliber". 

But I will say, THANK YOU, MIKE for your service to our country. Beyond that, ???????


----------



## Resica

LEON MANLEY said:


> don't hunt public land



Please. If you think public land is the only place idiotic things happen, you are sorely mistaken.


----------



## HandgunHTR

The warning was given and I don't see this one getting any better, so it is now locked down.

My advice to everyone:

Wait until the formal investigation is completed before making any more comments.


----------

