solomon's words

solomon's words

Stoltz of Coudersport, PA

xxx

xxx

Do You Know: You can buy this marquee ad on Solomon's words for the wise for your business or event for only $10. per day! It's just one of the low cost advertising options available. Your ad is viewed 40,000 to 70,000 times every day. Email us for information on other ad locations.

E & G

Solomon's Auction & Yard Sale Page

Howard's Inc, Coudersport, PA

UPMC Cole

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Bear Hunter Justified In Killing of Landowner

Paul Plyler, and Hunting Party Members Will Not Face Charges

After investigating the incident that occurred on November 24th, state police say that they will not be charging Plyler, or the hunting party in the death of Frank Shaffer.

Frank Shaffer had originally chased Plyler and the hunting party off of his property at an earlier time in the day. Shaffer then found the hunters in a different location later on, and confronted the hunters.

After the second confrontation, Shaffer shot Plyler in the hand. Shaffer fired three more shots, one of which struck Plyler in the back.

Plyler returned 1 shot, and killed Shaffer.

State Police found that Plyler’s actions were justified.

More at BradfordPA.info

57 comments :

Joe Bob the Redneck said...

heck yeah....the guy has every right to defend himself if someone starts shooting at him.

Anonymous said...

Crazy and horrible situation....

Anonymous said...

If you are dead you can never tell your side of the story now cans you?
If one was not trespassing this wouldn’t have happened.

Anonymous said...

Schaffer should have called the police. Darwin would be proud.

Anonymous said...

I agree, there are two sides to this story. When a man tells you to get off his property, you get off! But we will never hear Frank Shaffers side of the story.

A ton of maybes, speculations and who knows.

It is sad that a man is killed on his own property.

They should of gotten off his property the first time.

Anonymous said...

Back to the Old West..

Anonymous said...

You FLATLANDERS!! Justify SHOOTING people in the name of trespassing? You have to be kidding me. Sounds like this wacko had it coming.

Anonymous said...

What part of "No Trespassing" don't they understand ???

Anonymous said...

I agree with 10:58 completely.

People should stay off of other people's property first off. Who knows what happened, who provoked first by raising a gun. Such a stupid and sad situation.

Anonymous said...

They should at least charge the idiots for trespassing...and if they hadn't done that, NONE of this would have happened.

Anonymous said...

Good Lord almighty! Is this what "hunting" is all about??? The actions by both parties are insane.

Anonymous said...

Oh come on are you kidding me? I don`t care if they were trespassing ... nobody has the right to shoot someone.... expecially in the back...thats just Cowardly...I feel sorry for the mans family of course no one should lose a loved one but give me a break!!!Life is way too short for this kind of nonsense!!My condolences to the family.

Anonymous said...

6:55 What in the hell are you talking about? Any chance you get you bash flatlanders. What do flatlanders have to do with this? If the story is correct, the property owner fired the first shot in the name of trespassing.

Anonymous said...

Buying a hunting license does not give an individual the right to trespass on someone else's property. These men created the incident by trespassing to begin with instead of using a little common sense and asking permission. They should be held accountable. They were fully aware they were trespassing. If after being told to leave the first time, they trespass again, it's criminal.

Anonymous said...

Am I the only one that sees the sentence that said "found them in a different location."? Would that not mean not on the property, but somewhere other than? Were the signs clearly posted so they knew they were on or off this unbalanced persons land? What harm are they doing, walking on dirt? Please. Yes, I do own land, and I am not obsessed about people using it as God intended. Just don't want you building on it. Or drilling-----:p

Anonymous said...

so, does this set a presidence for someone breaking into another persons home, getting shot by the homeowner and then killing him and getting off scott free?

Mr Reaistic said...

According to PA law, if someone attempts to enter your property, you have to try to remove yourself and family from the dangerous situation and call the police. You aren't allowed to use deadly force against the individual unless they intend to harm you or your family and you have no option. But...as poster 10:58 stated above..the dead tell no tales. I'll be damned if I'm going to leave my house and let a burglar have at it until the police show up.

Yosemite Sam said...

The story reads like the landowner went after the hunting group, shot the guy in the hand, they retreated even farther and the guy shot him in the back.. I think you would shoot back too! I'd be shooting after the I got my hand shot. I'm figgerin' the Law looked into everything and this is the factual story.. They probably know a little bit more about than you varmints.

Anonymous said...

look up the deceased's name, youll find he sought trouble before. lawsuit to get his conceal carry back, ask the locals about the deceased. it was bound to happen.

Mr. Wizzik said...

None of us know what really happened.

Were they on his property during the second encounter? It is not clear form the article.

Did Shaffer shoot Plyler first in self defense? How do we know what really happened?

The shot in the back is indicative of a man being shot while fleeing, but it could just as well have been two shots he fired immediately after Plyler pointed his gun at him and threatened him.

We don't know if that happened, but if that is the case, it certainly changes everything.

What if Plyler threatened him, raised his weapon and then Shaffer shot twice quick, the first hitting his hand, the second hitting his back as he (most likely would) turn out of instinct from being shot.

One vital question that is not clearly answered here is whether or not these folks were indeed on his property during the second encounter.

At minimum, it would be my opinion that they should have at least been charged with manslaughter, or negligent homicide if they were on his property the second time around.

Anonymous said...

As long as the Trespasser’s stick to their story there is nothing more the law can do.
Maybe a good Lawyer and a Law Suit brought before a Jury would show something else.

Anonymous said...

I would guess the family of the deceased will be taking up a civil case against the idiots who trespassed. Take them for everything they own!

Mr. Wizzik said...

You are 100% correct 12:52.

Anonymous said...

Let's just outlaw hunting totally so we don't have these problems!

Oz said...

9:12:00 AM & 12:51:00 PM You 2 are sooooo right!

joated said...

Since no one mentions it in the story, I wonder 1) was the property posted so the hunters knew they were in the worng? 2) Where is the property located? Was there hunting land adjacent to it so the hunters might have wandered across the property line in error?

Lots of "anonymous" comments with plenty of emotion and accusations. Do any of them KNOW what really happened?

Anonymous said...

Poster-3;36= Guns don't kill people-people kill people! Brad

ECO said...

One would think Law Officials could do nothing more. As for we live in Pennsylvania, which is a commenwealth. Laws state if charges dropped by individuals that the state can pick them back up and pursue them. Now my Understanding on the laws of Self Defense are. You are not allowed to justifiably kill another person unless it is a last resort. You are suppose to injure or subdue the suspect or criminal. These men killed this guy, and they should be held accountable, self defense or not. There was no justification at all presented for a murder. Why did they aim for the guys head when in turn the other victim was only shot in the hand or back? Once shot in the hand would make the guy turn around and the 2nd stray bullet would hit him most likely in the back when he started to grasp his hand from the gunshot wound. These guys killed him. Who cares about his past or present when you trespass you are committing a crime. I do not give a Rats Ass who any of these people are, but I believe they should get charged with Manslaughter. If this was You or Me, we would be sitting in a jail cell awaiting trial. Since this was a group involved I say charge them all with Manslaughter and Conspiracy to commit a crime. Murder is Murder! Why the Hell does the Pathetic State Police get away with claiming it was Justified. Yes this is a great case for a civil suit, as for the Men used poor judgement on their actions of trespassing and endangering the welfare of another Human Being.

Anonymous said...

Echo, Do you honestly think that if someone was shooting at you, you would say, hey I'm being shot at, I think I'll wound the guy and make him stop.

Give me a break.

If someone was shooting at me I would shot to kill.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Shaffer should of sighted in his rifle before going on a rampage!

Anonymous said...

ECO, it's not the pathetic State Police that decide if those guys get charged with murder, in the end the DA decides if there is enough to charge anyone with anything. Trespassing on someone's property, posted or not, does not give anyone the right to shoot someone in the hand AND back! That's when you call the pathetic State Police and have them charged for their violation.

You mean to tell me that the property owner had every right to fire first, shooting a man in the hand and back..... WHAT????

Listen to what you are saying..."should be held accountable, self defense or not." Walk in my yard...I have the right to shoot you?? According to you I do....you shoot me to defend yourself and according to YOU, YOU should be charged with murder!!


"You are not allowed to justifiably kill another person unless it is a last resort."- Last Resort??? I have no idea what your last resort is, but if ANYONE shoots at me, or anyone standing beside me you can bet your bare ass that I'm shooting back with the purpose to stop their action!! Let it be said: I would be terrified to think that someone like you actually ever "had my back!!"

Anonymous said...

ECO, let me first say what a pathetic way of thinking you have and a much more pathetic view you hold on self defense and the criminal justice system. May I never find myself in a life or death situation where I might need your pathetic ass to save me!

Anonymous said...

"Why did they aim for the guys head when in turn the other victim was only shot in the hand or back?"

ECO must be the new sharp shooter! That's right folks...someone shoots you, you better shoot them exactly where you were shot! Forget that whole issue of saving your life!!

Mr. Wizzik said...

Self defense laws actually changed (for the better) quite a bit in states such as New York a few years back.

"Let's just outlaw hunting totally so we don't have these problems!"

Lol, I hope that's a joke.

We could just outlaw driving, running, walking, and lots of other stuff too, then we'd be really safe! :)

DTM said...

i hate reading stuff like this all i c is two stupid people who shouldnt have been pointing guns at anyone in the first place(thats how i was raised, taught proper gun handeling)and now all this is going to create is another reason for more gun control because people have to act dumb.

ECO said...

Since there is so many Gun Loving Rednecks out there. I think it would be nice if the Government took Guns away. Make you rednecks hunt the old fashion way like the Indians did with sticks, rocks, and self made bow and arrows to do your hunting with. All you people ever think of is, I need to protect myself I will shoot on first chance. There is third world Country Tribes that still use these "Old Fashion Methods". They do not carry guns, do you think you Rednecks could do that? I HIGHLY doubt it. You got to feel the power, the rage, and the thought of being protected by something that with your mental instability could be very deadly.

Oh and to Poster on Friday, December 11, 2009 7:13:00 PM EST It was the State Police who claimed it Justifiable not the DA. Read the story You Idiot.

To the other posters who said they would not want me to help them in a situation like this. You bet your ass I would not. You people do not deserve help if you feel Guns is your best protection.

I do not own a gun and I never will. I think they are poor excuses of protection. Do you idiots believe we live in an area where Gang members kill innocents, or people just kill people for the fun of it? No we do not, we do not even have any serious crimes around here.

One last thing You people think this is justified. Well why is it not justified to Kill a chester/pedofile after they attack your kid? They are endangering your child, and killing their soul. If you intervene and kill the piece of shit you will get charged. So what is the difference here, they started the attack, you finished it and the Law takes you away. What a Screwed up Law system you people back.

Anonymous said...

I agree that people should not trespass. HOWEVER, when you are walking through a wooded area, people do not put no trespassing signs. The trespassing signs are on the property line going into the woods usually are they not?! Isn't it just possible, that this man thought he had moved off the gentleman's property only to accidentally wonder into at a different location for lack of signs being in the middle of the woods????

Regardless it is a sad situation, however if someone shot me in the hand and in the back, I would turn around and shoot to save my life as well.

With that being said, my thoughts and prayers go out to both victims and their families in this tragedy!!!

Anonymous said...

ECO! For a long winded, loud mouth tree hugger, you'd think that you would have SOME clue. Did you ever work for law enforcement??? It was the DA that decided not to charge these guys. I don't have to read it in the article to know that every county works that way! So before you call someone an idiot, have a clue!!

I find it funny that someone who agree's that if you shoot me in the hand and back and I return fire to save my life I am now a redneck. I think that you put a little spin on a few lines in that article??!!

Hey, go get a rock and stick and see if you can come up with a better Law System....

ECO said...

Saturday, December 12, 2009 10:53:00 AM EST

For a Long Winded Pole Smoker You seem to think you know shit. The story says the Police Claimed it Justifiable which means they gave the final word. The Da probably had little to say about it. The police went with their investigation. The DA was just informed of what happened. Now if the DA would have claimed it Justifiable the Report would have been from the DA not the Police.

Anonymous said...

ECO!! What the.... having tried to make sense of any of your posts I have given up!! You win, I can't compete with your thought process, just to intellectual for me.

One quick point: the State Police collected the evidence and interviewed everyone involved. They then take that information to the DA, the DA then says if there is enough say a crime has been committed. If the DA says no, the Police will advise that the shooting was justified. I missed that part in the article that said that the Police gave the final word. Oh yeah, it wasn't there!!

Second point: There are two types of people! One that takes control of a situation and fights for their life and one that stands there and pee's their pants. I wonder which one you are?? hmmmm

ECO said...

Saturday, December 12, 2009 1:40:00 PM EST

I bet you pee your pants. Oh wait you carry a gun. My bad, your a rebel waiting for an excuse to shoot someone. You get all pissy over my comments, and that makes me believe you are the piss your pants type of person. No matter what was justified or not noone deserves to die over a stupid Hunting venture. All you rednecks think alike. I got my gun and noone will stop me from doing what I am going to do to defend myself with it. Be a tough guy drop your gun and think is it really justified that someone had to lose their life over a stupid game animal? Them idiots would not have gotten shot if they could read a sign. I guess they were too stupid for that now eh? Too bad it was not a relative of yours who got killed then you would realize the loss.

Anonymous said...

I just couldn't stand it any longer.Had to throw in my 2 cents.
Someone opened fire on someone else.(Bad plan)This guy shoots the other.(twice)The person he shoots,although seriously wounded,decides he should return fire or most likely be killed.Unlike the person that started the gun fight,the wounded man kills the the man that shot him.Self defense,no brainer!
Should this person have been trespassing? No. Is this a shooting offence? Only to someone with pretty serious stability issues.
Trespassing,hunting,and guns are not the issue here.This individual was in need of mental health care.A shame he is dead and another harmed before he could get it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Let's just outlaw hunting totally so we don't have these problems!

Friday, December 11, 2009 3:36:00 PM EST

R U fricken serious???? Someone was defending themselves so take it out on the rest of us hunters? Like the other poster said, lets just take away driving, walking, alcohol, and everything else.

Anonymous said...

Let the record show that I am throwing up the white flag to the guy that will get shot twice and put his gun down to think about the situation. Hope I sleep tonight!!??

"Them idiots" the last example I need of our VERY different playing levels!!

Anonymous said...

ECO... are you for real. Ok manslaughter, I can see what you are getting at with that charge (NO I DON'T AGREE) but conspiracy to commit a crime?? Do you even know what conspiracy means?? That basically means they planned to do this.

I think you are a idiot!! First of all, if someone shoots me in the hand and back, I'm sure as hell not going to aim at his hand when I shoot back. I actually am not sure I would be aiming at any specific body part but just him in general. In addition, the man was shot in the hand and the back, I"m sure firing his gun was a lil difficult to begin with.

However, yes trepassing is a crime, but one that should have led to this. DEFINITELY NOT!!! At either rate, this man did do this in self-defense and most people, not by choice would have done the same thing. I know I would have.

And you are talking about what should or should not have happened and the charges this person or people should get. Do you not think that this guy is probably having his own issues dealing with this? Knowing that he was justified in doing what he did but in doing so he still killed someone??

Anonymous said...

11:59 I agree!!! ECO's argument of manslaughter is "interesting," but once it went into conspiracy, gun control, rocks and sticks to hunt, and shooting someone only in the body part that they shot you, I realized that the real issue here is if ECO is on any medication. If not, he should be!!

ECO said...

ECO... are you for real. Ok manslaughter, I can see what you are getting at with that charge (NO I DON'T AGREE) but conspiracy to commit a crime?? Do you even know what conspiracy means?? That basically means they planned to do this.

Pre-Meditated means they made plans and thought it out before acting on doing it. Conspiracy means they had involvement in the crime, knowledge, or self involvement. I thought you were smarter then that.

I have all reason to believe you are the idiot. Know more about your laws before you try telling me what they mean.

Anonymous said...

•a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act.
•a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot).
•a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose.

ECO, all three are definitions of conspiracy per the dictionary. As you can see each sentence states that there would be "plot" or "secret agreement." That means that conspiracy is planned between parties prior too the crime.

One thing that you need to learn is that when you have been beat and made a fool of the best thing to do is walk away.... see ya!

"I have all reason to believe you are the idiot. Know more about your laws before you try telling me what they mean." Insert foot into thy mouth!! Hilarious!!!!

Anonymous said...

How you people have nothing better to do with your day then sit on the computer and argue about stupid shit come on state police said no charges give it a break deal with your own issues before you pass judgment on others. The hunters have to deal with what happened and so does the family everyone just needs to get off the kick, if we didn’t have people who hunted the bear and the deer we would have an over population of them. Think before you open your mouth. People in potter county need to get a life. I don’t hunt but ill be the first to eat what is shot its called food and with prices the way they are now got to do what you got to do. Get over yourself ECO

ECO said...

Ok Mr. Law heres a question for you. You and a friend are driving down the Highway. you got 1 pounds of Cocaine on you. Only you know that the cocaine is there. Your passenger has no knowledge of it. Now why do the police charge the passenger with conspiracy if they had no part in the Plot? Answer that and it will show all your definitions are based on Pre-Meditation. So Googling or Dictionary Pastes is not how the Law Works. Learn from a better source then dictionary.com or google. All states have different laws for different crimes, which also on federal levels vary with each law. You probably will not find that in Dictionary.com though. You little proof parade copying and pasting does not mean shit. Just shows you look for information on the net instead of knowing the real laws.

Anonymous said...

never argue with a fool. they will only drag you down to their level then beat you with experience!

Anonymous said...

Again Eco, you are the idiot. If you know about the laws, you will find that the passenger with no knowledge of the cocaine will not get arressted if he can show honesty in not know it is there and/or the driver admits that the passenger knew nothing about it.

Wow, what a law enforcement officer like you would do to this country!! Get over yourself, you've lost and know NOTHING about the law.

Anonymous said...

1:04 the better source that I can learn from ECO is myself. I've worked in the law enforcement field for YEARS. Having previoulsy explained things to you (the pathetic PSP or the DA) I realized that you're in your own world. SO this time I gave the the dictionary defenition of a word you are using incorrectly, and still you argue that?? How many years have you worked in that area to have all of the answers that you have??!!

I need to point out to you that every argument you have seems to revolve around some stupid question that makes no sense anyway.

As to your question: If they charge the passenger with conspiracy then they have a lot of evidence that says so. Meaning they can prove that the passenger KNEW it was there..... If they can't prove that he isn't charged....

You can't make up a fantasy story and then warp that into an educated, knowledgeable opinion. That's what a 2nd grader does when they are trying to figure out how the Tooth Fairy works.

Come on...move along. I'm sure that there is an article about spave invaders on here that you might know a few things about.

ECO said...

What the Hell is a Spave Invader retard? Your definitons from the dictionary does not mean shit, just that of what the dictionary states. Do you use the dictionary to figure out how to put hand cuffs on a person you arrested? Did they teach you to use copy n paste from dictionary.com in the academy? Seems you need a better education if you were in Law Enforcement. This will be my last post on this subject as you idiots think you know all, and all you can do is state definitions from the dictionary. Show me the Actual law definition from Law Books then I may believe you are not an Idiot. Quote and Cite the definition and source of the Law Book. Then maybe I will believe you other then what I have seen Police do with my own eyes to people who had no Motive or no part of any Plot. Experts like you should be able to provide this information, so stop crying about my comments and do it.

Anonymous said...

HEY ECO An Article from the pittsburg tribune states that the hunting party was confronted the second time by the land owner near the property line that the party was vacating AFTER after the land owner retrieved a semi-automatic rifle and fired 4 rounds at Paul who was walking away(note he was shoot in the back)who then turned and shot shaffer(the land owner) in the stomach (not in the head as some have speculated)please spend some time and get all the facts before you start all this bickering. yes! they should not have been on this mans property but they did not do anything to justify be shot at!! so in turn this man was shot and later died from his wounds! this was not an assasination but justified self defense the law is the law and they have spoken NO CHARGES WILL BE FILED! THE END! life sucks and sometimes there are sad endings and this is one of them.IF you don't like the laws go whine to your senator not us. but remember we all have opinions and we all can't be right all the time. argue the facts and express your opinions but stop all the fairy tale speculations!!!

Anonymous said...

"This will be my last post on this subject as you idiots think you know all, and all you can do is state definitions from the dictionary."

Translation: ECO is out of speculations to warp!

"Did they teach you to use copy n paste from dictionary.com in the academy?"

No, they taught me where to find answers: dictionary, crimes code, ect!

"Show me the Actual law definition from Law Books then I may believe you are not an Idiot."

Since I can't actually show you?! I can tell you the big secret of how to find it....(SSHHH) You google it....all the answers there big fellow!!!

"Your definitons from the dictionary does not mean shit, just that of what the dictionary states. Do you use the dictionary to figure out how to put hand cuffs on a person you arrested?"

This is my personal favorite!! Really this takes the cake!!! No, sorry...your dictionary might have pictures to help you out, but mine just has the definition. However mine does have the definition for ECO!! Really, I looked it up!!

ECO: Emotionally, Clueless, Orator!

Anonymous said...

To Monday, December 14, 2009 7:41:00 PM EST...
AMEN!!!