Santa Fe River Stan,36999L Posted April 5, 2012 Share Posted April 5, 2012 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 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). 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 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubious Don #56333 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 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). 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 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Possum Skinner, SASS#60697 Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Legal. Moral. What about sensible. Has everyone forgotten the story of the boy who cried wolf? What was the lesson in that parable? PS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunslinger SASS 10706 Life Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleWolf Brunelle, #2495L Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 ...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 that a "winning" isn't as important as good sportsmanship and safety. Regards, Allie Mo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacknife Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Does anyone ever call any "hypothetical" misses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blastmaster Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 What a melt down of events on that planet that is far, far away. So many backup safety parachutes that failed to function. If you know my drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Widder, SASS #59054 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Does anyone ever call any "hypothetical" misses? Yes Sir. I got 2 of them on Saturday. (well, atleast thats what the spotters said.....it could have been 'hypothetically' worse)... ..........Widder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Yes Sir. I got 2 of them on Saturday.(well, atleast thats what the spotters said.....it could have been 'hypothetically' worse)... ..........Widder You got a light sentence... I got 10 of those on a stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Is a hypothetical miss when you leave the ammo in your rifle? If so, I got four Saturday! Dang nickle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Dog, SASS #20401 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Hopefully Ammo Boy didn't get tongue-lashed too severely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Hopefully Ammo Boy didn't get tongue-lashed too severely... Naw! Unfortunately, I can't take MY shooting very seriously anymore or I'd have serious anger-management issues. Regards, Allie Mo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 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.... GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wyatt Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 I will be checking in from time to time over the next few pages to see how this one turns out Wyatt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Sgvq98mjc :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allie Mo, SASS No. 25217 Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Sgvq98mjc :lol: OMG! Good one Wyatt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother King, SASS #69031 Posted April 10, 2012 Author Share Posted April 10, 2012 OMG! Good one Wyatt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Gatlin, SASS 10274L Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Sgvq98mjc :lol: 10-4 GG ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.