Originally Posted by
welsh
There are actually two different versions of events here. This is the story from the Crown:
Orsini said Jonathan, 59, was out on Third Line Road in Ohsweken, Ont. on the morning of Nov. 11, 2012 when he spotted what he thought was a buck and shot at it from a distance of about 300 yards.
Orsini said when Jonathan went to retrieve the animal, he discovered it was a man who was wearing camouflage clothing.
Peter Kosid, 29, who was bow hunting in the bush, with permission, on an acquaintance's land, died after being shot in the back.
Orsini said Jonathan called 911, closed the victim's eyes, and he and his brother said a prayer for the man.
“There is no question he thought he was shooting a deer,” said Orsini. “It is a very tragic circumstance.”
This is the story from the defence lawyer:
Paquette said, “Mr. Jonathan wasn’t a bad man. He wasn’t intoxicated. He was hunting and believed he had shot a deer. The deceased was not expected to have been there. He was bow-hunting out of bow-hunting season. He had no hunter’s orange on. This was just a terribly unfortunate accident.
“I think, ultimately, the family advised Mr. Orsini that they no longer saw a need to prosecute Stan and Mr. Orsini...interested in their position...accepted it and elected to withdraw the charges.”
They blame the victim. And....
Hamilton lawyer Dean Paquette, who represented Jonathan, said Sunday that the case they presented during the preliminary hearing was that his client had sighted the same deer three times before he fired his rifle. He said Jonathan "shot a deer … and that the bullet that ended up killing Mr. Kosid had actually gone through a deer.
"He saw it go down … the practice is you don't approach a recently shot deer. He approached about an hour later, believing the deer would be there where he shot it. He had no idea Mr. Kosid was beyond where the deer was."
The brothers arrived with a trailer, expecting to pick up the dead deer. They found the camouflage-clad Kosid, called 911 and said a prayer.
Paquette said a deer carcass was never found, but a neighbour testified seeing a deer about 90 minutes later that "was not acting normally. It matched the deer that Stan had shot … It was acting as if something was wrong with it and we believe it was wounded."
The defence story doesn't have an air of reality, in my view. We are asked to believe something highly improbable on the word of the accused and his brother, with the only corroborating evidence being the word of a neighbour who believes he saw a deer that may have been wounded, during the hunting season. The court is not obliged to take this at face value, or to decide that it raises reasonable doubt, and I believe the court and not the Crown should have made that decision.
I disbelieve the defence lawyer's suggestion that the family asked for the charges to be withdrawn. In fact, the family has refused to comment.
The Crown seems to have decided that they can't prove he did not believe he was shooting at a deer. This is strange, because they aren't actually required to prove that. The suggestion made by their decision is that as long as you sincerely believe you're shooting at game, that's okay.
