SonofaBITCH! (outrage over "innocent" state trooper who shot Norton woman)

StevieP

NES Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
10,373
Likes
8,053
Location
Gone to Carolina in my mind...
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
The statie who shot the Norton woman with his muzzleloader at dusk last New Years' Eve was found innocent in criminal court. He got NO punishment. None. Tell me there's no double standard and I'll call you a liar. Nothing will ever change.

There's still civil court.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
Just saw that on the news. Amazing. What would happen if one of us shot a person you think? Stuff like this is infuriating, but most people wont see it or dont care. Shame
 
Just curios, why was what transpired criminal? Wasn't it a hunting accident?

There is no such thing as an accident. There is legal hunting, and there is negligence. Accidents are act of God, and unavoidable. This shooting was avoidable in many ways.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2
 
There is no such thing as an accident. There is legal hunting, and there is negligence. Accidents are act of God, and unavoidable. This shooting was avoidable in many ways.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

So with that rationale everyone who gets in a car wreck should be charged with reckless driving and driving to endanger. There is a thing called discretion.

Cop or not, no one should be made a criminal over an accident like this. Civil court will hit his wallet, as it should.
 
So with that rationale everyone who gets in a car wreck should be charged with reckless driving and driving to endanger. There is a thing called discretion.

Cop or not, no one should be made a criminal over an accident like this. Civil court will hit his wallet, as it should.

What's the 4th rule of gun safety?

What is every hunter instructed to do before he takes a shot?

What we have here is: criminal negligence - recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death
 
Does this news surprise anybody?

Just like in 1984, everything is turned around backwards. The police are now criminals, the criminals are now good guys (little old ladies groped by TSA, etc.).
 
So with that rationale everyone who gets in a car wreck should be charged with reckless driving and driving to endanger. There is a thing called discretion.

Cop or not, no one should be made a criminal over an accident like this. Civil court will hit his wallet, as it should.
I'm not saying this particular incident wasn't a case of negligence, but I do agree with your analogy of the car accident. Shooters are some arrogant bastards to say there's no such thing as an accident. They parrot the words of people like Col. Copper and it's gospel. Sometimes accidents do happen. It's human error and we're all prone to it. Whether it be with guns, cars, chainsaws, or a broken rubber. Accidents happen.
 
I don't see the Norton incident as an accident. I see it as criminal negligence. When you own or operate a firearm, you have a responsibility knowing that your actions could kill someone. When you are a hunter, your goal is to kill the animal you are hunting.

This cop showed that he didn't care enough to identify his target, yet shot to kill. Every hunter knows the possibility that humans use the woods just like the animals do.

For me, the car analogy falls short. It's not just "any" accident. To me the analogy would only work if the cop pulled out in front of a car in such a manner as it being impossible for the woman to stop, willfully causing an accident.
 
The statie who shot the Norton woman with his muzzleloader at dusk last New Years' Eve was found innocent in criminal court. He got NO punishment. None. Tell me there's no double standard and I'll call you a liar. Nothing will ever change.

There's still civil court.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Worse than this, it was not a trial, a magistrate did not find probable cause.
 
Did the hunter (used deliberately) get more slack than someone that does not wear a Smokey Bear hat? Probably.

Is this a surprise? Probably not.

But, and it's a big but, "Hunting accidents" are treated differently than the same actions would be, outside of the woods. This is why there is a separate bunch of penalties for them.

If being a Statie helped to "save" him, here, I'm guessing that the plaintiff's attorney will use the fact that "Police are highly trained in the use of firearms" to show an extra level of screw-up.

Please note - I'm not saying that this is good outcome - it's jsut an observation.

Now....I wonder if there are any hunting penalties (lossof license, etc.) that can/will be pursued by the EPOs?
 
I'm not saying this particular incident wasn't a case of negligence, but I do agree with your analogy of the car accident. Shooters are some arrogant bastards to say there's no such thing as an accident. They parrot the words of people like Col. Copper and it's gospel. Sometimes accidents do happen. It's human error and we're all prone to it. Whether it be with guns, cars, chainsaws, or a broken rubber. Accidents happen.

The Mass RMV has gone so far as to change the name of the reporting form from an "accident report" to a "crash report." If you've taken driver's ed in the last ten years (or had a kid who did, as we parents all have to go for one night to re-learn the rules with them), you'd know that they now teach the fact that accidents are truly that - accidental. There are precious few automobile accidents. A rock falling off a cliff right in-front of you is an accident. They are 'acts of God' and truly un-avoidable. New drivers are taught the difference between an accident and a crash.

Most car "crashes" are completely avoidable, and MOST of the time, are caused by some action or inaction on the part of the driver. They are not "accidental." Talking, texting, or otherwise being a distracted driver are simple examples. Speeding or driving drunk are other ones where if the driver crashes, it's "no accident." If you speed while texting and driving impaired, the resulting crash is INEVITABLE, not accidental.

I equate this shooting to the difference between a real car accident, and a crash. Nobody made the trooper wait until it was too dark to see, to raise his gun, to aim it at (a sound? a dog?) "something he couldn't see" and pull the trigger. Those were all conscious actions taken by one person, and done so (imnsho) negligently. We are ALL taught to know your target and what's behind it. The trooper took the same class as the rest of us, and consciously ignored two of the most important rules of hunting.

If any of us had done that, we'd have lost our LTC ON THE SPOT, had our guns impounded, and sent to jail, only to have to come up with bail money, and then have been found guilty of criminal negligence. Nobody is arguing it wasn't him.

How can this be anything BUT negligence? And how is it anything BUT a double standard?
 
Last edited:
So with that rationale everyone who gets in a car wreck should be charged with reckless driving and driving to endanger. There is a thing called discretion.

Cop or not, no one should be made a criminal over an accident like this. Civil court will hit his wallet, as it should.

Accidents happen. When your deliberate actions contribute to the accident, it isn't simply an accident anymore.

Driving too fast for conditions (rain / gravel)

Driving impaired. (But Occifer! It was only ONE drink!)

Driving at night without your lights working.

This trooper continued hunting after the end of the season and into dusk. At least that's the way I recollect the discussion. He contributed. Maybe not a lot, but some.

As far as "Cop or not, no one should be made a criminal over an accident like this" I agree. Yet at the same time, any ordinary citizen *would* have been convicted of something or at least been ruined financially before anyone could even contemplate a civil suit.
 
animalfarm5.png
 
"Let me show you something. This is my shocked face."

What amazed me from the first was he thought the dog was a deer, so he shot the woman.

Heck, if she had been standing next to an actual 8-point buck (not recommended), he still shouldn't have taken the shot if he was likely to miss and hit her.

Wasn't there some question as to the shot being after sundown -- which would have been a violation?

--jcr

[p.s. would the OP please change the thread title]
 
Wasn't there some question as to the shot being after sundown -- which would have been a violation?

"A hunter mistook a 66-year-old Norton woman walking her two dogs for a deer and shot her at 4:55 p.m., 17 minutes after sunset yesterday in Norton, a preliminary investigation indicated, police said."

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/re...ally_shot_by_hunter/srvc=home&position=recent

In the thread Zapp posted, there was a lot of discussion about whether the shot occurs in the minutes before or after the actual end of the season.

http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/149842-Norton-woman-accidentally-shot-by-hunter
 
Worse than this, it was not a trial, a magistrate did not find probable cause.

This is how the special ones get out of criminal charges. The magistrates find no PC. OP, please edit your post because it makes it seem like the guy was actually tried and found innocent by a jury of his peers. Something that did not happen it appears.
 
The car analogy sucks. If you want to use that, an "accidental" shooting is like running a red light. You know better.

You don't run red lights without the possiblity of killing or hurting someone. You don't shoot at unidentified targets or noises without the possiblity of killing or hurting someone.

If you're a citizen, and kill or hurt someone, you face full weight of the law.

If you're a cop...well it's pretty clear cops are held to a "higher standard".[rolleyes]
 
The statie who shot the Norton woman with his muzzleloader at dusk last New Years' Eve was found innocent in criminal court. He got NO punishment. None. Tell me there's no double standard and I'll call you a liar. Nothing will ever change.

There's still civil court.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

Clerk Magistrate determined there were insufficient facts to proceed with criminal trial. Violating common sense hunting and gun handling rules is not criminal. Grossly negligent, but not criminal. EPO's may have claimed statie shot 14 minutes after sunset, but defense lawyer would have them for lunch. How do you know it was 14 minutes? How do you know your watch was accurate that day?

Statie will probably not suffer any civil penalties either. I'm sure his assets were in his wifes name, or put into a trust immediately, so everything he owns is untouchable. I understand the lady who was shot is going after the landowner, who had no idea the statie was on her land. She should have posted her land or fenced it to prevent hunting. Go after the deepest pocket, and hope someone settles.

Statie does not need LTC as long as he is employed by State Police.
 
Back
Top Bottom