Charges withdrawn in hunting death

[Beavertail]

We will never know exactly what REALLY happened that day...but one thing for sure is Stan Jonathan broke quite a few "cardinal rules" of gun handling. That I'm sure we can all agree on. I'm going to dumb things down here, and give my thoughts on what I think happened that day. Again, just my opinion.

 

Stan shoots at what he thinks is a deer. Upon closer inspection he realizes it's a camo-clad bowhunter. Oh S---, now what? He panics and makes up some noodle-and-bull story about a "phantom buck" that he was shooting at. How could you disprove it? As far as I can tell from reading the articles no deer was ever found though, how convenient.

 

Now I don't think we should strap Stan to the electric chair, but the idea of him walking away Scot free does not sit well with me either. I do believe this was an accident, I do believe Stan really thought he was shooting at a deer, but I also believe that he lied his way out of it all and the system made it way too easy.

[smally21]

"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 of a responsible shooter or hunter."

 

Did you quoters that like to cherry pick small parts of larger dialogue miss the part where I said this in the beginning..a fact we are totally in agreement on..that you are repeating back to me almost verbatim...as if I see it otherwise? I would respectfully suggest you aren't following the meaning of the posts in their entirety..nor displaying them as I intend them because we are clearly in agreement on the subject of safe shooting and the court's decision.

 

I was simply responding to the suggestion of a person being beyond your target..that it is near impossible to ascertain at the ranges we are discussing the presence of a camo wearing person intentionally concealing themselves in the woods..and that regardless of due care its possible someone could be unaware of that person..being that their sole reason to conceal themselves in camo was to avoid detection. I am uncertain how you guys ensure this isn't the case when you are hunting..

 

As I stated before..Jonathan didn't satisfy either requirement...and reread post #70 if you think I am in anyway defending his actions...hunting experience and teaching experience aside..its the court case and the way the law interprets actions that I am speaking about...and no amount of hunting experience can prepare you for the way a prosecutor and judge would view words like careless and reasonable..unless you can compare it to similar cases..where something we would see as careless a non hunter (likely the entire occupancy of the courtroom lol) would see as reasonable and accidental.

Edited April 9, 2015 by smally21

[Old Ironmaker]

Smally21, I haven't read or I missed where there was ever a Deer found. As far as I know there wasn't any deer found injured, only a sighting of a Deer acting strange by a neighbour in the area.

 

You must be a lawyer or politician. That is not a dig, you are very eloquent in your writings.

[Rich Nelson]

Our justice system doesnt work, plain and simple. I

Edited April 9, 2015 by Bladeburner

[Rich Nelson]

The Crown attorney stated that Jonathan shot at what he thought was a buck ( from the road) When he went to retrieve it, he discovered it was a hunter dressed in camo.

There was no deer.

The charge of criminal negligence causing death is very difficult to prove. The charge of careless use of a firearm is not difficult to prove, so why were all charges dropped?

[smally21]

Ironmaker, the existence of the deer and the majic bullet has been widely reported..and was part of the defence. In this very thread, starting at post #21 the defence position of the deer was discussed, as well as a link to the relevant news articles. I didn't say there was a deer found..I simply stated my opinion on the matter of the mystery deer in my first post..that had the bullet passed through a deer there would be physical evidence of that. The discussion leading from that was the relevance that deer would have to the case.

 

The deer doesn't have to be 'found' to be entered as a defence, and certainly not to be discussed. In a discussion forum one discusses the facts of the case, and the what-ifs surrounding it. Like say there was a deer..as was on-topic and relevant to the thread..how would that effect the outcome?

 

I also pointed out the deer sighting wasn't widely reported until very recently..which would be unusual considering the profound effect it would have had on public perception and the legal decision. As such, I don't think there was a deer either..

 

I'll forgive the politician comment lol. I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV..

Edited April 10, 2015 by smally21

[moxie]

The Crown attorney stated that Jonathan shot at what he thought was a buck ( from the road) When he went to retrieve it, he discovered it was a hunter dressed in camo.

There was no deer.

The charge of criminal negligence causing death is very difficult to prove. The charge of careless use of a firearm is not difficult to prove, so why were all charges dropped?

 

One can only hope the shooters sentence is seeing the face of the man whos life he took and it haunts him till his last breath.