Thank you science duck.  My point was that from the story itself we could not conclude much.  But if it was 100 yards, the transgression is very serious.  Facts help understand.  Too bad the reporter chose not to provide enough information to allow readers to appreciate what had happened.  From the comments here we see that readers make all sorts of conclusions without facts based on inferred but unsupported conclusions.

At 100 yards, the bullet's trajectory is mostly flat and if the bullet made it to the woman, the shooters likely were able to see her.  Shooting under such conditions is a serious offense akin to causing injury while driving drunk.

We do see, however, that the shooters claim not to have heard the woman, which contradicts implications in the pleadings that they did nothing despite knowing of the woman's injury.