Charges dropped against former NHLer Stan Jonathan in hunting death

Sort of makes the prelim a waste of time. I wonder what the crown told the victims family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angus

Sort of makes the prelim a waste of time. I wonder what the crown told the victims family.

---

I'd like to be the fly on the wall to hear that conversation,too. The silence is deafening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

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?

---

Different charges. That hunter was charged with manslaughter I believe. I don't remember if there were careless use charges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

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?

---

Kickingfrog has it.

The charge was manslaughter, not criminal negligence or careless use of a firearm, and the matter went to trial.

Obviously the burden of proof is higher for manslaughter yet in that case the Crown did not fret over a lack of evidence.

I wouldn't say that most people took the hunter's side, either. Many people felt it was obvious carelessness, IIRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by last5oh_302

What happens on the rez stays on the rez.

---

Like people dieing?

I dont understand this outcome at all. If hes admitted he pulled the trigger, what is the problem?

According to a recent article in the Hamilton spectator, his lawyer was able successfully raise enough "reasonable" doubt to get him off. His argument was that he actually did shoot at a deer. The bullet passed through the deer and hit the victim. When they went to retrieve the deer which they saw go down, they found the victim. The defence also produced a witness that apparently saw a deer in the area later in the day that was acting strangely giving further support of the defence's theory. Even though natives aren't legally bound to follow the rules, it is unbelievable that someone would shoot from the road with a 270 Weatherby Magnum just outside of Hamilton during bow season to begin with. Common sense alone should dictate negligence on the part of the shooter IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surf and Turf

According to a recent article in the Hamilton spectator, his lawyer was able successfully raise enough "reasonable" doubt to get him off. His argument was that he actually did shoot at a deer. The bullet passed through the deer and hit the victim. When they went to retrieve the deer which they saw go down, they found the victim. The defence also produced a witness that apparently saw a deer in the area later in the day that was acting strangely giving further support of the defence's theory. Even though natives aren't legally bound to follow the rules, it is unbelievable that someone would shoot from the road with a 270 Weatherby Magnum just outside of Hamilton during bow season to begin with. Common sense alone should dictate negligence on the part of the shooter IMHO.

---

This guy could raise the "aliens did it" defence and get away with it. I am not saying it was aliens. But it was aliens.
Our lawyer system is a joke. There is no justice. Extraterrestrials make more sense.

Pretty cool precedent they set here, or maybe that is why they didn't want it to go to trial. So someone without Stan's background can't use it.

Some things just leave you speechless.
At the end of the day no matter what anyone thinks may/may not happened...it is on us to.
1) Identify our target....If I shoot an elk, thinking its a WT...do I get off?
2) Check our back stops.

I sincerely doubt if I pull the trigger and even "if" I hit a buck, if it goes and goes and kills a child............

Politics, names, "different" rules....Not going to speculate on.

How this didn't atleast go to trial on a minimum of careless.....

And it sends a very bad message regardless of the specifics/speculations to the non-hunters, anti's as well.....


Unreal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

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?

---

The way I read it was there were two charges against this guy. The lesser of the two is the one I'm shocked by. If the crown can't make the charge of "careless use of a firearm" stick in this case, then I can't think of a situation where it could stick. This law is there so people don't get injured/ killed by people being careless with a firearm. I think we all know the reason why the charges were dropped.

OK,so,let's talk about the elephant in the room. Is it the general concensus that (i) Jonathan "got off" because he was a First Nations member and former NHL star while the victim was a white guy hunting on the "rez" or (ii) the Crown withdrew the charges because they were afraid to prosecute because Stan is First Nations and a former NHL star and they didn't want to "raise a stink" with the natives?
Someone will have to show me proof that that's what's happening because I don't believe it,for one second,until they do and I don't mean with a bunch of half-baked theories and/or anecdotal nonsense,either.