Sorry 4ager but I can't agree. Once again, he was lawfully hunting, and shooting at an animal in order to kill it. I've highlighted some language below from the statute you cited. With respect to acting recklessly, what is the substantial and unjustifiable risk that he consciously disregarded? That he would only wound the elk? Hell, he was trying to kill the damn thing. Every time a hunter takes a shot at a big game animal, he/she consciously disregards the fact that they may only wound the animal.
As far as criminal negligence, same question. Plus, what is the standard of care needed when the lawful objective is to kill the animal?
(3) Recklessly with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he is aware of but consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.
(4) With criminal negligence or is criminally negligent with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise in all the circumstances as viewed from the actor's standpoint.[i][/i]
That's for a court to determine. I know I'd not like to be him sitting in a defendant's seat trying to argue that attempting a 908 yard HEAD shot was not a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ORDINARY hunter would exercise with the circumstances as viewed from the hunter's standpoint.
With hunting and shooting, there is always some degree of risk. It's not that the action need to be riskless in order to be justifiable. It's that the risk not be a gross deviation from the ordinary. That's the burden of proof here: was his action a gross deviation from the standard actions and standard of care of an ordinary hunter in similar situations?
I think one could quite easily argue that an ordinary hunter exercising the normal standard of care in such situations would probably not have attempted the shot at all. Taking a shot in those circumstances would be a deviation from the ordinary standard of care, but not necessarily a gross deviation if the shot itself were placed or targeted where an ordinary hunter would shoot in ordinary situations.
Once you move to taking a shot that an ordinary hunter would likely not take under any but the most extreme circumstance (i.e., a head shot - and again, I'm talking about an ORDINARY hunter, as that's the standard), and you compound that with the ranges involved, a prima facie case for reckless and criminally negligent actions might well be made. If that is made, then the shooter is going to have a very tough time proving that his actions were not, in fact, grossly deviant from the standard of care and standard actions of an ordinary hunter in the same situation.
Honestly, I really do hope that a Utah game warden takes a close look at this [bleep] and his actions and at least tries to make the case against him. That might be what it takes to get through to this dickhead that his actions are irresponsible and WAY outside the bounds. Y'all are right, that there are no laws against being an [bleep], and this guy is certainly that. Now, when that [bleep] takes a potentially grossly deviant, negligent action? Yeah, there might just be a law against those actions.
Originally Posted by Mannlicher
America needs to understand that our troops are not 'disposable'. Each represents a family; Fathers, Mothers, Sons, Daughters, Cousins, Uncles, Aunts... Our Citizens are our most valuable treasure; we waste far too many.
