Pine Canyon Tragedy
Posted: Mar 25 2005 8:48 am
We suspect that many readers are familiar with what we're calling "The Pine Canyon Tragedy."
In short: In May 2004, a hiker is allegedly beset by two dogs. He allegedly shoots toward them. The dogs' owner allegedly charges the hiker, allegedly yelling one or more death threats. The hiker allegedly shoots the individual. The individual dies. A Coconino County Grand Jury indicts the hiker. Various legal proceedings transpire since then.
Today's Arizona Republic (March 25) carries the latest news in this case. Sicne it is likely that this case will continue in the "public eye," so to speak, we figured we'd bring the topic back up to front and center here on HAZ.
Here is the link to the latest story:
(dead link removed)
You can also get some more of the background by Googling various permutations of "Pine Canyon trail shooting" etc.
It is, indeed, interesting that the Judge noted the discrepancy on the speed of the deceased. One report we read supposedly indicated he was doing 8 miles per hours. Hum...that's about the median speed of most people who regularly run in 10K races. That's pretty danged fast. We've also read that the deceased supposedly had the "uphill" advantage on the shooter--in other words, he was allegedly running downhill, supposedly yelling his alleged threats or whatever.
If you've hiked that trail, you know the steep part is somewhat "Grand Canyonesque" in its switchbacks through the sandstone. Even though news reports are vague as to the exact location of the shooting, we deduce it had to be the switchbacks because they are in Coconino County. Anything South of there would be in Gila County as the county line pretty much sits on the edge of the Rim.
Well, we'd anticipate that several of you HAZ "regulars" will have some opinions to express. Therefore a note of "decorum" and legalities is in order. We suggest you use the words "supposedly" and/or "allegedly" or some other conditional synonym when refering to any supposedly guilt or action in this case. It is MUCH to wide open of a case to risk getting you or Joe sued over some statement that might wind up in discussion here.
Yes, it is a most compelling case to follow--just be careful "HOW" you say what you say about it and your opinions. Okie, dokie?
J&S
In short: In May 2004, a hiker is allegedly beset by two dogs. He allegedly shoots toward them. The dogs' owner allegedly charges the hiker, allegedly yelling one or more death threats. The hiker allegedly shoots the individual. The individual dies. A Coconino County Grand Jury indicts the hiker. Various legal proceedings transpire since then.
Today's Arizona Republic (March 25) carries the latest news in this case. Sicne it is likely that this case will continue in the "public eye," so to speak, we figured we'd bring the topic back up to front and center here on HAZ.
Here is the link to the latest story:
(dead link removed)
You can also get some more of the background by Googling various permutations of "Pine Canyon trail shooting" etc.
It is, indeed, interesting that the Judge noted the discrepancy on the speed of the deceased. One report we read supposedly indicated he was doing 8 miles per hours. Hum...that's about the median speed of most people who regularly run in 10K races. That's pretty danged fast. We've also read that the deceased supposedly had the "uphill" advantage on the shooter--in other words, he was allegedly running downhill, supposedly yelling his alleged threats or whatever.
If you've hiked that trail, you know the steep part is somewhat "Grand Canyonesque" in its switchbacks through the sandstone. Even though news reports are vague as to the exact location of the shooting, we deduce it had to be the switchbacks because they are in Coconino County. Anything South of there would be in Gila County as the county line pretty much sits on the edge of the Rim.
Well, we'd anticipate that several of you HAZ "regulars" will have some opinions to express. Therefore a note of "decorum" and legalities is in order. We suggest you use the words "supposedly" and/or "allegedly" or some other conditional synonym when refering to any supposedly guilt or action in this case. It is MUCH to wide open of a case to risk getting you or Joe sued over some statement that might wind up in discussion here.
Yes, it is a most compelling case to follow--just be careful "HOW" you say what you say about it and your opinions. Okie, dokie?
J&S