Hunting Forum

Fatal hunting accident in Douglas, MA
Last Post 22 Dec 2012 07:35 PM by SGINGRAS. 10 Replies.
AddThis - Bookmarking and Sharing Button Printer Friendly
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
SGINGRASUser is Offline

SGINGRAS Send Private Message Posts:992
--
26 Nov 2012 07:15 PM
SteveUser is Online

Steve Send Private Message Posts:1686
--
26 Nov 2012 07:28 PM
well those had about zero information....

edit: Oh, an before I get hoof in mouth disease an have to pop another beer...

SGINGRAS: NO shot at you. Just pontificating that the paper had about zero information in it other than someone was shot hunting, thats all. But, it needed pics of cars.
Steve: OSOK - Poughkeepsie, NY
rthomas4User is Offline

rthomas4 Send Private Message Posts:2334
--
27 Nov 2012 05:19 PM
Like I've said before, no such thing as an accidental shooting. Stupidity causes people to be shot when hunting, not accidents.
NRA LM, NAHC LM, Buckmasters LM, Second Amendment Foundation, GOA, NAGR, Palmetto Gun Rights, DU, NWTF, QDMA, Everyday Hunter,OYOA, ASAdspalliance,D& DH, and PROUD SC redneck REBEL for life. If the South had won the war, Obama wouldn't be in the White House.
swnoelUser is Online

swnoel Send Private Message Posts:619
--
27 Nov 2012 06:53 PM
Since when is suicide considered a hunting accident? Certainly sounds like it was.
"The BIG Lie" The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:[5][6] His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.[7]
SGINGRASUser is Offline

SGINGRAS Send Private Message Posts:992
--
27 Nov 2012 07:30 PM
There is still little info on the incident.  Also no mention of a "shooter", but they have not directly said it was from his own gun.




Local hunter found dead
DA says shooting does not appear suspicious

http://www.telegram.com/article/201...1101/local

Mr VJPUser is Offline

Mr VJP Send Private Message Posts:684
--
27 Nov 2012 07:46 PM

Sounds like the paper wants to make hunting sound as dangerous as they can even if it was a suicide. I think a bias towards hunting and guns exists here.
God does not subtract from your lifetime, the hours spent hunting and fishing! ---- Never shoot at game that can be hit. Always shoot at game that can not be missed! ---- Life Member of the NRA & NAHC as well as self appointed Jagermeister
hollyUser is Offline

holly Send Private Message Posts:2239
--
27 Nov 2012 08:03 PM
Is not there always .They need to make it sound as bad as they can .No matter what .
swnoelUser is Online

swnoel Send Private Message Posts:619
--
28 Nov 2012 04:26 AM
Today's media is a total disgrace. They all should be ashamed of themselves! as we can clearly see with this... THOMAS RICKS: APOLOGIST FOR THE SINS OF DAVID PETRAEUS By Cliff Kincaid November 28, 2012 NewsWithViews.com A former Washington Post reporter is excusing the secret sex life and lies of David Petraeus, the retired general who resigned in disgrace as Obama’s CIA director. Petraeus and his mistress Paul Broadwell are currently under investigation for unauthorized disclosure and possession of classified information. Thomas E. Ricks, a veteran correspondent who covered the U.S. military for The Washington Post from 2000 through 2008, was invited on CNN on Sunday to blast the media for its coverage of the scandal. This reporter, who is now also a blogger, thinks the cover-up of the affair that was engineered by Petraeus and Broadwell was perfectly proper and that it was nobody else’s business what they were doing together. But Stephen M. Walt, who is a colleague of Ricks at the journal Foreign Policy, has countered by noting the obvious: “In the world of intelligence, extramarital dalliances are dangerous because they create the obvious potential for blackmail. If some foreign intel service found out that a mid-level intelligence analyst or operative was cheating, they might be able to extract sensitive information by threatening to disclose the indiscretion.” This is why the media must get to the bottom of the scandal in terms of whether Petraeus was blackmailed or pressured by someone in the Obama Administration or a foreign intelligence service. The Ricks appearance on CNN was notable for his failure to explain why Petraeus changed his testimony regarding terrorist involvement in the attack on 9/11 that killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Before his affair became public, when he was under pressure from Attorney General Eric Holder and the FBI, he had insisted that al-Qaeda was not involved. This was consistent with the Obama Administration line. After the scandal emerged and he was apparently free to speak the truth, he insisted that he knew it was al-Qaeda all along. Ignoring all of this, Ricks was invited on Fox News on Monday, where he used the opportunity not to urge more reporting on the matter but to attack the channel as a “wing of the Republican Party” for trying to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi. Ricks called the murders of the four Americans, including the American Ambassador, a “small firefight” and complained that the killings of American security contractors in Iraq had not received adequate attention from the media. Host Jon Scott was so taken aback that he abruptly ended the interview. He should have asked why on earth Ricks thinks an attack from an international terrorist organization amounts to a “small firefight.” Ricks has made it plain that he believes the Obama Administration’s Benghazi cover-up is not a scandal, but that the media have gone too far in their coverage of the Petraeus scandal and should back off. In fact, Ricks told CNN’s “Reliable Sources” program that Petraeus should have remained on the job rather than quit under pressure. “These were consenting adults engaged in private acts,” he said. “The lack of decency, I think, is kind of appalling to me. I mean, also the consequences of what’s happened to these people.” Ricks was saying that the lack of decency was not on the part of Petraeus or his lover Paula Broadwell, both of whom are married and have children, but in the FBI uncovering this relationship and then the media covering it as a news story with national security implications. He explained that Petraeus “was in a relationship with a consenting adult who was not in his chain of command. He’s hardly, I think, probably the first CIA director to have had an affair.” Despite his sensational suggestion, Ricks didn’t name any other CIA director with a scandalous personal life who had an affair. Fortunately, members of the public are not buying the effort to whitewash Petraeus. In a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, John M. Dowd noted that Petraeus “violated his fidelity to his wife, breached his oath of office to his country, and was unfaithful to the West Point motto of ‘duty, honor, country.’ The general should have exited years ago when he lost control of himself and hubris took hold of him.” Another letter writer, Ed Karkut, noted, “Why did the chief spy of the U.S., with all his schooling, training and exposure to the craft of spying, choose to use emails as a form of communication with his lover? Everyone knows that emails can be compromised. Yet Mr. Petraeus exposed his frailty as a human being, and this unfortunately led to his downfall.” These letter writers displayed far more intelligence than Ricks, who told CNN’s “Reliable Sources” program host Howard Kurtz, “It’s a matter that should have remained private, first of all. It’s not a criminal act. There’s no allegation that he’s committed a crime here, as far as I know. You know, it could always change, more information could come out.” As we noted in a recent column, the Post, which is Ricks’s and Kurtz’s old paper, has already documented that classified information was found in Broadwell’s possession and there is evidence that Petraeus ordered that she be given access to it. Ricks seemed unfamiliar with the facts of the case and Kurtz did not bother to point this out. Kurtz, now with The Daily Beast, asked Ricks if he is an admirer of Petraeus. “Yes, and I remain so,” he said. Ricks went on, “…I’m glad I’m no longer in ‘The Washington Post’ because I would have been pressured to cover this. I would have had to cover this.” But he has covered it in his new job, as a blogger for Foreign Policy magazine, where he has complained about the coverage. He also says that he fears that the military brass will come to a number of questionable conclusions from the scandal, including that “You can be mediocre as long as you keep your pants on.” Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! Enter Your E-Mail Address: He never explains why a good general like Petraeus could not keep his pants on. Perhaps Ricks is embarrassed that he gave such a glowing review of Broadwell’s book. He wrote, “It is written with an insider’s lively understanding of the workings of today’s Army.” Indeed, Broadwell was a true insider. Ricks added that the book, All In, about how Petraeus functioned as a military commander, “feels at times like we are sitting at his side in Afghanistan, reading his e-mails over his shoulder.” Those emails in fact are what led to the Petraeus’ resignation.
"The BIG Lie" The phrase was also used in a report prepared during the war by the United States Office of Strategic Services in describing Hitler's psychological profile:[5][6] His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.[7]
Big DawgUser is Offline

Big Dawg Send Private Message Posts:557
--
28 Nov 2012 08:56 AM
" DA says shooting does not appear suspicious. " So what does it appear as ??? RT and myself are in total agreement on the " accidental " part of any hunter being shot. No accidents just people not practicing correct handling of any firearm.
LM NAHC, LM NSSF, LRRP Competitor Shooter/Spotter. Never Quit ! All the Way ! No Man Shall Be Left Behind !
SGINGRASUser is Offline

SGINGRAS Send Private Message Posts:992
--
04 Dec 2012 04:49 PM
Still nothing on the outcome of the investigation!


ID of hunter found shot, killed in Douglas is released

http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.d...89994/1101


Obituary: Winfield S. "Win" Dix, 56

http://northbridge.dailyvoice.com/o...win-dix-56


SGINGRASUser is Offline

SGINGRAS Send Private Message Posts:992
--
22 Dec 2012 07:35 PM
There was never an update in any newswire that I could find.  But I was at a gathering today and a friend of mine used to have a treefarm in that area.  He told me that from what he was told from his friends in the area, the man 'Allegedly" died by his own firearm. He did not know if it was accidental or not. Again no factual report on the investigation was ever released. 

The DA only said no "suspicious" cause, but also never stated "accidental"

Either way, another media headline based on sensationalism / ratings.   Most people who would read the initial story would tend to believe that he was shot by another hunter based on the headline and lack of facts in the articles.
You are not authorized to post a reply.