Charges dropped against former NHLer Stan Jonathan in hunting death

[rick_iles]

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 !

[werner.reiche]

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.

Although Jonathan is a native, I'd never considered race part of a puzzle.

[werner.reiche]

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.

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.

[dutchhunter]

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

[JBen]

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.

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.

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".

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

[Angus]

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.

[kickingfrog]

For comparison?

http://www.nugget.ca/2015/04/07/hunter-loses-toe

[ysyg]

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.

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?

[M_P]

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"

[trimmer21]

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?

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.

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"

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.
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.