We have another ruling in a hunting accident case. I have previously written columns and blogs about the different treatment generally afforded to killings committed by hunters. In Salem, Oregon, Eugene Collier, 68, was acquitted of manslaughter in the killing of Marine reservist Christopher Ochoa, 20, after mistaking him for a bear. We previously discussed the case.
The jury only took two hours to acquit Collier. Collier was with his 12-year-old grandson when he shot at what he thought was a bear and killed Ochoa with a .270-caliber bullet. Prosecutors insisted that Collier acted recklessly and disregarded the obvious risks of such a shot. He was accused of not taking more time to observe the target. The men were trespassing at the time that Ochoa was shot, but prosecutors insisted that Collier should have considered that possibility that the target was not a bear. Collier had taken Vicodin, a drug for pain, the night before.
It is common in hunting areas for juries to be sympathetic to hunters in such cases. Oregon Code Section 163.118 defines manslaughter in the first degree as an act “committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” Jurors appear reluctant to declare a hunter reckless in taking a shot without spending longer to confirm the target. Consider Maine hunter Donald Rogerson. Mistaking a 37-year-old housewife for a white-tailed deer, Rogerson shot and killed her. Locals insisted that the victim (who had recently moved from Iowa) was to blame because she was wearing white mittens during deer season. And a Bangor, Maine, jury cleared him of manslaughter.
The family now has the option to sue Collier for wrongful death in tort under the lower standard of proof, though we have been the same sympathetic approach of juries in civil cases in hunting areas.
The jury clearly did not believe it was reckless not to confirm that it was a bear that you are shooting at rather than a blur. Clearly Collier did not see a bear but a hiker. Yet, that was found not to be reckless. What do you think?
Source: Statesman
“It should be an open and shut case and it is especially absurd since the hunter was ILLEGALLY on the property to begin with.”
JT’s post is ambiguous, but if you read the source article, it is clear that the hunter was on his property and the victim was the one who was trespassing.
Shooting the moving black shadow is a bad idea. Simple lesson for simpletons.
The shooting was not an accident. What he killed was. While the article seems to indicate that the shooter was on property that he partially owned, there was no information if the victim was on the shooters property. There was also no information in the source article concerning the shooter’s claim that the victim was on all fours. Something smells fishy to me. I hope the victim’s family can collect something in a civil suit because this shooter was negligent, to say the least.
Michael, Even if the 12 year old pulled the trigger, and that’s certainly a possibility, grandpa was still the adult and the one responsible. Terrible burden to put on a kid but let’s hope he learned a lesson.
Case in PA where a man and his best? friend went hunting. BF shoots and kills man. Awhile later friend marries man’s wife. Case reopened and bf charged. Never did find out what happened. Maybe I’ll look it up.
As a hunter, I am outraged at this verdict. It is the responsibility of the hunter to know what he is shooting at. It should be an open and shut case and it is especially absurd since the hunter was ILLEGALLY on the property to begin with. This is why I only hunt on leased land where I know who is where and that no other hunters are around.
A friend of mine went hunting one time on public land in East Texas, the most backward part of the state if that is possible. He hooked up with a gruop which spent the night before drinking and getting wildy drunk. The next morning they went hunting with most of the party still drunk or severely hung over. Glen said that he was truly scared, and vowed that was the last time he would ever do that. A single hunter or two would more than likely have been shot on sight with that group. If they had shot a person, the hunters also would have been acquited by a jury in that part of the state.
Hopefully a civil suit will bury him. Who wants to consider that it was the 12 year old pulling the trigger?
The two stories you mention here are about as believable as ole Dead Eye Dick Cheney’s story….I’ll believe in the Easter Bunny first.
Why the mention of taking Vicodin the night before? Off-handed comments like this, which would appear to have NOTHING to do with the case, are unnecessarily inflammatory. I am a pain patient who requires this type of medication to lead a halfway normal life. I already fear losing access to this lifesaving therapy, mainly due to the large illicit abuse of it. Comments like the above don’t help either.
This was a shameful verdict. All hunters are supposed to identify their target prior to shooting. There is no (NO) basis under which a person who shoots a person he mistakes for an animal should be acquitted of a negligent manslaughter charge.
Tragic case, but I doubt that throwing a 68 y/o man in prison for years is going to do anyone any good. Acquit for the criminal case and find negligent for the wrongful death case.
Hunting accident. Assumed risk when you enter the woods. Nothing to see here. Tragic accident. Yes the hunter was an idiot for not making sure what his target was. But I think its safe to say the guy was probably in camo instead of wearing a bright orange vest
WHOM he mistook for bear, not Who he mistook for bear.
Based on that and the mans age, I would have thrown him in jail for at least a couple of years and taken away his license to hunt for the rest of his life.
I don’t think that was an option under Oregon’s sentencing laws, which as I understand it, require a ten year mandatory minimum for first degree manslaughter (“Measure 11”). I wonder if juries, knowing the state has fairly high mandatory minimums (having passed by ballot measure) are less likely to convict when you have a case that’s atypical and they know the sentence is likely to be high (and this probably isn’t the typical first-degree manslaughter case).
I have often wondered how many ‘hunters’ actually go hunting for people when hunting season rolls around.
It would seem reasonable to me that Collier should be banned from owning a firearm and be banned from hunting for life. That’s a joke son. Sh*t happens doesn’t it and hunting is a way of life.
Guy accidentally shoots his hunting buddy so he takes him to the ER. Pacing frantically he finally see the ER doctor coming toward him
How is he doc? Will he pull through?
Well, you know the odds would have been better if you hadn’t gutted him before you brought him in!
Thought I’d get a pointless stupid comment in before one of the dogs shows up
Shelley is right, you dont take a shot until you know for a fact what you are shooting. It is right after dont ever point a gun at a human being or maybe it is before.
Based on that and the mans age, I would have thrown him in jail for at least a couple of years and taken away his license to hunt for the rest of his life.
Don’t go to Maine or Oregon. Tourists should be warned that their lives mean nothing.
This is the disadvantage of juries: they allow their biases to overcome their good sense.
How can hunting communities acquit these men? I grew up in a forested area with both bear and cougar, yet my Dad taught us you never fire a gun unless you know exactly what you’re firing at.
Evidently they don’t believe the same thing in Maine or Oregon.
Sicko. Sounds more like negligent manslaughter.