Six men were hunting deer in the woods of New York last December. One party member was shot and killed by a fellow hunter. The deceased was wearing green camouflage and could not be seen by the other hunter.
A grand jury was called to review this case to determine whether charges should be brought against the man who fired the gun. In court, game officials showed photographs taken during a reenactment of the shooting showing clearly that placing a person in camouflage in the exact location where this hunter was killed, could not be seen by the shooter. As part of the investigation, authorities placed the same person at that location wearing a hunter orange vest and the vest could be seen but not the person.
No charges will be brought against the shooter pertaining to the death of his hunting buddy but other charges are still pending. The grand jury is making a recommendation to the Governor of New York to sign a bill requiring hunters to wear blaze orange. New York is one of only 10 states that do not require it.
Governor Pataki has vetoed two previous bills requiring blaze orange and another bill is pending in the Legislature.
The Daily Freeman has more on this story.
I am not against wearing blaze orange while hunting. I beleive it has saved numerous lives over the past several years. The only question I have in this story is this. Is it the job of a grand jury to make recommendations to the Governor or Legislature to make laws? Maybe I slept through Constitution and Law back in the day but I was led to believe that the function of a grand jury was to determine if there is probable cause to try a person in a court of law. In this case the grand jury, after being presented evidence, determined that the shooter was not negligent enough to warrant charging him with anything related to the death of his fellow hunter. That is what grand jurys do.
Tom Remington
