Yeah, yeah, yeah. The federal charges were dropped (see story below). But IMO 2 things are still going to happen.
1. The IDNR can now sink their teeth into Jarrod Hayn's tenderized behind. FYI they had kindy stepped aside while the feds took their shot at him. There is no way to explain away how frequently these deer just jumped out in front of him and only him. I am sure there are truckers or route drivers who run any roads he was running who didn't have the extreme "misfortune" that Hayn seemed to have (i.e. created).
2. He will continue to teeth on a dishtowel as he hides behind his wife's skirt avoiding the media and phone calls.
I'll bet here is another crazy thing going on too. Now that he is under the heat. I'll bet his crazy little bout of "unavoidable deer collisions" have dropped dramatically. Like almost to zilch.
Visit his stupid butt on Facebook.
Charges dropped in 'Deer Commander' case
By DENNIS GRUBAUGH
2010-04-22 22:02:11
ST. LOUIS - Stymied by the overturning of a federal law, authorities have dropped a case against a Calhoun County man who marketed a video showing a score of his vehicular run-ins with deer.
Jarrod Lee Hayn, 38, of Kampsville had been charged in federal court in St. Louis with possession and sale of depictions of animal cruelty with intent to use the depictions for commercial gain. The charges were based on a law overturned in another case Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court deemed the law's language overly broad and an infringement on freedom of speech.
Hayn never intended to make his own DVD 10 years ago when he first strapped a camera onto the front of his pickup truck to prove to others how often he was running into deer during his long commute to work, said his attorney, Ed Fanning of Hardin. It wasn't until years later that someone mentioned to him he should make a video of his collection of incidents and try to market it.
Hayn subsequently developed "The Deer Commander - Sudden Impact," a DVD that showed deer being hit, maimed and killed when struck by Hayn while driving public roads - many of them rural. He offered the videos for sale via the World Wide Web - an act that led to a complaint filed with state conservation officers.
"A lot of the incidents are horrific," Fanning acknowledged. "But understand that what some people find funny, others do not. It's all a matter of taste. And taste is not against the law."
Hayn was indicted March 11 by a federal grand jury in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri. Even then, the Supreme Court was considering a 2004 case in which a Virginia man was sent to prison for peddling videos of dogfights. An appellate court overturned that conviction, stating that the 1999 law on which it was based was overly broad. The high court agreed this week but left room for the law to be revised, which legislators now are considering.
"(Hayn's video possession) was already constitutional when they charged him - because of the appellate court ruling," Fanning said. "(U.S. attorneys) should have waited on the outcome (of the Supreme Court decision)."
The issue in U.S. vs. Stevens was whether Congress overstepped its authority in 1999 when it passed a law barring the creation, sale or possession of any depiction of animal cruelty with the intent to distribute and sell it. The 1999 law was an attempt to outlaw production and distribution of so-called "crush videos," which involve depictions of small animals being tortured and killed by women in high heel shoes. The videos catered to sexual fetishes and were mainly marketed in underground trade.
The problem with the law, Fanning said, is it could be so broadly applied, making mere possession of videos like Hayn's a crime.
Hayn was a shift-working corrections officer working with inmates in the state of Missouri when the videos were shot, often while other people were in his truck. He had had multiple collisions in which cars were badly damaged, to the point where his insurance company questioned what was going on, Fanning said.
In response, he "beefed up" a pickup truck, equipped it with a brush guard and attached a camera, much like a back-up camera on some vans. He filmed several collisions during the next few years.
Fanning said it is clear from the video that there was no intent to harm deer. The camera angle shows the vehicle nosing down as if braking before impact or the vehicle swerving to avoid impact.
"You can tell these aren't intentional; there are more misses than hits," he said. "You can tell by (recorded) conversations (with passengers) that they aren't anticipating the incidents."
The video is "probably less than an hour long," he said. Most of the experiences were shot years ago and are of an extremely grainy quality. They were edited down from hours of travel. Fanning estimated that 20 to 30 incidents were captured.
While the video content is objectionable to many people, it captures content that can be found in many deer hunting videos - still morbid in nature but generally more acceptable, Fanning said.
The federal indictment accused Hayn of possessing the DVD between April 15 and Nov. 18, 2009, and of selling it on Nov. 12.
Since the filing of the federal charges, Hayn lost a job he recently had gained with the Illinois Department of Corrections, for which he was in academy training, his attorney said.
Fanning described Hayn as "a longtime family man, married with a child and with a wife who's as sweet as she can be. He's not the type of person to purposely go out and maim and cripple deer."
If Hayn had criminal intent, there would have been far more episodes filmed, not just on public roads, and with all sorts of animals, not just deer, Fanning said.
Both Fanning and Assistant U.S. Attorney Raymond Meyer cited the Supreme Court ruling in motions to dismiss the case one day later. Earlier, Meyer had told a reporter that he did not think the local case could stand if the Supreme Court took the action that it did.
His lawyer must not have viewed the videos. He wants to claim that the videos are evidence that Hayn applies the brakes and swerves to avoid the deer. He must not have seen the video of him swerving to the left into the oncoming lane to hit a big buck coming from the left.........
or him rolling on the right shoulder and running over a buck he just blasted that flew off his truck like a rubber ball..........