http://www.torontosun.com/2015/04/02...-hunting-death
Just saw it in the paper. Can't believe it. Speechless.
And then there's the real story.
As an aside, I'm heading out to the Burger Barn as we speak.
Go figure!
What a joke!
The guy stated he shot the hunter and yet walks? Welcome to Ontario where we let murderers walk yet jail someone for protecting their family.
Maybe the gangs could use this scapegoat when the next shootout occurs. "Seriously, we thought they were deer"
It is over and done with "finally" and there should be " no second guessing " the situation on this forum.
Stan Jonathan has been judged by many here , let him get on with his life !
The message this sends is: BLAST AWAY, FOLKS! Fear no punishment beyond that of your own conscience.
This is very sad.
Peter Kosid, age 29, was robbed of that chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by jaycee
say what .he admitted he shot the guy ,walked out held the guy closed his eyes and said a prayer over him ,,how is this not guilty of carless us of a firearm resulting in death ....how about shooting for a truck on the road .what about trespass to hunt...this is just not good ...D
"If you think it's a deer you're in the clear. Private or crown put it down"Quote:
Originally Posted by ninepointer
On a side note, if someone could please show me where I can find a camouflage deer. Just curious!
"In Superior Court on Thursday, Crown attorney George Orsini told the judge there wasn't sufficient evidence for a criminal conviction."
I'm puzzled with that - you have a dead person and a person that admits that they shot him. How much more evidence do you need?
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:
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.
Especially with a guilty plea, he admits he pulled the trigger....there is no defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by delmer
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
Really? No evidence of "careless use of a firearm"?? Maybe the armchair lawyers are right this time.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
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.
Many are in the same boat. There seems to be a silent consensus on the real reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roper
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by ysyg
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 Angus
Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Different charges. That hunter was charged with manslaughter I believe. I don't remember if there were careless use charges.
Kickingfrog has it.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
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.
Like people dieing?Quote:
Originally Posted by last5oh_302
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surf and Turf
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
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.
The only rationale I can come up with would be a botched investigation. That may be why the poor prospect of a conviction.....just a guess ! This whole thing doesn't pass the smell test to me ! He will hopefully pay dearly in a civil court !Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Although Jonathan is a native, I'd never considered race part of a puzzle.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Hadn't heard that part of the story before...Right or wrong - based on past handling of similar events, they don't usually pursue charges. Victim mistaken for game = charges. Victim hit when shooter was shooting at game = no charges. Not what hunter's safety teaches you, but I don't think the prosecutors take hunter's safety courses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Surf and Turf
all we can hope for is a civil law suite by the family for wrongfull death ,,I hope thy get a very good lawyer ,,Dutch
But run out your back door and fire a gun into the air because you fear for your life and they go all out...
and there is ample "precedence" of hunters not identifying, or shooting from roadways etc.
http://mnrwatch.com/man-fined-for-ca...while-hunting/
Took awhile to dig up the most famous case, thankfully these things are exceedingly rare.
from the horses mouth
"This is a horrible tragedy," said David Critchlow, provincial law enforcement specialist with the Ministry of Natural Resources, who attended part of the trial and was there for the verdict that was made Thursday.
I don't see much point in speculating why the charges were dropped. I'm speechless it didn't atleast go to trial atleast on careless and frankly do feel the hunting community was "let down by the crown" vis a vie the message it's sending.particularily to the non-hunters, antis. Had there been a trial and he's found not guilty....it's "all good".Quote:
Critchlow said most hunters are highly educated about their sport and it's an extremely rare situation where a hunter doesn't follow the basic "cardinal rules" of hunting. Those include never point a firearm at something unless you are ready to shoot; and be sure of your target and what's beyond and beside it.
Guilty/not guilty...who knows...that should have been decided by...The optics if nothing else, now as a result...
the old case
http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/200...touches-others
So Stan and Mikey Bryant go road hunting...... think of the carnage ! lol
Maybe it was a "spirit" deer Stan let loose at ? ( Spirits might have played a part ! )
Gotta laugh.
For comparison?
http://www.nugget.ca/2015/04/07/hunter-loses-toe
Sorry Trimmer, but I never mentioned anything about the shooters name, race or past job. My only question for you is .. do you think that a "careless use of firearm" charge should have been tried? If your answer is no, then when would this charge be worth making?Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Are you maybe off your meds trimmer? On this thread you seem to be ok with a guy shooting at a "mystery deer" and killing a guy and walking away with no repercussions yet on the other thread on careless hunting you're all " good, throw the book at more of these guys"
Had he known that another hunter was even in close proximity to the deer he swears he saw (which was backed up by witnesses) and still took the shot,then,that would be careless hunting and/or dangerous use leading to criminal negligence cause death-at the very least. According to witness interviews,that wasn't the case. Right or wrong,that's the evidence upon which the court must rely. As such,and because the victim was effectively invisible,the only inference that can be made would be coincidental and accidental. Benefit of doubt goes to the accused. Don;t forget that the Crown withdrew the charges. Mr.Jonathon wasn't acquited,therefore,if more information becomes available at a later date,charges can still be re-laid.Quote:
Originally Posted by ysyg
LOL. No,I'm not off my meds. Your assertion that there was a mystery deer isn't correct. The deer was recovered,but, at the same time,the victim was also found by the hunting party. Nobody saw the victim,either,before or after the deer was shot. Make no mistake.Quote:
Originally Posted by M_P
I'm the very last person that would be "alright" with someone walking away from this. There was never an intention to deliberately hurt or kill someone that was ever entered into evidence. Witness evidence corroborated the events. It appears that the Crown Attorney made the only decision he could make under the circumstances.
Interesting part of not having a trial is that now everybody, including the lawyers, can offer "facts" that don't have to be or can't be proven.
Not really. As i pointed out,there wasn't an acquittal. The charges were only withdrawn and can be re-entered. Rumors and "facts" need to be substantiated or risk becoming libelous or slanderous. Everyone needs to be careful what is said and by whom,especially the lawyers.Quote:
Originally Posted by kickingfrog
this is the first I have heard about a deer being recovered .the shooter says nothing about finding a deer when he found the victim.he and his brother held the guy closed his eyes and said a prayer over him ..nothing was said about finding a deer ..D
No deer was recovered.
Please post a link that says the deer was recovered. The only thing I have read is that a local saw a deer acting strangely...
during November. :confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kickingfrog
Quote:
Originally Posted by ninepointer
Quote:
Originally Posted by one shot scott
"Facts"
End of the day, a man shot a rifle, a man died. Cut an dried careless to me. Crown has no stones so Stan walks. It isn't right.
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.
I don't for a minute believe there was a deer either. That was just an excuse and a poor one at that.
If the bullet passed through a deer and then struck the victim would there not be deer dna on Mr Kosid.
I think it was standing on a grassy knoll....:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
One would think so. Additionally if the bullet had already passed through a deer it would have expanded and/or fragmented and the entrance wound on the victim would have different characteristics than if the victim was hit first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter John
I have changed the story a little and if this what what the defense lawyer had come up with I would have found it a little more believable. 2-1/2 years after the fact we now hear about a pass through shot killing the victim. Yep. i believe it.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
this out come makes me sick, i think i'll just go and puke now
Obvious question.
Lets accept the version there was a pass through (which still imo leaves careless open for not ensuring its a safe shot) and the OPP arrive, and start taking notes.
Why is it, theres no mention of the OPP verifying a blood trail?
If I'm the defense counsel, would you not include that and line up your ducks. Cant, refuse to believe we have key stone OPP who when a human is shot and killed and the shooter says "But I shot a buck"….they wouldn't attempt to find the trail and verify it's existence………or not.
Here are The Spec's storys about this:Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/55...hunting-death/
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/55...n-lawyer-says/
Good points welsh. I think this should be going to trial (and it may still but I would be surprised). There are way too many holes in the defense's explanation when logic is applied.
So Jonathan sighted the deer three times and then shot. He saw the deer go down but when he and his brother went to retrieve the deer, there was Kosid in camouflage (he was out deer hunting). Now the defenses story is Jonathan didn't see Kosid when he shot as he was behind the deer and the bullet passed through the deer and hit Kosid. Kosid was shot in the back (this fact is where this explanation falls apart). So Kosid was close enough to the deer's location where it went down for the brothers to find him when they went to retrieve the deer (according to the defense the deer went down and Jonathan noted where it went down) but wasn't close enough to be spotted when Jonathan sighted the deer three times. Put on top of this Kosid was shot in the back so Kosid was close enough to the deer to be hit by a pass thru and not seen but he was also facing away from the deer while deer hunting? How close can a hunter in camo get to a deer while walking backwards (or away from) it?
This doesn't pass the stink test at all. Why Orsini is withdrawing the charges based on the defenses explanation of the events when there are such glaring holes in the explanation? The story doesn't say. I think the people have a right to know why the crown attorney has deemed this explanation reasonable.
Dyth
There is nothing that can convince me that this is a cover up of the truth.....1....was Stan using a scope or open sights.....surely using either you can tell the difference between a man and a deer at that distance...2....quite the coincidence that he found a man laying there instead of a deer at the spot he shot at....3....was the alleged deer and bowhunter walking side by side...i doubt it.....4....is there seasons on the reserve....i thought you can hunt/fish there all year long and that our MNR laws dont apply on a reserve......so many unanswered questions that will never be answered......i hope you can sleep at night Stan for having one hell of a lawyer who fabricated a total lie of events to clear your name.....I know i couldnt live with myself knowing i accidently killed a person and lied about it......IMO i believe the race card played a HUGE factor here and where the accident occurred
A person cannot be shot in the back walking side by side to another.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deerslayer99
One could if they are walking AWAY from you.....
The point i was making was that i do not believe there was a deer involved at all and being sarcastic.....
I know everyone likes to bash on lawyers, but whatever you might think, they don't make up lies for their clients. Coaching witnesses to lie on the stand is malpractice, and it isn't worth your career given you get paid regardless of the verdict.Quote:
Originally Posted by Deerslayer99
This is Stan Jonathan's story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deerslayer99
Deerslayer99,Quote:
Originally Posted by Deerslayer99
I was agreeing with you. I apologize if you think I was mocking you. I find it highly unlikely that a hunter who was out bow hunting for deer would be close enough to a deer to be hit by a pass through from another with his back turned to the deer which was between both hunters. And when I say highly unlikely, I mean I think the existence of bigfoot is more likely than the explanation of what happened here.
Dyth
NORTH BAY, Ont. — An Ontario hunter has been fined $1,500 after he shot his own big toe.
Court heard that on Oct. 23, Richard Chamberland of Sudbury, Ont., was hunting small game off South Pardo Road, off Hwy. 805.
After shooting unsuccessfully at a grouse, he returned to his brother's pickup and sat on the passenger side.
He did not unload his 12-gauge shotgun. It discharged in the vehicle, shooting through Chamberland's big toe and the floor of the truck.
Chamberland was required to have his big toe amputated.
He's been fined $750 for discharging a firearm without due care and attention for people or property and $750 for having a loaded firearm in a vehicle.
He is prohibited from hunting for five years and must successfully complete the Ontario Hunter Education Course before hunting in the province again.........
What about this.....kill a guy and nothing happens.....shoot your own toe off and look what happens......something is seriously wrong with our justice system
Dyth.
Bucks do cross back trails a lot. I do a lot of ground hunting for them and I routinely check my six out of habit. I've learned that. So is it possible he was walking and the buck crossed behind? Happens to me a lot.
But agree, there are so many holes (including that). No police verification of a blood trail ( not the be all and end all but Im thinking crime scene and scouring the area)…and much more.
My gut is telling me why charges were dropped and Im thinking Queens Park and how McGuinty didn't do much during Caledonia and Im thinking a lot of press noise and other things if it goes to trial that someone may not want on her plate.
While they do cross back trails a lot; however, this was in the middle of a field. Not in the bush where they can't see anything. If a person is close enough to a deer for a pass through, that deer isn't sticking around.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Do you still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus?Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
No, but I don't believe that Stan Jonathan's lawyer thought it would be worth his career to concoct a story, to coach both Jonathan and another witness to repeat that story, and then to go out and recruit a third witness to corroborate it. Especially given that he has no real motive to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
Try to prove someone coached someone to say something. They were just asking questions and suggesting the consequences of certain answers. Lawyers wouldn't exist without "assisting" with fabricated testimony.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
I wish ole Stan would man up and say he and his "witnesses" would take a poly. Not likely.
I disagree with that premise. I'm with welsh on this one. No lawyer does that....ever,unless he wants to be disbarred and possibly charged with fabricating evidence. Given the severity of the events,I wouldn't submit to any "poly",either,because they are so notoriously inaccurate and subject to manipulation and interpretation. That's why they're inadmissable as evidence in Court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
There's no premise Trimmer. Ever done a wire? There's a reason you have to shut her down when a lawyer gets on the line.
And even if the poly was infallible, I suspect ole Stan would have good reason not to take it.
The reason you have to shut the wire down is that the conversation is privileged -- are you trying to imply that it's to protect the lawyer as he breaks the law? Because I think reasonable people understand that it's to protect the client's right to share information freely with his lawyer.
Someone may share something incriminating with his lawyer, and his lawyer is bound not to disclose it, but that's a far cry from the lawyer actually making up a story for the guy and coaching him to tell it. There is a big difference between saying "don't admit to that" and saying, "here's a lie I made up for you to tell," which is what was suggested.
I think Jonathan is clearly lying, but I'm with Trimmer on the polygraph. The polygraph is pseudo-science. A century from now, people will laugh at it as they now laugh at phrenology.
Better call Saul.
He is a dam good lawyer, But I call Bull. It's even sadder now then when it happened. Just a bad situation all around. Just goes to show justice is on a two tier system.
JB. Why for the..........., did you have to bring any/all liberals into this. Do you really , really, think any political party would get involved in this situation, = time for the tin foil hat.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Lol, omg are you ever naive.
How many examples would you like listed where the politicians have been afraid of things due to...
This is a very easy example of a potentially hot thing that can be avoided by not going to trial. If ti goes to trial "who knows". And if it does "blow up", do they really need it, given everything else? Hmmm, who might make those decisions?
How hard is it to say " Well if we drop the charges "no reasonable certainty of a conviction". We might avoid…. And if you need a refresher of a premiere too afraid…See McGuinty, the OPP and Caledonia for one just one recent example.
Honestly, why don't you back off and stop trying to start things where its not needed.
The fact he is, who he is and where. Im not the only person questioning if race, celebrity and "fear" of…might explain why the crown didn't go to trial. Nor am I the only person wondering if this is.
Politics…
So um who does the crown answer to?
Who does the MNR answer to G when they are too afraid to….
back off, or there will be trouble "here".
things are very simple G, that some can't seem to grasp on these forums
"to each their own"…."live and let live"
It's not hard..An easy way to live life (and these forums)..live as you please, think and do as you please…I do the same…Don't "f" with me.
In plain english I never start things, but I won't tolerate.
To each their own, until and unless "you step on my toes". its a good life code, try it.
Step on my toes, take weak swipes at me, try to start something and you won't like the outcome.
Back off G, I'm tired of it.
I have listened to a lawyer make a story up for a criminal while actually in the commission of a crime and about to be stopped by police. Not saying it happens all the time or with all lawyers but I would wager it is more prevalent than most people imagine. And the privilege laws and other prohibitions against intercepting lawyers and Judges do much more than protect clients.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
And nowhere did I say I suspect that the lawyer in this case made up Stans fairy tale. He might have tweaked it a bit ! :D
But even the police and crowns coach and assist witnesses with their testimony , so there is nothing controversial about it, unless it is outright perjury. And given the numbers of outright lies told in court every day , how often do you see a perjury charge.
The poly has come a long way, but advances in brain wave science ( brain fingerprinting ) have shown that they can now detect lies with close to 100% accuracy. We will never see it used much here in our time though, it would decimate the lawyer industry.
Hiding (or twisting) the truth is as bad as telling a lie..Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Okay, but that was the contention made in the post I responded to, which prompted you to wade in and suggest I believe in fairy tales.Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
Except that a lawyer is legally and ethically bound not to spill the beans on his client. The moral failing here lies on the guy who broke the law, not his representative.Quote:
Originally Posted by MikePal
Some of the moral failing has to be shared with the Crown Attorney who has withdrawn the charges. Not that I am disagreeing with you welsh, just adding that to the conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Your statement was lawyers generally. And generally I think they provide their wonderful clients with a great deal of assistance with shaping their testimony! :scream:Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
Morals, ethics and legality. Like 5-oh said, Better Call Saul !
I agree. Frankly, the people who made that decision abandoned their duty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dythbringer
imo
and wouldn't it be wonderful, if people remember that there's no law that says anyone has to agree, or that anyone can't feel/view this ( or life ) differently.Those would be your opinions/thoughts/choices/life...By all means share "your" opinion if it differs......
Basically ask and answer for yourself.
1) Do you think the Crown was right or wrong to drop the charges and not at the least, pursue trial.
2) If you think they should have at least tried it (guilty/not guilty are immaterial at this point) what possible reasons are there for bailing?
"No reasonable expectation of a conviction". Really what is there to lose by putting it before a judge/jury? What are you afraid of Mr Orison.
The explanation seems implausible and the defense's case seem chalk full of holes. If we can punch holes in things fairly easily...Surely the crown....
Given the circumstances and um, celebrity status I for one highly doubt Mr Orison made the decision by himself. Which begs a number of questions.
As it stands, the optics are brutal and at the least it sends a very bad message. Do "we" not do everything we can to educate the non-hunters and Antis about safety protocols, laws and more?
So what are they "seeing"
That someome shot from a road, thought he hit a buck (maybe he did) and killed someone behind said buck....and has skated.
yeah, that's convincing that we take things seriously, "police" ourselves and come down hard on those who....and must make them feel real safe.
So what do you when you know your client is guilty as sin? Are you not morally and ethically bound to say "guilty your honor" instead of manipulating the truth to cloud the jury's thoughts enough so that your client skates? If he's guilty, he's guilty, maybe with an explanation hoping for a lighter sentence, but he's still guilty. Not guilty, then start the defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by welsh
JBen,Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
It's bad enough the CA doesn't think he can get a conviction but in the second link I posted from The Spec, it actually says he (the CA) believes the explanation when most people who hunt who have commented on this case can't believe it. While we have another hunter in Sudbury (I believe) who inflicted himself with a gunshot wound and was charged.
Dyth
Yep, go figure Dyth.
Maybe the guy in Sudbury should say he thought the gun was unloaded and things were safe. Seems to have worked here.
Anywho, while speechless they didn't go to trial..Whats done is done I guess. All that's left really is the message it's sending.
Should have said he was shooting at a deer and his toe and floorboard got in the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Species8472
I would feel a lot more comfortable knowing more about the forensics done at the scene and from the deceased.In relation to JBens point if a Deer was indeed hit a good possibility of a blood or scent trail.The MNR do have trained dogs for this and at the least should have been employed there.The whole story sounds fishy,I know I would be taking a look at any c phone calls made when and where......
On the bright side of things I suppose a fella could rely on this outcome in similar circumstances to walk Scott free.
Hear hear...hiding, manipulating or twisting the truth is deceitful, that's what my folks taught me and I taught my kids...it should be no different in a court room...the whole truth and nothing but the truth... No wonder lawyers disliked.Quote:
Originally Posted by M_P
The Crown works for the people and as I said earlier, the good folks of Brantford county, especially the family, are being denied the right to seek justice in the killing of a man.
He admitted he was guilty, no need to have 'enough' evidence. Do we not still have mandatory sentencing laws for firearm offenses. This should have been an easy afternoon before the Judge.
No, you're not, and you don't want to live in a country where it works that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by M_P
All that happens then is people lie to their lawyers. And if the lawyer doesn't believe his client, because his client is obviously making up a story, then what? Is he morally obligated to say that he thinks his client is lying? And how will you like that system, when you find yourself falsely charged with an offence and your own lawyer stands up in court and says he thinks you're lying?
It's up to the accused to decide if he wants to plead guilty or not. His lawyer is obliged to give him the best defence he can.
I guarantee that if you ever find yourself charged with a serious criminal offence you'll thank the Lord above it works this way. Because if it didn't, it would be a one-sided and brutal system. You think the cops never railroaded anyone, never fabricated evidence, lied on the stand, conducted an illegal search, etc? You think the Crown never sets out to confuse the issue? If you couldn't have someone in your corner you could trust, these people would crush you each and every time.
Nobody ever said this system was perfect, but like democracy, it's better than the alternative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilroy
One possibility, of course, is that this story about the bullet passing through a deer only came to light after any blood trail, etc., was a moot point. I would be interested to know the content of his initial statement to police.
It appears that all of you have assumed that the withdrawal of charges allows Mr.Jonathan to simply walk away. That's absolutely incorrect. Because the charges were withdrawn does not mean that they can't be proferred at a later date when (if) further evidence should come to light. Proceeding to trial,now,with whatever evidence may be at hand,could result in an acquital. When that happens,the rule of "double jeopardy" applies and charges can never be laid against him,again,no matter what. It's an error to read too much much into this "withdrawal". Actually,it's a smart strategic move on the part of the Crown.
I said when you KNOW your client is guilty as sin. Not when he's been charged with something he didn't do.
A very astute and learned defense attorney once told me that it wasn't the job of a defense to establish guilt or innocense of their client. To a lawyer,it was immaterial. It was their sole purpose to be sure to test all Crown evidence and to ensure the accused got fair representation at trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by M_P
And how would you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by M_P
If you knew your lawyer was obliged to tell the court you were guilty if you admitted guilt, would you admit guilt to your lawyer? So then, how would the lawyer know?
I have had quite a few lawyer friends over the years, and they've all said the same thing. And they don't like defending guilty parties who insist on pleading not guilty, because it's just a PITA and the guy usually ends up convicted anyway. Real life is not a TV legal drama.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
The one thing I'd add is that when you're accused of a crime, there's a chance you don't even know if you're guilty, because chances are good that you don't know the law -- i.e. that you don't know what the elements of the offence are. We've seen that on this very board.
Actually I agree with Welsh that he abandoned his duty. And I'll bet you a bottle of single malt to a value not exceeding $200 that ole Stan is never criminally prosecuted over the circumstances being discussed.Quote:
Originally Posted by trimmer21
Ken Deane testified that he believed Dudley George had a rifle in his hands. There was independent evidence to support this.
The crown chose to prosecute this respected officer and lo and behold the trial judge didnt believe the officers testimony. Well what judge would in that political climate?
So Sgt.Deane was convicted of Crim Neg Causing Death.
Obviously Tex should have said he was shooting at a deer.
The bush got a lot less safe recently.
To back up welsh's point about a lawyer making up stories and hiding evidence for his client. Paul Bernardo's lawyer, Ken Murray, was charged criminally and faced professional charges because he hid videotapes for his client instead of turning them over to the crown.
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/24/wo...r-at-risk.html
I think a lot of people owe welsh an apology right now.
Welsh is right in what lawyers can and cannot do. Where he is wrong is that many lawyers skirt these rules - and get away with it most of the time.
In the Pembroke "drunk driving denstist" case (Christy Natsis), prior to her breathalyzer, her lawyer had her on the phone for 40 minutes and the police finally made her take the breathalyzer before her call was complete. Now her lawyer is disputing the breathalyzer results based on her not having had legal counsel. Pretty clear the lawyer was just going to keep her on the phone until she sobered up.
That a lawyer that can't provide adequate council on a drunk driving fatality in 40 minutes is a bit of a stretch.
And Mr. Murray was acquitted....
There may be honorable defense attorneys out there but there are many that I wonder how they sleep at night - Ken Murray being one of them. After knowing about the existence of said tapes, how do you morally continue to defend an animal like Bernardo. How do you defend a Rafferty or Picton, or Magnotta or Olsen or...........These cases are a whole lot more different that Stan's here but you do have a guy that admitted to pulling the trigger on a hail mary shot from a roadway at what he THOUGHT was a deer, and a another guy standing up and telling the world that he's not guilty of careless and that it's the dead guys fault.
The moral of the story is to think up a good lie BEFORE you call your lawyer. Then stick with it.