this should have been left to a jury .not just some crown ,,,this is a plain case of carless use of a firearm ending in the death of a young family man .this is why we have jurys ...Dutch
this should have been left to a jury .not just some crown ,,,this is a plain case of carless use of a firearm ending in the death of a young family man .this is why we have jurys ...Dutch
Difference being, it happened on the rez.
Absolutely. I would think that there is easily enough evidence here to put it before a jury.Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchhunter
If it was your family member I wonder if you would feel the same!Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
Two sets of laws in this country
This Crown attorney has made a poor decision here. There were two charges laid here and any Crown attorney could prove the careless use charge. Sad message being sent here.
Agree..the city of Brantford should be asking if they are being properly served by George Orsini as Crown Attorney.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
He was charged with 2 offences, " criminal negligence causing death" with a good lawyer could be beat, but "careless use" charge should have never been dropped. Looks like a hidden agenda here.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
I don't think the law is very complicated here. A conviction would hinge on the element of intent, and for crimknal negligence the Crown doesn't have to prove what was in Johnathan's mind -- only that his conduct departed from a reasonable standard of care in the circumstances.
It is not a defence to say you thought it was safe. The test is objective, so the fact of an accident puts a burden on the accused to show that it happened despite reasonable care.
This one would be a real head scratcher, if you didn't pause to consider who Jonathan is....
Decisions to prosecute (or not) are not made by a sole Crown Attorney on a whim without input from the Crown Law Office,the Attorney General, The Office of the Chief Justice all the way to the federal Ministery of Justice. All of this must come together to arrive at the same conclusion before the motion to dismiss is heard. This is no easy feat and certainly should never be construed as a slam-dunk. If they all say there's no evidence to prosecute,then,there was no evidence of criminal intent which needs to present. Obviously,there wasn't,despite the legal analyses of the armchair lawyers,here. :rolleyes: