Shot dead in the forest

[TheeBadOne]

Teen catches own death on camera

LA CROSSE, Wis. - Seth Hammes wasn't into sports, going steady or fast cars. Relatives say the high school senior would rather be rebuilding a computer or out in the woods, snapping pictures of deer.

He was using his camcorder as he explored the woods near Little Falls, about 35 miles northeast of La Crosse, last Saturday when the device caught the crack of gunshots, the 17-year-old's screams and the voice of the shooter, promising help that never came.

Hammes didn't come out of the woods alive, and police say the camcorder was the key to catching the man they think killed him.

After viewing and listening to the tape, police tracked down 24-year-old Russell Schroeder, who faces charges of reckless homicide and reckless injury carrying up to 85 years in prison.

Without the tape, there's no telling how long it may have taken investigators to realize Hammes had been murdered, Monroe County Sheriff Pete Quirin said Thursday -- the same day of Hammes' funeral.

"But right next to him was the videotape. That's when we knew we had a homicide on our hands," the sheriff said.

Hammes' family said the boy and two of his friends went out bow-hunting Saturday morning. But his uncle, Ed Hammes, said his nephew would rather hunt with a camera than a gun.

True to form, Hammes put down his bow and picked up his camcorder that afternoon.

Sometime around 4 p.m., he was shot in the pelvis and then the heart, according to the criminal complaint. His camcorder fell to the ground but caught the sound of the shots and the boy's screams.

The tape shows a person Quirin said is Schroeder in a nearby field. Schroeder's voice can be heard, telling Hammes he'll call for help on his cell phone, the complaint said.

Then Schroeder says he can't find a signal and promises to get help. But according to the complaint, he instead went to a birthday party, home to play video games and then his job as a custodian at the Army's Fort McCoy near Sparta.

After family and friends reported Hammes missing, police used bloodhounds to find his body in the woods that night.

Quirin said investigators initially believed Hammes had just died in the woods; there was no blood to indicate foul play, and Hammes had been shot with a .22 caliber rifle, which left only small wounds, Quirin said. Then they viewed the tape.

Schroeder is being held in lieu of $250,000 bond pending further proceedings in Monroe County Circuit Court in Sparta.

link (http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/local/12791351.htm)

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Deerman]

Hang him high then shoot him with a 22.

[skeet]

TBO I know you like the cop stuff... But have you ever posted anything that was an original thought...by you I mean. Post this crap in some other police forum or something. This isn't bout hunting or whatever...just another cop thingie. Please...take this crap somewhere else

[TheeBadOne]

This is not a "Cop thingie", it's about a fellow hunter murdered in cold blood (and it makes my blood boil).

[icequeen]

I know one thing for sure. We ain't never going hunting in Wisconsin. Man oh man they's dangerous down there.

My heart goes out to the family of that young lad. :(

[myEspringr]

Isn't this the anything goes catagory of the sight. How about all the differnt subjects that are talked about. Quit bein' a JackA** , no one forced you to read it.

[fabsroman]

That guy should be held without bond. With bond being set at $250,000, all somebody has to do is take out a second mortage on a house for $25,000, go to a bondsman, and have the bond posted. Am I right about that Andy?

As far as the shooter is concerned, if the ballistics match up on his rifle and the tape matches up with his voice, I think he should be shot with a .22 until he goes to hell. Too bad the constiution protects us against cruel and unusual punishment.

Again, people just do not want to face their mistakes. To kill another person and not even try to get help or carry that person out of the woods is pathetic.

[Lone Star]

I really cannot believe that y'all have gone off half-cocked on a news story. Don't we already know that half of the "facts" in many news stories are inaccurate or even made up?

Too bad the constiution protects us against cruel and unusual punishment. Now here's a "real" American, disin' the Constitution, for god's sake! Guys, get a grip and don't fall prey to what could turn out to be a BS story. Aren't we as Americans innocent until proven guilty? Doesn't anyone here respect the laws upon which this country was founded? Do we let news editors dictate guilt or innocence? :rolleyes:

[TheeBadOne]

http://www.buffalonews.com/graphics/2005/10/01/actualsize/1001taper.jpg

The shooter

[quigleysharps4570]

I can hear it now..."came from a broken home...abused as a child...raised by elderly grandparents...kids at school picked on him...turned to drugs and alcohol...scared and didn't know what to do...etc., etc., etc." Same ole, same ole.

[fabsroman]

Lonestar,

I definitely am not dissing the Constitution, and if you read the entire sentence (i.e., the beginning of the one you quoted) you would have read:

"As far as the shooter is concerned, if the ballistics match up on his rifle and the tape matches up with his voice,"

To me, that would be plenty of proof enough that he shot the guy. I guess he could always say that he was shooting at movement and didn't actually see the 18 year old walking through the woods. Just another black eye for firearms and hunters. There probably wasn't any malice in this guy's mind (i.e., he wasn't mad at the 18 year old and he wasn't arguing with him), but who really knows what this guy was thinking when he pulled the trigger twice.

1. Geez, I'm bored. Maybe I'll shoot this guy coming up with this puny .22 and see what it can do.

2. Geez. I have never killed anybody before, how about I cross that off my list of things to do.

3. Wow, that squirrel is running pretty fast, but I think I can catch him. POW POW. Oh crap, I think I just shot that guy.

And I can go on and on.

At the end of the day, you are right about us not knowing all the facts. As most people on this board can tell you, I am big about knowing all the facts and I don't think a person can get a good idea of all the facts unless they are present at the trial, and even then, I don't think all the facts come out at trial because the defendant is trying to cover himself and there aren't always witnesses. If the accused's reason for shooting the 18 year old is either #1 or #2 above, do you think he will say that in Court?

What I am more irritated about is the fact that he didn't try to get help. He didn't comfort this 18 year old as he passed away in the woods ALONE. He shot him and took off to go to FUN events. Granted, maybe that account of the facts is wrong, but I doubt any of us will ever know exactly what the facts are in any of these cases.

This is what is wrong with society. Nobody wants to take responsiblity for their actions and nobody wants to help their next door neighbor.

[skeeter@ccia.com]

Now if it were true that a spanking or any of the things that were done to correct you as a child like sitting in a corner would make ya want to kill someone or do drugs when you got older, look out world..I have lots of work to be done...My mother taught me how to run fast enough that I ended up winning a blue ribbon in the 100yd dash at school...like the morning our new dog (cookie) deposited some 'cookie dough' on the living room floor and I asked my little brother what is that?..when he said he didn't know, I had to tell him to smell it and see what it was...well what do you think a big brother should do when the little one put his face over the 'dough'?...yep ..I did...and it didn't take him long to figure out it didn't belong on his face..now the screams and crying woke the 'wolf '.....another race around the house was in progress..at this time I could have won the daytona 500. All the scratching and clawing at everything and dragging the rugs behind me as I was headed to the 'dough' didn't change a thing..but being as smart as I was...I only got an ear full....lmao..no wonder my little brother hates me to this day..maybe I should keep an eye out for him too..I'm sure this added up to his wanting to shoot someone......It all boils down to "good sense"...no such thing as 'common'....we all know we could have shot something we shouldn't have while hunting because it looked so much like what we were hunting for but the 'good sense' and proper training....thanks dad.....said DON'T PULL THE TRIGGER UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SHOOING AT......I don't know the facts either but I can't see how 2 shots could be a mistake....be it another hunting accident or intent..the anti gun media will point out the 'gun' word every time...like if a drug deal goes bad and someone gets stabbed...they used a 'hunting' knife ....and a note to mom...thanks for all the corrections....it hurt then and it doesn't make me want to kill somene now..but who in the he?? ever came up with this kind of defense in court?...my mom spanked me....maybe theirs didn't enough..the world has gone to pot...

[popplecop]

The Grandfather of the young man that was mudered was afriend of mine. We were Conservation Wardens together. The newspaper article is accurate. I can not for the life of me understand what goes through someones mind to do something like this, it defies logic.

[Rocky Raab]

Popplecop, irrational acts are performed by people who are not rational.

So things like this will never make sense to you or me - because we ARE rational.

[Lone Star]

I definitely am not dissing the Constitution, and if you read the entire sentence (i.e., the beginning of the one you quoted) you would have read... I think that you mean the previous sentence, not the start of the sentence I quoted. If you actually read what I wrote, you'd see I quoted your entire sentence with no editing.

What bothers me is the general lack of concern for law I occasionally see on this forum (not from you in this case) - some here would like to forget the law and issue summary justice without a trial. THAT is against the Constitution. One cannot have it both ways, insisting that the 2nd Ammendment MUST be preserved, then just toss out the 5th Ammendment because one doesn't want it to apply in an emotional case. That is what the liberals do, not us constitutionalists.

Hey, IMO if the guy is guilty he should pay as much as the law allows. But vigilante justice is no better than no justice at all. Remember the movie The Ox-Bow Incident? That behavior is a slap in the face of the Constitution, and tragic too. Remember too that what is reported in a newspaper is seldom what is submitted as evidence in court.....

[LoneWolf]

Lonestar,
While I agree with most of what you say, I think a couple of things need to be said.
1. I think nearly all of us here are plain fed up with thte judicial system and its minimal sentencing, or even finding the guilty, guilty.

2. I imagine it is this thinking that pervades our thoughts when we write about "vigalante justice" practices we wish were carried out on these perps.

If the punishements dealt out fit the crime, I see that as much more of a deterent.

[fabsroman]

Lonestar,

You are correct, you did quote my entire sentence. However, I am sure you got my point from what I wrote. I make mistakes too every once in a while.

I also agree with the Lonewolf's post. Too many people are getting too light of sentences. However, being a judge and giving out a sentence is a tough thing to do. I equate it to something worse than refereeing a basketball game, which I did once and hated.

Last Monday, I had a client in front of a judge for sentencing on a Violation of Probation. He was on a one year probation for a DUI and in that one year he plead guilty to a Disorderly Conduct Charge, Driving on a Suspended License, and Malicious Destruction of Property less than $500. The judge sentenced him to 30 days. I asked to provide mitigating circumstances and almost had the judge change his sentence. See, my client is a single father of 2 boys, age 10 and 8, whose mother has absolutely nothing to do with them. He is a small business owner (i.e., granite fabricator) with 10 employees and a $17,000 payroll every two weeks. On top of that, he provided a personal guaranty on the shop's lease meaning that they can come after his house if he doesn't pay the lease. He is also the key employee of the business. He is the only person that has contact with the customers. Now, if you are the judge you have to deal with that. This judge thought about it for 2 minutes while he continued to review the paperwork and then he stuck to his guns.

A US Marshall shot a guy around here and was convicted of manslaughter. He ended up getting 15 years. The short of it is that he and the other guy, an enlisted Navy guy, got into a road rage argument. The Navy guy was drunk and the two ended up getting into a fist fight. The Marshall took out his gun and shot the Navy guy in the ankle. Reading the news articles, it makes it seem as though the Marshall was aiming for the guy's ankle. Mind you, the Marshall had several broken fingers and a broken trigger finger from the melee. After being shot in the ankle, the Navy guy got in his car and tried to leave. The Marshall contends that the Navy guy was trying to run him down and that was why he continued firing at him. Mind you, the death shot entered the Navy guy from the back and came out of his shoulder. So, does 15 years sound about right for killing a 20 year old drunk? The judge thinks so because the Marshall has a wife and two young children.

At the end of the day, we want harder sentencing and better law enforcement personnel, but we don't want to pay more in taxes. Essentially, we want our cake and we want to eat it too.

Our justice system isn't perfect, but it is better than any other out there.

I just read an article in a ABA magazine about how everybody gets pissed off at judges nowadays. At the end of the day, it is rather unfair to the judges. For instance, we are all pissed off about the Public Domain ruling by the Supreme Court, which merely left the situation up to the local and state governments. Hence, we should get in touch with our local and state representatives and have them pass laws limiting when Public Domain can be used to take somebody's property, but we don't. We just get pissed at the Justices.

I have thought about being a judge, but have decided against it. I would throw everybody in jail for fear that the one person I let go might kill an innocent person.

[skeeter@ccia.com]

Fabs....is it true there are people that sit in the courts to monitor sentences handed down such as MAD and a drunk driving case?..I have heard this and if the judge is soft on them, all he?? hits the fan....If this is true, where are those that watch out for the other crimes?...

[fabsroman]

Skeeter,

I have never seen anybody sitting in Court monitoring the sentences. Then again, I am not looking and wouldn't be surprised if sentences weren't monitored by somebody.

For the most part, the Judges are pretty decent with their sentencing in Maryland pertaining to drunk driving offenses. Several years ago, they received a lot of flack about being too lenient, so the legislature fixed that. If a person gets a second drunk driving offense within 5 years of the first one, the Judge must find the person guilty (i.e., Probation Before Judgment is not available) and the person must be sentenced to some jail time.

Generally, everybody gets a PNJ on their first one. The only thing that varies is how long the probation is for. If you blow high, you are looking at 18 months supervised. If you blow barely over the limit, you get 6 months supervised which turns to unsupervised after you complete a alcohol awareness program that can range from 12, 26, or 52 weeks depending on how they assess you.

Further, Court cases are public record for the most part unless a protective order is granted. So, MADD could look up the sentencing on any case any time it wants to.

[Valigator]

The largest group I know is Judicial Watch...it reviews rulings and makes a big stink about the "law gone Bad" so to speak...a judge doesnt want to find his name listed on that website...

Yes there are groups and individuals who moniter certain cases, especially high profile ones...MADD has a entire area devoted to sentencing in drunk driving cases.

Child advocates do the same ..I have sat in more than one courtroom and observed sex offence cases..