Looking up statues to somehow defend this chowderhead on a legal basis seems to miss the larger picture here.
If you think that's what I'm doing, then you're the one missing the larger picture. In no way am I defending this guy; I think I called him a bozo and said he should be kicking himself in the ass, among other things. The only thing I'm saying is that what he did is not illegal, and shouldn't be.
If you want proof of that, read this quote from 4ager below. I hate to say it because 4ager is a sharp dude and rarely misses on something like this, but he's way off-base here.
By saying it is or should be against the law to take a shot that an ordinary hunter under ordinary circumstances would not take sinks us all down to the lowest common denominator, and would make guys like scenarshooter and John Burns violators.
Is that what we want?
Originally Posted by 4ager
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.
