I'm not sure what it means, "to serve that time talking to hunter safety education classes." Do you think it means as part of his sentence he should take safety classes? Would that mean that he will not lose his right to own guns? Is that because everyone in gun-friendly Vermont figures they're good boys who just made a little mistake and have learned their lesson?
Prosecutors acknowledged in both cases that they couldn't establish who had fired the fatal shot, which was one of about 100 rounds alternately fired by members of the group throughout the afternoon. But they pursued the cases anyway, seeking to hold McCarthy responsible for setting up the firing range and Lussier for providing the rifle, loading it and promoting its use in an unsafe area.
A third man shooting with them wasn't charged.
"Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Lussier both did things that led to the death," said prosecutor Justin Jiron.
Lussier, a "working stiff," according to Judge Mark Keller, had no criminal record. Under the plea, he agreed to a 2- to 5-year jail term, all suspended except the 60 days, and 200 hours of community service. Prosecutor Mary Morrissey said the goal is for Lussier to serve that time talking to hunter safety education classes about the dangers of shooting in residential areas.
In the original post, I noticed that McCarthy, who had hosted this little shooting party, "had passed a hunter safety course 10 days before." Is that the kind of course they're now recommending for his shootin' buddy?
What's your opinion? Do you think this kind of deadly incident is rare enough that we should just accept it? Is a slap on the wrist enough for these boys?
Please leave a comment.