# Maplewood man charged in death of young hunter



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Maplewood man charged in death of young hunter had been drinking

The Associated Press - Wednesday, November 22, 2006

AITKIN, Minn.

A Maplewood man had been drinking alcohol before he mistook a teenage boy for a deer and fatally shot him, according to a criminal complaint.

Steven John Ferguson, 45, who was arraigned on second-degree manslaughter charges Tuesday in Aitkin County District Court, told authorities he thought he had seen brown deer hide through a thicket near his deer stand before twice firing his rifle, the complaint said.

Authorities said the second shot likely struck Brandon Mitchell Lanie in the head, killing the 14-year-old. Lanie, who was a ninth-grader at Buffalo High School, was wearing blaze orange clothes and a camouflage baseball cap.

Lanie was hunting with a group just north of Mille Lacs Lake.

According to the complaint, Ferguson called police around 5 p.m. Saturday after discovering he had shot Brandon. He said he fired twice after hearing leaves crunch and seeing something brown move through the thickets. He said Brandon had brown hair that looked like a deer's back.

Prosecutor Lisa R. Rakotz said Ferguson admitted that he had been drinking alcohol Saturday, which was confirmed by a witness. The witness said Ferguson has had several drunken-driving convictions - state records show about five since 1993 - and that his driver's license was conditional upon not drinking.

Ferguson's attorney, Ryan Garry, said after the hearing that Ferguson, who posted bail, sent his "deepest regards and sympathy to the family" of the victim. "It was a horrific, tragic accident," Garry said.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

I'm sorry, but that's no accident! This guy should have been locked up along time ago for all those DUI's. Someone was bound to die from him sooner or later. :eyeroll:

I hope he receives the maximum penalty by law! :******:


----------



## curty (Sep 18, 2003)

When I first heard about the shooting I thought it to be a terrible, terrible accident. I actually also felt bad for the shooter. (how he must feel). But after hearing he was drinking :eyeroll: while hunting, and knowing alcohol impairs the thought process. Oh well you all get my drift.
What a sad ordeal for the family of a young child.
Curty


----------



## Irish Mick (May 15, 2006)

That is a terrible situation. This Ferguson fella ought to get the book thrown at him. Drinking, not properly identifying his target, multiple DUI's in the past...like was said before this guy was bound to kill someone. It wasn't on the road like everyone probably thought it would be and now this poor young hunter paid the price.

Maybe there should be a law, one, two, five DUI's and a guy looses his hunting privilages becasue he obviously can't control himself and has no regard for the safety of others.

:eyeroll:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

I agree Mick, 5 dui's since 93 and this guy is allowed to have a firearm? I think we need to look very seriously at doing something, people like this have to business having a weapon.


----------



## SODSUCKER (Mar 24, 2005)

How sad! 
What do you guy's think would have happened to him 100 years ago? I don't think that we would be paying to keep him in prison. We need a judicial system that isn't afraid to deal in a severe manner with people with multiple offences.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

*told authorities he thought he had seen brown deer hide through a thicket near his deer stand before twice firing his rifle, the complaint said. *



> Lanie, who was a ninth-grader at Buffalo High School, was wearing blaze orange clothes and a camouflage baseball cap.


Those 2 do not add up as an accident. Tragic. Unfortunately there's a lot of hunting fatalities in recent years.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

And people complain when probation terms take away their firearm privileges on a DUI.

Does responsibility behind the wheel (or lack thereof) corellate to responsibility behind the reticle...? It seems so in this case.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2006)

In the thirty odd years I have hunted whitetail, I have *never*
been in a situation that I could have possibly made a mistake like that! There is absolutly no excuse for shooting a high powered rifle at a target you *think* could be a deer. period! This man should spend the rest of his life in the hoosegow. No parole. do not pass go, etc. It infuriates the H E double toothpicks out of me. If I was the father of that boy, I don't know how I could handle the loss.


----------



## Sasha and Abby (May 11, 2004)

SODSUCKER said:


> How sad!
> What do you guy's think would have happened to him 100 years ago? I don't think that we would be paying to keep him in prison. We need a judicial system that isn't afraid to deal in a severe manner with people with multiple offences.


I like this guy... :wink: He has it spot on...

Sorry, but I have never shot ANYTHING accidentally in 36 years of hunting. One of the cardinal rules of hunting is know what you are shooting at. The drunk was an idiot and needs to be dealt with, swiftly and harshly.


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

SODSUCKER said:


> How sad!
> What do you guy's think would have happened to him 100 years ago? I don't think that we would be paying to keep him in prison. We need a judicial system that isn't afraid to deal in a severe manner with people with multiple offences.


Sad..yes...a nightmare of the worst sort........but an accident non-the less.
I would imagine there is nothing the judicial system could do to the man that pulled the trigger that would come close to the reality of what he did in his own mind. Maybe I'm wrong, but I would probably kill myself under the circumstances.....one thing for sure, I'd never sleep again..I chose to believe this could happen to anyone...so don't be to quick to judge. As with any unintentional homicide, the slightest trace of alcohol is our society's out for harsh judgement....Most of us endulged in a night out having a good time......and the next morning went afield with a hangover. God forbid this would happen to you under that circumstance, cause you too would be classified as under the influence.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

about 20 years ago, I was sitting in my tree stand when I heard what I thought was a animal walking through the woods and saw some grey flashes, does are legal and the woods are thick down here the first part of the season.

I hate to admit it but I thought it was a deer so I put my gun up took the safety off, and then looking through the scope I realized it was a man hunting in a grey jumpsuit during deer season. a very foolish man not to wear blaze orange.

I bought a set of binoculars that night, it was a very close call and scared the hell out of me.

Someone that had a little "Buck Fever" may have pulled the trigger.

The moral for me was don't rely on your scope to deteremine what your are seeing.


----------



## 1stout (Oct 25, 2004)

A friend of mine hunts about 100 yards from the accident cite. He said his buddies left as it was getting dark in the woods and they never heard the shots. This kinda tells me it was pretty dark out when he was shooting also. I know it is usually dark in the woods where I hunt before the close of season.


----------



## LODI QUACKER (Aug 2, 2006)

Horrible!!! Accident but thats what it was.

Some of you folks are out of line though. This guy has made a mistake that he will have to live with the rest of his life, probably is a pretty good guy and who is to say the guy didnt have a beer with his spicey chili at lunch. Some of yall are a little quick to rush to judgement. Hell why dont you get a mob and lynch the felllow I am sure you can find out where he lives, while your at it you better lynch his family to prevent future dui's.

Prayers go out to him and the young fellows family they will all need alot of them.


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

Prayers go out to both families on this horrible event.

Taking the past DUI's out of the picture. This man shot at something that he did not know 100% what he was shooting at. Other than muzzle control, 100% target recognition is one of the most important gun safety rules to follow. He was negligent in his actions, alcohol or not, and should pay restitution to the family and receive the max jail time. He did not mean to kill this boy, however, he admits to shooting at something he was unsure of. Now he needs to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS.

Bobm,
I don't have a problem with you looking at something through your scope, what I have a problem with is you taking your safety off before you knowing what your target actually was.


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2006)

Maybe in Battletown lynching folks is the reaction, we here in minnesota will put him on trial and hope the results are just. if you have ever hunted from a stand you would know that unless you are an idiot, you don't pull the trigger unless you are sure. It was an accident perhaps, we'll let the courts decide. Life is tough, it's tougher if you're stupid!


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

On the news last night he did seem to be remorseful of the horrific act that he committed, on Saturday evening. However has anyone ever heard the saying alcohol doesn't mix with anything except pop!! In other words when hunting don't under any cicumstances drink alcohol!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Remember the man has had FIVE DUI'S SINCE 1993 that's an average of one every 2.5 years, looks to me like an obvious drinking problem. I am sorry I have no simpathy for anyone who is drinking and then goes out hunting, and commites an act of the nature and magnitude of this situation. He should in my opinon have the book smacked over his head until he's pounded into the dirt up to his neck!!!! In MN and I am sure most all other states the hunting regs CLEARLY state that no one can be under the influence of any mind altering substance while hunting afield with a firearm or a bow this includes alcohol. No where does it list any exceptions to the rule. This is what happens when people don't follows the laws, laws are made for a reason it to protect the innocent from idiots like this one.

I am with sodsucker and in the words of Clint Eastwood "Hang em' High"


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

A quote from Dean Hildebrand during pheasant gate: If you don't know what your shooting at, you better not be shooting


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

This is not an accident! People use the term accident way too often. An accident would have been him shooting at a deer and missing or hitting a tree and the bullet richocheing(spelling) and killing the kid. He knowingly shot at an unknown target in the woods. That was no accident.

I would feel the same way if he killed someone while driving drunk. That's no accident either.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I don't want anyone scoping me even with their safety on, it was stupid thing for me to do.

I use binoculars now.


----------



## Irish Mick (May 15, 2006)

I've got to agree with huntnfishnd...this wan't an accident he shot what he was aiming at. He just didn't take the time to properly identify his target which is rule number one before you pull the trigger.

As for lynching this guy...that's not what anyone is advocating. With his track record hopefully a jury of his peers will do the right thing, but I'm not sure he has any peers out there. 5 DUI's and as poor of judgement as he has when it comes to shot selection, its going to be pretty hard to find an unbiased jury. Trial might have to be moved if there has been a lot of media coverage.


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

LODI QUACKER said:


> Horrible!!! Accident but thats what it was.
> 
> Some of you folks are out of line though. This guy has made a mistake that he will have to live with the rest of his life, probably is a pretty good guy and who is to say the guy didnt have a beer with his spicey chili at lunch. Some of yall are a little quick to rush to judgement. Hell why dont you get a mob and lynch the felllow I am sure you can find out where he lives, while your at it you better lynch his family to prevent future dui's.
> 
> Prayers go out to him and the young fellows family they will all need alot of them.


He may have to live with this the rest of his life but at least he has a life. Not so for his victim.

This is not an accident. This was negligent homicide. He should go to jail FOREVER. Actually your idea of lynching him sounds pretty appropriate to me.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

There are couple other charges that come to mind as well in this case, like shooting after hours( or potentially poaching ). In control of a firearm while under the influence. This guy had to have been drinking pretty heavily or has drank enough over the years to have really effected his mind. If everyone else was out of the woods in the area, why wasn't he also out of the woods the teenager with undoutably better eyesight than an older person was leaving the woods because he did not feel it was safe to shoot any longer, so why was this individual still up in the stand? Everything points the fact that he intended to be to no good. At the very least his firearm should have been unloaded at that time of the evening. This just sickens me that this guy even got out on bail, given his past criminal history and now this on top of it, He should still be in jail, and who is the rocket scientist that posted his bail? They too should have their head examined, just for enableing this guy to get out of jail!!!!!

Oh and all of this on the heals of the Chi Vang episode, nice too see all of this happening year after year, they should have a mandatory deer hunting class, and you must pass an exam, in order to purchase a lisc. and if you do something like this after that class automatic prision no court ruleings just an automatice sentence, kind of like down in michigan if you use a fireame in the commission of a crime you get an automatic 5 years tacted on to your sentence and no probation at all.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Was he actually under the influence? I'm not going to weigh in on my opinion of accident or crime, but I am very sensitive to society's knee-jerk reactions toward alcohol use. I don't drink, and never have, but I think the officials are trying to have their cake and eat it too! Alcohol consumption is legal, even at a roadside bar, so they get their tax revenue, but if you do anything even remotely outside the bounds of any law they have society's approval to treat you like you just cut off someone's head with a chainsaw, if you had a drink.

I am IN NO WAY comparing this particular event to a violation of a trivial law, only trying to provoke a little thought as to what the real problem might be. If bad judgement (having a drink while in your stand, for example) is grounds for a different set of standards at a sentencing hearing, then I say we keep the same set of standards and use them also for anyone who showed bad judgement by voting Democratic!

I will say, what bothers me most about this scenario is the 5 dui's, and he is still drinking. I hope we can agree that the state has failed MISERABLY to do it's job in this case. Unfortunately for some people here the state now gets a chance to make up for their lack of interest when it could have mattered, and it sounds like they will have carte blanche approval of the populace, no matter how harsh. Just a VERY sad deal!


----------



## fireball (Oct 3, 2003)

I am pretty sure that someone with a track record like that, who admits to drinking before or during hunting, was probably pretty lit up. Someone with a drinking problem like that gets caught 5 times driving drunk, most likely drives 5 nights a week drunk. He was under the influence, self admitted. For him to admit he was drinking means it was probably alot of alcohol. What is the sense in even trying to justify this guys case? Accidents are caused by unknown circumstances, not alcohol, firearms and an itchy trigger finger. That is homicide. :sniper:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Again, I'm staying neutral on this because I have strong feelings both ways, and I would argue either side if I was bored enough.

But for this discussion here, let me ask those who wish him dead one thing. I can find no evidence printed here stating he was under the influence, as described by law. Only admitted to drinking an unknown amount over a undetermined period of time.

Here's my question. Is it fair to fine me $75 for driving 10 miles over the speed limit, since I don't drink, but fine you $300 for the same infraction because you admitted to having a drink after work, but you only blew a .02?

If that's not fair, then do you think maybe we're thinking with our hearts and not our heads?

I'm just curious.


----------



## Guest (Nov 23, 2006)

The issue in my mind is not about alcohol. It is about pulling the trigger on a target he had no good excuse to shoot at. I thought it was a deer doesn't make it with me. You have a responsibility when you take up a weapon and go into the woods and fields. However, the fact he admits to drinking and is a habitual drunk should enter into the penalty phase to be sure.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

So should you pay $300 or $75?


----------



## hunter121390 (Nov 7, 2006)

the hunter who shot the kid should be locked up for the maximum penalty. if he had 5 dui's, he shoulda been locked up a LONG time ago. also, even if he was wearing antlers on his head, the man who shot him should have been able to see the blaze orange through the brush. blaze orange stands out through brush. i know what its like to be shot at(twice in fact), and it's not fun. i don't know how they didn't see me the first time, because i was wearing full blaze orange, and the second time was my fault, becuase i was goose hunting, and i didn't have any blaze orange with me, and it was hard to tell early in the morning, when some one wearing camoflague steps out of brush to go walk around to warm up my legs.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

I guess that explains all the orange in your pic! I'm glad the knuckleheads in your timber are bad shots!!!!


----------



## hunter121390 (Nov 7, 2006)

ya me too


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

r u dun said:


> Maybe in Battletown lynching folks is the reaction, we here in minnesota will put him on trial and hope the results are just. if you have ever hunted from a stand you would know that unless you are an idiot, you don't pull the trigger unless you are sure. It was an accident perhaps, we'll let the courts decide. Life is tough, it's tougher if you're stupid!


THERE IS NO INFO....HOW DO YOU KNOW HE WASN'T ACTUALLY SHOOTING AT A DEER 50 YARDS OUT, MISSED AND KILLED THE BOY AT 100 YARDS. A camo hat in five feet of brush....irregardless if a vest was involved...cant be seen.

Heck, whats to say if you shoot at a viable target, miss and take someone out at a half mile....Thats why I don't use a single projectile weapon...

I myself back at age 16 spent 1 hour and 20 minutes pinned down in 12 inches of water until some target shooters finished...far out of sight and farther from voice communication.....I layed there in the mud with bullets buzzing right over my head...helpless. Have not picked up a rifle since.

Orange Blaze is a method to help reduce accidents...not prevent them.

This incident could happen to anyone yeilding a weapon that can kill beyond your limit of vision.

Now if the boy was shot up in a tree at an elevation not conducive to someone shooting up hill....I'd have no doubt

One more point....What type of father would allow his son to hunt dear without an orange blaze hat.


----------



## speedimager (Nov 2, 2006)

Blaze orange or camo I have never in my years of hunting had any question of what I was shooting at, period. You cannot blame anyone but the shooter! No excuses!! I agree with others here. Murder, maximum penalty, stupidity at its best! A sad waste of 2 lives!


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

Your missing the point.....just because you know your target, doesn't mean there isn't a disaster waiting to happen. You see a deer? Tell me you scan the horizon for 5 minutes or check behind trees before you shoot.....Furthermore, tell me you never had a close call that a second or two meant the difference between scaring the crap of yourself and killing someone. I've been hunting for almost 40 years and I've seen a lot of close calls.....been a part of one or two myself. I find no credibility in todays news papers or media......hyped up stories pay the bills, not the boring truth. Prior DUI's have no relevance to the issue....the guy wasn't behind the wheel....and in case you forgot, according to the law of this land, a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. There are two major components to safety...Education and experience. Neither of which can compete with luck of the draw.

I'd elect to first know how intoxicated the guy was, what the terrain, ecosystem and weather were like.... and how far away the kid was before I would venture to say the guy is a murderer. BTW, do you know where all the bullets lobbed out there have landed?.....any chance the side of car on a highway? a farm house a mile away? 2 inches from another hunters head? I think not. Heck, for all you know you've been nothing more than Lucky.

At this point time, the only rational conclusion is that a horrible hunting incident occured.....

only irrational lynch mobs look for blood before they have ALL the facts.


----------



## speedimager (Nov 2, 2006)

No I did not miss your point. I do not agree with defending so one by put blame on the victim or family. 
Second, no I have never had a close call shooting someone.
If you are a responsible and ethical hunter you do know what what your target is before you fire. Or do guess that it may be a deer, shoot and ask questions later. I would guess you do not have to many people hunting with you a second time after you almost killed them!
My point is when you fire any type of weapon you need to identify your target first. Not only for safety but for a clean kill!!


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

speedimager said:


> No I did not miss your point. I do not agree with defending so one by put blame on the victim or family.
> Second, no I have never had a close call shooting someone.
> If you are a responsible and ethical hunter you do know what what your target is before you fire. Or do guess that it may be a deer, shoot and ask questions later. I would guess you do not have to many people hunting with you a second time after you almost killed them!
> My point is when you fire any type of weapon you need to identify your target first. Not only for safety but for a clean kill!!


I make mistakes...I know it...own up to it and strive to learn from it........apparently you don't feel the same way about yourself...That, IMO, and in my eyes makes you dangerous....maybe thats why 90% of the crazy accidents I hear or read about happen in MN...your home, not mine

and another thing, I don't deer hunt...It's too easy to kill someone else these days....Thats one reason why I choose to shoot birds instead....they fly where no man can.....If you have the audacity to tell me you never pointed a gun at another person for as much as a nano-second while hunting, I'd say you haven't spent much time in the field.....and If you have, you have no inclination to even care about the point I tried to convey. You may identify your target first, but what do you do about a potential scenario where a second target might pay the price if you miss.

.............or maybe you never miss either.


----------



## speedimager (Nov 2, 2006)

Hey dakota31400, 
When you jump a bird do you shot it and identify it later?
How many friends and dogs have you shot?
Sounds like you've had some exprience in that department! 
:withstupid:


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

speedimager said:


> Hey dakota31400,
> When you jump a bird do you shot it and identify it later?
> How many friends and dogs have you shot?
> Sounds like you've had some exprience in that department!
> :withstupid:


Your obviously very young and dumb...but fear not, we all were like that at one time.


----------



## swany25 (Sep 3, 2005)

dakota31400

I can't believe your replies... Plain and simple a KID is DEAD! because some DRUNK can't realize he has a problem with alcohol and decides to go into the woods with a firearm. He can't tell the differance between a human and a deer. :******:

With his DWI record (and it is relavent!!) I would bet he did not have only one drink with lunch.

You blame the father of the victim? Disgusting!

Now your calling people young and dumb? WOW! :roll:


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Swany, what we're talking about here is law. In a free society, law MUST be as black and white as possible, with very little room for grey, and certainly no room for emotion.

I'm troubled by the fact we are talking about destroying another life now (nothing can be done about the 14 yr old, unfortunately) and I keep seeing things like "I bet" he had more to drink, or he "probably" didn't have just one drink.

I'm also troubled by the initial report stating he had "about" 5 dui's.

My whole point is that I hate it when ANYONE, but especially government, tries to have it both ways.

If it's illegal to drink alcohol to ANY extent, then let's make that official policy and/or law (didn't we try that once?). If it's NOT illegal, than why is it relevant as long as you are under the legal limit?

Would you please answer my hypothetical question? Should you pay more of a fine for the same violation just because you had a trace of alcohol in your system?

The reason the question hasn't been answered is because there is no rational explanation without appearing hypocritical.

Look, based on what we know, there is no defense for what the guy did. But why does alcohol need to be a part of the discussion, assuming he was not under the influence? Wouldn't you feel as strongly about the situation if the guy had just reached his 1 year of sobriety anniversary?

I know I would!


----------



## hunter121390 (Nov 7, 2006)

in my opinoin, there was only one wasted life. the shooters. the boys life was not wasted. it was taken by a guy who should have know what he was shooting at, and was also drunk at the time of the shooting. the man wasted his life because he was an alcoholic, and it seems he wasted a good part of his life drinking. especially with 5dui's(i believe thats the number), he should have been locked up a long time ago, and he could have wasted his life in there.


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

*Prosecutor Lisa R. Rakotz said Ferguson admitted that he had been drinking alcohol Saturday, which was confirmed by a witness. The witness said Ferguson has had several drunken-driving convictions - state records show about five since 1993 - and that his driver's license was conditional upon not drinking.*

THIS DOES NOT SAY HE WAS DRUNK.....OR UNDER THE INFLUENCE.

I HAVE 3 CHILDREN, 5 GRANDCHILDREN AND ANOTHER ON THE WAY...NOT TO MENTION OVER THE YEARS, 25 FOSTER KIDS. WE LOST AN 18 YEAR OLD SON IN AN AUTO ACCIDENT....DON'T TELL ME HOW IT IS....OR WHAT IT IS OR HOW THE PARENTS FEEL.

I KNOW FIRST HAND.....WE'VE LIVED IT :******: YOU NEED TO HOLD BACK FROM JUDGEMENT UNTIL THE FACTS ARE CLEAR INSTEAD OF BEATING YOUR DRUM TO UNFOUNDED PROPAGANDA.

I elect to reserve my judgement till the case is heard.


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

First Coast News:

AITKIN COUNTY, MN -- A 14-year-old boy from Buffalo died in a hunting accident in Aitkin County, authorities said Sunday.

Brandon Mitchell Lanie was hunting with a group north of Mille Lacs Lake. It was around sunset Saturday night when he was shot in the head by another hunter, the Sheriff said. He died at the scene.










Sheriff Scott Turner said it's believed Lanie was mistaken for a deer. Officials say Lanie was wearing a blaze orange jacket, blaze orange pants and a camouflage hat.

Sunset in the area on Saturday would have been about 4:39 p.m. with twilight lasting until about 5:12 p.m., according to a U.S. Naval Observatory calculator.

A 45-year-old Maplewood man was arrested at the scene and was being held on suspicion of second-degree manslaughter. He was expected to be arraigned in Aitkin County District Court on Monday.

*hmmmmm....a little different tempo here*


----------



## speedimager (Nov 2, 2006)

Dakota31400, First off sorry for your loss.
But you seem to be missing what most people are saying in this thread.
The problem I have is in Identification! Which may have been impaired by alcohol.

Even the most basic gun safety class has this in the safety rules and they stress them as the most import rules you follow.

In Minnesota they are part of the 10 commandment of gun safety.

From the NRA-
Know your target and what is beyond.
Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. Equally important, be aware of the area beyond your target. This means observing your prospective area of fire before you shoot. Never fire in a direction in which there are people or any other potential for mishap. Think first. Shoot second.

Never use alcohol or over-the-counter, prescription or other drugs before or while shooting.
Alcohol, as well as any other substance likely to impair normal mental or physical bodily functions, must not be used before or while handling or shooting guns.

This guy made a choice to drink (admittedly). This guy made a choice to
shot, without knowing his target. Seeing something brown does qualify
as an identification under any circumstances!

Not rushing to judgment, just hope he gets the maximum penalty allowed!!


----------



## M*F (Nov 3, 2006)

The alcohol thing should not even be in the equation. Like many of you have said, he didnt know what he was shooting at. He obviously wasnt drunk if he could hit a 6"x8" target. Speedimager had an interesting post,

- Never use alcohol or over-the-counter, prescription or other drugs before or while shooting.-

Wow, over the counter drugs. How many of us have handled a gun or bow while on aspirin? Or that prescription cold medicine?

Dont get me wrong, we should hang this guy out to dry. Only because he had no idea what he pulled the trigger on.


----------



## luveyes (Jan 22, 2005)

He admitted he drank. Does that make him "drunk" during the time of the incident.... no. Does that mean he may have been MORE under the influence on the car ride to his hunting destination.... yes. His 5 DUIs in the past seem to me (no attorney) to be relevant. He has shown in the past careless and reckless behavior and blatant disregard for you, I, and everyone else on the roads.

One comment earlier (cant recall who) elluded to the state having some fault in this. I dont agree. I work in healthcare and see patients over and over and over again that have substance abuse problems. They get treatment and reoffend very quickly in many cases. The state can only do so much. If they locked up everyone that had 3 or more DUIs they could cover the NW Angle with inmates and still have to house the murderers, rapists and such. There is only so much they can do. I have worked in the substance abuse side of healthcare in the past and the one thing that I learned (and those with children can attest to) people wont change unless they are READY to and WANT to. People need to take ownership for their own issues.

This being said I feel the 1 tangible thing that CAN unequivacabally (?sp) be agreed upon by all is the fact he obviously didnt make 100% sure of his target before he pulled the trigger. That is a true sad fact.

In an answer to the .02 speeding ticket costing $300 vs $75... I am for the $300. Different people are impaired differently at different levels. Who is to say I wouldnt have been speeding if I hadnt had the 2 drinks before the wheel touched my hands?? This does go both ways, those "seasoned" drinkers might have no problem with the .02 or even a .10 and may not be impaired so the fine would be a bit harsh for them. I personally have seen people at .30 and didnt know they had a drop to drink; this is definately the exception, not the rule.

The whole thing is a horrible tradgety. I am sure the shooter will relive this evening every day of his life. The parents of the kid have to be going through a living hell right now, and for many years to come. Prayers go out to the family.


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

speedimager,

I've been listening....but now at least this conversation is beginning to sound like an intelligent discussion instead of lynch mob rally. I feel for both the victims family and the shooter....My only wish at this point is maybe someone else will learn a lesson from it....I don't believe in revenge.

I would also hope the State considers requiring hunters to start wearing blaze caps also. My kid would have been lit-up like christmas tree...Now maybe a few kids belonging to parents on this site will be the next time they go afield in low visibilty terrain.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

Food for thought. Upon the 3rd alcoholic drink, it effects the part of the brain that controls judgement. Which means on the 3rd drink ones judgement is impaired. Whether it be driving a vehicle, shooting, or lessor things like telling off a person(say your boss), ones control over how to analize the situation (judgement) is impaired and that person is not thinking normally or rationally.

He did the crime, now it is time he put in the time in prison. No different than vehicular homicide (killing anyone while under the influence while driving). Be it a 3000 fps bullet or a 3000 lb car, the end result is the same, somebody died that should not have becuase of another persons extremely selfish actions.


----------



## SODSUCKER (Mar 24, 2005)

Why is it ok to let this person who has a problem with drinking (sexual predator) back out on the streets to offend repeatedly untill something like this happens? I look at thie situation and others like it (Alfonso Rodriquez) and it makes me angry. People that offend over and over are a menace to society and do not deserve to have the same freedoms that a law abiding person has. 
However I do not put the blame solely on them, it is the weak judicial system that has spawned the lack of respect for the laws that we live by. Who would be afraid of a dog with no teeth? If a judge who allows these repeat offenders out in bail or out of jail would have to live in the same neighborhood with them exposeing themselves and their families to their antics and problems would they be set free? I think not, but they will subject other people to the same people. The judge should have to be accountable for their own actions. 
Alfonso Rodriquez was going to rape or kill somebody, this drunk was (is)going to kill somebody with a car eventually he just did it with a gun first. And now he is out again driving around.

Who will it be next?

You and your family?

Myself and my family?


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Lets stick to the facts Ferguson had admitted to drinking not having had a DRINK does anyone else notice that the context of the word is plural not singular!!

Second the state law says you can not be under the influence of alcohol or drugs!! it does not say you can have a little bit in your system it says NO alcohol or drugs period. NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thirdly I have seen drunks that could drink a half gallon of whiskey and do everything a sober person could do!! Some alcoholics can function normally and you would never know that they had even had a drink unless you gave them a breathalizer test.

Fourth he did shoot at an unidentified target in other words and in Ferguson's own words he "thought" he was shooting at deer not that he KNEW he was shooting at a deer. Dakota 31400 I believe you were questioning the terrain and the bush and so on, none of that matters as a hunter we have the responsibility to make sure of the target and the background no if, ands, or but's about it!!!!!!!!!!

This guy Ferguson has been a drunken menace to our society for at least 13 years, and now for the rest of his life as well we as tax payers will be footing the bill for this moron's drunken stooper escapade for a long time to come. God only knows what else he has gotten away with over the years.

No matter how you look at this, it is a tragedy that the young man lost his life in the manner in which he did. I can't begin to know how his parents must feel, I too am a parent and I know that I pray everyday that something like this never happens to our family. As for Ferguson I hope that the guilt of killing someone while breaking so many laws EATS him up to the point that he goes crazy!!!!!!!

I tell you all one thing the landowners where we hunt are all getting a little bit nicer present for Christmas this year it really made me appreciate the 600 plus acres that I have all to myself and my step son that much more than ever before. It does not eliminate the risk 100% but it sure does reduce it considerably.

No matter what happens to Ferguson it will never bring back Brandon Lanie to his family, that's the really sad part about all of this is that the Lanie family is going into the holidays with this on their hearts and minds. Everyone who has children and hunts should show this to their kids to reinforce several lessons we all should be teaching the kids SAFTEY FIRST, being the most important lesson. Also never miss an opportunity to tell you children how important they are to you or how much you love them and care about them, you never know when it maybe the last time.


----------



## Bigdog (Aug 13, 2003)

While Minnesota's Blaze Orange law does not require you to wear a hat, if you do wear one, it must be blaze orange. Unfortunately the boy was not complying, it may have saved him. Or maybe not, the reports now are that the guy shot twice and they think he hit the boy with the second shot.


----------



## Goldy's Pal (Jan 6, 2004)

Very sad deal. This was probably mentioned as I didn't read through every post, but one beer, 10 beers, or no beer, why do hunters shoot at brown, and mistake people for animals? :******: How a deer hunter cannot pick a spot on deer and fire a weapon is beyond me. What the f***!!! The DNR's need to seriously start giving tests to people to find out if they are mentally able to know the difference between a deer and a human. Un fricken real. No sense in picking a vital shot behind a shoulder, :roll: lets just shoot shoot shoot until it drops I guess.


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

I went to Buffalo High School and graduated in '02. I have a little sister there now and she said there was a lot of grief between her peers after the news came out about their friend's misfortune.

When a tragedy like this happens, it effects more people than you know. Whether the shooter gets strung up or not will be up to the courts. I'm sure (at least I hope) what he did will stay with him for the rest of his life. And if he was drinking or not is quite a big deal. If he was drinking, well the consequences of it are clear. However, if he was sober, then the fact remains he is an unethical and unsafe hunter.

The first things I teach my students in hunter's safety is to always be sure of your target and what's beyond. He didnt' do this.

Also, alcohol and guns DON'T MIX. Period.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

luveyes said:


> One comment earlier (cant recall who) elluded to the state having some fault in this. I dont agree.
> 
> In an answer to the .02 speeding ticket costing $300 vs $75... I am for the $300. Different people are impaired differently at different levels. Who is to say I wouldnt have been speeding if I hadnt had the 2 drinks before the wheel touched my hands?? This does go both ways, those "seasoned" drinkers might have no problem with the .02 or even a .10 and may not be impaired so the fine would be a bit harsh for them.


It was I who made the statement about the state being at fault. How can you POSSIBLY disagree with that? What IS the state's job, their sole purpose for existing, if not to protect YOU from idiots like that?!?!?!?!?!?!?

How many times must an idiot identify himself before the state has an OBLIGATION to make sure he can't hurt one of us. I think two times is sufficient. Three times is MORE than enough. Four times is twice as many as necesaary....but 5 times, and you think the state has no liability here?

I'll tell you one thing. The state would NOT have a problem holding YOU accoutable THE FIRST time he hurt someone while drunk (I have not changed my opinion on whether or not he WAS drunk at the time in question) if he drank the alcohol at YOUR house, and you knew it, and let him drive anyway, so why isn't the state at fault now?

Now, as far as your answer to my question (you're the first one....thank you!). It's a multiple choice question with only two possibilities. You answered it, but then in your explanation went on to explain why it should be different for different people ?????????

Simple question....should ANY person, with ANY trace of alcohol in his/her system, be treated differently in the eyes of the law than a person with NO alcohol at all? No buts, just a simple yes or no.

The way I understand the need for an established blood alcohol level to be considered "under the influence" is due to the fact the answer to the above question is "NO"....not until you reach the legal limit.
If the answer is yes, why do we need a limit specified in the law?

Anyway, this is straying off the subject somewhat. My point about the alcohol was not intended to make it the subject matter, only to illustrate that the case should be weighed on the facts, and I am not comfortable with society deciding the difference between an accident and a homicide (manslaughter) by a "trace" of alcohol.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Keeping in mind that in MN deer tags are sex specific, he said he saw something brown and shot at it. Did he have a buck tag or doe tag? Given his statement that is irrelevant antway because he couldn't identify the "brown spot" as buck or doe anyway and had no business shooting at it. What could a brown spot in the woods possibly be.... a moose, wolf, elk, bear, or any number of medium size furbearersall wich may have been illegal for him to shoot. Not to mention he couldn't have known whether he was shooting at an ear or tail, not exactly morally responsible to the game. This sounds like the classic "sound" shot which doesn't make sense for so many reasons it is mind boggling. This was no accident it was pure negligence.


----------



## h2ofwlr (Feb 6, 2004)

jd mn/nd said:


> This guy Ferguson has been a drunken menace to our society for at least 13 years... God only knows what else he has gotten away with over the years.


Back in the day (25 years ago) an individual had a 1 in 436 chance of being tagged for a DUI. So on average a person drove drunk 435 other times. I'm not sure what the odds are today, but I wonder how many times he looked in the morning out to see if there was any damge to his vehicle bacuase he does not remember the night before....


----------



## speedimager (Nov 2, 2006)

It is sad to but I grew up grouse hunting this general area.
I still grouse hunt there. But you would catch in the woods
during deer season! I tried deer hunting a couple times and found the situation very dangerous. I'm actually suprised this has not happened
more often. Their is a lot of public land available and it is only 2 hrs
from the twin cities. But something in some people changes when it
comes involves deer. Trespassing, threats, drinking, that is more common
than a lot want to admit! I once witnessed a couple hunters stop their
vehicle and shot over some guys cutting wood on their private land.
After shooting they got back in their car and started yelling obscenities at these guys for disturbing their deer. Needless to say I never went back!
That was just one instance. Have a few more in just a couple years
deer hunting up in that area!


----------



## luveyes (Jan 22, 2005)

csquared,

I said yes, no "buts" about it. I am all for higher fines if ANY alcohol is involved. I simply brought up the difference between me having a few and a seasoned drinker.

I still feel the state is not TOTALLY responsible. You cant legislate stupidity or the lack of respect for other human beings. The shooter most likely paid his price each time the state prosecuted him. Stiffer penalties, yes, higher taxes to house the offenders... better get ready and not complain when it comes to that.

I was not disagreeing with you. I answered your questions. I am very aware of the world around me, alcohol, and the affect it has on society. Come spend a weekend in the ER I work in, it might even open your eyes up a bit more than they already are. Alcohol is a staggering scourge on society and it seems to be getting worse. I also agreed, nowhere in any of the articles quoted did it give a BAC or say he was drunk, merely that he had been drinking. Which leads back to the above.. stiffer penalties for ALL illegal activities (murder,homicide, speeding no yielding, parking infractions etc) if alcohol is in the system period, no "BUT."

Once again a horrible tradgety, not an accident in my eyes.


----------



## aztec (Oct 27, 2005)

Csquared said:


> Again, I'm staying neutral on this because I have strong feelings both ways, and I would argue either side if I was bored enough.
> 
> But for this discussion here, let me ask those who wish him dead one thing. I can find no evidence printed here stating he was under the influence, as described by law. Only admitted to drinking an unknown amount over a undetermined period of time.
> 
> ...


Don't care if he was drinking or not. The man is an idiot. He was wantonly and deliberately and recklessly negligent. He belongs in prison.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

Csquared said:


> How many times must an idiot identify himself before the state has an OBLIGATION to make sure he can't hurt one of us. I think two times is sufficient. Three times is MORE than enough. Four times is twice as many as necesaary....but 5 times, and you think the state has no liability here?
> 
> Anyway, this is straying off the subject somewhat. My point about the alcohol was not intended to make it the subject matter, only to illustrate that the case should be weighed on the facts, and I am not comfortable with society deciding the difference between an accident and a homicide (manslaughter) by a "trace" of alcohol.


Aztec, I'm sure if you read my other posts you noticed I agree with you. The only area we may disagree on as far as incarceration is concerned is at what point should that have happened.

I firmly believe that good looking 14 year old should still be alive today because the idiot that shot him should be about half way through his stint in the pen right now.

I'm guessing (and ONLY guessing) that the shooter has very little money, and about as much to lose otherwise. Because those are the people that the state tends to let slip through the cracks.

The state cares only about money. Saving lives doesn't make money. Punishing people with money is good for cash flow, but locking people up with no money only COSTS money (but it's money well spent), so unfortunately people like this will continue to drive around risking the rest of us because the state can't make anything off them, and more innocent lives will be taken as a result.

Here's my solution. Pass a resolution simply stating that alcohol use IS LEGAL so no one needs to worry about being unjustly persecuted (I did mean to use that word) for having a harmless trace of alcohol in their system. (please don't start an argument on what amount is harmless...I'm sure the experts could find some common ground)

Raise the legal limit to a level that actually relates to impaired activity instead of the "feel good legislation" that established it at .08 (I refer you back to the above plea).

Then throw the book at an offender who exceeds that level BEFORE he hurts someone, NOT AFTER!

Have you ever stopped to think that if a person has a BAC of .20 and hits a building, it probably costs him a couple thousand bucks and he might not drive for a few months.

But what if he's only .08, and instead of a building he hits a parked car, and one of the teenagers inside necking dies as a result? Well he probably goes to prison for vehicular homicide.

A lot will say he deserves it because he took that risk. But I submit that is a grotesgue disparity of punishments when the only difference is a car happened to be parked in front of the building.

Since the judgement shown by the driver in each case is the same (actually WORSE for the guy who only got fined), don't you think the punishments should be closer together?

Isn't it the act we are to punish, not the result?

Afterall, if you rob a bank on a bad day and don't get much money, you're still guilty of armed robbery and subject to the same penalties....right?

So why should an accident be the only difference between a $2000 fine or 10-20 years in prison?

I FIRMLY believe our states could do MUCH more to curb alcohol abuse....if they wanted to. But they care more about money and elections, and when faced with a choice between saving lives or saying what the people want to hear...well, you know what they'll pick.

We've gotten way off the subject on this thread so I'm gonna leave it alone. But thanks to all who took the time to set me straight. I know I may not sound like it at times, but I do appreciate it!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Deer hunter tests negative for alcohol

A Maplewood man charged in the accidental shooting death of a 14-year-old deer hunter in Aitkin County didn't have alcohol in his body when he was tested, attorneys said this week.
Last update: December 20, 2006 - 9:55 PM

A Maplewood man charged in the accidental shooting death of a 14-year-old deer hunter in Aitkin County didn't have alcohol in his body when he was tested, attorneys said this week.
Steve Ferguson, who is charged with manslaughter, called police after he discovered he had shot Brandon Lanie, 14, of Buffalo.

Although a witness initially told police Ferguson, 45, may have had a beer, prosecutor Lisa Rakotz said that a blood-alcohol test done after the shooting on Nov. 18 found no alcohol.

Ferguson is free after posting $2,000 cash bail. His attorney, Joe Tamburino, said the shooting was "purely accidental, not because of alcohol or recklessness."

JIM ADAMS


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

I rest my case!


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

How can he say that not knowing what your shooting at is not recklessness? :eyeroll:


----------



## Irish Mick (May 15, 2006)

The newly released fact that he did not have alcohol in his system does not excuse what this man did.

Yes people jumped all over him because of his reported past (5 DUI's) and reports of him drinking that day but he still F*'d up.

He killed a young hunter because he was reckless, period. For his attorney to claim otherwise is just plain BS.

He did not properly identify his target and shot without truely knowing what he was shooting at. RECKLESS!

Alcohol or no, he should not have taken that shot.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I totally agree that this guy is in the wrong. To bring up his past with DUI's and what not should not play into this situation. He did not identify his target and he make a HUGE and IRREVERSIBLE mistake.

But one thing people on this site need to know. In MN while deer hunting you need to have blaze orange on your cap. It states it in the rules. A portion of your cap needs to be blaze orange. Again I am not saying the child was wrong by any means. I just want the record straight on the blaze orange law.

This guy has to live with this mistake his whole life. He made a very bad judgement and yes you always need to identify your target before you shoot.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Chuck Smith said:


> This guy has to live with this mistake his whole life.


Too bad the kid can't live with his decision to pull that trigger.

I have no sympathy or empathy for the killer at all. He should not have pulled that trigger, period.

And THAT is MY opinion.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

BOOZE no BOOZE, it doesn't matter the guy did not commit an accident he commited MURDER, unplanned yes, but still murder. The only difference the booze would have made is that it would have been an alliby for a foggy line of thinking or rational, now he has no excuses as to why he pulled the trigger on an unidentified target after legal shooting hours.

Someone else posted that it did not matter what his past is as far as the alcohol is concerned, I disagree, I will tell you why, you see when it comes to a more common kind of crime that we are all use to like burglary, rape, murder, so on and so on we as a society always look at the track record hence the reason that some moron only gets five years on a first offense and 10 on a second and so on, so YES the Booze mattered because if he had been drinking as was earlier stated by an eye wittness at the scene. Than the whole matter should have been a 6th offense, not a first offense like it may be now, please keep in mind that the defense attorney is the one that said there was no alcohol in him at the time of the murder, not the state, or the prosecuting attorney. So once again we will have to wait and see what the truth is when it comes out in court.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

JD/MN.....my question to you is if it was murder. Then is it a murder when someone loses control of a vehicle and gets into a head on. This is all because they were on thier cell phone, changing the radio station, eating, reading, putting on make up, talking to the person right next to them, looking at wildlife in the feild, etc?

Now with this same situation above.....the persons track record has show they have been pulled over for speeding, have had accidents in the past, etc. Should that come into play when prosecuting them?

Now this guy should get what he diserves by law. I feel no empathy for him. He made a mistake and took a life. But to call him a murderer is off. It was an accident that happened by poor judgement, very, very, very, very, very, very poor judgement. His past should not play into effect. Because IMO if he was under the influence or not I still think this accident would have happened. This guy shot at movement or noise.

If he was behind the wheel yes the past should play an important role. Like JD mentioned...1st- 5th offense. But this was an accident that happened by reckless discharge of a firearm and poor judgement.

Again I don't condone or am trying to justify what this guy did. He is in the wrong 100%. But digging up his past is just people trying make better news. Just look at how long it has gone on this thread.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

It's not murder, it's called manslaughter. Could be voluntary or involuntary manslaughter, but would not be murder.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Huntfish and Chuck what is Manslaughter if it is not MURDER? Manslaughter is murder look it up the only difference is the circumstances in which it happened. If you take a life no matter how you color the picture or sugar coat it it is still MURDER!!!!!!!!!!!! Ok Chuck so you say a persons past shouldn't play a role in their conviction, tell me how many repeat offenders the world would have if we did not use their past records as part of the next conviction. I am sorry guys that I see this a more black and white issue than a gray area, maybe it is just how I was brought up, I know that many on here are fairly religious, I would like just one of you to show me in the Bible where it says theres a difference between manslaughter and murder, as I recall it does mention an eye for an eye, and yes I know the one that says to turn the other cheek three times as well, but I have never personally read any where in the Bible that says there's a difference between the two. The laws we have grown up with have been so tainted and colored over that we have become passive to wording of the law. Someone please show me were I am wrong about this.


----------



## SODSUCKER (Mar 24, 2005)

jd,
I am by no means a Bible expert but I will try to answer your question. In the Old Testament ther is a clear distinction between an accidental death and murder. Murder was dealt with in a severe and quick manner, the result being death to the murderer. In an accidental death the person who killed the other person could go to one of six appointed cities for refuge, and be safe, till they had a fair trial. If acquitted from the charge, they were protected from the avenger of blood, or the closest living relative. However if they left the city the relative could kill that person without any repurcussions of any kind. The books in the Bible, Numbers and Deuteronomy speak of this if you are interested in looking it up.

I still believe that because of his past offenses this person should not have been out in society, but I also believe that everything wether we percieve it being good or bad happens for a reason.

But it is apperant that alcohol wasn't a facter in this accidental death. Just plain old stupidity. So he is due a trial under the law.


----------



## jd mn/nd (Apr 8, 2004)

Thanks Sod it looks like I will be doing a little lite reading hear in the future, over all I do really feel for the parents right now, I can't even begin to imagine how they must feel at Christmas without their son with them. I am sure that they are just a mess right now I know that I would be.

I know that the law, and the courts will deal with the individual that did the bad deed. I just don't think, any criminal and this guy with the amount of DUI's was a criminal should have the priviledge of being able to hunt or use a firearm, and I don't mean just this guy I mean all criminals, should also lose their hunting priviledges, it would I sure make a few think about what thier doing before they do it. In the case of this person I hope that he NEVER EVER has an opportunity to hunt or to touch a gun again.


----------



## Mr. Lee (Oct 12, 2002)

Sounds like some guys need to check their tongues till they know all the facts.

Murder???? So if a soldier kills someone in battle? You would call that murder?

I do believe that this guy should be prosecuted for manslaughter. I believe that you should be held responsible for the bullets that leave your gun.

As far as drinking and hunting go in Mn.....You can drink as long as you are not impaired.....which is .08. However.... it is still possible to be charged with hunting while impaired if you cause damage/death. I believe they can charge you with reckless use of a firearm or even worse.

Is it the states job to babysit everyone? How about personal responsibility?

The amount of Mn deer hunters who have alcohol in their system when they hunt is rediculous. Take any major....or even secondary highway the day after deer season starts....and you will see more empty 12 packs and cases of beer than any other day of the year.

One other factor that has not been talked about much is buck fever. As a youngster I experienced it once. It causes you to see things that aren't really there.

You can talk about knowing what you are shooting at all day long...but someone with buck fever can see clearly a deer that isn't even there.


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

Based on the above posts, I see no way a jury could be chosen from this site that would convict him of a charge any greater than involutary manslaughter. If I or one person like me were on the jury, they would have to settle the matter in Civil court, not Criminal. (Wrongful Death).
Very simply because the parent in charge of the boy allowed him to go afield illegally with a camo hat....In which case, Wreckless Endangerment would apply. The shooter is guily of being careless...The parent is guilty of being irresponsible....No different than having a collision of 2 duck boats at night in which a kid drowned because dad didn't make him/her wear a life vest. Even if the other boats running lights were broken.

You guys tell me if you never;

ran a stop sign
ran a yellow light and been in the intersection when it turned red
Changed lanes and cut someone off.
hit the road shoulder
took you eyes off the road for a split second and almost caused an accident.
Never had 1 beer and drove.
Shared drugs with a friend. (in your young and dumb years)
Never took ashot and after the fact said to yourself.....That was too close for comfort.
Looked down and realized you've been walking around with safety off.
Crossed a river with no running lights.

I'm guilty of all accounts.....I'm man enough to admit it...How bout you?
Does that make me a criminal? At least I use these mistakes to learn from in hopes of not being in the place the shooter is now.

All of you have just been lucky.........remember that...It's easy to judge, but even easier to be a hypocrit. Many of you come across as being perfect..and IMO, that makes you dangerous...Re-visit your past and think about it.

Come-on, post up: Have you just been LUCKY or are you Not Guilty?


----------



## Turner (Oct 7, 2005)

Not saying that no one has been guilty of the above. What I am saying, this man took a life because he was careless. He admitted he did not fully identify his target before he pulled the trigger. Yes it was an accident, he didn't mean to kill this boy, but he did. Now it's time for him to take RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS. Should he get the death penalty or serve life in jail, IMO no, what ever a jury of his peers decides on should be enforced to the fullest.

That is one New Years resolution I wish every one would have made. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS.


----------



## SODSUCKER (Mar 24, 2005)

LUCKY


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

Turner,

Can I take that as a "LUCKY"?....and yes, I agree....and this man did take responsibilty when he called the police and acknowledged his carelessness.


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

Just what I figured...there's a lot of hot air on this site....Latest posters excluded.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Lucky


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

dakota31400,

Lucky, but what's your point? Are we not allowed to express our opinions?

My opinion has and always will be that this man made a concious decision to shoot at an unknown target in the woods, thereby taking this kids life. It was no accident and he should be punished as per the law!


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

A friend of mine once said; "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone"...... By your own admission, it could well have been you...maybe not under the identical circumstances, none the less, it could have been you walking in this man's shoes....So far, you've just been lucky.

Over the years I have had many opinions that changed after I saw the world from a different point of view....

I am fairly confident that there is nothing the law can do that comes close to the price he has, and always will, pay the rest of his life.

You are entitled to an opinion as much as I am....Awareness is the first step to safety.....Now that you realize you've been lucky...I've made my point clear. :beer:


----------



## SODSUCKER (Mar 24, 2005)

dakota said

I am fairly confident that there is nothing the law can do that comes close to the price he has, and always will, pay the rest of his life.

Perhaps, perhaps not this person has not been deterred from reoffending in the past even though the law (weak as it is) was applied to him. There needs to be some seriouse consequences for our actions. Our laws needs a new set of teeth.
[/quote]


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

No...we need to burn every law book and dispose of all attorneys.....dust off the constitution and start again.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

First of all, it would not have been me. I do not shoot at noises in the woods. :eyeroll:

And secondly, if I did happen to take someones life, I would expect to be punished as per the law. I would not want you or anyone else trying to justify my actions. Do the crime, do the time!


----------



## speedimager (Nov 2, 2006)

dakota314000,

I had to ask why you will not get off your soapbox on this one?
I believe most people understand your point.

But I do not believe you have any understanding of most of the
postings on this thread.


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

You just don't get what I'm saying.

Another place, another time, another scenario.....it could be you..or me.

Doesn't that scare you?

Speeding down a highway is just as dangeous as alchohol. Have you ever exceeded the speed limit? I'm not trying to defend this guy, he was careless, but not intoxicated. Moments of being careless is something we are all guilty of. Don't blame his drinking problem, it's irrelevant in this scenario. It was carelessness....something you too, and I, at one time or another, was, are, or will be, guilty of. Whether that act kills someone is no more than chance at best.

I may stand on my soap box preaching awareness, but thats because I find it more productive than preaching revenge.

ps; a few more square inches of blaze organge very well might have made a difference.


----------



## dakota31400 (Jun 10, 2006)

As another member reminded me through a PM, it probably isn't a good thing (in respect of the family's envolved) to continue this discussion on a public forum. However, I would be more than happy to continue this discussion through Private Messages.

Gary


----------

