This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes
If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.
Discussion Topic: Vermont Teen Convicted in Hunting Accident
A Vermont jury has convicted 18-year-old bird hunter Eric Patch, who two years ago mistook a tree-stand hunter for a grouse and peppered the man with more than three dozen pellets. Patch now faces a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison for aggravated assault. The teenager could become the first hunter to go to jail in Vermont for a non-fatal hunting accident.
Check out the full story here.
There’s virtually zero chance Patch will get anything like the maximum penalty. Still, does the conviction alone go too far? Or do you think it’s fair?
This is a good reason not to wear a giant grouse costume Bow Hunting. I know I learned my lesson.
Posted by: Jason | March 03, 2008 at 01:26 PM
How can you mistake a full grown person for a grouse? Maybe Eric should use a scope or carry binoculars.
Posted by: MPN | March 03, 2008 at 02:29 PM
Yah, I think it goes too far. Aggravated assault implies the teen knew a man was there, and intentionally shot at him. Although I believe the teen made a serious error by taking a shot without confirming it was a grouse he was seeing. Error in judgement, yes. Assault - aggrevated, probably not.
Posted by: Dave in IDAHO | March 03, 2008 at 04:27 PM
pretty unfair. accidently shooting someone is not agrivated.
bet most of the jury or the judge where antis
Posted by: Nicholas | March 03, 2008 at 05:46 PM
The kid must have shot grouse that big before otherwise he wouldn't have shot at something that big in the first place right?
Posted by: Walt Smith | March 03, 2008 at 07:20 PM
i think thats unfair but i almost shot a bow hunters hand in the squirral season thought his was a sqirral
Posted by: jake | March 03, 2008 at 08:16 PM
This is why I always have an orange hat on when I go hunt'n. Don't care what animal I'm hunt'n or what season it is I will have my orange hat on.
Posted by: MPN | March 03, 2008 at 08:54 PM
Dang,im going to start going hunting with spot lights and loud sirens blaring with flashing lights on me so nobody will mistake me for a animal.
Posted by: Trae B. | March 03, 2008 at 09:04 PM
This isn't some prosecutor filing charges. A jury convicted this guy of aggravated assault. The short blurb that everyone is basing their opinions on obviously leaves out a lot of what the jury heard. I doubt a jury would send a white kid to jail, if they could have possibly believed he was accidently shooting at partridges.
Posted by: Patrick | March 03, 2008 at 10:19 PM
I also believe there is more to the story than what was in the article. I find it hard to believe that he (the shooter) thought a person in a tree stand was a gamebird. It would be more plausible if he was tracking a flushing bird and fired when the tree stand hunter was in the line of fire. Did he see the tree stand guy or not? Who knows? There is not enough info for me to judge the situation.
Posted by: John R | March 03, 2008 at 10:51 PM
Grouse - 4 maybe 5 pounds, soaking wet.
Adult human male agile enough to be in a tree stand - 175 to 250 pounds.
There is a 'Duh' factor going on here! This is not a Dick Cheney incident. How the (expletive deleted) do you confuse a man with a grouse? Obviously the jury convicted him beyond a reasonable doubt on good evidence. Send him up the river, oh and make damn sure he never hunts again!
SA
Posted by: SilverArrow | March 04, 2008 at 01:34 AM
There IS something "fishy" going on here. I'm afraid that the article left way to much to the imagination to actually be of much help! I'm a little skeptical of either side on this one without more info!
Bubba
Posted by: Bubba | March 04, 2008 at 06:56 AM
I agree that the article leaves too much unsaid. But I don't think it's fair to assume that the kid could see the entire hunter. Maybe most of the hunter was obscured and the kid only saw a hand or a knee or an elbow moving in the branches. It does not seem implausible that he made an honest mistake. If that's the case, this conviction to too harsh.
Posted by: Frank | March 04, 2008 at 08:17 AM
Could this be our "liberal" media, once again!?
Only printing what they want the public to see? Not the "whole" truth!?
Bubba
Posted by: Bubba | March 04, 2008 at 10:02 AM
The whole truth most likely ain't there. The "liberal" media would be at the top of my suspect list.
MPN
Posted by: MPN | March 04, 2008 at 04:12 PM
Identify your target and what's beyond it - knucklehead. he gets what's coming to him...and I stand by that.
Stupidity and lack of experience result in death in our sport and others. Think before you act.
Posted by: NH Philosopher | March 04, 2008 at 04:48 PM
If that truly is the whole story and not just part of it then I agree he should be punished. But I do think part of the story is missing.
MPN
Posted by: MPN | March 04, 2008 at 04:52 PM
Shotgun shells.........$25.00
Posted by: ouch | March 04, 2008 at 04:56 PM
hunting licence.......$35.00
Posted by: ouch | March 04, 2008 at 04:57 PM
Cammo coat......$100.00
Posted by: ouch | March 04, 2008 at 04:58 PM
putting a dangerous idiot behind bars.........priceless
Posted by: ouch | March 04, 2008 at 04:59 PM
We seem to forget about the guy who was shot. There must be some kind of justice for him.
MPN
Posted by: MPN | March 04, 2008 at 05:23 PM
For instance, what if they had an argument earlier that day? Then it just happens that he shoots the guy mistakenly? I could buy the idea that the media went with the headline grabber and left out all the mundane details the jury heard.
Posted by: Patrick | March 04, 2008 at 07:14 PM
for such an inane act, the shooter has to pay some price....Im sorry , but there are plenty of folks out there that get way too excited when ANYTHING makes a noise in the woods/field.
if this guy had been killed it would give the 'antis' more ammo to end our dear sport.
now....maybe the more jumpy among us will think twice (as they should!!!) before dropping the hammer down.
Posted by: jim_bridger | March 05, 2008 at 10:07 AM
I'd hate to put my 2 cents in but, in hunter education they teach you 2identify your target and beyond. Also the part about looking through binoculars is good but-- MPN --- you shouldnt look through your scope unless you intend to kill that of which you are aiming. point---dont use scope use binoculars or dont shoot at all.
Posted by: mike | March 05, 2008 at 08:27 PM