Another idiot hunter shoots a deer dressed as an adult female, walking her 2 dogs no less. When handing out hunting licences maybe these great hunters should also be checked for brains.

The title of the article makes it sound like a hunter was injured rather than an innocent person who was walking her dogs. It doesn't sound like an accident to me. Someone who aims and shoots at another person, even if the shooter thought it was a deer, needs to be arrested and charged. I don't mind if people hunt, but the ones that hunt on our property, which is posted no hunting because we walk our trails with children and dogs, sure act like idiots.

Why have Norton police not released the name of the hunter involved. It's just a matter of time before we find Dick Cheney was roaming the woods last night. If it was kids drinking in the woods, Norton's finest wouldn't have a problem releasing the names.

Aren't hunters supposed to have wrapped up their day by that time according to state law? Shooting someone while commiting a crime doesn't get you arrested?

Deer hunting in MA is limited to 1/2 hour before sunrise or 1/2 hour after sunset (321 CMR 3.02(4)(b)3) (Sunset was at 4:22pm according to the National Weather Service), so if this woman was shot at 4:52pm it took almost 90 minutes for the Rescue squad and Police to arrive, because I saw them pulling in at 6:10. Do we have a case of an illegal hunting shot, taken after 4:52pm, or extremely poor emergency response?

I hope that the hunter is charged. First, he violated state law by hunting after dusk and secondly he did not use due diligence. Apparently, being a macho hunter is more important than the dignity of human life. And the deer he was hunting - at least he/she got away!

I'm pretty sure that it was an unfortunate accident. I just want to see this incident investigated by the police with the same diligence that they would had the shooter been someone other than a police officer.

It also begs the larger question of changing our local hunting regulations. The town is becoming more and more populated, and there are bound to be more incidents like this in the future. I live near where the shooting occurred, and I hear shooting over there on a regular basis. Other towns of our size have banned hunting or all shooting within the town limits. Maybe we should do the same.

This is the first I've heard that the shooter was a police officer. If that's true, it makes the incident all that more aggriegious. He should know the law and be more sensitive to the possibility of an accident.

All of you guys need to get your facts straight. If you knew the guy you wouldnt be saying any of that. IT IS AN ACCIDENT so stop saying it isnt! You need to get your facts straight and stop talking crap about the hunter because you dont know him.

It is a shame that people can comment without knowing the facts. I am talking about you Mr. Stoughton. The fire vehicle you saw was E-1 returning to the scene with equipment to help light the scene for the investigation. By the time you saw E-1 the victim was already at RI hospital. If you are who I think you are I am very surprised at your opinion on the quality and response of the Norton Fire Dept. I hope that once you realize the facts that you are man enough to apologize for your inaccuracies.

I stand corrected. My apologies to the NFD. I'm reporting what I saw with my own eyes. 4-6 police vehicles entering the property. I thought that I saw red lights on the property too, but maybe I was mistaken.

But my point stands. We do need to change our hunting laws.

From the TV news it looked like the shootoing took place within 500 ft of a dwelling ( that being a house ), what's the law?. Any hunters safety coase will tell to be absolutely sure where your bullet will go. Once fired there is no recalling that bullet.
He 's a state trooper and they didn't charge him? What's wrong with this picture?
If it was my wife, my lawyer would be right there at Norton PD.
He should also be suspended for not knowing to be responsible with a firearm.

This is a very stupid person. Of all people, a Trooper. He should have known better. As a hunter, you always make sure of your target and back stop. Once the slug leaves the barrel you can never call it back. This was no accident, it was a very stupid action by this person. A hunter carries big responsiblity especially in a very populated area. A slug can carry energy for many miles. There are always people walking in the woods enjoying nature. This guy is not a hunter. I hunt and I have taught my kids to make sure of the target and back stop before discharging a firearm, the shot once taken, can never be called back. This guy is an idiot carring a gun. I hope this lady gets herself a good lawyer and sue the heck out of him!

The facts are: he discharged his fire arm and shot a person ( women ).
What's his name and why isn't he in jail?

John Bergeron, age 50, of Norton. Both the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe are reporting Bergeron is a state police officer, assigned to Troop C out of Central Massachusetts.
Why he isn't in Jail? See above sentence.

Audrey, tell us your last name is Bergeron because you two would make quite the pair.

This is bull. Thought she was a deer? Wtf? I hunt and have an LTC, and I walk my dogs in the state forest every single day. While hunting and walking, we have seen and encountered deer in the woods many many times. No way you mistake a deer for a person or a dog, even a big dog, or TWO big dogs, unless your an inebriated idiot or impatient spastic a**hole! Bottom line, you just don't pull that trigger unless you are ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE about what you are shooting at and where the bullet will go if you miss. And even then, you still don't take that shot unless it is a kill shot that would bring the animal down! Just no excuse for this, and the guy needs to lose his firearm's lisence immediately. And this guy's in law enforcement? Great.

I walk my deer-colored dog in the woods all the time, often off Oak Street on the Mansfield side, but not between September and New Year's. My brother, a hunter, outfitted me with orange gear a long time ago, warning me not everyone shoots at something they KNOW to be legal prey. Apparently he is right. A responsible hunter does not guess at his target. If this innocent woman was shot in the stomach, a little higher and it would have been her heart. If she were a child, it could have been her head. All of us, dog-walkers, parents, and hunters, need to take this as a serious lesson.

Your a patient women Meredith. I too alter my regime during hunting season and cease walking my dogs in the neighboring woods for fear of this exact occurrence. I also believe there are responsible hunters out there, but why should my rights and safety take a back seat to a hunters?

I just heard the victims husband on channel 7 news indicate he too was a hunter and "accidents happen". This would not "stop him from hunting". Don't wish this on anyone, but better it had happened to him then his wife.

Accidents do happen. But most are preventable. This one was for sure. I wouldn't exactly call this an accident. I think the trigger was pulled on purpose...
Always wear your orange out there folks and be aware of the area hunting laws! Please. I see way too many out enjoying the outdoors in their grayish/white fleece unaware that hunters are out there with high powered weapons and some with little patience.
Someone mentioned it on here; hunting is legal within 500 ft of residences. I'm a hunter, and for me, that is way too close. I don't get these people hunting in the local parks and state forests even if it is legal. There are many places to go in the state where you can hunt and be way in the woods as it should be. Time to change this part of the law, and I hate to say that, but 500 ft is way to close.
That being said. This kind of stuff just should not happen.
Be safe out there. Glad this women is ok, way to close for comfort.

Bottom Line: It was a desperation shot. Taken from what the rest of you folks have said. He absolutly should have known better. I am a hunter but do not hunt deer. That being said I know full well one does not shoot at a deer's tail. One shoots at the front shoulders, front rib cage or head/neck. If one shoots a deer in the tail area then there is an 80% chance of wounding the animal and it running off. If I pulled this stunt I would expect to be jailed.

The Norton Police Chief declared the shooter innocent from the first interview. I have a hard time believing he had all the facts. If the shooter thought the dogs were deer then it was way too dark-probably after legal shooting light. Both hunting and the right to carry are very serious commitments that the shooter should give up!

I live in Norton and just about two weeks ago I called the Norton police department expressing concern about the close proximity two hunters were hunting in location to where I live. The hunters parked their truck literally two houses from my house. I went on to explain how I have a golden retriever and walk in that direction all the time, and was concerned that they were so close. I specifically asked what the laws entailed...the dispatcher's response was simply, "They're fine and they have to park their car somewhere..." This is not the first time I have been given an uneducated and unintelligent response from the Norton Police Department, with regards to matters of this kind. Needless to say, I am sure this is no reflection of all of the individuals that work for the department; however, that kind of disregard for safety should not be tolerated and should be reprimanded. A portion of the public may be naïve to what hunting is all about. Maybe by choice or just because the facts are not getting out there. All I know is, if people, hunters, carry weapons and can shoot and kill animals and God forbid a human being; it is the towns responsibility to make us alert and informed. Although I am not a fan of this particular "sport". I do respect the fact that the issue here should remain about safety regulations... With that said, I think anyone holding the shot gun needs to take some serious precautions before pulling that trigger.

That is a very concerning Kerry...I mean who is really in charge of hunting protocol in town?? I am sure if you had told them 3 kids were drinking in the woods you would've had 4 cruisers right away,

I wrote a letter to the Massachusetts Attorney General on this matter. We all should be writing the AG. This has to be brought up to the state capitol. What is taking place is wrong. The person shot could have been anybody from the public. This was a mishandling of a firearm and bringing injury to a person enjoying the woods and from my understanding, her property. The Norton police said that he was properly licensed, for what, shooting people? The town area is too overpopulated to allow this type of hunting to take place. A muzzleloader carries a lot of energy and go a long distance. A irrisponsible person, such as this one, can injure/kill and cause property damage. Hunting in these areas must be banned!
Write to the Attorney General and voice your concerns.

Getting the state to change their rules is like howling at the tide. The place to take up changing the rules is Town Meeting. While I have nothing against hunters, or their rights to hunt, their rights have to end where my right to live safely in my own back yard begin.

The town has grown considerably in the last 20 years or so. Many of our neighborhoods are now dangerously close to hunting areas. I don't know if our local hunting regulations have been updated in that time, but with more an more houses being built, it's time to revisit them. We're still rural enough that an outright ban may be overkill, but we should look at restricting hunting zones in town.

I agree with Mark. In fact, the Senate actually reviewed a bill last year that would REDUCE the currant law standards. I don't know how far it got, but it was well supported. Like other Towns, local bylaws are the way to go.

I just listened to the released 911 tape and it was very emotional. I'm sure it was released to aide the trooper as you can hear his pain and remorse, but I do not feel that releases him from wrongdoing. The victims husband also was reported today as seeking a more thorough investigation even though he believed it was an accident. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

This was no accident but an inevitability. The population in Norton is simply too dense for hunting to continue and to suggest that we need to wear orange between October and December while walking our own yards is ludicrous.
To protect their sport hunters are blaming this particular hunter. But he is experienced and a state trooper so he’s received more training than most trouncing through our backyards with shotguns. This was simply an accident waiting to happen. If something isn’t changed the next victim will be one of our kids.
Hunters have a tremendous lobby. Legislators will always side with whatever group they feel will keep them in office. I think the criticism is fair made earlier that we would have an army of cruisers come down to our neighborhood if kids had beer in the woods but a report that men armed with shotguns in the woods near our swing sets, golf course and walking paths is met with a terse: you’re fine lady. It’s huntin’ season.
I have no idea how those of us who listen to the terrifying sound of shotguns being released near our homes can stop this practice. But someone who understands the process needs to come forward. Then those of us with kids, who golf, jog and walk dogs need to find the guts to fight this intrenched belief that hunting deer in our back yards is some kind of American frontier, near religious right, as apposed to the deadly practice that it is.

I have written a few comments on this matter. The Norton Police has said that John Bergeron was properly licensed. Now the talk is about deer license. He mistook the dogs for deer. Well, unless you have a doe permit, you can not shoot at anterless deer. So besides shooting a person, did he have a permit for doe. If not, then he was poaching. He did not properly ID the game and did not check for buck or doe (if he did not have a anterless permit, which means he was NOT properly licensed). If I was a family member, I would be enraged the way the Norton Police is handling this. For the sake of the family and public, charges must be brought against John Bergeron and he has to answer to them in a Court of Law. This whole matter really gets to me the way I read/hear in the news how it is been handled.

Has this issue now died? Has the Norton PD grown a set and charge John Bergeron for his wrecklessness. As a trooprer isn't he suppose to be a competant person?
Maybe the Norton PD be up on charges for their incompetence?