I have a legal question about “dusted” and shot.

[cmsjr]

As a teenager back in the early sixties it was not uncommon to be “dusted” while small game hunting. In the past, dusted always referred to being outside of lethal shotgun range when you were shot. This was almost always by accident: A hunter would move to the edge of a pond before the sun came up and fire at a duck flying overhead. Unfortunately another hunter had moved into range and was camouflaged on the other side of the pond. The fine shot out of a shotgun would simply rain down on the other hunter who would then shout to let other hunter know where he was. At over a hundred yards small fine shot usually feels like rain (I would not want to get hit in the eye). As you get closer it stings. Closer it penetrates. Remember the Vice President? And very close it is a very lethal weapon.
My question is how do today’s laws view these dustings? Does intent always come into play? Should all dustings be reported or just penetrations? If somebody shoots in the air to warn somebody off their property and the pellets land on the person being warned - does the law view this as being shot with a lethal weapon? What happens if the person dusted loses an eye? To complicate this discussion there are different gauge shotguns and different kinds of shot (from size to the materials used to make it).

[Jay]

Originally posted by cmsjr


snip
My question is how do today’s laws view these dustings? Does intent always come into play? Should all dustings be reported or just penetrations? If somebody shoots in the air to warn somebody off their property and the pellets land on the person being warned - does the law view this as being shot with a lethal weapon? What happens if the person dusted loses an eye? To complicate this discussion there are different gauge shotguns and different kinds of shot (from size to the materials used to make it).


Trespassing comes under the heading of Premises law and generally there are 3 types of classes of people; invitees, licensees and trespassers.

A owner/occupier of premises has a general duty to provide a safe place for those who enter.

However, I do not know of any jurisdiction that allows the use of deadly force or potential serious bodily injury to warn off or cripple a trespasser that has simply entered and has not attempted assault or theft. Even then, very few jurisdictions, if any, still allow a trespasser to be killed to defend property only.


One can not generally, and probably mostly not, escape liability when injuring a trespasser simply because they entered without permission.

In sum, if the trespasser simply entered and was no threat to property/persons, "dusting" them, even UNintentionally, negligence, and gouging out an eye, you could find yourself up for a criminal charge and also civil libaility, yes.

[cmsjr]

I wasn’t planning to “dust” anybody. This also did not have anything to do with or Vice President’s hunt the other day. The only reason I asked the question was because the shotgun is so universal. It is capable of being used to threaten, inflict pain and suffering or death. I am sure that there have been legal cases where a farmer claimed that he just wanted to scare somebody off his land. Fifty years ago we viewed these cases differently. Laws change and so does public opinion.