A trial has started in the case of a woman from USA who shot her husband while on a hunting trip to Newfoundland in 2006.

I am curious about what you think of the shooting.
You know, what was done wrong or right and how it might have been prevented.
Just the standard criticism of the events as described.

I am also very curious about what you think of the reporting on this trial.
You will likely notice the reporters have put quite different spins on it.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/09/12/harshbarger-trial-start-913.html

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100913/bear-trial-100913/

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100912/national/nl_hunting_death

Attempting to make a Monday afternoon armchair view/opnion on this incident is IMHO, pointless. None of us were there and none of us are privy to any forthcoming witness testimony.

The incident created a lot attention when it first occurred some 4 years ago. Even back then and still currently, the reporting was/is haphazard and every media outlet has had their own angle on the story....and the whole story has yet to be told to it's conclusion.

The telling facts will come out in the court case and I'd rather let the judge decide wether the woman is guilty or not.

Note that the trial is for negligence, not murder.
I think the guide should have been charged too, or maybe even instead.

Well, I think that taking the wife and kids on a shooting jolly was probably poor judgment by the victim. Women can be very competitive especially if the great white hunter has been bragging about bagging himself a Black Bear to his wife. Getting shot to death by the inexperienced adrenaline fueled irrational emotional competitive wife really doesn't surprise me. She probably did think her husband was actually a black bear in the gloomy woods just after sunset. She took her shot, it didn't pay off. Getting shot to death whilst taking a [censored] by your wife in front of the kids; the black bears in the area must have also been pissing themselves.

Are we seeing some transference issues? You seem to be generalizing facts not in evidence. . .

It has been advised that couples not go to sleep before any argument is settled.

We might add that you don't hand your wife a loaded gun before peace has been restored.

I can't imagine an intelligent comment other than "do not fire unless you know for sure." There is no do-over; you can't take it back. Anyone who doesn't fully understand this has no business with a loaded rifle.

Anything else (as noted previously) is pretty much gross speculation. A terrible accident or a Hemingway short; the courts will have to sort it out.

I suppose more facts will emerge during the trial, but it's easy to see how it could have been accidental. Inexperienced hunters often get excited and develope tunnel vision, and can exhibit incredibly poor judgement. And hunters shooting one another isn't exactly rare, it does happen.

The point of the trial is not, did she kill her husband. The answer to that is undeniably , yes, she did. The trial is to decide whether it was it negligent under the law. The other issues with her brother in law and family issues don't play into this case. That would be of concern if this was a murder trial but it isn't, it's merely was the killing negligent or not?

My humble opinion, yes, it was terribly negligent to have fired that shot. Per her own statements she did not even know what she was shooting at other than a "large black thing." She stated that the shot was fired after sunset and two reenactments showed she couldn't identify her target. That's negligent in my opinion at the very least. Not sure of the law but the court will decide soon.

That she profited from this accident, was under financial stress before it, and has since reportedly taken up with the victim's brother seems to me rather interesting. I guess the glove didn't fit.