Charges withdrawn in hunting death

[doubleheader]

 

Granted, freak accidents do happen, and that just may be the case here...however, very possible?? I practice regularly with a rifle at 300 yards and making a 'kill shot' at that distance is no easy task. The odds of shooting at a deer, missing, and killing a person in the background at 300 yards is so miniscule, I don't buy it for a second.

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, we just disagree about probability. I concur that the odds of this happening are very low, but keep in mind, there are thousands if not millions of hunters in the woods every year, so, in a macro sense and statistically speaking, it's guaranteed to happen on occasion. It's no different statistically than people drowning while boating. Put millions of people on the water, even if they are doing everything properly and within all safety regulations, and a percentage will still drown. Certainly if this camoed archer was sitting, and he most likely would have been, there is no way the accused could have seen the archer. The archer easily could have had deer come between him and the hunter, and walla, all the ingredients for a deadly accident.

[chris.brock]

Some guys are saying `missed the deer`and hit the bow hunter

 

 

The lawyer said- hit the deer, the deer dropped, the bullet went clean through and hit the bow hunter

 

That`s about the only story that would justify their actions that day, because he shot, left for an hour or so, then came back and reported the accident

[Beavertail]

Ahhh, the JFK 'magic bullet'!!!!! Did it make a 90 degree exit out of the deer's body? The whole story sounds crazy to me, any way you slice it.

[manitoubass2]

This is a tragedy no matter what.

 

Most of you know my backround with rainy river first nations.

 

The law IMO is two sided(and I dont mean anything rascist or against my own people)

 

If you search hard enough, there are papers from the queen, that states aboriginals are to be treated differently in law(not in those words). Aboriginals in Canada, in legal issue, the crowns duty is to exhaust all methods possible before jail.

 

Ill see if I can find the papers. When my good friend a native alcohol and drug counsellor passed, I had to clean out his office. He had copies of these documents and many other treaty papers. The family had no use so I kept them.

 

This, IMO is at least manslaughter, even if totally by accident(which none of us will ever know)

 

Im all for aboriginals, but im also for humans. I believe certain rights are owed to the aboriginals, murder or manslaughter or rape is not justifiable for anyone.

 

So anyhow, lets keep the rascist stuff out of the thread(which has been good thus far) but it is NOT rascist to say natives are held to a different standard. Its just truth, and upheld by the highest courts of Canada.

 

Not to derail, but to provide an example.

 

Rrfn man is charged with rape. Pleads down to assault. No jail time only conditions.

 

Rrfn man caught at US border in attempt to smuggle oxycontin. Caught. As a minor, sent to a halfway house. Escapes. Returns to rrfn. Untouchable for years although they want him extradited. I believe he was facing 30 years in MN. Ovee the next few years, robs half the people on the rez, assaults, a whole slew of things. Finally he robs a canada post office and is finally apprehended. He faced something like 70 charges. Goes to court, gets like two years or something rediculous.

 

Dont believe me? Search zachory leanord and manitou or rainy river first nations.

 

Im not rasicst and i love my people. But come on. If that was non aboriginal, youd be looking at 100 years

[manitoubass2]

Yhttp://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/canada/2012/02/05/ontario_court_urged_to_block_aboriginal_mans_extradition_to_us.html?referrer=

[crappieperchhunter]

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, we just disagree about probability. I concur that the odds of this happening are very low, but keep in mind, there are thousands if not millions of hunters in the woods every year, so, in a macro sense and statistically speaking, it's guaranteed to happen on occasion. It's no different statistically than people drowning while boating. Put millions of people on the water, even if they are doing everything properly and within all safety regulations, and a percentage will still drown. Certainly if this camoed archer was sitting, and he most likely would have been, there is no way the accused could have seen the archer. The archer easily could have had deer come between him and the hunter, and walla, all the ingredients for a deadly accident.

The most level headed thoughtful response in this whole thread.

 

Not being a hunter I have no real idea how this could have happened. But this scenario seems as probable as any others and is far more refreshing to hear then the ones on here presented by those who have no more of a clue then I do about what really happened. Some peoples "hang him high" mentality especially when situations arise involving natives really makes me sick.

[manitoubass2]

The most level headed thoughtful response in this whole thread.

 

Not being a hunter I have no real idea how this could have happened. But this scenario seems as probable as any others and is far more refreshing to hear then the ones on here presented by those who have no more of a clue then I do about what really happened. Some peoples "hang him high" mentality especially when situations arise involving natives really makes me sick.

Agreed. Your post is great too

[HTHM]

As OP I feel that all viewpoints have been exhausted. Lets' shut this one down while it is still worth reading. I think this thread may be on the verge of descending into a rant fest.

[manitoubass2]

As OP I feel that all viewpoints have been exhausted. Lets' shut this one down while it is still worth reading. I think this thread may be on the verge of descending into a rant fest.

Meh, I think posters have been pretty responsible.

 

No harm in this discussion IMO

[crappieperchhunter]

As OP I feel that all viewpoints have been exhausted. Lets' shut this one down while it is still worth reading. I think this thread may be on the verge of descending into a rant fest.

Oh sure....get me all stirred up and then tell me you have a headache and are not in the mood

[Gerritt]

I would agree with Rick here.... So long as it stays positive. Discussion is good.

 

G

[manitoubass2]

Oh sure....get me all stirred up and then tell me you have a headache and are not in the mood

Friggen lol???

[manitoubass2]

...

Edited April 8, 2015 by manitoubass2

[manitoubass2]

Gerritt you gotta pm

[Beavertail]

In the end, 'probability' should have little to do with it. The bottom line is he pulled the trigger, it was his bullet that killed another human, he is ultimately responsible whether it was an accident or not. Everything else is irrelevant. Everybody needs to be accountable, especially when using firearms. But it appears to me at least, that our Government's policy trumps logic at times, so sad.

[pics]

I saw the justice or lack thereof in Caledonia.. It isn't right.. The hunt the natives conduct here in Hamilton is done with bows and it appears to be well run and safe. The area is closed to the public and hunter numbers are limited. One of them was right along the 403 where it goes down the escarpment in Ancaster so its very close to populated areas. Safety should always be a factor no matter where hunting takes place.. I wish hunters of all backgrounds had a chance to hunt there as well but we don't... I should add that my wifes grandmother was native and I have cousins who are half native(one teaches at a school on six nations and lectures at universities about native history and rights)... we sometimes agree to disagree... lol

[doubleheader]

Beavertail, I question whether I should respond but here goes. Probability was brought into the discussion as it provides definition as to whether, when combined with other facts, it is within reason to conclude this tragedy was an accident. For instance, it's far easier to conclude that a person was accidentally shot while wearing camo, than while wearing fluorescent orange. It's far easier to conclude that a person was accidentally shot wearing camo at 300 yds than at a shorter distance. So the probability question is at the very heart of this issue. It's what our legal systems (Canadian and US) are based upon, i.e., when all the facts are known is there reasonable doubt. Reasonable infers probability. You go on to say the shooter is responsible and should be held accountable and whether it was an accident or not is irrelevant. Thankfully the law is a little more complex than that. The shooter may be accountable in the eyes of the law even if he did not see the archer if it came to light that he was impaired or his actions were otherwise reckless. Here's another analogy. A man is driving a car on a rainy dark night. He hits a child in the street and that child dies. The child was wearing dark clothing. Is the man guilty of a crime? Probably not because an investigation would reveal it would not have been "reasonable" to expect this driver to see the child given the conditions. Now, that said, what if his BAC was over the limit or he was driving impaired, what if he was speeding, not wearing his prescription eyeglasses, or texting at the time of the accident? Chances are in each case the driver would be subject to some fine, period of incarceration, or both. So you see details matter, intent matters, probabilities matter, and critical thinking is a prerequisite in the execution of just and fair system of justice. Below is a link to a website that defines critical thinking. Please take a look, personally I think it should be taught in every school.

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

[Big Cliff]

Beavertail, I question whether I should respond but here goes. Probability was brought into the discussion as it provides definition as to whether, when combined with other facts, it is within reason to conclude this tragedy was an accident. For instance, it's far easier to conclude that a person was accidentally shot while wearing camo, than while wearing fluorescent orange. It's far easier to conclude that a person was accidentally shot wearing camo at 300 yds than at a shorter distance. So the probability question is at the very heart of this issue. It's what our legal systems (Canadian and US) are based upon, i.e., when all the facts are known is there reasonable doubt. Reasonable infers probability. You go on to say the shooter is responsible and should be held accountable and whether it was an accident or not is irrelevant. Thankfully the law is a little more complex than that. The shooter may be accountable in the eyes of the law even if he did not see the archer if it came to light that he was impaired or his actions were otherwise reckless. Here's another analogy. A man is driving a car on a rainy dark night. He hits a child in the street and that child dies. The child was wearing dark clothing. Is the man guilty of a crime? Probably not because an investigation would reveal it would not have been "reasonable" to expect this driver to see the child given the conditions. Now, that said, what if his BAC was over the limit or he was driving impaired, what if he was speeding, not wearing his prescription eyeglasses, or texting at the time of the accident? Chances are in each case the driver would be subject to some fine, period of incarceration, or both. So you see details matter, intent matters, probabilities matter, and critical thinking is a prerequisite in the execution of just and fair system of justice. Below is a link to a website that defines critical thinking. Please take a look, personally I think it should be taught in every school.

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

WOW! I am stone cold sober but I have to admit I am having a heck of a hard time wraping my head around all of this and I read it three times LOL.

 

Very well written BTW! If you are ever in the Kawarthas drop by for a beer, I'd love to hear your rational on a number of topics, I do appreciate your take on this one!

[bare foot wader]

Beavertail, I question whether I should respond but here goes. Probability was brought into the discussion as it provides definition as to whether, when combined with other facts, it is within reason to conclude this tragedy was an accident. For instance, it's far easier to conclude that a person was accidentally shot while wearing camo, than while wearing fluorescent orange. It's far easier to conclude that a person was accidentally shot wearing camo at 300 yds than at a shorter distance. So the probability question is at the very heart of this issue. It's what our legal systems (Canadian and US) are based upon, i.e., when all the facts are known is there reasonable doubt. Reasonable infers probability. You go on to say the shooter is responsible and should be held accountable and whether it was an accident or not is irrelevant. Thankfully the law is a little more complex than that. The shooter may be accountable in the eyes of the law even if he did not see the archer if it came to light that he was impaired or his actions were otherwise reckless. Here's another analogy. A man is driving a car on a rainy dark night. He hits a child in the street and that child dies. The child was wearing dark clothing. Is the man guilty of a crime? Probably not because an investigation would reveal it would not have been "reasonable" to expect this driver to see the child given the conditions. Now, that said, what if his BAC was over the limit or he was driving impaired, what if he was speeding, not wearing his prescription eyeglasses, or texting at the time of the accident? Chances are in each case the driver would be subject to some fine, period of incarceration, or both. So you see details matter, intent matters, probabilities matter, and critical thinking is a prerequisite in the execution of just and fair system of justice. Below is a link to a website that defines critical thinking. Please take a look, personally I think it should be taught in every school.

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

 

 

I can appreciate your opinion and certainly believe myself to be a critical thinker....however, my personal opinion is that if this occurred off a reserve and didn't involve race vs race, it is probable the charges would not have been dropped....

[smally21]

A very thoughtful post DH..and if I may cherry pick a detail "otherwise wreckless"..

 

The crown agreed Jonathan did not know he was shooting at a person..which removes the mens rea, i.e. the intent, which removes the criminality of it being murder.

 

However, it does not remove, and if effect confirms, the carelessness or wrecklessness of his actions. "Dangerous" or "Careless" use of a firearm or discharge of a firearm exist as secondary charges for someone that exhibits negligence without intent to harm..similar to gross disregard..its still a criminal offence and this case is textbook for its use.

 

As a 30 year competitive shooter and gun advocate the idea of not knowing where a bullet ends up is abhorrent to me..that you would discharge a centre-fire rifle without clear identification of target and area behind the target just baffles me.,.perhaps too much time in the classroom with CFSC courses and CRFSC courses and RSO time has me too much in that direction. I don't know if you have to be one to understand the 'community' aspect of looking out for the group as a whole through responsible and safe use?

 

Im not much of a hunter but surrounded by them and immersed in their culture..the idea that you took a shot at something that you could barely identify as an animal, at a range that is clearly outside of most recreational hunter's limits (read who regularly has the facilities and time to practice 3-400 yd shots..almost no one)..most ethical hunters wouldn't think of taking a shot so out of their established limits...and would never take a shot that wouldn't have had in their scope image the POI on the target that would produce a bang-flop quickly dead, non-suffering animal.

 

Add on all the hunting regs violations (hunting from vehicle, shooting across roadway, shooting within 10m of roadway, center-fire in shotgun season..(and yes I understand there are different requirements for aboriginals - it doesn't remove the 'common sense' of these regs) and you have a gross disregard for the consequences of pulling the trigger. It doesn't matter what the victim was wearing..and why he was there. The onus of where a bullet ends up is 100% on the shooter. If you can't identify the target, or the final location of the bullet..then you haven't met the standard that one would expect from a responsible shooter or hunter.

 

To me..as the teacher or the student the first part of putting a gun in your hands..for the first time or the millionth..is the consequence and the responsibility behind its use. IMO this guy made a decision that reflects poorly on shooters and hunters from both sides of the reserve...and most certainly met the standard for conviction.

 

The bullet passing through the deer first would be provable..not to mention would have exonerated Jonathan both legally and publicly and would have been brought up immediately..not years later.

Edited April 9, 2015 by smally21

[dave524]

 

The bullet passing through the deer first would be provable..not to mention would have exonerated Jonathan both legally and publicly and would have been brought up immediately..not years later.

 

The fact that the bullet passed through a deer is immaterial, the shot is not a safe shot if there is a person beyond the deer. The onus is always on the hunter to make sure that the shot and beyond is safe, just like you would not fire at a deer if there are buildings beyond or where the bullet would cross a roadway if there was a pass through or miss. Criminal intent no but criminal negligence yes. As a former hunter education instructor and voter I find the whole thing disgusting.

[Old Ironmaker]

He was not exonerated. I believe a trial must take place to be exonerated, charges were dropped, there's a difference. A civil suit is still an option but you can't get blood from a stone. I was at the rez this AM and this thing is still the talk of the town. I won't repeat what was said to me because that's rumour but I can tell you 100% of the guys I talked to are not happy with Jonathans actions and do not defend him in any way. I told them about this thread and asked me to pass on that all of them are hunters and don't want to be painted by the same brush as none said they would have taken that shot, no way.

[smally21]

It is entirely material. The presence of the deer validates the shot..the fact that someone was beyond the deer in no man's land could and likely would be deemed accidental..as there would not be knowledge nor expectation for someone to be there...unless of course in plain sight.

 

In a court case that was evaluating Jonathon's questionable selection of a target..presenting the actual target (in this case a legally harvested deer) would most certainly be evidentiary material. I can't see seeing it otherwise?

 

Building or roadways are very different, and now where near a legitimate comparisonas they are clearly evident..it could well be deemed reasonable that a person in a field intentionally concealing themselves with camoflauge is a situation beyond a hunter's control..imagine every deer hunter, when stalking bush, had to satisfy themselves prior to shooting an identified target, that no one was hiding in the bushes behind the deer. It would be the end of hunting.

 

A dead deer at the scene would have drastically changed this scenario..the whole basis of the careless discharge was that Jonathon hadn't properly identified the target..not that he hadn't identified the background. Had he established this is the deer I took the shot at..everything about the case would be different..to the extreme that its possible no charges would be laid.

 

You make your comment as if the shooter in your example knew there to be a person..which would satisfy both dangerous and careless use, and also doesn't match the agreed upon facts, that both the crown and the defense stated Jonathon had no knowledge that he was firing at a person..nor a belief that there was someone there....that my comment is related to. The entire case was based on his mistaken identification of the target and his poor judgement in taking the shot..a dead deer at his feet confirms the target..and goes along way towards justifying the shot.

Edited April 9, 2015 by smally21

[Sinker]

imagine every deer hunter, when stalking bush, had to satisfy themselves prior to shooting an identified target, that no one was hiding in the bushes behind the deer. It would be the end of hunting.

 

 

 

 

ITS THE NUMBER ONE RULE WHEN TAKING ANY SHOT!!!!!

 

ALWAYS be sure of whats BEYOND your target.

 

This whole thread has me fuming!!

 

I guarantee if I took a shot and killed a man, I would be in JAIL!!!!

 

Once that bullet leaves the barrel, there is no stopping it, so you'd better make DAM SURE there is nothing beyond it. PERIOD.

 

S.

[dave524]

Sorry, I've done a lot of power rifle hunting in southern Ontario , Fox, Jackrabbits and Coyotes in winter and years of summer ground hog shooting at ranges in excess of 300 yds even and never would I take a shot if I did not know where it would safely impact the ground. High power rifle rounds travelling willy nilly through a southern woodlot just don't qualify as a safe shot to me. It is nearly as irresponsible as firing in the air, just my opinion, but then again I taught the Hunter Education Course.