Sunday, May 5, 2013

Woman Mistaken for a Hog Shot by Boyfriend - Forgives Him

The Examiner
A year ago, Lisa and Steve went hog hunting in Flagler County. At one point, Egan saw a hog from his blind, took aim and fired a shot. While he pursued the injured animal, Simmons, dressed in camouflage pants, darted off to an area she'd seen earlier containing sour oranges. Her intentions were to collect a few for a homemade marinade recipe. 

Suddenly, as she stood on her toes to get the ripe oranges nearly out of reach, she felt a violent pain that knocked her off her feet. The nurse of 18 years looked down and saw blood pouring from a gaping wound. As a nurse, she knew a bullet ripped through her femoral artery. But who shot her? 

Moments later, Eagan found his girlfriend lying in the brush, bleeding heavily from her leg. Even before Lisa said, "Steve, you shot me," the man knew he shot his girlfriend and mistook it for a hog.
The woman instantly ripped off the man's belt and used tied it around the wound to stop the blood loss. Meanwhile, Steve darted off to camp and fetched their cell phone to call 911.

Throughout the stress of the shooting, Steve had a tough time directing first responders to their area. However, a hour after the man mistakenly shot his girlfriend while hog-hunting, a helicopter arrived and airlifted the woman to a nearby hospital. 

There, she went through emergency and required 14 pints of blood. Lisa nearly died on two occasions, but the strong "country girl" never lost her cool. 

The good news is that Lisa never blamed her boyfriend. Despite being on full disability from her nursing job and enduring a long and painful recovery, Simmons thinks life is too precious to place blame on others.
"Take responsibility for your part of what happened. Whatever it is, don't blame the other person because a lot of things go into an accident or problem. It's not just one factor," she says.

This is real gun fanaticism.  It's one thing to not blame the gun, but when you don't even blame the shooter, you're a true gun-nut.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.


  1. Or, you know, a mature person who knows how to forgive someone she loves and move on.

    But no, clearly you're right, it's not a sign of a mature, well adjusted person, it's a psychological problem and obsession at play here.

    1. In her own words, "take responsibility for your part of what happened." Why does that not apply to the negligent and dangerous shooter? Don't you think it should?

      Tell me this, can you ever imagine yourself shooting someone by accident, bearing in mind that in order to do so you'd need to violate two or three of the Safety Rules?

    2. Mikeb, she forgave him. You don't need to get involved. That's the point. Some things are simply none of your business.

    3. Where in her words did she say that didn't apply to her boyfriend? Of course he should take responsibility for his actions. She was talking about her own response--about taking responsibility for her own actions and not allowing herself to be bitter toward others for theirs.

      As for your question, I don't see the relevance to the discussion of the woman's response, but I'll answer anyway. Yes, I can imagine a lot of things, including horrifying accidents, which is why I do the best I can to try to avoid these, starting with following the 4 rules.

    4. You're not making a whole lot of sense. If you follow the 4 Rules, horrifying accidents can NEVER EVER happen. That's why, when they do, the guilty party must be held accountable with no bullshit downplaying of the negligence.

    5. Accidents can NEVER EVER happen, huh?

      Because nobody can show terminal stupidity and trespass downrange. Because bullets can't ricochet in some funny ways. Because there's never been a defective gun that could fire when bumped. Because you can guarantee that you will never slip and fall, potentially jarring the gun enough, or hitting the hammer hard enough, or catching something in the trigger guard.

      The four rules are a way to reduce the chances of an accident happening, but saying that they guarantee that an accident can never happen is as stupid as saying that having a gun guarantees that you will be safe from crime. We try to live in the real world.

    6. "If you follow the 4 Rules, horrifying accidents can NEVER EVER happen." This statement is demonstrably untrue. Tennessean gave a good list of legitimate examples that show the fallacy of your statement. The experienced hunter with whom I was bird hunting who chose, in spite of all our discussions about safety and how the hunt would be conducted, to walk in front of me as I was placing my finger in the trigger guard is a another example. I'm forever grateful I didn't shoot her, but it was a very near thing. Had she done so a fraction of a second later it would have been tragic. So, please, don't presume to suggest following the gun safety rules can prevent any and all accidents or that all accidents are the result of negligence on the part of the gun owner.

    7. Allright, all right. ALMOST NEVER is what I should have said.

      "The four rules are a way to reduce the chances of an accident happening," Wrong. The 4 Rules are a way to nearly eliminate negligent discharges. The ricochet and defective gun incidents are rare enough to write off. Instead you're making an entire argument on them.

    8. Besides, the guy in this story shot his fucking girlfriend. That was no ricochet or defective gun. That was two idiot gun nuts making major mistakes, one wearing camo on a hunting trip and the other shooting when he's not sure of his target.

    9. I never said that this was caused by a ricochet, a defective gun, or any of the other accidents I pointed out were possible. I brought those things up because you asked if I could ever see a situation where I would wind up shooting someone accidentally, in spite of attempts at safety.

      In this circumstance, yes, the guy was negligent in not knowing his target and what was behind it.

      As for your comments about the girlfriend wearing cammo--every hunter wears cammo--it's part of hiding from the animals. The article says she had cammo pants, and doesn't mention her top--possibly because it wasn't cammo--many places require orange jackets, or partially orange jackets when hunting big game to reduce the chances of this, though they make exceptions--e.g. in TN, you don't wear Orange when hunting Turkey because they can see the color.

      You take a chance by going out after hogs or deer in the first place since they have been known to kill hunters--especially hogs. You also take a risk of being accidentally shot by another hunter. You try to minimize this risk, and you go about your business, just like mountain climbers try to minimize the risk of a fall.

    10. Sorry, it's not just like mountain climbing. In gun "accidents" there's ALMOST ALWAYS an element of negligence.

    11. You don't think the same can be said of climbing accidents? Negligence in manufacture of the rope, or maintenance thereof, or in checking it for damage? Negligence in choice of crack for a piton, negligence in installing it, etc. etc. etc.

      What about driving where we accept the danger of accidents almost always caused by negligence? Skydiving? Boating? Diving? Crossing the Fucking street? Getting the picture?