Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > General Hunting Forums > Whitetail Deer Hunting
Update on the Deer Commander - the mass poacher >

Update on the Deer Commander - the mass poacher

Whitetail Deer Hunting Gain a better understanding of the World's most popular big game animal and the techniques that will help you become a better deer hunter.

Update on the Deer Commander - the mass poacher

Old 04-18-2010, 05:17 PM
  #1  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
uncle matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Darien, IL
Posts: 6,744
Default Update on the Deer Commander - the mass poacher

Man accused of killing deer with vehicle, filming acts




April 15, 2010 10:05 PM

By DENNIS GRUBAUGH
The Telegraph
ST. LOUIS - A hearing is set for next week in a bizarre case against a Kampsville man accused of running over deer with his vehicle, filming the episodes and selling them on DVDs.

Federal authorities this month unsealed an indictment returned by a federal grand jury in St. Louis on March 11. The case was kept under wraps until the man who is charged, Jarrod Lee Hayn, was taken into federal custody. He since has posted bond and been released.

Hayn, 38, is charged with possession of depictions of animal cruelty with intent to place those depictions in interstate commerce for commercial gain. He also is charged with sale of those depictions.

The indictment says that between April 15 and Nov. 18, 2009, Hayn knowingly possessed DVDs titled, "The Deer Commander - Sudden Impact." The video is said to depict deer that were hit, maimed and killed with a vehicle driven by the defendant on public roads with the intention of placing the depiction in interstate commerce for commercial gain.

A second count accuses Hayn of selling the DVD last Nov. 12.
Federal law defines depiction of animal cruelty to mean any visual or auditory depictions, including any video recording, electronic image or sound recording in which a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed, if such conduct is illegal under the law of the state in which the creation, sale or possession takes place.

Illinois law, according to the indictment, states that no person or owner may beat, cruelly treat, torment, starve, overwork or otherwise abuse any animal. No owner may abandon any animal where it may become a public charge or may suffer injury, hunger or exposure.

The facts surrounding the Hayn case remain under wraps. Assistant U.S. Attorney Raymond Meyer said he could not comment at this point. He could also not say how the case originated, who the investigative agency was or where the incidents allegedly occurred.

Hayn could not be reached. A woman answering the phone at his Calhoun County residence on Thursday said he was not home but that she would leave him a message that The Telegraph was seeking comment.

Defense attorney Edward Fanning of Hardin was in court Thursday and unavailable for comment.

Interestingly, the U.S. Supreme Court now is considering a case out of Pennsylvania in which a man charged in a similar animal cruelty case is pleading that the video he produced was protected under his First Amendment rights. The Solicitor General division of the U.S. Department of Justice maintains that the video is not protected speech.

At issue in U.S. vs. Stevens is 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.

A decision against the United States could have ramifications in the case involving Hayn, but Meyer would not comment.
No trial date has been set. Hayn's lawyer has filed a motion for an extension of time to obtain evidentiary materials, as well as to determine whether further motions are to be filed.

A motion hearing is set April 22 before Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert III in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.



LET THIS SERVE AS A WARNING FOR Y'ALL - NO INBREEDING!!!
uncle matt is offline  
Old 04-18-2010, 05:19 PM
  #2  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
uncle matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Darien, IL
Posts: 6,744
Default

"Hayn couldn't be reached for comment"?

More like he isn't even a shadow of a man when he's not behind the wheel of a truck running over deer.

Coward. Hiding behind his wife's skirt.
uncle matt is offline  
Old 04-18-2010, 07:00 PM
  #3  
Boone & Crockett
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ponce de Leon Florida USA
Posts: 10,079
Default

Good point Ridge Runner, but carry it a bit deeper. Joe Deerhunter has a small video company, just trying to make a living. He expands his season by taking up bow hunting. In one of his video's he shoots a nice buck, just a little back, plainly gut shot. So he does the decision to let the deer lay till morning to retrieve it. He finds the deer the next day, makes his video and talks about letting the deer lay basically gave the deer time to die and was probably dead in four or five hours after shooting it. Bingo, here comes the subpoena and he gets charged with the same theory of animal cruelty. More ammunition for the anti's and possibly a firm case against Joe Deerhunter. Honestly most of the major video hunters make similar type films every year and show them on T.V. as well as sell videos. An anti lawyer can extrapolate this case even further.
timbercruiser is offline  
Old 04-19-2010, 08:30 AM
  #4  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
uncle matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Darien, IL
Posts: 6,744
Default

Originally Posted by Ridge Runner View Post
do you all realize what this case is doing?
Its establishing precedance for cases to come, so he's found guilty, cool!
then your mother hits a deer with her car, gets more from the insurance than the car is worth, she profits from it, she's guilty of the same crime.

thousands of deer are ran over per year and this guy ran over 15, video'd it and is trying to make a buck, wierd, yep but still, think of what it means.
RR
Zero. First of all your Mother would have to hit a deer with her car intentionally (like Hayn was doing). Then she would have to set forth actions to profit from it intentionally. As to any penny-pinching insurance company paying more than a car is worth....good luck.

Oh and your Mother would also "just happen" to have a video camera mounted up when she hits a deer. And she would have to edit the footage. And she would have to design packaging. Purchase or produce the packaging. Market the video. Set up for the ordering and distribution.....................

Nope don't see anyone's Mom getting charged. Just two-legged turds like Hayn.
uncle matt is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 04:36 PM
  #5  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location:
Posts: 2,186
Default

Supreme court voted 8-1 that the restriction on selling animal cruelty films, photos, videos, etc. is protected by the 1st Amendment.
Mojotex is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 05:31 PM
  #6  
Fork Horn
 
Iowabucks44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Muscatine Iowa
Posts: 218
Default

I think they need to send the guy running across the road while us deerhunters swerve that tank of a truck into him. Imagine the deer in the headlight look he would have seeing his own truck comin at him.
Iowabucks44 is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 06:25 PM
  #7  
Nontypical Buck
 
fastetti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,462
Default

This guy is a POS and should be treated that way. Who in their right mind can sleep at night by going out and intentionally hitting deer. He probably burned ants as a kid and now that he is older he is trying to do something worse. I hope he gets a good amount of jail time.
fastetti is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 07:35 PM
  #8  
Nontypical Buck
 
sconnyhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Wherever liberalism must be eradicated.
Posts: 2,734
Default

Originally Posted by Mojotex View Post
Supreme court voted 8-1 that the restriction on selling animal cruelty films, photos, videos, etc. is protected by the 1st Amendment.
There decision was derived from the content of Dog Fighting videos, I believe.
However, I do see the correlation.

The difference here being that Hayne intentionally intended to kill these deer. At worst the merits of the video part of the case are thrown out. In my opinion, the case can still be tried as a poaching case, as in the videos, he is plainly seen to be "aiming" for the deer.
sconnyhunter is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 08:29 PM
  #9  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
uncle matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Darien, IL
Posts: 6,744
Default

Yep. This guy was overloaded with intent. And in criminal cases intent is what buries you. There can be no doubt. In the sample video it is clearly shown swerving to the left into the oncoming traffic lane to hit a deer coming from the left. That is pretty clear as to intent. It will be argued that a reasonable person would have either applied the brakes or took evasive action. And also going on the shoulder and running over a downed deer he hit that flies forward upon impact. It will be argued that a reasonable person would not hit a deer and then run it over when there is ample opportunity to not run it over.

Another thing that will be clear evidence of intent will be the fact that the brakes are not applied as a reasonable person would do.

Well his sorry butt gets to go in front of the judge tomorrow for a hearing. Let's wait and see where his arguement of, "I was saving the world from deer-vehicle collisions and I should be receiving an award!" attitude will get him.

I hope the media gets some pics of this douche also for all the world to see.
uncle matt is offline  
Old 04-23-2010, 06:58 AM
  #10  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
uncle matt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Darien, IL
Posts: 6,744
Default Deer commander fed charges dropped

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..........
uncle matt is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.