Hunter Fatally Shot Near Kremmling CO

In my head I imagine the guy grabbing the horns while being partially obscured in the heavy timber. Without orange on, he wasn’t visible and the other hunter saw the elks head moving around like it was still alive and shot to put it down. Either shot through the elk and hit his buddy or missed and hit his buddy. Of course this is just a hypothesis.
 
Sad to hear stories like this one. I no longer hunt public land since a hunter stepped out of his camper and I aske him if he had seen anything. "Nope, but I got a good "sound shot" this morning. I promptly left.
 
Ucsdryder said:
In my head I imagine the guy grabbing the horns while being partially obscured in the heavy timber. Without orange on, he wasn’t visible and the other hunter saw the elks head moving around like it was still alive and shot to put it down. Either shot through the elk and hit his buddy or missed and hit his buddy. Of course this is just a hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I'd have to guess he missed the elk entirely and hit his buddy. Seems like if the bullet passed through the dead elk and hit the guy, he might have a better defense and wouldn't be looking at a homicide charge.
 
Fatcamp said:
Hmmmmm, wonder if the details about the incident are accurate?
Click to expand...
They are almost certainly not accurate or complete. The details in the article come from the defense attorney that the shooter hired. According to the article, the defense attorney hasn't received the police reports yet and even if he did have the police reports, he is not obligated to provide the media with an accurate account of the details. Also, especially recently, the media isn't in the business of providing non-biased, complete, and accurate information.
Ucsdryder said:
Wtf good is charging this guys with a felony and sending him to jail is going to do? Cost the public money and turn a guy with a family into a felon? Not saying he didn’t majorly mess up but he identified the elk and shot it. Not excusing his actions but it wasn’t that far fetched if a reaction. I wonder why his buddy took off his orange and didn’t yell “I found it!!!!” I tend to believe the story as it sounds like there were a 3-4 people in the area so I can’t imagine the guy planned it all and staged it all.
Click to expand...
It is pretty likely he will not spend any time in jail. The DA filed this case via a summons, rather than a warrant, so he was not arrested and jailed on the charges. I have no inside knowledge of the case, but it wouldn't surprise me if a deferred judgment or a misdemeanor with no jail was offered. With that said, assuming he was convicted as charged at trial, it is a class 5 felony and is punishable by probation up to 3 years of prison. Simply put, the judge is not sending this guy to prison for accidentally killing his buddy. Based on the charges, it is clear he doesn't have a felony history. If he did have a felony history, he would be charged with felon in possession.

This is what negligence means in Colorado - "A person acts with 'criminal negligence' when, through a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise, he [she] fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists." Criminally Negligent Homicide (otherwise known as negligent manslaughter) is the same level of felony as breaking into someone's car to steal change. Sure, none of us want to get charged with this, but it is not like he is getting thrown in prison for decades. The charge is for the exact kind of conduct that appears to have occurred here. You ask, wtf good is charging him? If filing the charge results in people who hear about this tragedy pausing and making sure they are not blasting their buddy, it is probably worth it. That is one of the purposes of the law - deterrence.

Finally, you mention cost to the public. I imagine there are upwards of 100,000 felony cases filed in the state of Colorado every year. This one case will not really cost anything. The DA's salary isn't dependent on a little case like this, the Court and Judge will be there with or without this case. Sure, there are costs associated with trials, but unless the DA or defendant are totally unreasonable, this guy will come into court in a few months (maybe longer with COVID) and he is going to cry his eyes out because he shot his buddy. He is going to plead to a lesser or a deferred, he is not going to jail, and he might do some public service. Who knows, maybe he will speak at hunter safety classes as part of his sentence.

In the end, this will probably end up being a tragic cautionary tale with minimal criminal consequences.
 
Jn78 said:
They are almost certainly not accurate or complete. The details in the article come from the defense attorney that the shooter hired. According to the article, the defense attorney hasn't received the police reports yet and even if he did have the police reports, he is not obligated to provide the media with an accurate account of the details. Also, especially recently, the media isn't in the business of providing non-biased, complete, and accurate information.

It is pretty likely he will not spend any time in jail. The DA filed this case via a summons, rather than a warrant, so he was not arrested and jailed on the charges. I have no inside knowledge of the case, but it wouldn't surprise me if a deferred judgment or a misdemeanor with no jail was offered. With that said, assuming he was convicted as charged at trial, it is a class 5 felony and is punishable by probation up to 3 years of prison. Simply put, the judge is not sending this guy to prison for accidentally killing his buddy. Based on the charges, it is clear he doesn't have a felony history. If he did have a felony history, he would be charged with felon in possession.

This is what negligence means in Colorado - "A person acts with 'criminal negligence' when, through a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise, he [she] fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists." Criminally Negligent Homicide (otherwise known as negligent manslaughter) is the same level of felony as breaking into someone's car to steal change. Sure, none of us want to get charged with this, but it is not like he is getting thrown in prison for decades. The charge is for the exact kind of conduct that appears to have occurred here. You ask, wtf good is charging him? If filing the charge results in people who hear about this tragedy pausing and making sure they are not blasting their buddy, it is probably worth it. That is one of the purposes of the law - deterrence.

Finally, you mention cost to the public. I imagine there are upwards of 100,000 felony cases filed in the state of Colorado every year. This one case will not really cost anything. The DA's salary isn't dependent on a little case like this, the Court and Judge will be there with or without this case. Sure, there are costs associated with trials, but unless the DA or defendant are totally unreasonable, this guy will come into court in a few months (maybe longer with COVID) and he is going to cry his eyes out because he shot his buddy. He is going to plead to a lesser or a deferred, he is not going to jail, and he might do some public service. Who knows, maybe he will speak at hunter safety classes as part of his sentence.

In the end, this will probably end up being a tragic cautionary tale with minimal criminal consequences.
Click to expand...
Sounds reasonable. Knowing what we know, putting the guy in jail won't serve any purpose. I do think he was negligent. He clearly did not identify his target and fired in a haphazard manner. At a minimum, he should lose hunting privileges for a significant amount of time, public service, maybe some financial restitution.
 
i think the shooter should face some consequenses (in addition to killing his friend) so WE can feel safer in the woods. Others will hopefully think of this situation and give an extra few seconds considering whether or not they have a safe shot in whatever circumstance they are in....
Terrible tragedy but WTF would anyone remove orange when they know others are close looking for a wounded animal?! especially AT the wounded animal? does not make any sense. i can't figure this out. sucks for everyone that this happened. but a stark reminder of the dangers of public land hunting, though this could have happened on private too with a member of your own hunting party.
 
Rob5589 said:
Sounds reasonable. Knowing what we know, putting the guy in jail won't serve any purpose. I do think he was negligent. He clearly did not identify his target and fired in a haphazard manner. At a minimum, he should lose hunting privileges for a significant amount of time, public service, maybe some financial restitution.
Click to expand...
If shooting at an elk is negligent, the only thing that differentiates this instance from any other hunter is that someone factually broke the law removing their orange and were hidden from view immediately behind the elk.
 
Sad all around. The guy that shot will face consequences as he should. He still will have to live with the fact that he killed his buddy.
 
You need to know your target and what is behind it. Even in a self defense situation you need to be aware of surroundings, more so hunting.
 
Baddog said:
Very sad.
Story says in the 1960’s an average of 10 people shot a year? Could that actually be accurate?
Click to expand...
10 fatalities. Could have been bullets, falling, vehicle, hypothermia, bears, getting lost. Add to that the inability to get help as quickly as we can now; many injuries went fatal simply because you couldn't get help and nobody knew CPR.

We now know more about how to prevent many causes of fatalities . . . most of us know CPR, we know more about hypothermia and have better clothing and compact survival kits, better treestands and harnesses, GPS / communication devices to stay found and get help, and more response teams who also are better equipped. All of that plays in to a 900% reduction in fatals.

Not to minimize the need for firearm safety. There were some hunters killed by stray bullets and lack of visibility was a contributing factor. It made sense to mandate hi viz in states with so many hunters.

What has not changed is that the only true safety on a firearm is the direction the muzzle is pointed.
 
Last edited:
zog said:
10 fatalities. Could have been bullets, falling, vehicle, hypothermia, getting lost.
Click to expand...
Probably is specifically referring to gunshot wounds.

140 Americans were killed by hunters’ accidental gunshots in 1947, according to an Associated Press report that year. The 1949-50 season saw 390 hunters killed; the following year, another 340 were shot to death by fellow hunters. Statistics suggest that the rate of non-fatal incidents increased at a far more dramatic rate.

Throughout the 1950s, newspapers ran stories with headlines like: “How to Hunt Without Getting Yourself Shot.” Another headline from a Florida paper in 1959: “Deer Hunt Toll is Seven—Men, That Is”

Outdoor writers provided weekly updates on hunter deaths throughout the season.

In 1956, Sports Illustrated estimated that year’s human hunting fatalities would exceed the lower 48 harvest of moose, mountain goats, and bighorn sheep (Reginald Wells, “Hunting Big Game in America,” Sports Illustrated, Sept. 17, 1956).

There's a reason that blaze orange was invented in 1959 and started becoming mandatory in the first few years of the 1960s.
 
mmw194287 said:
Probably is specifically referring to gunshot wounds.
Click to expand...
Not going to argue but you made me curious. When they just say "fatal hunting accident" there is no way to know.

So I did find a very interesting article about hunter injuries and fatals in Colorado. Two top cause of hunter injuries/fatals are cardiac arrest and their own knives! Again, fewer of both of these are going fatal due to knowledge of first aid and ability to get help. No, this does not go back to the 60's (but neither do most Roksliders :rolleyes:)

Asdie from the question about firearms and hi-viz, there a lot you can glean about being safe from this, including that you're safer hunting than skiing . . .

 
zog said:
Not going to argue but you made me curious. When they just say "fatal hunting accident" there is no way to know.

So I did find a very interesting article about hunter injuries and fatals in Colorado. Two top cause of hunter injuries/fatals are cardiac arrest and their own knives! Again, fewer of both of these are going fatal due to knowledge of first aid and ability to get help. No, this does not go back to the 60's (but neither do most Roksliders :rolleyes:)

Asdie from the question about firearms and hi-viz, there a lot you can glean about being safe from this, including that you're safer hunting than skiing . . .

Click to expand...

No, I wasn't trying to start an argument--sorry if it seemed that way. Just wanted to point out that among the other things we've gotten much better at (including CPR, etc.) is not shooting each other! Both hi-viz orange and hunter-ed/hunter safety campaigns have been hugely effective in making "common sense" firearm rules much more "common."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top