Hunter Acquitted in Shooting Death of Woman
- Thread starter ronecol
- Start date
Just emphasizing your point,for those that can't see what effect something like this event will have on hunting.
The judge takes it easy on one person for his stupid act,and all hunters pay as a result.A conviction and a harsh sentence would not have been great for the shooter,but it would have been better in the long run for hunting as a whole.If the general public can't punish the one person responsible,they will want to punish all hunters instead.
beretta boy
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Orillia, Ontario
Why would you doubt that ? ... it's very clear the Judge's message was
"Gee, you didn't do anything wrong ... so it's O.K. - have at it ... you're a good hunter obviously using safe gun practices " Gimme a break. Our justice system is a joke. Ask the lady's family if Bozzo didn't do anything wrong !!!
The decision of guilty or not guilty has to be made on the basis of the evidence presented – not on hearsay, suspicion or how it might look for the hunting community. For a finding of guilty the Crown must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case the Crown failed to do that. The Defense does not have to prove innocence. The Defense only needs to establish a reasonable doubt – which it did. Don’t blame the judge. That’s the way our justice system works.
Maybe if the investigators had checked for deer sign – tracks or blood trail - and found none, the Crown could have countered the defense evidence.
Ron
The key word being REASONABLE.But a good lawyer or a paid so called expert can twist and distort things so that even far fetched stories might appear to be reasonable to someone that refers to a shotgun as a rifle,and believes that stray pellets can fly in directions nowhere near where it was intended to go and still have enough energy to kill someone.
The following statement by the shooter is enough to convince me of his guilt:
He screamed that statement for a reason,that being that he probably realized at that point that he had mistaken her white clothing for the white tail of a deer.Of course in court he would never admit such a thing and chose to insist that he shot at a buck,that nobody else saw,and that there was no proof that it ever existed.
If he had instead screamed something along the lines of "Where did she come from?","Why didn't I see her?",I might believe that he really didn't see her,but his screaming about her wearing white spells it out for me.
The reasonable explanation is that the judge was looking for a reason to find the distraught old man innocent,and the so called experts theory about the stray pellet gave him an excuse to do just that.
O.J. Simpson was found not guilty,do you believe that he was really innocent?
Last edited:
One thing is for sure the guy did not know what he was shooting at so who is at fault? Answer (The assclown who pulled the trigger) him being found NOT GUILTY IS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO ALL RESPONSIBLE GUNOWNERS AND HUNTERS!
You posted that the crown didn't prove it's case beyond a REASONABLE doubt.It is my opinion that the doubt was not REASONABLE to most people,only to a clueless judge that was looking for an excuse to find the old man not guilty.
It's also possible that's it's the journalist, not the judge, who said he was using a rifle. It wouldn't be the first time a journalist bungled the most basic firearms terminology.
Also, this:
I haven't hunted or taken my safety course yet, but shouldn't the hunter have not been firing in the direction of a foot trail in the first place? If something like a trail is in the area, isn't he supposed to shoot away from it?
Also, this:
I haven't hunted or taken my safety course yet, but shouldn't the hunter have not been firing in the direction of a foot trail in the first place? If something like a trail is in the area, isn't he supposed to shoot away from it?
at first read i thaught it was a long range shot with rifle and was confused to what a flyer was ? shrapnel from a bullet bouncing of tree ? i dunno ?... but reading on, it was with a pellet? likely buck shot..?
if so, he would be positioned in place where a close encounter would occur.. like a path the deer would use and likely his buddies would be dogging and scare the buck out, thus buck shot may be required, if you expect the deer to blast by you....
SO THE IDIOT must have been in close to where the lady is jogging too !!! how hard is it to differentiate between a Buck and a Human ? ? ? and if both really were in the same area... how much velocity would a single pellet still have if it ricocheted of a branch
lack of investigation from local authorities and asking of his distance, where exactly he saw deer, etc.... definately can't blame judge for not being able to give guilty verdict...judge still sounds a bit stupid, but not to be blamed for poor execution of the trial by all others involved....
if so, he would be positioned in place where a close encounter would occur.. like a path the deer would use and likely his buddies would be dogging and scare the buck out, thus buck shot may be required, if you expect the deer to blast by you....
SO THE IDIOT must have been in close to where the lady is jogging too !!! how hard is it to differentiate between a Buck and a Human ? ? ? and if both really were in the same area... how much velocity would a single pellet still have if it ricocheted of a branch
lack of investigation from local authorities and asking of his distance, where exactly he saw deer, etc.... definately can't blame judge for not being able to give guilty verdict...judge still sounds a bit stupid, but not to be blamed for poor execution of the trial by all others involved....
It may not be prudent to form firm opinions based on details provided by the news media. They are seldom if ever accurate. At the very least they’re extremely condensed and / or incomplete and usually slanted left or right.
Manslaughter is a serious charge and requires a strong burden of proof. If the evidence was there and the Judge was "stupid" and erred in his decision(s) the Crown may have the option of appeal. If the evidence was available but was poorly presented that’s the Crown’s fault not the Judge’s. If the matter was poorly investigated and evidence was overlooked or poorly handled that’s the fault of the investigators not the Crown.
I know Thomas was acquitted but I could not possibly have an opinion whether the evidence presented was or was not sufficient to support a conviction. I didn’t sit through the trial nor am I privy to that evidence. I do have enough experience with court rooms to know that what happens there and what is subsequently reported by the media can be quite dissimilar. If I had sat through the trial I could very well form opinions on a number of things but I wouldn’t do so on the basis of subsequent news reports.
Marianne Schmid’s death was tragic. Being at the hands of a hunter likely makes it more tragic from our perspective. Positively identifying one’s target is probably the golden rule of hunting. What the exact circumstances were that day only Thomas knows for sure and it’s him who has to live with it. And I agree regardless of the circumstances it reflects unfavourably on hunting and hunters everywhere.
Further, if anyone interprets anything I’ve written here as me believing Thomas is innocent, please read it again.
Ron
Manslaughter is a serious charge and requires a strong burden of proof. If the evidence was there and the Judge was "stupid" and erred in his decision(s) the Crown may have the option of appeal. If the evidence was available but was poorly presented that’s the Crown’s fault not the Judge’s. If the matter was poorly investigated and evidence was overlooked or poorly handled that’s the fault of the investigators not the Crown.
I know Thomas was acquitted but I could not possibly have an opinion whether the evidence presented was or was not sufficient to support a conviction. I didn’t sit through the trial nor am I privy to that evidence. I do have enough experience with court rooms to know that what happens there and what is subsequently reported by the media can be quite dissimilar. If I had sat through the trial I could very well form opinions on a number of things but I wouldn’t do so on the basis of subsequent news reports.
Marianne Schmid’s death was tragic. Being at the hands of a hunter likely makes it more tragic from our perspective. Positively identifying one’s target is probably the golden rule of hunting. What the exact circumstances were that day only Thomas knows for sure and it’s him who has to live with it. And I agree regardless of the circumstances it reflects unfavourably on hunting and hunters everywhere.
Further, if anyone interprets anything I’ve written here as me believing Thomas is innocent, please read it again.
Ron
The court's decision is made and nobody is trying to challenge it. This discussion will not change the fact that he got away with it.
The interesting thing is that, as hunters, most of us seem to know, intuitively, what must have transpired and hence, a very justified outrage towards this so called "hunter".
The interesting thing is that, as hunters, most of us seem to know, intuitively, what must have transpired and hence, a very justified outrage towards this so called "hunter".
This!
I agree with the attempt at charging him for manslaughter. You don't just see some movement deep in the bush, and start throwing bullets all willey-nilley. If you can't identify the target, obstacles, and the area behind the target as all being safe to shoot, you have no damned business pulling the trigger.
So that's what happened? I was curious as to what really transpired. I guess you must have been there eh? But it must not have come out at the trial that he saw movement deep in the bush and started throwing bullets all willey-nilley? Otherwise surely he would have been convicted.
Ron
