Comments on: Former enforcer Stan Jonathan charged in hunting death

By: pantherpro

pantherpro — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 19:41:55 +0000

Nice job NRA yahoos. Guns don’t kill peope….Oooops!

By: valoisvipers

valoisvipers — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:27:03 +0000

At a better time in in Stan’s life, while playing with the Bruins against the Habs in the old forum during the playoffs.Stan scored a hat trick and what was funny that night was the fact that only after scoring his third goal that night, he cracked a smile, although it only lasted a couple of seconds he did smile. a rare thing from a man like Stan.

By: peepingtommy08

peepingtommy08 — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:17:02 +0000

Just to clarify for everybody. The man that was shot was legally bowhunting and was walking to his stand across an open field. He was dressed in camo and no orange. Orange is not required for bowhunters here in Ontario. He was not a Native from the reserve but had permission to hunt the property from a friend. Mr. Jonathan was driving by and thought he was seeing a deer. He stopped and fired a rifle from the road. Sadly, it is common practice on this reserve for the Natives to hunt this way at any time of the year regardless of seasons. And yes it was 400 yards.

By: hockeyflow33

hockeyflow33 — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 22:32:02 +0000

That’s why you aren’t an attorney, he could very well be held liable for this.

By: florida727

florida727 — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:56:33 +0000

I’m not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV, but “criminal negligence” is defined as “RECKLESSLY acting without reasonable caution”. (per Google search) FOUR HUNDRED YARDS away. There’s nothing reckless or UNreasonable here about being 4 football fields away and firing a gun you lawfully possess in a hunting locale. He walks.

By: thraiderskin

thraiderskin — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:45:00 +0000

hunting accidents happen… Unless he was hunting antelope (on an open plain), I doubt Jonathon was shooting for a 375 yard kill. My guess, since niether author of the articles had the info to give us, is this would be the definition of an accident, one that could only have been avoided by one of the two parties not hunting at the same time. Also, what city or reservation (no matter the country) allows for both bow hunting and gun hunting at the same time.

By: michiganhockey11

michiganhockey11 — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 21:05:19 +0000

No kidding. Perhaps there were rifles or muzzle-loaders involved. Should have been wearing flourescent orange if they had firearms, period.

By: vshehane

vshehane — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:12:14 +0000

And not to mention that you would have to be hunting with an English longbow, which is not very likely.

By: sabatimus

sabatimus — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:06:48 +0000

The linked original article mentions the bullet that Jonathan fired. It doesn’t mention if Kosid was wearing fluorescent orange or merely the “hunting camouflage” as mentioned above. I honestly don’t know if the orange is a necessary part of the camouflage (because bright orange is decidedly NOT camouflage to whatever you’re hunting); could be a simple mistake by Jonathan.

By: tridecagon

tridecagon — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:50:50 +0000

Just read the article… the VICTIM was bowhunting. He was killed by gunfire. A bit of rewording is in order here.

By: tridecagon

tridecagon — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:47:40 +0000

Actually, the maximum range of engagement of the English longbow was about 400 yards. Of course, for that to make any sense in a hunting situation, the deer would have had to be up in a tree.

By: rodeoclowndc

rodeoclowndc — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:35:22 +0000

Waitaminute… 400 yards with a bow? I don’t think so.

Either the story needs to be rewritten to clarify who got shot with what and how, or he’s got the Mother of All Bows. Compounds can’t even reach that far.

By: Metsys

Metsys — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:13:05 +0000

Where’s Dick Cheney when you need him?

By: sjsharks66

sjsharks66 — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:01:32 +0000

Woops