Welcome, Guest! - or
Easy to remember!  »  VinNews.com

Sherman, NY - Police: Hunter Accidentally Fatally Shoots Woman Walking Dogs In NY Field

Published on: November 24, 2017 11:13 AM
By: AP
Change text size Text Size  
Photo illustrationPhoto illustration

Sherman, NY - Authorities say a 43-year-old woman has been accidentally shot to death by a hunter while walking her dogs in a rural field in western New York.

Advertisement:

The Chautauqua County Sheriff’s Office says Rosemary Billquist, of Sherman, took her dogs for a walk in her hometown near the Pennsylvania border around 5:30 p.m. Wednesday.

Deputies say she was walking in a field when a man hunting nearby mistook her for a deer and shot her once with a pistol.

The hunter heard her scream, called 911 and stayed with her until emergency crews arrived. Billquist was taken to a hospital in Erie, Pennsylvania, where she was pronounced dead.

Officials say the shooting occurred about 40 minutes after sunset, when it’s illegal to hunt.

Police say the hunter hasn’t been charged. The investigation is continuing.

 

 



More of today's headlines

Budva, Montenegro - Argentina’s Jewish community gave Israel’s spy agency all the cars and some of the safe houses used to abduct the Nazi murderer Adolf Eichmann, a... Washington - Overhauling welfare was one of the defining goals of Bill Clinton's presidency, starting with a campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it," continuing...

 

Total23

Read Comments (23)  —  Post Yours »

1

 Nov 24, 2017 at 11:15 AM Reb Yid Says:

Sounds like a job for the go'el hadam.

2

 Nov 24, 2017 at 11:27 AM The_Truth Says:

Unfortunately she is a victim of the amendment, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

3

 Nov 24, 2017 at 11:57 AM Liepa Says:

Charge this idiot and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
5:30 PM is pretty dark here in the East coast.

So you take a shot thinking it's a deer and not even for one moment does he think 'what if' it's not a deer but a human being.

Fool, rot in jail !!!.

4

 Nov 24, 2017 at 12:08 PM Get a Grip Says:

Reply to #2  
The_Truth Says:

Unfortunately she is a victim of the amendment, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

And what amendment are people who are killed in traffic accidents a victim of?

How about those who accidentally fall off roofs? Or are killed by people with knives?

5

 Nov 24, 2017 at 12:22 PM yonasonw Says:

Reply to #2  
The_Truth Says:

Unfortunately she is a victim of the amendment, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Remember - conservatives do not approve of Constitutional reinterpretation...they are "strict constructionists," who on high principle lambast Constitutional "development."

Well, consider the following:

The 2nd Amendment reads, in full:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

For over 200 years Courts interpreted the 2nd Amendment as ensuring individual States the right to maintain National Guards. This made sense, due both to the preamble's reference to militias, which were State raised forces...and to the fact that at the time, when called up, militia members brought along their own personal muskets.

Only a recent reinterpretation of the Second Amendment has turned it into a gun owners' dream.

To rightists, Constitutional development is an outrage only when used to ensure civil rights, voting rights and the like...It's fine when it is used to reinterpret two hundred years of 2nd Amendment law.

See - as only we in the U.S. know, a huge number of guns in private hands is a prerequisite to being free. To heck with the carnage.

Really sad.

6

 Nov 24, 2017 at 01:06 PM Anonymous Says:

I agree with #3; if someone does not know who he/she is shooting at, they have no business firing a shot. We saw what happened when that idiot Oscar Pretorius opened fire multiple times in his home, without even knowing whom he was shooting act. He tragically killed his girlfriend, and today, was finally sentenced to a lengthy prison term. A few years ago, some reckless hunter in Maine also recklessly fired a shot, and killed a woman through her kitchen window. While I agree with the legal right of citizens to keep and bear arms, they still have a responsibility to do so, with caution. The hunter in this case, must be charged with 1st degree manslaughter. I call upon the local prosecutor to do so.

7

 Nov 24, 2017 at 01:35 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #2  
The_Truth Says:

Unfortunately she is a victim of the amendment, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is an unfortunate accident, but like car accidents, it doesn't mean that the risks outweigh the benefits. And speaking of car accidents, deer would cause a whole lot more of those if they weren't hunted. As a whole, deer hunting actually saves lives.

8

 Nov 24, 2017 at 01:40 PM JCSHOULSON Says:

Reply to #5  
yonasonw Says:

Remember - conservatives do not approve of Constitutional reinterpretation...they are "strict constructionists," who on high principle lambast Constitutional "development."

Well, consider the following:

The 2nd Amendment reads, in full:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

For over 200 years Courts interpreted the 2nd Amendment as ensuring individual States the right to maintain National Guards. This made sense, due both to the preamble's reference to militias, which were State raised forces...and to the fact that at the time, when called up, militia members brought along their own personal muskets.

Only a recent reinterpretation of the Second Amendment has turned it into a gun owners' dream.

To rightists, Constitutional development is an outrage only when used to ensure civil rights, voting rights and the like...It's fine when it is used to reinterpret two hundred years of 2nd Amendment law.

See - as only we in the U.S. know, a huge number of guns in private hands is a prerequisite to being free. To heck with the carnage.

Really sad.

When the People are afraid of the Government, we have tyranny.
When the Government is afraid of the People, we have freedom.
That is why our Framers wrote the Second Amendment.

9

 Nov 24, 2017 at 02:54 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #5  
yonasonw Says:

Remember - conservatives do not approve of Constitutional reinterpretation...they are "strict constructionists," who on high principle lambast Constitutional "development."

Well, consider the following:

The 2nd Amendment reads, in full:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

For over 200 years Courts interpreted the 2nd Amendment as ensuring individual States the right to maintain National Guards. This made sense, due both to the preamble's reference to militias, which were State raised forces...and to the fact that at the time, when called up, militia members brought along their own personal muskets.

Only a recent reinterpretation of the Second Amendment has turned it into a gun owners' dream.

To rightists, Constitutional development is an outrage only when used to ensure civil rights, voting rights and the like...It's fine when it is used to reinterpret two hundred years of 2nd Amendment law.

See - as only we in the U.S. know, a huge number of guns in private hands is a prerequisite to being free. To heck with the carnage.

Really sad.

You really have too much time on your hands....that, and your ignorance/lack of intelligence are a very bad combination. Have you tried therapy?

10

 Nov 24, 2017 at 02:54 PM yaakov doe Says:

From the little that I know about hunting it's forbidden after dark and you don't use a pistol to shoot deer. At the distance that a pistol may be effective he should have clearly seen she was a dear not a deer. Lock him up.

11

 Nov 24, 2017 at 02:55 PM Buchwalter Says:

Reply to #8  
JCSHOULSON Says:

When the People are afraid of the Government, we have tyranny.
When the Government is afraid of the People, we have freedom.
That is why our Framers wrote the Second Amendment.

How about some who are born with a lower brain mass

12

 Nov 24, 2017 at 02:57 PM Anonymous Says:

Reply to #8  
JCSHOULSON Says:

When the People are afraid of the Government, we have tyranny.
When the Government is afraid of the People, we have freedom.
That is why our Framers wrote the Second Amendment.

They military type weapon o tehy can kill tyrans like small children

13

 Nov 24, 2017 at 03:01 PM yamsar Says:

Reply to #5  
yonasonw Says:

Remember - conservatives do not approve of Constitutional reinterpretation...they are "strict constructionists," who on high principle lambast Constitutional "development."

Well, consider the following:

The 2nd Amendment reads, in full:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

For over 200 years Courts interpreted the 2nd Amendment as ensuring individual States the right to maintain National Guards. This made sense, due both to the preamble's reference to militias, which were State raised forces...and to the fact that at the time, when called up, militia members brought along their own personal muskets.

Only a recent reinterpretation of the Second Amendment has turned it into a gun owners' dream.

To rightists, Constitutional development is an outrage only when used to ensure civil rights, voting rights and the like...It's fine when it is used to reinterpret two hundred years of 2nd Amendment law.

See - as only we in the U.S. know, a huge number of guns in private hands is a prerequisite to being free. To heck with the carnage.

Really sad.

Rewriting history you are. Wishful thinking at best. The Federalist papers make the original intent pretty clear that the individual does indeed have the right to bear arms. That’s how the courts, including the Supreme Court, interpreted the 2nd amendment ever since.

I am a staunch proponent of gun control, but existing law is clear and we will therefore need a constitutional amendment. The sooner we do it the safer we will all be.

14

 Nov 24, 2017 at 03:03 PM yamsar Says:

Reply to #4  
Get a Grip Says:

And what amendment are people who are killed in traffic accidents a victim of?

How about those who accidentally fall off roofs? Or are killed by people with knives?

What an absurd argument. Because we can’t stop all accidents we shouldn’t stop the ones related to guns?

15

 Nov 24, 2017 at 03:27 PM Anonymous Says:

Guys, this has nothing to do with the Second Amendment in general. Hunting accidents are rarer than car accidents, and hunting is a legitimate reason to own a gun. Mass shootings are not committed with hunting rifles.

16

 Nov 24, 2017 at 03:40 PM yonasonw Says:

Reply to #8  
JCSHOULSON Says:

When the People are afraid of the Government, we have tyranny.
When the Government is afraid of the People, we have freedom.
That is why our Framers wrote the Second Amendment.

Cute slogans can’t replace either intellect, education or knowledge. Education and substantive knowledge require work and effort...cute slogans require nothing but a willing BS artist, who thinks he needs neither education nor knowledge.

17

 Nov 25, 2017 at 09:30 PM Fyonasonw Says:

Reply to #13  
yamsar Says:

Rewriting history you are. Wishful thinking at best. The Federalist papers make the original intent pretty clear that the individual does indeed have the right to bear arms. That’s how the courts, including the Supreme Court, interpreted the 2nd amendment ever since.

I am a staunch proponent of gun control, but existing law is clear and we will therefore need a constitutional amendment. The sooner we do it the safer we will all be.

Excuse me, Sir, yoo are mistaken.

In 1876 Supreme Court explicitly rejected the argument that the 2nd conferred an individual right to bear arms - see United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542.

Until recently, the judiciary treated the Second Amendment almost as a dead letter. Only in 2098 did the Supreme Court reverse Cruikshank, in District of Columbia v. Heller.

18

 Nov 25, 2017 at 10:23 PM yonasonw Says:

Reply to #15  
Anonymous Says:

Guys, this has nothing to do with the Second Amendment in general. Hunting accidents are rarer than car accidents, and hunting is a legitimate reason to own a gun. Mass shootings are not committed with hunting rifles.

...this killing was done with a handgun.

19

 Nov 26, 2017 at 08:54 AM yamsar Says:

Reply to #17  
Fyonasonw Says:

Excuse me, Sir, yoo are mistaken.

In 1876 Supreme Court explicitly rejected the argument that the 2nd conferred an individual right to bear arms - see United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542.

Until recently, the judiciary treated the Second Amendment almost as a dead letter. Only in 2098 did the Supreme Court reverse Cruikshank, in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Not so. That ruling and the all the other subsequent ruling until 2008 jut said that the states have a right to legislate gun ownership, but the feds do not have that right. We need a constitutional amendment to change that.

20

 Nov 26, 2017 at 02:03 PM yonasonw Says:

Reply to #19  
yamsar Says:

Not so. That ruling and the all the other subsequent ruling until 2008 jut said that the states have a right to legislate gun ownership, but the feds do not have that right. We need a constitutional amendment to change that.

Read the case - it expressly interpreted the 2nd Amendment - that Amendment had not been “incorporated” through the 14th to apply to the States, thus any separate ruling on State laws. But it expressly...expressly...held that the 2nd Amendment did not confer a private right to gun ownership.

That, despite a history, including the Federalists, which seemed to point the other way.

21

 Nov 26, 2017 at 02:04 PM yonasonw Says:

Reply to #19  
yamsar Says:

Not so. That ruling and the all the other subsequent ruling until 2008 jut said that the states have a right to legislate gun ownership, but the feds do not have that right. We need a constitutional amendment to change that.

You can find Cruishank on the Internet...Read it.

22

 Nov 26, 2017 at 03:35 PM yamsar Says:

Reply to #21  
yonasonw Says:

You can find Cruishank on the Internet...Read it.

I stand corrected. Thanks

23

 Nov 26, 2017 at 07:26 PM yonasonw Says:

Reply to #22  
yamsar Says:

I stand corrected. Thanks

That’s right honorable of you, Sir. Any time ;-)

24

Sign-in to post a comment

Click here to sign-in.

Scroll Up
Advertisements:

Sell your scrap gold and broken jewelry and earn hard cash sell gold today!