Daniel5, I understand your point. Accoring to law, one that protects the activity of duckhunting, the middle-aged woman was not allowed to be in the area she was. In a strictly legal sense, there is no contest to that.
Some will argue that she got what she deserved. Others might say that it was a rare and unfortunate incident. Meh.
The point here is that just because something is law does not mean that it is forever right. Laws change as values evolve. More often than not it is civil disobedience and contest of the 'norm' that has changed the laws, such as the way Gandhi did in India with the Salt March. Think slavery, racism, women's rights and so on.
So yes, she was wrong to do what she did in terms of legality, but conversely perhaps she was right in doing what she and others believed in, something they saw wrong with the law, something that disregarded the value of life for other species on this planet to accommodate for morally, ethically and environmentally questionable practices.
Although the police made an official statement that it was accidental, witnesses did say otherwise but it's not enough to conclusively answer either side.
There are just so many things wrong with this scenario.
A 14 year old is not allowed to drink or smoke or have sex or vote, yet he's given a license to shoot a gun ???
Ok Yvan first of all im sure all of your witnesses are fellow protesters now im not saying there lying but they do have good reason to fabricate or embelish the story.
But really im an experienced shooter and there is no way that i could shoot a person with a shotgun and aim well enough to only get a few pellets to hit her.
The people commenting on this on this forum cannot have it both ways on the one side your saying that an inexperienced 14 year old boy shoudnt be shooting. Then you say how he managed to do what i would say is something a crack shot couldnt do
Ok Yvan first of all im sure all of your witnesses are fellow protesters now im not saying there lying but they do have good reason to fabricate or embelish the story.
But really im an experienced shooter and there is no way that i could shoot a person with a shotgun and aim well enough to only get a few pellets to hit her.
The people commenting on this on this forum cannot have it both ways on the one side your saying that an inexperienced 14 year old boy shoudnt be shooting. Then you say how he managed to do what i would say is something a crack shot couldnt do
My witnesses? I have no idea who the alleged witnesses are, you accused someone of making it up so I provided the quote from the originally posted article. You just seem like a pot stirrer, who is here to exaggerate and put a negative spin on any comment.
Also who is attempting to have it "both ways" everyone has a different opinion on the issue, it's not like people on this forum are one collective being that always needs to think the same.
Can i ask for your source or proof that it was deliberate.
No one has said he deliberately shot her, he shot at a bird taking flight from the water and hit her. If you're referring to the birds, you can't shoot across the water by accident. And from 50 metres anyone can tell the difference between a protected species, a duckling and a game species.
Daniel5 said:
Or did you learn to make up things to make yourself more important from your own smart a*se parents
Seriously, what are you talking about? How old are you?
Apparently she was close to being blinded but should be fine. People are saying it wasn't the young boy, that there was a man in a boat who was the one who fired. She was in the water half an hour early.
As for that poll on the original article, the yeses are down to 42% .
. 
