Charges dropped against former NHLer Stan Jonathan in hunting death

What happens on the rez stays on the rez.

Like most here, even though it was an accidental shooting, I can't believe there was not a charge of careless use of a firearm going before the court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by delmer

Like most here, even though it was an accidental shooting, I can't believe there was not a charge of careless use of a firearm going before the court.

---

Especially with a guilty plea, he admits he pulled the trigger....there is no defense.

who says you have to show intent to have a carless charge and even more so when it ends in the death of a young family man.carless is still carless whether there is intent or not ,if you pull the trigger you are responsible for the outcome intent or not . to me carless use of a firearm is not knowing what you are shooting at or were you bullet is going to end up .we were always told that we are responsible for are actions and every pull of the trigger no matter what ,He pulled the trigger and ended the life of a man . .this is a clear case of carless use of a firearm .....I donot think this is over ,,,D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

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:

---

Really? No evidence of "careless use of a firearm"?? Maybe the armchair lawyers are right this time.

Evidence of criminal intent is not required.

The mens rea for criminal negligence is established by a marked departure from a reasonable standard of care. The reasonable standard of care is to identify your target and what lies beyond it. And the test for crimjnal negligence is objective, meaning that the acts are taken to establish the mental state.

Based on that, it's very difficult to see how there would be insufficient evidence here.

I'm not a lawyer, or even close, but if this case is not an example of "careless use of a firearm" then, I can't think of a time that it would be. Any examples out there of an example of careless use that WOULD warrant a charge more than this??

This is an insult to our justice system. I suspect lawyers could argue against Criminal Negligence, but also dropping the Careless Use of a Firearm is sick. Apart from not identifying his target (cardinal rule) - I read that the land owner Anderson stated nobody had his permission to hunt with a rifle or shotgun on his property.
What would happen to me if I shot and killed someone without premissoin to hunt. I'd lose all my guns, the vehicle I drove there and would be standing trial for all charges.
I'd have more to say on this subject but if I did the thread would be deleted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roper

I'd have more to say on this subject but if I did the thread would be deleted.

---

Many are in the same boat. There seems to be a silent consensus on the real reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ysyg

Really? No evidence of "careless use of a firearm"?? Maybe the armchair lawyers are right this time.

---

I don't know about that,ysyg. I seem to remember the case a couple of years ago where the activist lady in the conservation area was shot and killed by a deer hunter under almost the exact same circumstances. At that time,these thread posters seemed to agree it was a "just" comclusion. I can't tell the difference. Can you tell the difference?