I can't imagine what the legal reasoning would be that a jury could use to acquit. First time or not, we all know that guns are meant to kill...this guy was, after all out to kill a deer, right? So if this idiot was proven to be the one who fired the gun, and it could be established the bullet that killed the woman was fired from that gun, what more is there to consider? A woman is dead and that is wrongful death or manslaughter any way you look at it. It may not have been premeditated (with regards to killing that particular woman), so doesn't qualify as murder, but I can't believe there wasn't a public outcry of some sort in protest. There was much less direct evidence to convict Scott Peterson of murdering his wife, and he is sitting on death row. Go figure!
Geez...I guess if you live in the woods where there are deer, or near a lake that is frequented by ducks in hunting season, you are no better off than someone who lives in Watts or East L.A. where drive-by shootings occur on a regular basis. There is much lip service paid to our constitutional "right" to bear arms by groups like the NRA, but what about the responsibility to do so with great care. Freedom exercised without responsibility can be dangerous. Somehow I don't think what our founding fathers had in mind was open season on innocent bystanders. Sally in San Jose
