Charges dropped against former NHLer Stan Jonathan in hunting death

[welsh]

Some of the moral failing has to be shared with the Crown Attorney who has withdrawn the charges.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.

I agree. Frankly, the people who made that decision abandoned their duty.

[JBen]

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.

[M_P]

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.

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.

[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.

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

[JBen]

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.

[M_P]

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.

[Gilroy]

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.

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.

[MikePal]

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.

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.

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.

[welsh]

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?

No, you're not, and you don't want to live in a country where it works that way.

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.

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.

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.

[trimmer21]

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.