Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

You Make the Call


Recommended Posts

There were several things in the initial post that I and some others didn't address. Our focus was that the gun should have been left alone be to show the shooter.

 

The other things in the OP that were worthy of discussion follow.

 

MD should have talked to the TO.

 

Maybe the protest was too late.

 

Maybe shooter really earned a MDQ for belligerent behavior.

 

Now, my thoughts on the two preceding quotes. The MD wanting to know who it was may have validity. I knew a shooter who argued every call or miss. I've heard stories of "team counting" resulting in the shooter never missing or making a mistake. If it were someone known to behave like that, the call could have been weighted against the shooter. On the other hand, maybe the shooter was someone known for his/her integrity (barring belligerence in the situation) who had even made calls against himself/herself.

 

My point is that there are many nuances to some situations that should be considered before a final call. This is one reason the MD should have talked to the TO. For example, if the shooters behavior was such that a MDQ should have been given, it would make the showing of the gun a moot point.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

AM....I have to disagree with you.....the call should be made based on the merits of the situation regardless of past history of the parties involved. Just because someone has a history of disputing calls does not mean that they don't have a valid point in the current situation and the judgement should not be tainted because of perceived indiscretions from the past. I don't care if it's the Judge or the most despicable cowboy in the world they both deserve the same consideration........Afterwards is when you lament about "who" it was.......

 

As a former Range Master/Match Director......."Don't tell me who......just tell me what happened"

 

Stan

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hi Stan,

 

Okay, so you believe "prior bad (or good) acts shouldn't be evidence in the current situation." I'm not so sure.

 

I'm not a judge, lawyer, legal aide...; just curious and want to do the right thing. As a novice, I look to Wikipedia for help (after finding other sources too complex). :rolleyes: I found the following, "Evidence of prior bad acts by the accused will be admissible if the prosecution satisfies the judge on a balance of probabilities that, in the context of the particular case, the probative value of the evidence in relation to a specific issue outweighs its potential prejudice and thereby justifies its reception." That makes me think :rolleyes: that in some cases a call could go either way based on who did/said what. The multitude of prior bad (or good) acts could outweigh any prejudice for or against the shooter as stated by the TO.

 

Again, my point is that there are nuances to some situations that must be taken individually based on many specifics, including who said/did what.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so you believe "prior bad (or good) acts shouldn't be evidence in the current situation." I'm not so sure.

 

 

Sorry Mo, I'm with Stan here. I could care less about a shooter's prior history. People change over time. Judge people today and quit digging up the past -- that is my motto.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Stan,

 

Okay, so you believe "prior bad (or good) acts shouldn't be evidence in the current situation." I'm not so sure.

 

I'm not a judge, lawyer, legal aide...; just curious and want to do the right thing. As a novice, I look to Wikipedia for help (after finding other sources too complex). :rolleyes: I found the following, "Evidence of prior bad acts by the accused will be admissible if the prosecution satisfies the judge on a balance of probabilities that, in the context of the particular case, the probative value of the evidence in relation to a specific issue outweighs its potential prejudice and thereby justifies its reception." That makes me think :rolleyes: that in some cases a call could go either way based on who did/said what. The multitude of prior bad (or good) acts could outweigh any prejudice for or against the shooter as stated by the TO.

 

Again, my point is that there are nuances to some situations that must be taken individually based on many specifics, including who said/did what.

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

 

Miss Allie you are so way off base here! I'm not a lawyer either; just a guy who's spent over thirty years as a cop but I can tell you with certainty that' "prior bad acts" are seldom admitted at trial because of the prejudice they give the defendant. It is interpeted by the judge in the narrowest terms and the defense fights to exclude this because they know what a smoking gun say, prior criminal history is to a defendant facing a jury. Just as the prosecution strives to get this in. because it works for THEM.

 

Everyone deserves a FAIR shot for what they DID, not what they HAVE DONE. As a MD or Rangemaster making a call, these should NOT be considered. Take what happened and make your decision FAIRLY.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Mo, I'm with Stan here. I could care less about a shooter's prior history. People change over time. Judge people today and quit digging up the past -- that is my motto.

 

 

Miss Allie you are so way off base here! I'm not a lawyer either; just a guy who's spent over thirty years as a cop but I can tell you with certainty that' "prior bad acts" are seldom admitted at trial because of the prejudice they give the defendant. It is interpeted by the judge in the narrowest terms and the defense fights to exclude this because they know what a smoking gun say, prior criminal history is to a defendant facing a jury. Just as the prosecution strives to get this in. because it works for THEM.

 

Everyone deserves a FAIR shot for what they DID, not what they HAVE DONE. As a MD or Rangemaster making a call, these should NOT be considered. Take what happened and make your decision FAIRLY.

 

Hi Gents,

 

I guess I should give up. None of you got my point.

 

See the "(or good)" in " The multitude of prior bad (or good) acts could outweigh any prejudice for or against the shooter as stated by the TO."

 

First, I agree anyone can change for the better. That is a consideration.

 

Second, suppose the TO was not the PM or alternate PM chosen by the MD, just someone eager to help without sufficient experience (I am thinking of things I've seen in writing that. For example, two bad calls by the same TO. They were not protested and should have been.) Say the shooter was well known to be upstanding. The shooter is adamant it was open. The TO was inexperienced. I think that it would be one of the nuances to consider in a protest.

 

Those are the things I was thinking. You are focusing on punishment. I was trying to focus on "both sides of the coin."

 

Okay, now I'll go crawl back under my rock. ;)

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

Link to post
Share on other sites

BK, suppose just suppose what really happened in this strictly hypothetical event was that the original call was made by a spotter not the TO. This spotter saw the gun laying on the prop with the lever closed and looked twice to make sure. Then the spotter told the shooter about this after he finihed the stage. When the spotter turned around to go back to the rifle, the over helpful posse member had in fact picked up the rifle and handed it to the shooter. The shooter opened the rifle and went to the unloading table and turned to the spotter that made the call and said, "You have just taken me out of the match, I was in the running to win". The then told the spotter, I dont believe you".

After clearing all his guns, the shooter blew up, grabbed up his long guns, swept the ajoining posse with them and proceeded to his gun cart.

The shooter shot the next stage and finished the match.

After the match the spotter put his guns away and hung around the range parking area for aprox. 45 minutes, visiting before leaving and could have been summoned at any time to be interviewed.

The appeal was not handled my the MD., this was his first big match and he didnt know what to do. He defered the call to some TG's who overturned the ruling without interviewing the spotter who made the call. The appeals process was totaly destroyed in this case. The shooter that made the protest and the MD had the cell phone # of the spotter and could have contacted him for his input should the TG's have wanted all the facts in the matter.

 

In this strictly hypothetical event, it probably didnt help matters that the shooter that had the ms called on them was the range marshall for this match.

 

Again we are talking about your original post which was a hypothetical situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BK, suppose just suppose what really happened in this strictly hypothetical event was that the original call was made by a spotter not the TO. This spotter saw the gun laying on the prop with the lever closed and looked twice to make sure. Then the spotter told the shooter about this after he finihed the stage. When the spotter turned around to go back to the rifle, the over helpful posse member had in fact picked up the rifle and handed it to the shooter. The shooter opened the rifle and went to the unloading table and turned to the spotter that made the call and said, "You have just taken me out of the match, I was in the running to win". The then told the spotter, I dont believe you".

After clearing all his guns, the shooter blew up, grabbed up his long guns, swept the ajoining posse with them and proceeded to his gun cart.

 

...Again we are talking about your original post which was a hypothetical situation.

 

The SDQ in this case would have overridden the MSV.

Possible MDQ for the "blowup" could have (hypothetically speaking) done the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...The shooter opened the rifle and went to the unloading table and turned to the spotter that made the call and said, "You have just taken me out of the match, I was in the running to win". The then told the spotter, I dont believe you".

After clearing all his guns, the shooter blew up, grabbed up his long guns, swept the ajoining posse with them and proceeded to his gun cart.

The shooter shot the next stage and finished the match...

 

Yikes!

 

Someone should tell the shooter :unsure: that a "winning" isn't as important as good sportsmanship and safety. :o

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone ever call any "hypothetical" misses? :lol:

 

 

Yes Sir. I got 2 of them on Saturday.

 

(well, atleast thats what the spotters said.....it could have been 'hypothetically' worse)... :lol::lol::lol:

 

 

..........Widder

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes Sir. I got 2 of them on Saturday.

(well, atleast thats what the spotters said.....it could have been 'hypothetically' worse)... :lol::lol::lol:

..........Widder

You got a light sentence... I got 10 of those on a stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Naw!

 

Unfortunately, I can't take MY shooting very seriously anymore or I'd have serious anger-management issues. ;)

 

Regards,

 

Allie Mo

 

Now if'n ya didn't the Wire very seriously.... :lol:

 

GG ~ :FlagAm:

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

OMG! Good one Wyatt! :lol:

:lol::D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.