Link to report

I guess steve can be to blamed for this childs crime?

yep, all my fault. Can we blame you when some teen buggers the neighbor kid?

I don't see the connection steve, I was not buggered but I can see where you are trying to take it. Yet another pointed to your scum character. No surprise here.

You couldn't hurt me in any way steve, mentally or physically, you are too weak, minded and physically.

easy to claim from thousands of miles away....and I believe that " WAH WAH JUDGE PLEASE DON'T SEND ME TO PRISON, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING....SNIFFLE SNIFFLE" speaks to scum character better than anything on here so far. Did your cell mate know you were a little bitch? Oh wait, I am sure he did...never mind.

'Found Tyler didn't act recklessly'
'Tyler was painfully honest'

The lad made a herendous mistake and there's nothing he can do to bring his victim back.

But if the papers have it anything close to correct(Fat chance, of course) this doesn't read like a hunter run amok to me.


Question for X-black; a hypothetical:

If this kid was given over to your care after such a dreadful happening; what would you do to help him? What do you think would need to be done to 'make things right'?

Me; first chance I got, I'd take him out on a deer-hunt. Let him know I have confidence in him; and that he can do better and here's the place to start doing so.


But that's just me....

Dreadful? It was a criminal act..



No excuse, remember?

You dodged my question, X-black.

What would you do if the fellow was remanded to your custody?

I gave my answer.....what's your's?

the judge did think so


A 15-year-old Skagit County hunter who shot and killed a woman after mistaking her for a bear was sentenced Friday.

Tyler Kales was convicted of second-degree manslaughter with a firearm on June 2.

On Friday, he was sentenced to 30 days in juvenile detention and 120 hours community service. Kales could have received up to 3 months.

"I can’t imagine what they go through every day, how they feel,” Kales said. “All I want to say is how sorry I am and I hope they can forgive me.”

When convicted, Skagit County Superior Court Judge Susan Cook said it was not an accident last August when the Concrete teenager shot 54-year-old Pamela Almli of Oso on Sauk Mountain.

She was hiking with a friend on a marked trail when she was shot.

The judge acquitted the 15-year-old of the more serious charge of first-degree manslaughter, finding he didn't act recklessly.

During the sentencing, Almli's sister expressed anger at Kales for being so quick to shoot that day despite thick fog on the mountain.

“You ignored and broke all the rules, Tyler. And you have special responsibilities when you carry a gun and you didn’t follow through,” Almli’s sister, Gail Blacker said. “You did something so wrong that day and no one can ever undo it.”

During Kales' trial, Skagit County prosecutor Rich Weyrich said the teen and his older brother would have known that Almli and her companion were people, and not animals, if they had used binoculars.

In the aftermath of the shooting, there has also been a debate over juvenile hunting. Kales and his older brother didn’t have an adult with them at the time of the incident.

"My dad never, ever would have let me go alone, ever. I shot my last deer at the age of 21 and he was with me then too and we always used binoculars no matter what," said Almli's daughter-in-law, Cari Almli.

Kales attorney described him as a good student and someone who doesn’t smoke or drink and respects authority.

The judge agreed, saying Kales is no danger to the community.

“Perhaps most importantly he's taken personal responsibility for what happened that day,” said Skagit County Superior Court Judge Susan Cook.
Cook sentenced him to 30 days in detention, a relatively modest sentence. He'll also have to serve 120 hours of community service, 40 of those will be in hunter education talking to other kids in hopes of preventing a repeat of this tragedy.
Sources: http://www.kirotv.com/news/20018584/detail.html

It is refreshing to see a judge who actually has both head and heart.

And the glareing differice bettwen this 15 year old and black, the 15 year old didn't whine and cry not to be put in jail. the 15 year old was more of a man than black...

I'm waiting to hear what X-black would do if the fellow was remanded into his custody.
X-black, does this lad need rehabilitation. in your view?

Isn't that funny.... the difference between " YES YOUR HONOR, I DID IT...I MADE A HUGE MISTAKE AND I AM GUILTY" and " PLESAE PLEASE DON'T PUT ME BACK IN PRISON...SNIFFLE SNIFFLE....I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS DOING WRONG.....WAH WAH WAH......PLEASE JUDGE I WASN'T EVEN REALLY THERE I JUST DROPPED OTHER PEOPLE OFF BECAUSE I AM SUCH A COWARD.....

I'd rather he didn't detail what he'd like to do to a 15 year old boy.

I just hope that kid doesn't pick up another gun for the rest of his life. And I do believe he acted wrecklessly, despite the judge feeling differently. I mean what's the alternative? He acted responsibly?? duh.

I hate to agree grace but I lean towards it. I do not really believe something like this is an accident. I know a boy who killed his own brother with a gun. 100% accidental. This kid however intentionally pulled the trigger on an unidentified target. THAT'S why I take kids hunting and shooting. There is a standing joke when I take a kid out.
RULE #1--- DON'T SHOOT STEVE

RULE#2---IF YOU ARE NOT SURE WHAT IT IS, MAKE SURE IT ISN'T STEVE.
In america, there is a decent chance that a person will encounter a gun at some point. I think knowing how to safely handle one is important.

i don't understand what you want Grace ??? he admitted he was wrong , did wrong . would you feel better if he took the same gun and put it to his head and pulled the trigger ?

And unlike X, he didn't tell a bald-faced lie to the judge claiming that he didn't understand the harm he did to innocent people.

I don't think you'll have to worry about that. As he's now a convicted felon, I don't think he'll ever be able to own a firearm, at least not legally.

I agree. He did act recklessly. One of the first, and the most important, safety rule we teach students in hunter ed is "make sure what your target is, and make sure you know what lies beyond it". He recklessly, or at the very least, carelessly, violated this most basic safety rule and took a shot he had no business taking.

I think you're being somewhat over the top, as she never suggested such a thing. Isn't it just plain old common sense that those who have been convicted of using a firearm in a malicious, reckless, or careless manner ought not to be allowed to have them?

Good idea. Let's extend it to automobiles. Run a stop sign, change lanes without signaling, drive with a broken taillight or exceed the speed limit and you're walking for the rest of your life.

in this case i believe he should . i read no where of "malicious" use of the firearm . being a juvenile i see no reason why he can not own them in his adult life .

I dunno Frankie, maybe if it where your sister, or mother, or girlfriend who got her head shot off by some 14 year old, you'd feel differently.

You're making a poor analogy. What this young man did was a reckless action that resulted in the death of another person. It isn't like driving with a broken taillight, which is a very minor safety violation. If you want to use a driving analogy, what he did would be more like driving down an icy road in a snowstorm at 100 mph, losing control, hitting another vehicle head-on, and killing it's occupant. An utterly foolhardy, ill-advised, reckless action that he knew was wrong and exceptionally dangerous, yet did anyway. Or like driving drunk and killing someone. Again, stupid, reckless, and dangerous. And yes, those that do such things should be walking because they are menace to the public at large.
Driving and hunting are both privileges. As a result, they can both be lost when one fails to conduct themselves in a responsible manner while doing them. Irresponsible, careless, or reckless behavior has consequences. Some of those consequences can, and should, be severe and lasting depending on the outcome of the irresponsible action. And if an irresponsible action that kills a human being doesn't qualify for the most severe and lasting consequences, then I don't what does.

Good post Grizzly.

I didn't claim he was malicious. What I said was that those who have been convicted of using a firearm in a malicious, reckless, OR careless manner should not be allowed to have them. He clearly wasn't malicious, but he was at best careless, and at worst reckless.
His age is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. The young man was given a huge responsibility and he effed up in about the worst possible way, resulting in a person's death. Why should we believe that he will act differently in the future? Should we be willing to potentially compromise another innocent person's safety to find out? Like Grace said, I think you would change your tune quickly if it was your wife, son, daughter, parents, brothers, or sisters who were the ones being compromised.

Keerist! The kid is 14 years old, Lighten up already it's not like he's Machine gun Kelly or something.

I honestly dont know where I stand on this.....On one hand it was an accident...On the other hand I don't much believe in accidents in these type of situations. The kid I knew who killed his brother tripped and fell while carrying a gun, shot his brother in the back...did he intend to kill his brother, absolutely not...was he walking with his finger on the trigger of a gun with the safety off....PROBABLY........................... This kid raised his rifle...took aim...pulled the trigger....ALL before identifying his target. Then again he didnt INTENTIONALLY shoot a person BUT he DID intentionally shoot. I had a negligent discharge once....scared me so bad I sold the gun and another I had like it. I was letting down the hammer on a carry gun, and my thumb slipped off the hammer. I am paranoid about muzzle coverage so the bullet went into the floor but still. Was it an accident SURE, but it was ignorance on my part concerning the type of gun I was carrying, so it was an AVOIDABLE accident. Should the kid be banned from guns forever.................... I don't think so, but I think a high level safety and marksmanship course should be a requirement.

Silly hyperbole rather than a rational argument. No one is claiming he is like "Machine Gun Kelly" or any other malicious, vicious criminal. Go back and read carefully. To infer that is the case is intellectually dishonest. What I, and others, are claiming is that he has engaged in reckless, irresponsible, and very dangerous behavior that has killed another person. The fact that he has exercised such horrendously poor judgment here means that he may very well have the potential to do so again, and thus be dangerous to others again. As I also said, reckless behavior that ends in a serious tragedy, ought to have serious consequences. Why is that concept so difficult to understand? Jesus H., I had no idea you guys were such bleeding hearts.

Nor do I. And this clearly wasn't an "accident". He took a shot in a situation that he knew full well was unsafe. That is not an accident, that is recklessness. We have a saying at the railroad: "there is no such thing as an accident". What that means is that virtually all incidents don't just "happen", but rather, have at their root somewhere, someone's carelessness, recklessness, lack of skill, or poor judgment. I believe that is clearly the case here as well.

The point is he is 14 years old... A kid... He made a terrible mistake yes but he is only 14 years old AND… He took responsibility for his actions … You folks are talking like you’d like to see the kid on death row…

Yes he did, and that is admirable. He certainly has more manhood than a certain criminal who inhabits this forum. But, manning up, while admirable, doesn't excuse you from suffering the consequences.



Yet MORE goofy hyperbole. First rule of holes Pops: when your in one, you need to stop digging. No one here has claimed he should be on death row. We have suggested that perhaps he ought not be able to hunt again or have access to firearms. That isn't the same as saying he ought to be strapped in the electric chair. It's not even close. What part of that can't you understand?

pops

We know how old he is pops. But it's not like he tripped on a log and it accidentally went off. He acted with utmost negligence and disregard. Unless this woman was the offspring of Magilla Gorilla, there's no justifying his "terrible mistake" due to his young age and him owning up to it. And once again you're spouting nonsense because no one is stringing this kid up. We're merely stating he shouldn't own or discharge a weapon ever again.

That kid has to live with what he's done. Thats more punishment than anything else could ever be. I'm on the fence with him being able to ever handle a gun again because of his age but will he want to?

Maybe, but then again, maybe not. There are some people who basically have no conscience about such things and living with it doesn't trouble them in the least. That is a symptom of sociopathy. Hopefully, this young man isn't like that. I think it is important to note that not allowing him to have firearms again is not just about punishing him. It is also about protecting public safety from someone who has used firearms very irresponsibly.

That's true. And I'm not sure a 14 yr old could even understand the gravity of what he's done. He takes his cue on the gravity of his crime from his parents and society. They say it's bad so it must be. But does he feel it? Who knows. By the time he's 18 he would be well over it, if he isn't already. Or he could be afflicted from this shooting and carry it with him through his life.

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't but likely we'll never know.

disagree with her all you like but it's her dechision that counts.

What I don't get is he supposedly was buck hunting, but shot a "bear".

"As both an avid hiker and avid hunter (deer and elk, but not bear) I think that this kid was criminally irresponsible. He was probably doing what some idiots call 'sound hunting': hear a sound and shoot at it. At the very least, he should lose his right to own a gun, let alone hunt--ever. If he'd killed someone while driving drunk, I bet his punishment would be worse....

Y Nought, yes, MANY hiking trails go through land that is hunted. Both tend to be in places where game animals frequent. In some states, you can hunt even younger, it's 12 in PA."




"Buck fever' meets 'bearanoid.' Teen hunters - 1. Hikers - 0.
Agree that it's an awful light sentence for killing someone. In Canada, you have to take a hunter training course before you can hunt or purchase a firearm. That kid should be banned from hunting for life. How the hell do you mistake a hiker for a bear? He shot at a target he couldn't properly identify. Shouldn't have shot. If there's a god, maybe one day the kid will get mauled by a four-pawed 'hiker' who mistakes him for lunch. Wish I could feel some empathy for the kid but an innocent woman is dead. Hunting season makes for somewhat nervous forestry workers despite our fluorescent hard hats and reflective safety-stripes when "the hills are alive / with the Sound of Gunfire." Not to mention the usual drunk pricks driving around in pickups--looking for a moose or deer--with loaded rifles and calling it 'hunting.'"


http://j-walkblog.com/index.php?/weblog/co...n_gets_30_days/

don't matter that it was foggy, that the brothers didn't use the nocks, Gracie the boy got 30 days in a juvie slammer and 120 hours public service, 4hours of hunting saftey classes...

Everything I listed could be characterized as careless at the least. That was your criteria. I didn't form an analogy. I applied your criteria to another activity. Apparently, you balk at applying your criteria consistently.

Why is what he did, "like driving down an icy road in a snowstorm at 100 mph, losing control, hitting another vehicle head-on, and killing it's occupant"? Why isn't it like hitting someone and killing them while exceeding the speed limit by 5 mph?

Besides...like I said I wasn't trying to form an analogy. I was going by your stated "common sense" criteria.

"Isn't it just plain old common sense that those who have been convicted of using a firearm in a malicious, reckless, or careless manner ought not to be allowed to have them?"

A simple conviction of careless driving obviously meets your stated criteria.




You didn't say he should lose hunting. You said he should not be allowed to have a gun. Should gun ownership be viewed as a privilege?

and two wrongs will never make a right

But three lefts will get you back where you started.

i guess so

Sorry, Frank. I had to go for that one.

Then if he bans you, there's only yourself to blame.

Owning a gun legally is highly overrated.

Black market forever.