NationStates Jolt Archive

Dude WTF....

Five Dead, Three Hurt in Hunting Dispute


United Press International


A rural Wisconsin town was reeling Monday after five people were shot and killed and three others injured in a dispute over a deer hunting platform.

Just one day after hunting season opened, Sawyer County sheriff's deputies in Exeland said a hunting party returning to one of their elevated tree stands found a man occupying it midday Sunday.

WCCO-TV, Minneapolis, said the group asked him to leave, and he did, but then came back with an assault rifle and started shooting. A victim used a walkie-talkie to call other hunters for help. When they arrived, they were also shot.

"This is completely nuts," Chief Deputy Tim Zeigle of the Sawyer County Sheriff's Department said.

"The suspect apparently got lost in the woods after the rampage, and was led out by a pair of hunters who were not aware of the shootings," Zeigle said. "His assault rifle was out of ammunition at the time of his arrest."

The three who survived the attack were in critical, serious and fair condition.


It's only deer you are hunting, are five murder charges really worth it?

BTW-Notice how they just had to mention he used an assault weapon? Haha looks like he actually went hunting with it!! :)

Dude WTF....

BTW-Notice how they just had to mention he used an assault weapon? Haha looks like he actually went hunting with it!! :) They'll use that term on anything semi-auto these days, a completely improper use of the phrase. I'm surprised you don't hear the Beretta 9X series referred to as "Assault Pistols", since they also have fully automatic variants.

Agreed on the WTF aspect though - some people just prove over and over again why stupid people shouldn't breed.

To be fair - the SKS 7.62 that he had is a fairly commonly used rifle for deer hunting. It is a semi-auto with (usually) a 10 round clip with good range and fair accuracy.

Calling it an "assault weapon" in this case is simply due to it's semi-automatic nature.

How did one guy manage to shoot 8 armed hunters?

We need to send that guy to Iraq.

How did one guy manage to shoot 8 armed hunters?

We need to send that guy to Iraq.
One nut less in the US

(hey... that rhymes)

One nut less in the US

(hey... that rhymes)
Stop rhyming now and I mean it

Anybody want a peanut?

I would look at it both directions before I make a judgement.

It could of been a tree stand that was put up at another time (some are temporary,some people build a quick one and think they own that spot every year). Considering we don't know who sarted firing first for definite. Then again it could of been some wacko up in a tree shooting people for no apparent reason. Either way, if they are on public land then nobody has stakes more than another on the public property (I believe tents and vehicles are the only exemptions). A temporary tree stand is what I think it was over?? But I would think there is no permanent tree stand placement on public property being allowed.

How did one guy manage to shoot 8 armed hunters?

We need to send that guy to Iraq.

he did it very carefully, he's hunting wabbits.

Actually he just sneaked up on them and did an ambush.

Sorry... I didn't intend to rhyme... it happened... it's the musicians curse

I would look at it both directions before I make a judgement.

It could of been a tree stand that was put up at another time (some are temporary,some people build a quick one and think they own that spot every year). Considering we don't know who sarted firing first for definite. Then again it could of been some wacko up in a tree shooting people for no apparent reason. Either way, if they are on public land then nobody has stakes more than another on the public property (I believe tents and vehicles are the only exemptions). A temporary tree stand is what I think it was over?? But I would think there is no permanent tree stand placement on public property being allowed.
I happen to agree (though I could see the stand being private … not the tree itself)
But still not quite up to the punishable by death level even if he had a right to be up there.

he did it very carefully, he's hunting wabbits.

Actually he just sneaked up on them and did an ambush.


Actually they were hunters … and going out for the day

Probably weren’t even loaded

I dunno what to tell you guys, except this really doesn't surprise me. Having lived in Wisconsin all my life, I sometimes get the insatiable urge to break out assault weapons and go tearing about the countryside. Roving gangs of cows, Cheeseheads, tractors rolling down the streets...there's only so much we can take.....

;)

Actually they were hunters … and going out for the day

Probably weren’t even loaded

It's not too hard to sneak up on someone from behind in the woods. Even if they are (were, oops sorry) experienced hunters they could have been ambushed.


As a red-blooded American male, I believe in defending yourself from attacks, but it looks like this guy was just looking to cause havoc and created a virtual orgy of violence. I mean he left and came back so I think it is an unwarrented murder spree.

It's not too hard to sneak up on someone from behind in the woods. Even if they are (were, oops sorry) experienced hunters they could have been ambushed.


As a red-blooded American male, I believe in defending yourself from attacks, but it looks like this guy was just looking to cause havoc and created a virtual orgy of violence. I mean he left and came back so I think it is an unwarrented murder spree.
Sorry didn’t mean they couldn’t be snuck up on but like I said it does not necessarily have to be an “ambush” really he could have frontal assaulted them … and if they were not loaded … with a Simi-auto


It would have been over quick with out any fuss

Yup! Everybody should own guns!

I happen to agree (though I could see the stand being private … not the tree itself)
But still not quite up to the punishable by death level even if he had a right to be up there.

I agree as well, nothing is punishable up to death unless your life or another is in grave danger and thats only if you don't know how to wound in place of taking a life. For all we know the guy was using that tree stand for a couple days prior to the people getting there to hunt. What if the people that ended up getting shot were the ones that fired first, trying to kill him. But who knows could of still been that wacko in a tree shooting at everyone for no reason

Sorry didn’t mean they couldn’t be snuck up on but like I said it does not necessarily have to be an “ambush” really he could have frontal assaulted them … and if they were not loaded … with a Simi-auto


It would have been over quick with out any fuss


Yeah surprisingly he left survivors. What a really sloppy job he did.

I agree as well, nothing is punishable up to death unless your life or another is in grave danger and thats only if you don't know how to wound in place of taking a life. For all we know the guy was using that tree stand for a couple days prior to the people getting there to hunt. What if the people that ended up getting shot were the ones that fired first, trying to kill him. But who knows could of still been that wacko in a tree shooting at everyone for no reason

But he left and came back, so it actually is his fault.

I agree as well, nothing is punishable up to death unless your life or another is in grave danger and thats only if you don't know how to wound in place of taking a life. For all we know the guy was using that tree stand for a couple days prior to the people getting there to hunt. What if the people that ended up getting shot were the ones that fired first, trying to kill him. But who knows could of still been that wacko in a tree shooting at everyone for no reason

Just one day after hunting season opened, Sawyer County sheriff's deputies in Exeland said a hunting party returning to one of their elevated tree stands found a man occupying it midday Sunday.

WCCO-TV, Minneapolis, said the group asked him to leave, and he did, but then came back with an assault rifle and started shooting. A victim used a walkie-talkie to call other hunters for help. When they arrived, they were also shot.

It sounds like they were using it earlier that day if not the season ... they came back he was there

He LEFT and came back for revenge ... (in my opinion worse then firing in the heat of passion sort of thing)
sillyness

I happen to agree (though I could see the stand being private … not the tree itself)
But still not quite up to the punishable by death level even if he had a right to be up there.
A bit of reality check here.
Even if he was in the right, we're talking an extreme reation to being told to piss off by 8 armed men. I mean there's times where no matter how right you are, you walk away from it. It's not worth it. This is just a good example of what happens when you have easy access to assualt weapons.


BTW-Notice how they just had to mention he used an assault weapon? Haha looks like he actually went hunting with it!!
Read it again - it said he went away and came back with the assault rifle. So that could imply he had it in his pick-up and was carrying a non-assault weapon for actual Deer Hunting.
Anyway, surely this is good support for banning assualt weapons! Would he have been able to kill 5 and wound 3 armed men with a single load rifle? I doubt it.

I dunno what to tell you guys, except this really doesn't surprise me. Having lived in Wisconsin all my life, I sometimes get the insatiable urge to break out assault weapons and go tearing about the countryside. Roving gangs of cows, Cheeseheads, tractors rolling down the streets...there's only so much we can take.....

;)

lol.

Wisconsin is scary.........

But he left and came back, so it actually is his fault.

I need an honest estimate from what you would do if 8(one at a time or whatever as long as they fired on you first) people came up on you and they fired first? First your not going to know how many more people are out there, also knowing that having higher ground is almost always an advantage in a firefight. FOr all we know he may of shot the 8 people (in defense) then called 911 and went back up to the tree stand for safety. Who knows yet? God and the dude that did it.

lol.

Wisconsin is scary.........

No kidding.

I live in Racine, which is in the southeastern corner, just south of Milwaukee. So from where I live, I've got gangs of thugs to my north, rich people to my south (Kenosha), a toxic body of water to my east (Lake Michigan), and rednecks to my west (the rest of the state ;) )

Weeeeeeeeee...............

A bit of reality check here.
Even if he was in the right, we're talking an extreme reation to being told to piss off by 8 armed men. I mean there's times where no matter how right you are, you walk away from it. It's not worth it. This is just a good example of what happens when you have easy access to assualt weapons.



Read it again - it said he went away and came back with the assault rifle. So that could imply he had it in his pick-up and was carrying a non-assault weapon for actual Deer Hunting.
Anyway, surely this is good support for banning assualt weapons! Would he have been able to kill 5 and wound 3 armed men with a single load rifle? I doubt it.


You misread what I was saying there. I was making a joke "haha" about how he hunted those hunters. I have some rifles that would be considered assault weapons. They are great for hunting. Why would you only use a single shot one where if you miss or wound the beast you are hunting, you have to stop, reload and fire again. Why not be able to finish them off and ease any pain they are in? Kind of cruel. Anyway the point is that the term "assault weapons" is not an accurate description all the time.

I need an honest estimate from what you would do if 8(one at a time or whatever as long as they fired on you first) people came up on you and they fired first? First your not going to know how many more people are out there, also knowing that having higher ground is almost always an advantage in a firefight. FOr all we know he may of shot the 8 people (in defense) then called 911 and went back up to the tree stand for safety. Who knows yet? God and the dude that did it.
But why did he leave to go get the assault rifle … if 8 armed people came after him and he safely got out of the area why did he re enter to shoot them … I know I would want to if people fired on me but that does not make it right to come back for revenge

I need an honest estimate from what you would do if 8(one at a time or whatever as long as they fired on you first) people came up on you and they fired first? First your not going to know how many more people are out there, also knowing that having higher ground is almost always an advantage in a firefight. FOr all we know he may of shot the 8 people (in defense) then called 911 and went back up to the tree stand for safety. Who knows yet? God and the dude that did it.

Well I'll take the wounded people's word for it. Shooting 8 people in "self-defense" is pushing it. I am a gun lover, yet I still blame this dude.

But why did he leave to go get the assault rifle … if 8 armed people came after him and he safely got out of the area why did he re enter to shoot them … I know I would want to if people fired on me but that does not make it right to come back for revenge


Exactly, good point. I would have sped away and called the state police or whoever.

It sounds like they were using it earlier that day if not the season ... they came back he was there

He LEFT and came back for revenge ... (in my opinion worse then firing in the heat of passion sort of thing)
sillyness

I don't see vidictivness ever being justified because we as emotional beings are unable to process information without emotional bias when we make a decision. Unless we are totally grounded to our conscience & instincts (especially in heated times) we are biased. The investigation will find out if this guy was justified in any way, doesn't sound like it is looking good for his behalf. I think that is a problem when we put a time limit on putting information out to the media. We rush to judgement usually based upon how the reporter writes the story. We do not know every word that was passed or each round that was exchanged between the two parties.

For all we know the guy had a regular bolt action up in the stand and knew he was faced with a bunch of other hunters wanting to shoot him, He escaped to his tent or truck or whatever to grab his semi (your more vulnerable in a vehicle driving down a road possibly by the people that wanted to shoot him) than in a hidden tree stand (especially if it was a wrap around). But still this dude does appear (we have to assume) like he was doing some revengeful acting. I hope not because that was some dumb thinking for him to follow through with.

We also have to look at the possibility that the guy only had a initial confrontation with the first guy that found him up there. He could of shot this guy in self defense and the friends of that guy thinking he just murderered him for no apparent reason, in turn try to kill him and so on. So many senarios that would have to be disproved before making a judgement call. Remember that the (assumed through heresay) suspect has as much weight in his testimony as the (assumed) victims.

I don't see vidictivness ever being justified because we as emotional beings are unable to process information without emotional bias when we make a decision. The investigation will find out if this guy was justified in any way, doesn't sound like it is looking good for his behalf. I think that is a problem when we put a time limit on putting information out to the media. We rush to judgement usually based upon how the reporter writes the story. We do not know every word that was passed or each round that was exchanged between the two parties.
oh I understand ... but we cant argue info that we dont know ... deffinatly not enough for a court case(in that article) but enough to start asking about it

What I don't get is why so many people here seem to want to pick apart this event by dismissing peices of information found in the article, supposing things not found in the article, and just all-around discussing a totally different event from the one described. According TO THE ARTICLE:

1) it was the first day of hunting season, therefor he had not been up there for a few days, unless he had been waiting there for the season to open, which he had not, because

2) it was their platform, whether this means they had set it up as a temporary platform, just built it as a permenent platform, had it on the privately owned land of one of them, or simply been the first ones to claim it for that season;

3) they were returning to the platform, meaning that, since it was the first day, they had been using it earlier in that day; and

4) they asked the guy to leave, they did not fire at him.



As for my opinion, the guy is either very mentally ill or totally criminally evil. Probably the former, but I have insufficient information FROM THE ARTICLE to conclude that.

What I don't get is why so many people here seem to want to pick apart this event by dismissing peices of information found in the article, supposing things not found in the article, and just all-around discussing a totally different event from the one described. According TO THE ARTICLE:

1) it was the first day of hunting season, therefor he had not been up there for a few days, unless he had been waiting there for the season to open, which he had not, because

2) it was their platform, whether this means they had set it up as a temporary platform, just built it as a permenent platform, had it on the privately owned land of one of them, or simply been the first ones to claim it for that season;

3) they were returning to the platform, meaning that, since it was the first day, they had been using it earlier in that day; and

4) they asked the guy to leave, they did not fire at him.



As for my opinion, the guy is either very mentally ill or totally criminally evil. Probably the former, but I have insufficient information FROM THE ARTICLE to conclude that.


Thank you … stated it better then I had been obviously

If we take that article as being the absolute truth then we are in for a even worse place than we have now. Anotherwards believe everything you read, no wonder there are so many people that take the bible at a literal sense. We a bunch of morons.

Surely we should look at everything we get from every news source and be objective, otherwise you get the information from just another emotional stricken biased thought maker. Why do we feel the need to know as little as possible then make a unknowingly and uninformed judgement. Who knows maybe in 2 years from know when they have the trial there might be a better view of things. Sure he probably did it the way they say but we still have to assume.

How did one guy manage to shoot 8 armed hunters?

We need to send that guy to Iraq.
beats me, being armed is supposed to prevent you from being shot by scaring the other people into thinking they will get shot :rolleyes:

If we take that article as being the absolute truth then we are in for a even worse place than we have now. Anotherwards believe everything you read, no wonder there are so many people that take the bible at a literal sense. We a bunch of morons.
Agreed but we are talking about the info we know now … if you care to add some more info or corrections to the current info we would be most happy to discuss/add that to our conclusions

But until that …

beats me, being armed is supposed to prevent you from being shot by scaring the other people into thinking they will get shot :rolleyes:
Yup a gun is like a magic wand in that way

If we take that article as being the absolute truth then we are in for a even worse place than we have now. Anotherwards believe everything you read, no wonder there are so many people that take the bible at a literal sense. We a bunch of morons.

Surely we should look at everything we get from every news source and be objective, otherwise you get the information from just another emotional stricken biased thought maker. Why do we feel the need to know as littel as possible then make a unknowingly and uninformed judgement.

OK let's just ignore whatever the article, which is the only source of information we have, says and talk about what we think might have happened.

I think that the guy was just wandering in the woods, cold and alone and lost, and didn't even know that it was the first day of hunting season. He had been wandering for forty days and forty nights when Elvis trasported down from the mother ship and led him to the platform to rest. When the hunters came they did not notice him at first because he was hidden by the elves. They went off to knock over a liquor store and noticed him when they returned. After they dressed him up as a cheerleader and spent hours sodomizing him with their rifle butts, they dropped him on his head from the platform and shot as his feet as he scampered off. In the woods he found the remains of a WWII japanese soldier who had never learned that the war was over, and he was taking the soldier's rifle back to give to them as a gift when the voice of Jesus, disguising himself as Coronzon the Flesh Eater, spoke to him and told him to shoot off their foreskins. Well he was a bad shot, and ended up killing a few of them as they danced to the "Dance of the Sugarplum Fairies" for no particular reason.

So as you can see, with these facts we can disgregard the press account and conclude that he should be given the Gold Medal for swimming and lauded as a hero in Taiwan, and bestowed with many virgins, cattle, plaintain bushes and much much cheese.

Haha dumb americans kill eachother with no reasons.

Zeigle said the suspect was "chasing after them and killing them," with a SKS 7.62 mm semiautomatic rifle, a common hunting weapon. Wisconsin's statewide deer gun hunting season started Saturday and lasts for nine days.


About 20 shots were fired but it was unclear if any of the hunters had fired at the suspect or who might have shot first, Zeigle said. There was just one gun (this tells me that he was a dipshit) among the eight people killed or wounded, he said.

Even after readin he killed a mother father and a teenager try being unemotional and look at every possiblity. They do not know who fired first and that is a big deal only if everyone was tryin g to get that one gun.

From

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20041122/ap_on_re_us/hunters_shot

Zeigle said the suspect was "chasing after them and killing them," with a SKS 7.62 mm semiautomatic rifle, a common hunting weapon. Wisconsin's statewide deer gun hunting season started Saturday and lasts for nine days.


About 20 shots were fired but it was unclear if any of the hunters had fired at the suspect or who might have shot first, Zeigle said. There was just one gun (this tells me that he was a dipshit) among the eight people killed or wounded, he said.


Even after readin he killed a mother father and a teenager try being unemotional and look at every possiblity. They do not know who fired first and that is a big deal.

From

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=5&u=/ap/20041122/ap_on_re_us/hunters_shot
There see ... more information ... that is helpfull if there is a wish to disprove other information

No body was trying to shoot him or else he would be dead or wounded too. He went after the origional 5 guys bc he was pissed, probably was hidden in the woods taking them out one-by-one. They got scared and called for help. The cavalry arrived and started getting shot too, and ran off - that is why they survived. By that time ppl probably started shooting back, and the dude ran out of ammo so he high-tailed it. So this guy was unstable - his girlfriend probably broke up with him earlier in the day or some sh*t. Regardless on whether you like to hunt or are pro-gun - OR NOT, this guy is totally culpable for his murderous actions. It could have been blow-darts for all I care. Murder is murder.