Teen Geocacher shot in leg for tresspassing?

10.2k · October 1, 2011

what a poor comparison...for the vast majority the car is a necessity, gets them to work etc...what is the necessity of carrying a gun?

Wrong. This is a very good comparison. Necessity or not, there is nothing in the United States Constitution guaranteeing me the right to a car. There is, however, the guarantee of my right to bear arms.

We could go into necessity, but we'd go on for a very long time.

Just a few years ago, my wife and I had a great road trip to Nashville and Memphis to see the Grand Ole Opry and Graceland, where "The King" used to live. While touring, we ate well and really enjoyed the BBQ ribs. Dining at a popular chain in Memphis, I noticed one of the restaurant staff had a handgun on his waist. Being from Canada, it's something I don't see all the time. And, being a large family style eatery loaded with families, I politely asked why he felt the need to wear a gun. His answer was short, "I have a right to bear arms" he said.

Hmm. And did he follow that statement up with "Neener, neener, neener, and you don't"?

Just kidding here, I'm the OP, and I never thought this might open up the ol' gun debate. I was just shocked I hadn't heard of this incident, and never saw the original incident reported in these forums, which unfortunately, I've looked at every day for years. Thanks to Geodarts for all the information they have provided. Let me ask you, was the actual shooting incident before it went to trial known in the California caching community?

And also as OP, I would like to express my deep gratitude to poster No. 3, 4Wheelin'fool, for pointing out my error in spelling Trespassing.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

October 1, 2011

And also as OP, I would like to express my deep gratitude to poster No. 3, 4Wheelin'fool, for pointing out my error in spelling Trespassing.

Best post so far.... :laughing:

19k · October 1, 2011

The court minutes are not particularly well written, but the case went to the jury, beginning full deliberations yesterday morning around 8:30 am. The verdict was returned around 4 pm. It appears that Mr Heim was found guilty of the charged offense (assault with firearm) and special allegations (enhancements).

The court will have a number of sentencing options. From what I remember he could face up to 25 years -- although I would be very surprised if he received the upper terms, given his age it could amount to a life sentence in any event. A hearing will be held later after the probation department issues a report with its recommendations.

------------

It seems to have been a careful jury, asking three questions during their deliberations. They were out a fairly long time for this kind of case. I have seen capital cases with far shorter deliberations. But I don't think there were any winners here since the events were unfortunate for all concerned.

Where do you find that information? Are the court minutes were available online somewhere?

4.1k · October 1, 2011

Where do you find that information? Are the court minutes were available online somewhere?

The minutes and other case status documents are available through the San Bernardino County Courts case information site. The minutes, of course, are not the same as the transcripts. It would have been interesting to know the questions the jury asked. From the little that is in there, it appears to have been a close case.

I noted that Mr. Heim does not appear to have a significant prior record outside of vehicle code violations (which I did not look up). So given his situation I would have turned down any deal to a felony charge (the assault could have been prosecuted as a misdemeanor). All in all, it is one of those cases where I just end up shaking my head - - all the circumstances and how things got out of control so quickly.

Thanks to Mr. Yuck for bringing it to our attention. Some of the local papers reprinted the original article but I had not seen it until his post. It gives us a lot to think about.

Edited October 1, 2011 by geodarts

10.2k · October 2, 2011

I don't know about New Zealand but there are a hell of a lot of hunters running around the Canadian woods with guns.

Right. So?

First of all, I'm not Canadian.

Second of all, I can have an opinion on the matter independent of the firearms politics of the country I live in or originate from.

Third of all, nobody said that firearms should be prohibited altogether.

Anything else?

Not Canadian? You must really stand out in the crowd then if you don't look like this:

19k · October 2, 2011

As a reminder, this is a geocaching thread in a geocaching discussion forum. It's not a gun control or gun law thread. If you want to have a gun debate please go to a gun forum or to Groundspeak's off topic forum. Thank you.

A small reminder may be in order

6.7k · October 2, 2011

Okay girls, let's try to get along. If someone wants to get a gun, they'll get it regardless of the country they live in or where they're from. I live in Canada too, but the shootings that happen daily in any of our larger cities are testament to the fact that illegal firearms, somehow, are available to those that want them. Any city, anyplace in the world. Very sad.

The difference is how easy you make it for people to get a gun. Make it harder, and fewer people will have guns. Fewer people with guns means a lower chance to get shot at while geocaching (or whatever other activity). It's a simple equation really.

No it's not. Your argument requires that all people are normal and level-headed. Fewer normal people with guns does not mean that the extremes will have less of them. Criminals and the paranoid will have them no matter what. Taking guns from the average gal or guy would do nothing to reduce shootings...they aren't the ones doing it.

Edited October 2, 2011 by TheAlabamaRambler

1.2k · October 2, 2011

I guess post #107 needs to be translated into my native tongue. Apparently it means something other than what I interpreted it to mean.

Edited October 2, 2011 by cheech gang

October 2, 2011

I guess post #107 needs to be translated into my native tongue. Apparently it means something other than what I interpreted it to mean.

Regardless of warnings, people are going to talk about guns (and not this topic) until it gets locked. Just the way it goes...

7.9k · October 2, 2011

Still wondering what the outcome of the trial was.

4.1k · October 3, 2011

Still wondering what the outcome of the trial was.

I have not seen any online news reports, but Mr. Heim was charged with assault with a firearm and three enhancements (serious felony/great bodily injury/firearm use). The jury came in with a verdict on Friday after a full day of deliberation. The court minutes are a little fuzzy - normally it would specify the exact counts found by a jury. But the minutes tell us that the court had to correct a scribner's error on the enhancements and then polled the jury. So it seems Mr. Heim was found guilty of the enhancements and therefore found guilty of the charged offense.

It appears to have been a close case. And the situation seems similar to a "perfect storm" with various factors coming together -- a cache placed on his property, alleged prior incidents involving trespassers, shots that might have caused even more tragic results, but might have missed altogether. It does not appear that any serious priors were alleged. It will be up to the court to take all that into account and make various sentencing choices. Given his age, any substantial term could be a life sentence.

Edited October 3, 2011 by geodarts

2k · October 3, 2011

*** nevermind, missed geodarts' post.

Edited October 3, 2011 by GeoBain

3.2k · October 3, 2011

Hopefully, age will not factor into the sentence deliberation.

2.6k · October 3, 2011

A little information about San Bernardino County

San Bernardino County has an area of 20,105 square miles, San Bernardino County is the largest county in the contiguous United States by area, larger than any of the nine smallest states, and larger than the four smallest states combined; and larger than the closest-sized countries of Bosnia and Herzegovina or Costa Rica.

Located in southeast California, the thinly populated deserts and mountains of this vast county stretch from the outskirts of the densely populated Riverside-San Bernardino Area to the Nevada border and the Colorado River.

As of the 2010 census, the population was 2,035,210,

So it can be very easy to make a mistake in placing caches

October 3, 2011

As a reminder, this is a geocaching thread in a geocaching discussion forum. It's not a gun control or gun law thread. If you want to have a gun debate please go to a gun forum or to Groundspeak's off topic forum. Thank you.

A small reminder may be in order

Of course gun control (for or against) and gun laws will pop up in this thread. The poor kid was SHOT. The odd thing would be for these issues not to be brought up.

October 3, 2011

As a reminder, this is a geocaching thread in a geocaching discussion forum. It's not a gun control or gun law thread. If you want to have a gun debate please go to a gun forum or to Groundspeak's off topic forum. Thank you.

A small reminder may be in order

Of course gun control (for or against) and gun laws will pop up in this thread. The poor kid was SHOT. The odd thing would be for these issues not to be brought up.

The problem lies when people talk only about gun laws and ethics and fail to talk about this particular subject (geocaching teen shot). Gun debates never end - or least not until they're... shot down. :laughing:

October 3, 2011

I'd really like to know what the guy was sentenced to. If you get any updates will you please tell us.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Presence

1.5k · October 3, 2011

I'd really like to know what the guy was sentenced to. If you get any updates will you please tell us.

He has not been sentenced yet.

October 3, 2011

A little information about San Bernardino County

San Bernardino County has an area of 20,105 square miles, San Bernardino County is the largest county in the contiguous United States by area, larger than any of the nine smallest states, and larger than the four smallest states combined; and larger than the closest-sized countries of Bosnia and Herzegovina or Costa Rica.

Located in southeast California, the thinly populated deserts and mountains of this vast county stretch from the outskirts of the densely populated Riverside-San Bernardino Area to the Nevada border and the Colorado River.

As of the 2010 census, the population was 2,035,210,

So it can be very easy to make a mistake in placing caches

You list a bunch of facts and then make a conclusion that has nothing to do with those same facts. Here, let me try;

Earth, it has a 7900 mile diameter, it's the 6th largest planet and has 57.5 million square miles of land.

So it can be very easy to make a mistake in placing caches.

I guess my point is "so what?" The size of a county has NOTHING to do with the ability to look up the ownership status of a particular point on the map.

Edited October 3, 2011 by GeotaggedBloger

4.1k · October 3, 2011

A news report clarifies that Mr. Heim was acquitted of some of the charges (including that involving the teen who was shot), but found guilty of assault with a firearm on two adults. The report states that Heim is scheduled to be sentenced on November 1 and if sentenced to prison he could face from a little over 7 to 16+ years.

I had assumed that he was convicted on the count relating to the teen since the original news report focused entirely upon that charge and the court minutes did not break down the final verdict -- other than to note that the jurors were polled on enhancements, which indicated he had been found guilty. This makes more sense in terms of the charges and his potential liability, but it is an interesting verdict in any event.

Edited October 3, 2011 by geodarts

3.2k · October 3, 2011

A news report clarifies that Heim was acquitted of some of the charges (including that involving the teen who was shot), but found guilty of assault with a firearm on two adults. He is scheduled to be sentenced on November 1 and if sentenced to prison he could face from 7-16 years.

I had assumed that he was convicted on the count relating to the teen since the original news report focused entirely upon that charge and the court minutes did not break down any other charged offense or the final verdict -- other than to note that the jurors were polled on enhancements, which indicated he had been found guilty. This makes more sense in terms of the charges and his potential liability, but it is an interesting verdict.

Oh well, sometimes the system works, sometimes it doesn't.

19k · October 3, 2011

I wonder why he waw acquitted of shooting the teenager? Because he claimed that it was a ricochet and they couldn't prove otherwise?

4.1k · October 3, 2011

I wonder why he waw acquitted of shooting the teenager? Because he claimed that it was a ricochet and they couldn't prove otherwise?

He was acquitted of both counts involving teens and convicted only of the two counts relating to adults. Certainly, he could have been found guilty of assault and the great bodily injury enhancement even if the bullet ricocheted -- which is part of the reason why I simply assumed he was found guilty of everything when the minutes did not indicate otherwise. Perhaps there was testimony that distinguished the victims or it could have been a compromise verdict -- it was apparent from the length of the deliberations and the questions submitted to the court that it was a close case. I could speculate about the reasons, but it appears that Mr. Heim was served well by his attorney (although he still faces a substantial sentence).

Edited October 3, 2011 by geodarts

5.7k · October 3, 2011

Odd result. But then, typically the longer a jury deliberates, the more doubt they have, so compromise verdicts become more likely. Not always the case, but more likely than not, it's not going to be convicted of all charges. (Or full acquittal, for that matter.)

3.1k · November 2, 2011

I'd really like to know what the guy was sentenced to. If you get any updates will you please tell us.

Seven years and four months, according to this article.

19k · November 2, 2011

I'd really like to know what the guy was sentenced to. If you get any updates will you please tell us.

Seven years and four months, according to this article.

Holy COW!! I was very unhappy with what the guy did, but I think that sentence is over the top! Isn't there some middle ground between probation, and the rest of his effective life? :blink:

6.1k · November 3, 2011

I'd really like to know what the guy was sentenced to. If you get any updates will you please tell us.

Seven years and four months, according to this article.

Holy COW!! I was very unhappy with what the guy did, but I think that sentence is over the top! Isn't there some middle ground between probation, and the rest of his effective life?

Given the charges, he got the minimum. He faced 7-16 years. Assault with a deadly weapon is serious business. With good behavior, he should be out in 36 months, during the middle of Obama's second term.

3.2k · November 3, 2011

Sounds more like a slap on the wrist. Seems you try to kill someone, the punishment should be substantial.

4.1k · November 3, 2011

Given the charges, he got the minimum. He faced 7-16 years. Assault with a deadly weapon is serious business. With good behavior, he should be out in 36 months, during the middle of Obama's second term.

I am not sure what Obama has to do with this. But he will be serving far longer than that. (Pen. Code section 2933.1 applies, requiring him to do 85 percent of his sentence).

Sounds more like a slap on the wrist. Seems you try to kill someone, the punishment should be substantial.

Of course he was never charged or convicted of that.

Edited November 3, 2011 by geodarts

6.7k · November 3, 2011

Sounds more like a slap on the wrist. Seems you try to kill someone, the punishment should be substantial.

This is another interesting debate. Is justice about punishing the guilty or protecting society? Is this person likely to pose a continued threat to others and should that even be taken into account when sentencing him? Or when it comes time to consider parole?

Interesting questions. But considering the warning posted this is probably not the place to debate it.

19k · November 3, 2011

Sounds more like a slap on the wrist. Seems you try to kill someone, the punishment should be substantial.

From what we have read, he didn't try to kill anyone. He did shoot his weapon and threaten them, and one of his shots allegedly ricocheted and hit the boy, although he wasn't charged with that.

November 3, 2011

Good for him. I hope he spends a good deal of time in jail as a deterrent to others to just go shooting humans on their property. Trespassing is against the law and can land you a "No Trespass" CITATION. It's NOT a Capitol offence deserving death without a trial. I've met a few who think it's their land and they can go ahead and murder anybody they want as long as they happen to wander onto their property. Not the case, read the law or spend hard time like this guy deserves.

I am glad the kid is okay. That's the only good thing to come out of this story IMHO.

November 3, 2011

He only gt 7 years? He was firing a gun at people! If he didn't think this had a good chance of killing them then he is, at best, incredibly moronic. Although, as he is 71, 7 years is a bit more significant than if he had been e.g. 31, so maybe it is proportionate. At least he'll think before shooting at people next time.

I feel much safer caching here in NZ that I would in the US -- although we undoubtably have morons like this guy, at least they are not able to legally obtain firearms... :anitongue:

19k · November 3, 2011

He only gt 7 years? He was firing a gun at people! If he didn't think this had a good chance of killing them then he is, at best, incredibly moronic. Although, as he is 71, 7 years is a bit more significant than if he had been e.g. 31, so maybe it is proportionate. At least he'll think before shooting at people next time.

I feel much safer caching here in NZ that I would in the US -- although we undoubtably have morons like this guy, at least they are not able to legally obtain firearms...

We have already been warned once that this is not a firearms thread. I will also remind you that there are many ways of taking a life besides using a gun.

November 3, 2011

Sounds more like a slap on the wrist. Seems you try to kill someone, the punishment should be substantial.

From what we have read, he didn't try to kill anyone. He did shoot his weapon and threaten them, and one of his shots allegedly ricocheted and hit the boy, although he wasn't charged with that.

Our opinions must vary here. Seems to me if you pull a trigger on purpose and that causes a bullet to fly up in the air, hit the beak of an eagle, come back and hit a rock and bouncing through the open window of a passing car killing a person you are responsible.

An eagle and a person are dead as a result of your actions. The fact that he was aggressively pursuing these people (as opposed to say a target practice incident where a stray bullet happened to hit the kid with no malice) means to me he should get the FULL brunt of the law.

If you can't handle or understand the outcome of shooting a gun then maybe you shouldn't be shooting it.

PS, my comments pertain to caching. This is not a firearms thread.

edited because God I kant spell

Edited November 3, 2011 by GeotaggedBloger

19k · November 3, 2011

Sounds more like a slap on the wrist. Seems you try to kill someone, the punishment should be substantial.

From what we have read, he didn't try to kill anyone. He did shoot his weapon and threaten them, and one of his shots allegedly ricocheted and hit the boy, although he wasn't charged with that.

Our opinions must vary here. Seems to me if you pull a trigger on purpose and that causes a bullet to fly up in the air, hit the beak of an eagle, come back and hit a rock and bouncing through the open window of a passing car killing a person you are responsible.

An eagle and a person are dead as a result of your actions. The fact that he was aggressively pursuing these people (as opposed to say a target practice incident where a stray bullet happened to hit the kid with no malice) means to me he should get the FULL brunt of the law.

If you can't handle or understand the outcome of shooting a gun then maybe you shouldn't be shooting it.

PS, my comments pertain to caching. This is not a firearms thread.

edited because God I kant spell

I never said that he wasn't responsible. I said that he didn't try to kill someone. The law agrees with me that there is a difference. If the old duffer was telling the truth, he was only trying to scare them off. That's a big difference from trying to kill them.

1.7k · November 3, 2011

And just today I was getting the business for suggesting that an unpermitted geocache on property posted with no trespassing private property signs be archived. Placement with sensitivity to the perception of non cachers should be stressed in the guidelines. Which would eliminate half of the lpc

Edited November 3, 2011 by Packanack

4.1k · November 3, 2011

And just today I was getting the business for suggesting that an unpermitted geocache on property posted with no trespassing private property signs be archived. Placement with sensitivity to the perception of non cachers should be stressed in the guidelines. Which would eliminate half of the lpc

I have suggested the same about unpermitted geocaches placed on private property posted with no trerspassing signs -- and although neither the CO, the reviewer. or most cachers who came there took much of an interest in it, at least the inevitable encounter with an angry property owner did not involve use of the gun.

The cache here (as well as its replacement) are easy to identify as being on private property based on the maps on this site, but the area did not appear to be posted (at least along the route that the cachers took). I doubt that anybody could have anticipated Mr. Heim's particular sensitivity to people crossing his land toward his house, nor that a property owner would pull the trigger in this situation. But at the same time I think that this incident is a serious reminder to double check our placements if we are not absolutely sure. This was preventable. And it is sad from any perspective.

Edited November 3, 2011 by geodarts

November 3, 2011

Sounds more like a slap on the wrist. Seems you try to kill someone, the punishment should be substantial.

From what we have read, he didn't try to kill anyone. He did shoot his weapon and threaten them, and one of his shots allegedly ricocheted and hit the boy, although he wasn't charged with that.

Our opinions must vary here. Seems to me if you pull a trigger on purpose and that causes a bullet to fly up in the air, hit the beak of an eagle, come back and hit a rock and bouncing through the open window of a passing car killing a person you are responsible.

An eagle and a person are dead as a result of your actions. The fact that he was aggressively pursuing these people (as opposed to say a target practice incident where a stray bullet happened to hit the kid with no malice) means to me he should get the FULL brunt of the law.

If you can't handle or understand the outcome of shooting a gun then maybe you shouldn't be shooting it.

PS, my comments pertain to caching. This is not a firearms thread.

edited because God I kant spell

I never said that he wasn't responsible. I said that he didn't try to kill someone. The law agrees with me that there is a difference. If the old duffer was telling the truth, he was only trying to scare them off. That's a big difference from trying to kill them.

I wasn't in the jury. I didn't hear the testimony. Neither were you. But, I would need one awesome story to explain how a guy intentionally fired a gun and accidentally hit a kid.

That story had better come with video and another gunman in the bushes. What do the politicians call it? ....oh yeah, it would take a "suspension of disbelief" for me to swallow that old guys story.

November 3, 2011

To continue...say he WAS firing warning shots AT them. Right there. If your "warning shot" HIT the guy then what are you doing? Every warning shot I've ever seen (Movies, books, ...ah, movies) always fire into the air. How could you POSSIBLY hit a rock, not just any rock, a rock near enough to the victim to ricochet into the kid unless you were AIMING AT HIM.

I was born at night, but not last night, and that old coot needs to spend the rest of his nights thinking about what a stupid thing he did.

1.7k · November 3, 2011

Will there be a civil suit I wonder? Mayhap the teen will soon be the owner of a plot of land.

4.1k · November 3, 2011

To continue...say he WAS firing warning shots AT them. Right there. If your "warning shot" HIT the guy then what are you doing? Every warning shot I've ever seen (Movies, books, ...ah, movies) always fire into the air. How could you POSSIBLY hit a rock, not just any rock, a rock near enough to the victim to ricochet into the kid unless you were AIMING AT HIM.

I was born at night, but not last night, and that old coot needs to spend the rest of his nights thinking about what a stupid thing he did.

He was actually acquitted of shooting the kid. But he may indeed spend the rest of his nights thinking about it. And now that he has better medical care than he undoubtedly would have had on the outside, the number of his nights could be increased.

3.3k · November 3, 2011

Sounds more like a slap on the wrist. Seems you try to kill someone, the punishment should be substantial.

From what we have read, he didn't try to kill anyone. He did shoot his weapon and threaten them, and one of his shots allegedly ricocheted and hit the boy, although he wasn't charged with that.

Our opinions must vary here. Seems to me if you pull a trigger on purpose and that causes a bullet to fly up in the air, hit the beak of an eagle, come back and hit a rock and bouncing through the open window of a passing car killing a person you are responsible.

An eagle and a person are dead as a result of your actions. The fact that he was aggressively pursuing these people (as opposed to say a target practice incident where a stray bullet happened to hit the kid with no malice) means to me he should get the FULL brunt of the law.

If you can't handle or understand the outcome of shooting a gun then maybe you shouldn't be shooting it.

PS, my comments pertain to caching. This is not a firearms thread.

edited because God I kant spell

Who said the eagle died? :blink:

November 3, 2011

A news report clarifies that Mr. Heim was acquitted of some of the charges (including that involving the teen who was shot), but found guilty of assault with a firearm on two adults. The report states that Heim is scheduled to be sentenced on November 1 and if sentenced to prison he could face from a little over 7 to 16+ years.

I had assumed that he was convicted on the count relating to the teen since the original news report focused entirely upon that charge and the court minutes did not break down the final verdict -- other than to note that the jurors were polled on enhancements, which indicated he had been found guilty. This makes more sense in terms of the charges and his potential liability, but it is an interesting verdict in any event.

Who can believe anything in that article when they wrote

"Participants in the game go online to find coordinates and then use a GPS device to find waterproof containers ...."

I thought they were finding a container listed on geocaching.com. Is there another website that just lists these waterproof containers??

8k · November 3, 2011

I never said that he wasn't responsible. I said that he didn't try to kill someone. The law agrees with me that there is a difference. If the old duffer was telling the truth, he was only trying to scare them off. That's a big difference from trying intending to kill them.

The law looks at intent and he clearly wasn't intending to kill or even hurt anyone. But if you shoot a gun in the direction of some people you should know that no matter how good of aim you have there is a possibility that you're going to hit someone. You shouldn't be knowingly firing a gun at a person unless you or someone else in imminent danger. Any law abiding gun owner ought to know at least this.

And just today I was getting the business for suggesting that an unpermitted geocache on property posted with no trespassing private property signs be archived. Placement with sensitivity to the perception of non cachers should be stressed in the guidelines. Which would eliminate half of the lpc

While it has been pointed out there are ways for the cache owner (and the reviewer) to have checked whether this cache was on private property, I still think you have to consider the situation in that part of the desert. The are huge areas of BLM land which are public property and where geocaches are allowed. In fact this cache was one of series on a trail through BLM land. The cache owner chose to hide this cache off the trail and he wandered far enough that he was no longer on BLM land. The property was not likely posted when coming from this direction. The private property here runs from the highway along the Mojave River and runs back into the rugged hills. The useful land is the flats between the hill and the river. The property owners view the hills and desert as natural barriers so they don't expect anyone entering their property from that direction. They leave it unfenced and unposted. It seems the cache owner did not consider how far the the property runs up the hills and assumed it was far enough away from this guy's trailer and piles of junk that it wouldn't be a problem (obviously now a wrong assumption). Of course this means (I imagine) that Mr. Heim was sitting below and saw some figures relatively far away coming down the hill. When he yelled that they were on private property they turned and headed back up the hill. He still felt he need to shoot at them. I say he got what he deserved.

Making sure that you have permission for a hide on private property may or may not have prevented this incident. There have been cases of cachers being chased off private property despite there being permission. Sometimes a security guard or employee hasn't been told about the cache and takes it upon themselves to stop trespassers. Sometimes, these old codgers in the desert believe their property goes much farther back in the hills than it does and will chase off hikers on the BLM side.

19k · November 3, 2011

Sounds more like a slap on the wrist. Seems you try to kill someone, the punishment should be substantial.

From what we have read, he didn't try to kill anyone. He did shoot his weapon and threaten them, and one of his shots allegedly ricocheted and hit the boy, although he wasn't charged with that.

Our opinions must vary here. Seems to me if you pull a trigger on purpose and that causes a bullet to fly up in the air, hit the beak of an eagle, come back and hit a rock and bouncing through the open window of a passing car killing a person you are responsible.

An eagle and a person are dead as a result of your actions. The fact that he was aggressively pursuing these people (as opposed to say a target practice incident where a stray bullet happened to hit the kid with no malice) means to me he should get the FULL brunt of the law.

If you can't handle or understand the outcome of shooting a gun then maybe you shouldn't be shooting it.

PS, my comments pertain to caching. This is not a firearms thread.

edited because God I kant spell

I never said that he wasn't responsible. I said that he didn't try to kill someone. The law agrees with me that there is a difference. If the old duffer was telling the truth, he was only trying to scare them off. That's a big difference from trying to kill them.

I wasn't in the jury. I didn't hear the testimony. Neither were you. But, I would need one awesome story to explain how a guy intentionally fired a gun and accidentally hit a kid.

That story had better come with video and another gunman in the bushes. What do the politicians call it? ....oh yeah, it would take a "suspension of disbelief" for me to swallow that old guys story.

The prosecutor didn't charge him with shooting the boy. Either he believed the guy did not try to hit anybody, or he couldn't prove it. Either way, that's sufficient for me.

19k · November 3, 2011

To continue...say he WAS firing warning shots AT them. Right there. If your "warning shot" HIT the guy then what are you doing? Every warning shot I've ever seen (Movies, books, ...ah, movies) always fire into the air. How could you POSSIBLY hit a rock, not just any rock, a rock near enough to the victim to ricochet into the kid unless you were AIMING AT HIM.

I was born at night, but not last night, and that old coot needs to spend the rest of his nights thinking about what a stupid thing he did.

He was a scared old coot, living out in the desert, alone, had been victim of theft and had probably been hearing stories about illegals and all sorts of things to get his imagination going. I'm not saying that he should have gotten off scott-free, or even on straight probation. But I do not think that he is some sort of willful criminal that needs to be put behind bars for years. He's probably learned his lesson already, actually. Give him enough time so that others may also learn the lesson, and then let the old desert rate go back to live the rest of his solitary desert junkyard life.

19k · November 3, 2011

Who can believe anything in that article when they wrote

"Participants in the game go online to find coordinates and then use a GPS device to find waterproof containers ...."

I thought they were finding a container listed on geocaching.com. Is there another website that just lists these waterproof containers??

GUFFAW!!

19k · November 3, 2011

I never said that he wasn't responsible. I said that he didn't try to kill someone. The law agrees with me that there is a difference. If the old duffer was telling the truth, he was only trying to scare them off. That's a big difference from trying intending to kill them.

The law looks at intent and he clearly wasn't intending to kill or even hurt anyone. But if you shoot a gun in the direction of some people you should know that no matter how good of aim you have there is a possibility that you're going to hit someone. You shouldn't be knowingly firing a gun at a person unless you or someone else in imminent danger. Any law abiding gun owner ought to know at least this.

Please allow me to repeat myself: I never said that he wasn't responsible.

I said that I thought 7 years was excessive under the circumstances as I understand them to be.

November 3, 2011

Will there be a civil suit I wonder? Mayhap the teen will soon be the owner of a plot of land.

Who would want that land? I hear it's got a lot of annoying geocachers wandering all over it...

Teen Geocacher shot in leg for tresspassing?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment