De facto immunity for negligent hunters?

[zakur]

I just ran across this fascinating article about the law governing hunting accidents:

The Buck (Fever) Stops Here

The law governing hunting accidents has long been controversial. This is the one area where citizens routinely shoot and kill other citizens without civil or criminal penalty -- or even the loss of a hunting license. Indeed, most cases of accidental shootings are viewed as reasonable mistakes by hunters and often it is the victim who is blamed for failing to give a hunter a wide berth. Even in the few cases where criminal and civil charges are brought against hunters such as Cheney, they are often tried by a jury of their peers: jurors from communities where hunting and hunting accidents are a way of life.

[...]

Hunting accidents stand in sharp contrast to other types of lethal negligence. In areas ranging from vehicular accidents to corporate misconduct, individuals routinely face criminal charges for reckless conduct. In hunting, however, gross negligence is often refashioned as mere "excitement." Indeed, criminal charges can be downgraded when the killing was done in sport.

[...]

Based on the public accounts of last weekend's shooting, there'd be a good case to be made that Cheney was negligent. A person is negligent per se when he violates a statutory standard of care, such as the requirement to establish a clear line of fire and confirm a defined game. (This puts aside the fact that Cheney was hunting without a proper state stamp.)

Cheney's is a classic case of buck fever. There was nothing particularly confusing or unexpected about an individual rejoining a hunting line, as Whittington reportedly did. Rather, it was likely the euphoria of seeking and shooting game that blinded Cheney to the fact that he was aiming at a 78-year-old attorney rather than a six-ounce bird. Medical studies show that hunters often experience a type of physiological frenzy in the presence of game -- or its illusion. When shooting a deer, a male's heart can reach 118 percent of the maximum heart rate. Given Cheney's heart condition, hunting would seem a poor recreational choice for the vice president.

Cheney's case reflects a troubling de facto immunity given to negligent hunters. Because of our tradition of hunting, we view people who make lethal use of a firearm as less culpable than those who make lethal use of objects like cars. Texas probably won't require that Cheney take safety classes or suspend his license. The local county sheriff's office has already declared the case closed. For his part, Cheney feels no compulsion to promise that the "buck (fever) stops here" and give up hunting.

Your thoughts?

 

[WildCat]

I just ran across this fascinating article about the law governing hunting accidents:

The Buck (Fever) Stops Here


Your thoughts?

It's a sport w/ inherent risks involved. What is the case that Cheney was criminally negligent? Cheney didn't mistake Whittington for a bird, he apparently emerged from cover just as Cheney was firing at a bird.

The article implies that the right to a jury trial should be forfeited? Who wants to shred the Constitution here?

IMHO, that would be akin to filing charges after a death in auto racing, what real purpose would it serve? Sometimes, **** happens.

 

[gmgauthi]

How many angels....

I just ran across this fascinating article about the law governing hunting: The Buck (Fever) Stops Here

Your thoughts?

What, precisely was the "Statutory Standard of Care" in this case? That, ultimately, would be the deciding factor, if I read this article correctly. But, the author fails to explain what that is. He provides the speculative example of establishing a clear line of fire, as an illustration of this kind of standard, but does not make it clear that this is the standard that would have been applied in Cheney's case.

In the auto-racing example, if a certain "Statutory Standard of Care" were applied, one might be able to level charges in cases where its fairly clear that the racers were engaged in some sort of vengful behavior (let's not pretend that doesn't happen. The rivalries are as plain as the nose on your face). But it all depends on those statutes.

So, what are they?

Greg.

 

[Underemployed]

As it happened, there doesn't seem to be anything too worrisome - both parties willingly put themselves in a risky situation with firearms.

What would be a concern is if a non-hunting party (say, a child out on a family picnic in a park) was shot by a hunter in an area not usually used for hunting, and the hunter was still not prosecuted. But this is pretty far from the Cheney case.

 

[Cain]

As it happened, there doesn't seem to be anything too worrisome - both parties willingly put themselves in a risky situation with firearms.

True, but as the more vociferous gun rights advocates remind us, driving is an inherently risky activity as well. The above argument is plausible precisely because we immediately recognize that playing with guns is inherently dangerous, even if it means stepping out of one's "air-conditioned Escalade to take aim at pen-raised, wingless quail-tards three feet away" (paraphrasing reporter Rob Corddry).

As for the VP, this case reminds me of an article Shermer wrote about "inattentional blindness" a while back. I think someone posted the video of the white-shirts passing the basketball.