Surely there is a difference between eating unbled meat from an animal found already dead and that of an animal killed by the man. The difference lies not in the blood itself but in the act of taking a life. The animal whose life was intentionally taken by a human should be bled before being eaten, because that blood was symbolic of taking a life, an act that only God can rightfully do. That's why to intentionally eat the blood off unbled meat from a slaughtered animal was punished with death, while eating from the unbled carcass of an animal found already dead resulted in uncleaness. The difference isn't in the blood itself, but in the fact that it represents life - not life in general, but a life TAKEN in a forcefully way by a human.
The case of Jonathan and his men is interesting because it demonstrated a gray area - just how much time should one wait after slaughtering an animal before one could assume it had bled enough to be considered kosher? Some, like Saul, thought not enough time had passed. Others had a more liberal approach, interpreting the Law in a way that letting some blood to be poured into the ground was enough to respect the spirit of the Law. Eventually this interpretation prevailed, and Jonathan and his men not only weren't executed, no mention is made that they became "unclean".
Eden
