Massholistani Trooper Accidentally Shoots Woman While Hunting

[Rebel]

While fine arguments on behalf of the idiot behind the trigger, all of them combined do not negate the man's FIRST RESPONSIBILITY as a hunter: to know what the hell his boomstick was pointed at BEFORE letting his booger hook tug on the bang switch.  I can't begin to count the number of times that was drilled into my head at the hunter safety course I was required to take before I could get my hunting license.  

If you don't know, don't shoot; it's that simple.  

Let's put it another way: it's 01:30 in the morning, and you hear burglar-type noises coming from the front of your house, and call 9-1-1.  Now, knowing that this idiot believes a couple of golden retrievers in a wooded area, under reduced visibility, with whatever that is between them is a definite "GO for shoot" situation, are you sure you want him to be the one answering that 9-1-1 call, busting into your darkened house with his weapon drawn and "looks like a burglar to me" running through his wee mind?

This. You see a dog, and like a dumbass, think it's a deer, but wind up shooting a woman, who's walking the dog, you need to find another f'n hobby.

This sumbitch sounds like the type of asshole that would fire into a brush because it was stirring in the wind. Give his ass a fishing pole and put him on the shore. I don't know if I'd trust him with a boat.

[Rebel]

How the hell is that the same as hunting in the woods? 

"If you don't know, don't shoot; it's that simple. "


A dog doesn't look like a deer. If he couldn't discern between the two, he shouldn't have fired.

Sorry FL, it's morons like this guy that give outdoorsmen a bad name, that we'd shoot anything because we have some blood lust.

[Rebel]

When I used to hunt, do you know how many damn deer I let go because I was either, A) not confident that I could hit the target without it getting away, B) not confident that it was a legal kill, or C) due to its distance, didn't know what was on the other side?

This guy displayed PISS POOR judgement and shouldn't be excused.

[formerlurker]

"If you don't know, don't shoot; it's that simple. "


A dog doesn't look like a deer. If he couldn't discern between the two, he shouldn't have fired.

Sorry FL, it's morons like this guy that give outdoorsmen a bad name, that we'd shoot anything because we have some blood lust.

I don't hunt, and never had.  I do live in an area that has and sees a great deal of hunters.   I am a born and raised city girl who learned the ropes pretty damn quick when I moved to rural America.   This woman has some negligence here also.   It was late, and she had no reflective gear on.   She should have known better.

Shit happens.  Poor hunter or not, he did nothing illegal.   

[DefiantSix]

How the hell is that the same as hunting in the woods? 

It's the same thing, because this twit, who's demonstrated that he doesn't have the situational forethought God gave a gnat, also carries a gun on his day job.  If he's a walking cluster**** with a gun in the woods, when the visibility isn't so hot, what makes you think he's ANY DIFFERENT responding to a burglary call at 01:30 in the damned morning??

[formerlurker]

It's the same thing, because this twit, who's demonstrated that he doesn't have the situational forethought God gave a gnat, also carries a gun on his day job.  If he's a walking cluster**** with a gun in the woods, when the visibility isn't so hot, what makes you think he's ANY DIFFERENT responding to a burglary call at 01:30 in the damned morning??

Well for one he's a state trooper, and as such would not answer a burglary call at 1:30 in the morning.    Secondly, out in the woods where there is you, other hunters in reflective gear and animals you think a little differently I would imagine.   

[thundley4]

Well for one he's a state trooper, and as such would not answer a burglary call at 1:30 in the morning.    Secondly, out in the woods where there is you, other hunters in reflective gear and animals you think a little differently I would imagine.   

Not necessarily true.  Some small towns in Illinois rely on both the ISP and county sheriff's department to answer emergency calls. Whoever is most available will take the call.

[Rebel]

I don't hunt, and never had.  I do live in an area that has and sees a great deal of hunters.   I am a born and raised city girl who learned the ropes pretty damn quick when I moved to rural America.   This woman has some negligence here also.   It was late, and she had no reflective gear on.   She should have known better.

Shit happens.  Poor hunter or not, he did nothing illegal.   

Illegal? No. Dumb as hell? Yes, and subject to a civil lawsuit. FL, if it was late, the rules still apply. You don't fire when you're not sure and, if it was a damn dog, he was either A) unsure but fired anyway, or B) needs glasses and shouldn't be hunting. There is no excuse for this. None. Idiots like this will get hunting banned.

[Rebel]

Well for one he's a state trooper, and as such would not answer a burglary call at 1:30 in the morning.    Secondly, out in the woods where there is you, other hunters in reflective gear and animals you think a little differently I would imagine.    

FL, you do not fire a rifle into an area when you're unsure about what's there. ...he was unsure. If he was sure about it, he knowingly killed a woman. It can't be both. Shit happens, true. People fire a high powered rifle and it hits a metal object, ricochets off and hits someone else. That is a "shit happens" moment. This, however, is a piss poor judgement moment.

[formerlurker]

Not necessarily true.  Some small towns in Illinois rely on both the ISP and county sheriff's department to answer emergency calls. Whoever is most available will take the call.

State police will respond for some towns who don't have funds for full time police, but those towns usually have agreements with adjoining towns for mutual assistance.   The state police is the last to show, and honestly you don't want to be at the mercy of them being the ones to respond as it would take a LONG time for them to do so.  

They are highway patrol (state roads and highway) and primarily traffic cops.  There are many specialized units that work with DA and do detective work, inspect rigs, tractor trailers etc.  but answering burglary calls in the middle of the night would be more rare than anything.

[DefiantSix]

Well for one he's a state trooper, and as such would not answer a burglary call at 1:30 in the morning.    Secondly, out in the woods where there is you, other hunters in reflective gear and animals you think a little differently I would imagine.   

Actually, no you don't. 

I guarantee you, that the checklist I go through in my head when I'm preparing to drop a 5-point buck is the same checklist I'll go through when I have my sidearm out of the holster (in training or real life).

• Is deadly force justified for use on this target
• Am I sure of who/what the target is
• Is the downrange behind the target clear
• Are there "no shoot" variables that could wander in between me and the target
• Do I have a clean line of sight to my target

If I can't check off every one of those questions, then I have a NO SHOOT situation, and I am at the very least negligent, and can very well be held legally responsible if I discharge that weapon.

All of my firearms, concealed carry, and hunter safety courses have been taught by police officers from my community.  I have had any number of instructors, and the instruction on shoot/no shoot has been consistent throughout.  I have to believe that this idiot hiding behind a MA Trooper's badge has gone through the same shoot/no shoot drills that I have, and in the course of training for his chosen occupation, even more so.  It's also not something that gets "turned off" whenever you go "off duty".

That he could - for whatever reason you might offer - see the setup that had to have presented in front of him, and believe that he had a valid "Shoot" situation at hand, shows extremely poor judgement on his part, such that it is incredible to believe that he checks his poor judgement in the locker whenever he goes on duty.   Like Rebel said: give this SoB a fishing pole and chain him to a riverbank somewhere, because the next poor sod this guy shoots - and you can take it to the bank that there'll be another - may not be so lucky as the woman was.  In addition to having bad judgement, in her case his aim sucked donkey balls as well.

[formerlurker]

FL, you do not fire a rifle into an area when you're unsure about what's there. ...he was unsure. If he was sure about it, he knowingly killed a woman. It can't be both. Shit happens, true. People fire a high powered rifle and it hits a metal object, ricochets off and hits someone else. That is a "shit happens" moment. This, however, is a piss poor judgement moment.

You hunt, I don't so I will defer to you opinion.  That said, I don't think this is that rare as I seem to read about this stuff every year.   Horrifying yes, but if I was out walking my dog at my old house and I got shot the first thing pretty much every  town regular would has asked me was were you wearing a vest, and if I wasn't they would immediately roll  their eyes at me.  

I guess they just expect idiot hunters to do stuff like this more commonly than the rest of the country then.  

[FreeBorn]

Apparently the MSP academy teaches "reconnaissance by fire".  

Can't help it, I gotta wonder once Gomer realized what he had done did the thought cross his mind to plant a gun on the Lady?

This is only half the story, no matter how badly the MSP want this to just go away it is most definitely headed to civil court. At least.

[Gina]

Actually, no you don't.  

I guarantee you, that the checklist I go through in my head when I'm preparing to drop a 5-point buck is the same checklist I'll go through when I have my sidearm out of the holster (in training or real life).

• Is deadly force justified for use on this target
• Am I sure of who/what the target is
• Is the downrange behind the target clear
• Are there "no shoot" variables that could wander in between me and the target
• Do I have a clean line of sight to my target

If I can't check off every one of those questions, then I have a NO SHOOT situation, and I am at the very least negligent, and can very well be held legally responsible if I discharge that weapon.

[\quote]

I like to see the eyes too

[formerlurker]

Blair’s husband, James Blair, a state-certified firearms safety instructor, originally thought Bergeron was hunting on the couple’s four-acre property; however, today, Norton police Lt. Todd Jackson said investigators have determined the accident occurred on other land “regularly used for hunting and is approximately 800 feet from any buildings.”

When the dispatcher asked Bergeron if Blair had been shot by a hunter, he immediately answered, “Yes, it was me. I just had a deer come by. I thought it came by again.”

Bergeron, who asked Blair what she was doing walking in the woods, wasn’t immediately sure she’d been hit, as he told the dispatcher, “I don’t see any blood.”

“Oh my god, ma’am, don’t move,” he beseeched Blair. “I don’t want you to get hurt.”

Panicked and out of breath, Bergeron, who’d mistaken dog breeder Blair’s two golden retrievers for a deer, broke down crying as Blair told him, “I can’t move.”

“Never in my life,” Bergeron said. “I can’t (expletive) believe this.”

The dispatcher instructed Bergeron to yell to EMTs who had pulled up on Oak Street a quarter mile away, but he told her, “I hate to leave (Blair) alone.”

He then called out to the emergency personnel and blew on a whistle, as the nearly 13-minute, harrowing tape followed his footsteps crunching on leaves and twigs until the phone went dead.

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220103911_tape_im_so_sorry_trooper_tells_grandma_after_shooting/srvc=home&position=6

[DefiantSix]

And as fine as his behavior was AFTER he shot her, it still doesn't negate the poor judgement he displayed leading TO the shooting.

As my dad used to tell me, "just ONE 'aw shit' will wipe out a full thousand 'atta boys'".

[NHSparky]

You hunt, I don't so I will defer to you opinion.  That said, I don't think this is that rare as I seem to read about this stuff every year.   Horrifying yes, but if I was out walking my dog at my old house and I got shot the first thing pretty much every  town regular would has asked me was were you wearing a vest, and if I wasn't they would immediately roll  their eyes at me.  

I guess they just expect idiot hunters to do stuff like this more commonly than the rest of the country then.  

The reason this happens more than it should is because a lot of hunters, cops or not, know ****-all about hunting safety. If someones gets shot but wasn't wearing a vest, they don't rate eye rolls because some jagoff doesn't know the difference between a dog and a deer. That's like saying a rape victim in Dorcheste deserves an eye roll because they weren't wearing a chastity belt.

[Rebel]

And as fine as his behavior was AFTER he shot her, it still doesn't negate the poor judgement he displayed leading TO the shooting.

As my dad used to tell me, "just ONE 'aw shit' will wipe out a full thousand 'atta boys'".

This again.

[Rebel]

BTW, was she walking the dogs on a road, dirt or paved? It's illegal to shoot a deer on a road here.

[NHSparky]

BTW, was she walking the dogs on a road, dirt or paved? It's illegal to shoot a deer on a road here.

She was walking them through the woods.  Similar laws exist in Mass.

[Eupher]

I don't hunt, and never had.  I do live in an area that has and sees a great deal of hunters.   I am a born and raised city girl who learned the ropes pretty damn quick when I moved to rural America.   This woman has some negligence here also.   It was late, and she had no reflective gear on.   She should have known better.

Shit happens.  Poor hunter or not, he did nothing illegal.   

Sorry, FL, but the woman walking the dog isn't obligated to wear reflective gear. Just because she's walking the dog where she's walking it, that doesn't mean she's automatically in tune with whatever hunting activity is going on. It's incumbent on the HUNTER to be certain of his target and his circumstances -- not the woman.

[CG6468]

Sorry, FL, but the woman walking the dog isn't obligated to wear reflective gear. Just because she's walking the dog where she's walking it, that doesn't mean she's automatically in tune with whatever hunting activity is going on. It's incumbent on the HUNTER to be certain of his target and his circumstances -- not the woman.

    

[formerlurker]

She was walking them through the woods.  Similar laws exist in Mass.

I posted the laws, and if you look at the articles you will see her children want a full investigation done, but her husband (who hunts with the state trooper as he is their neighbor) forgave him for the error.  

He did state that he was concerned because he wasn't sure of his target and he should have known not to take the shot.

[formerlurker]

The reason this happens more than it should is because a lot of hunters, cops or not, know ****-all about hunting safety. If someones gets shot but wasn't wearing a vest, they don't rate eye rolls because some jagoff doesn't know the difference between a dog and a deer. That's like saying a rape victim in Dorcheste deserves an eye roll because they weren't wearing a chastity belt.

Yeah because hunting and rape are the same.   

[formerlurker]

Sorry, FL, but the woman walking the dog isn't obligated to wear reflective gear. Just because she's walking the dog where she's walking it, that doesn't mean she's automatically in tune with whatever hunting activity is going on. It's incumbent on the HUNTER to be certain of his target and his circumstances -- not the woman.

It's called prudence.   Obligated? no.   Just stupidity not doing so during hunting season when her entire family are hunters and she lives next to popular hunting grounds.