Printable View
An article in today's Toronto Sun says that Stan Jonathon has been charged in the accidental shooting death of another hunter in November 2012. Charges include Careless use of a firearm,Careless Hunting and Criminal Negligence causing Death (Firearm). This is something we all need to be conscious of while hunting.
I wondered what happened here. I even Googled this a few times over the past couple years and asked some Six Nations members - nothing seemed to be available. I have heard a few camp fire stories about the incident over the past few years, but that's it.
That took a long time - 2 years. From the original report - I was left wondering why no charges had been laid.
Its about tuckin fime. He either shot a comoflauged bow hunter or shot at a deer and was not aware of what was behind his target. Likely the first scenario. Regardless, this has taken a long time.
He shot a bow hunter with a 270 weatherby who I think was hunting up in Six Nations. Shot was about 350 yards. Not sure about any more details but there was no gun season going on. Just out looking for deer and shot a hunter at the side of the road in the back. High powered rifle so I think he should have the book thrown at him.
Is this the incident where a white Guy was shot on a reserve?
If so my fishing buddy was the victims friend. I was told by him that he had permission to hunt and the native Guy thought he didn't and fired a "warning shot"..
Yes that is true and a young father too.Quote:
Originally Posted by pmannat
That was my understanding of the incident too. Fired a warning shot but didn't realize how much the bullet would drop at that range.Quote:
Originally Posted by pmannat
This info from a close source;
The dead bow hunter was shot during an open controlled hunt on the reserve where rifles are used , he had permission from the land owner , but! the land owner should have been with him as this is required , the now dead bow hunter should not have been there at the time because of the controlled hunt "no bow hunting", and while he was there during a controlled hunt, he should have been wearing "hunter orange".
Stan Jonathan was apparently shooting at a deer which was seen by another person , the shot was around 400 meters, he did not see the camouflaged hunter in the fence line beyond, and it was Stan that discovered the dead bow hunter .
This is the story I got from a close friend of his, non native , it is a very serious and sever tragedy that I hope no one has to go through at either end .
Let us not jump to any unfounded conclusions , the truth will all come out in the courts .
I feel sorry for everyone invovled, but that kinda thing should never happen.
Either way whether it was gun season or bow season we have a man dead because someone shot from the roadside. Laws were not followed (by both sides ie no hunter orange, shooting from roadside, etc) and now there are legal consequences. I'm sure there are more facts that we haven't read yet but either way it's an incident that could have easily been avoided
The native rules differ from the hunting regs we all follow. I was told that the bowhunter was hunting a plot of land he had sole permission to hunt by thw landowner and that no one was given permission to hunt hia land with a gun. Also was told that the ahot was fired from a road.
Either way, it was careless and resulted in the death of a young man. I have no doubt that stan feels the pain of that day and will have that over his head the rest of his life. Ive met him and he is a stand up guy and does a lot for the community.
But he.deserved to be charged for his actions.
Jaycee, I believe that is a very sanitized version of the story at best. It is certainly the first one where I have heard it suggested that the victim did anything wrong or illegal. Anyway, I had typed a much longer reply, but think it would be best if we all just let the facts come out at trial now that the charges are laid.
Funny how the story has multiple versions as a couple of years have passed.
This happened 5 -10 miles from my house. The bow hunter was hunting on reserve land during bow season and was not required to wear orange. Stan shot him at a distance of about 300 yrds with a .270 Weatherby magnum from the road thinking he was a deer. Stan being a native was shooting with a rifle legally and made a terrible mistake.
I think the "warning shot" theory is inaccurate. It just doesn't make sense. What was he warning him of? If he fired a warning shot and killed him then he should be locked away for a very long time. I think he just made a mistake that will haunt him for a very long time.
I also have met Stan Jonathan multiple times and he is not a crazed nut bar. As said earlier, he is a solid stand up good citizen that made a terrible mistake.
Many sources have told me that at the time of the shooting, the controlled hunt was on the reserve lands, which during that time there is "no bow hunting"Quote:
Originally Posted by Roper
It will all come out during the trial.
is there really a controlled hunt on a reserve?
That's what I was wondering.Quote:
Originally Posted by ysyg
2 fricken years to lay a charge? There has to be a lot more to this story than what some are speculating.
I don't remember it that way, I thought he was charged and a 10k surety shortly after the deed.
I have a lot of friends on the reserve and thy hunt deer all winter with any gun thy want ,the guys I know us dogs and shoot all bucks .thy us center fire rifles ,I never heard of a controlled hunt on the reserve Dutch
He was using a 270 weatherby . So doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ysyg
From what I understand Stan shot this rifle from the road in his vehicle. Is that true?
Regardless of the actions of the victim, Mr. Jonathon is responsible for his actions. Whether or not the victim had a bow, or was dressed in orange is immaterial. Had it been a hiker, dog walker, or your kid climbing a tree dressed in 'fashionable camouflage', the result would have been the same. Ask yourself if you would have taken that 350 yard shot.
Being a hunter, I don't walk the bush without orange, during hunting season. My brother doesn't hunt, doesn't care/know when hunting season is, and doesn't wear orange when walking his dog in the bush. The 'hunter orange' laws don't apply to him.
Although I'm quite sure Mr. Jonathon is one of the nicest guys I'd ever meet, he is still culpable. It is ridiculous that it should take 2 years to lay a charge. The law should apply to everyone equally, regardless of heritage, culture, or location.
Its my understanding that he made the shot from the road using his vehicle as a rest. I also recall that he was charged soon after the incident. Maybe they just changed the charge. Recharged?
IIRC,the original charge was "careless hunting" and "careless use of a firearm". The new criminal charges were just upgraded and added. It looks like the added charges were to make sure something sticks and he doesn't get a complete "walk".Quote:
Originally Posted by Roper
Askov anyone ? Lol
No kidding! Right to a speedy trial? I think not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
They'll end up throwing several charges at him so he can plea to the lesser charge. What is Kosids life worth?
im guessing a two year jail term. So very unfortunate.
yes. and in treaty territories.
The pinery Prov park for example has a native controlled cull. 30-30s, .270 etc are used.
Also. pending what treaty a band/nation is under, with landowners permission or conservation areas permits, some first nations can hunt and use centre fires.
Believe it or not, and i know alot of you will not, and thats your choice, but i DO know native hunters who hunt treaty areas and do not shoot people, dogs and actually do not shoot 8 to 10 deer. There are some who actually take two for their own families and sometimes 1 for there reserve food bank or soup kitchen to donate.
I also personally know of a non-native and native who hunt waterfowl, yotes and bunnies together.
So do not readily assume every native is a poacher or a threat.
Stan Jonathon was originally charged with Criminal Negligence Causing Death and Careless Use of a Firearm in December, 2012.
http://www.boston.com/sports/hockey/...xDN/story.html
The news from last week is not that he was charged, but that he has been committed to stand trial Nov. 20th. I don't know what the initial report Trimmer21 saw actually said, but....
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL.../22039261.html
It's not unusual for something like this to take two years to wind its way from the initial charges to the trial.
The minumum sentence for Criminal Negligence Causing Death when a firearm is involved is four years.
Dundas valley has controlled deer hunt where they are suppose to use bows only last. Last year I heard so many gunshots on a Sunday to boot. They were out shooting like crazy. I am not painting everyone with a brush but there have been a lot of poaching in the past and this incident looks like someone was careless with a 270 weatherby and shot someone in the back off a road.Quote:
Originally Posted by exocet
Any chance you heard Tamarac gun club in Ancaster?Quote:
Originally Posted by pbonura
sure Saturday morning I see them drop off on private property and shoot at 8 am. Please spare me the explanation. Is the club in the heart of Dundas and allow shooting everyday of the week. I have had some many bow hunters hear gun shots during the week in Dundas valley.Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntnfish
I can absolutely see it being a "warning" shot AKA "get off my reserve" shot. I'm sure everyone has heard stories of people being chased or physically beaten off a reserve or even know someone who has.
Look at the .270wby ballistics, it drops about a foot at 350 yards, so the guy was aiming directly at his head to have hit him in the back.
We all know what deer look like across a field, and we all know what hunters look like from across a field. I feel terrible for the victims family as they're not going to see any justice for this murder.
I couldn't agree more. To have shot a man in center mass from 350 yards means HE WAS AIMING AT THE MAN.Quote:
Originally Posted by x_xeon_x
No explanation, no excuses, no justification. There's not any hunter I know that would think about taking that shot.
MURDER, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
I actually grew up in Caledonia in the 70's and 80's and had several run-ins with the inhabitants of the Res.
Most of the 'Indians' I knew were great people. I certainly wouldn't paint them all with the same brush.
Saying he intentionally shot at him is ridiculous. He thought he was shooting at a deer. He committed the cardinal sin - did not fully identify his target before shooting. After shooting he went out to look for a deer and found he had killed this person. Then he called the police to report it. If he was intentionally shooting him he would have hopped in his car and left.
well with a 240 bee I am sure he had a good scope and a 350 yards a blind man with a good scope could tell the dif between a deer and a man .D
The victim was in the treeline, in camo. It's entirely plausible that Jonathan didn't see him clearly & shot at the movement.
More plausible than suggesting he volunteered for 4 years in jail to say "get off my rez."
So many different versions of the story but the version I heard and read was he was not hunting on a property he had permission on. He saw a deer or what looked like a deer and got out of his car took out his 270 weatherby magnum rifle and shot across a road at hit someone at 350 yards in the back. Now that is one hell of a shot or that bow hunter was just in the wrong place. But if these are these facts then the book should be throw at him. Now if I am wrong please correct me. That seems to be poaching and careless and someone lost there life for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Sunday now Saturday make up your mind, what's a Burlington boy telling me what happens in my town, buddy I drive at all different times as I am a shift worker please spare me your stories about lots of people hunting around here, i have yet to see one person with a bow or gun walking around, sure it happens but your chicken little approach is B.S and if you live hear I hear the gun club all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbonura
The Hamilton Spectator reported soon after the incident that he DID have permision to hunt on that reservation property.
Even if the victim was poaching (which he was not) how would Jonathan know at 350 yards if the person in camo was a native or not.
All you people with "I heard this, or I heard that" should get on line and read the original stories as posted in the Specator.
Peter Kosid, the victim, had permission to hunt on the property. Stan Jonathan did not.
Where is the club located?... Only gun club I know of is haha in copetown...Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntnfish
He may have had permission from the property owner , but I just found out today that a non native , MUST HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE BAND COUNCIL , did he have that ?Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Again , is this true ? haven't seen this in wring , was also told that the land owner must be with the non native while he is hunting on reserve property.
Also Stan Jonathan was given permission to go on the property with his ATV, he was told that it was too muddy to drive on with his truck, that is when he discovered that he had shot someone.
Only through time and the courts will we find out what actually is the truth, if the news media does not distort it.
All this gets away from the central question: was Jonathan negligent?
Nothing in Kosid's conduct can reflect on Jonathan's negligence. It doesn't matter whether he was allowed to be there. It only matters whether Jonathan properly identified his target.
It's true we won't know the whole truth until it comes out in court, and perhaps not even then. But most of these questions are meaningless anyway.
Jonathon pulled the trigger and aimed his firearm at a target that he wasn't sure off. The victim could have been just as easily a native as a non native. Bottom line is this, I could give a rats behind if Stan Jonathon is a nice guy and I'm certain that won't make the victims wife or parents feel any better. What Jonathon did was reckless, irresponsible and just plain downright stupid. The first rule of anyone who owns a firearm is to make sure of your target. He didn't and he deserves to spend the next 4 years in jail because of it.
Bingo now that is what us hunters and firearm owners should understand. Firing a high powered rifle off a road way against a target he was not aware is a big no no. Who cares if he had permission or did not. These laws apply to hunters and all firearm owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by stilchen67
Tamarac is located right along the escarpment, been there for a long time, I think it is quite expensive to join but I have never been there. HAHA is actually located in Ancaster as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbonura
Back to the OP. I hope they drop the "careless hunting" charge, if all that I'm reading is true, Mr. Jonathon was not really hunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
This article is somewhat different than the one I read in the Toronto Sun,but,the gist is somewhat similar. My understanding of the events,although through word-of-mouth and not official,is that Stan took a shot across a field from the side of the concession road at a deer moving into the tree line from the field and missed. The bullet passed through the woods,hitting the bow hunter who was well inside the tree line on the neighbors property in full camo and completely out of sight. It wasn't until later when Stan and his hunting buddies went to check for a blood trail from the deer he missed that the body of the bow hunter was discovered.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Some posters have stated that Stan deliberately shot at the guy because he was non-native. That's a terrible thing to insinuate. I would discount that rhetoric out-of-hand. The charges laid certainly don't bear that out.
Doesn't matter who did or did not have permission to hunt there. One man fired at an unknown target and another is dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
KNOW YOUR TARGET AND YOUR BACKDROP. Pretty basic gun safety that even my 7 year old knows.
Excuse me, but ....despite being on Res property, shooting from/across a road, accompanied/not by landowner, wearing camo or orange, trespassing laws, Indian or white man, bow hunting, treestand, "great guy", or WHATEVER....
....the bottom line is that A MAN SHOT ANOTHER MAN and killed him. Plain and simple. Don't lose sight of that.
It is a terrible tragedy and the person who pulled the trigger must be held accountable for his actions.
Like I said before... Would YOU have pulled that trigger???
Excuse me, but ....despite being on Res property, shooting from/across a road, accompanied/not by landowner, Band council, wearing camo or orange, trespassing laws, Indian or white man, bow hunting, treestand, "great guy", or WHATEVER....
....the bottom line is that A MAN SHOT ANOTHER MAN and killed him. Plain and simple. Don't lose sight of that.
It is a terrible tragedy and the person who pulled the trigger must be held accountable for his actions.
Like I said before... Would YOU have pulled that trigger???
I spoke with the victims mother today. She was in the courtroom in October when the evidence was identified. Trial is in 2016.
Jonathan said he shot a deer. The bullet went through the deer and hit the victim without knowing he was there.
Her son was walking in an open field about 20 ft from the treeline when hit. Time about 7:00am. After the shot he called his brother. His brother and a couple buds came to the site. 911 was called 1 hour after the shot. No blood or tracks from the deer were found at the site. Jonathans variabe scope was set to 3 power.
I would love to have the time to sit in on that trial.
Man, are our Courts backlogged or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Roper
Nope. Not backlogged. The system is simply broken. The nutbar that shot the 3 RCMP officers in NB earlier this year is tried, convicted and sentenced by now and this case is not being resolved until 2016. Different case and I don't want to hijack this thread but look at the massive amounts of time and money wasted on the Magnotta trial. Video evidence and we are trying to determine if he is "criminally responsible ". Who cares. Magnotta did it. Guilty. Shoot him. Next case please!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wahoo
Something is not right with our justice system.
A deer gets shot with a high power rifle but not one drop of blood and no footprints. By that one in a million coincidence it also hits the unintended target and the scope power is only set at three power. Can't help but view that story with a jaundiced eye.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roper
Stop spreading this filth, it's nothing more than hearsay and complete BS created by people who likely haven't even been on the reserve.Quote:
Originally Posted by x_xeon_x
I know quite a few guys on the reserve who I have become friends with after starting to ride my ATV out there regularly about 5 years ago. Some of these guys are the "wrong crowd" type who would do or know someone who would do what you've stated, yet they'd all laugh at you for making such a stupid comment.
The only time people get chased off anybodies land and/or beaten are those who are trespassing and/or stealing.
You agree that on that reserve there are people that would do that. How is the comment stupid if it's also something you believe to be correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by ch312
You need to explain this better. It makes no sense,whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by ch312
This is what happens when regulations that apply everywhere but reserves don't happen on reserves . First and foremost Stan shout the hunter from the road, when you see a deer and jump out and shoot it it's pretty tuff to see a bowhunter in the 15 seconds before the shot. 2nd there's a reason high powered rifles are banned in most of southern ontario except of course reserves. It's just a shame a non native was shot. If natives accidentally shoot enough of each other their bands might realize they need to change their ways and adopt the safety rules everyone else lives by.
They shouldn't have to stop using high powered rifles because that's a part of their heritage. How else do you think they were able to survive by hunting deer at long ranges across bean fields from their pickup trucks 500+ years ago? Certainly not by the Europeans "stick and sinew" invention.Quote:
Originally Posted by Monster29/66