Salem trial begins in deadly hunting mistake
SALEM, Ore. (AP) — A trial began Tuesday in Salem on the manslaughter charge against a hunter who killed a man mistaken for a bear near Silver Falls State Park.
In opening statements, the deputy district attorney said Christopher Ochoa was crossing a field with a friend, taking what they thought was a short cut to the park in October 2011 when he was shot.
The defense lawyer for 68-year-old Eugene Irvin Collier said he was hunting with his 12-year-old grandson and believed he saw a bear.
Ochoa was a 20-year-old Marine reservist from French Camp, Calif. The Statesman Journal reports he was visiting a friend. The two men were trespassing on land owned by the Collier family.
Jurors will decide whether the shooting was reckless.
A lot of "sportsmen" are just out there to shoot whatever they can get their grubby sights on. "If it's brown, it's down" is a prevailing mentality. Look up this YouTube video for a typical example:
Coyote hunt turns into BOBCAT DOWN! (4PrlL71gtQc)
"Golly gee, I'm gonna shoot sumthin' today, and I don't care what species it is! I'm a patriot and global warming is a hoax!"
Why is it only a crime to accidentally kill a human, vs. killing a bear for ego purposes? Go on YouTube and look at all the crass "bear hunting" videos, especially the ones using bait stations. These people are kill-happy and don't respect nature.
I can't respect people who shoot predator species of minimal or zero food value. Man has already wiped out too many of them via human overpopulation and habitat loss, which is in large part responsible for deer overcrowding.
@Alec Sevins From what I understand, most folks who hunt bear do indeed eat them. There are qalways exceptions to the rule of course.
The park has really irregular borders and it's easy to go from park to private. There's more to this than an "accidental" shooting Would be instructive to look at Collier's record and behavior after the "accident"
@Tonk While I don't know Mr Collier, or all of the circumstances surrounding his decision, I can say this. Many, many times in rural areas, specifically farms, when a preditory species becomes accustom to dining on either domesticated pets, or farm animals, it can become necessary to shoot them. Bears, wolves and even coyotes can easily become nuisance animals that saftey demands get put down.Â
@Tonk Ahhh Thank you.. I don't know the area so that helps a lot..Â
Collier shot and killed a patriot "who only walked the land", a right afforded under english law, and most all of europe, the full force of the law must fall on Eugene, the Ochoa family can never be made whole from this tragic turn of events and Eugene should have had taken the shot when clear, what he did was murder, but he has found compassion from the court, the sentence should be maximum, as we have few enough of these incidents, it should be made clear no tolerance for slob hunters.Â
@Social Glimpse >'a right afforded under english law, and most all of europe,'
Ummm.... While I admit that it's been a few years since high school for me, I don't believe that this took place in Europe, nor under the jurisdiction of english law.Â
Jus' sayin.Â
@Social Glimpse "Collier shot and killed a patriot "who only walked the land", a right afforded under english law"
True but...
He was walking on private property- THAT is not a right.. I have 8 acres and if I'm target shooting on my PRIVATE land, I do not expect to have somebody cross the background of my line of fire. I try to hit the target and have a great backstop BUT if I shoot high, I have acres of empty woods. IF someone were tresspassing back there & caught a bad shot, am I a murderer? I don't think so..
The guy was irresponsible and yes, he should pay a penalty but the fact he was on private property does mitigate his culpability. IMHO
I'm thinking it went like this...Hey! There's somebody trespassing! I'll just shotem' to teach'em a lesson!
Hello? Family attorney.... What do you mean I can't legally shoot them unless I'm in fear for my life?!
Oh, in that case, I thought he was a bear, can we just go with that?
@SKVmutant I like how you think everybody who owns a gun is a brain dead hick.
@Jeepers He (Collier) may not have been a brain dead hick, but he damn sure should have known the difference between a man and a bear. NEVER shoot at something you haven't positively identified.
@Surveyor1Â @Jeepers Have either of you EVER look at a stationary bear through your scope lenses? Pretty easy to spot the bear vs human differences. Now eyeball a moving bear through your scope across whatever distance under the same circumstances...unless that hunter is decked out in safety colors...he's bear meat. People tend to see what they expect to see and in situations like these and it probably doesn't help that this poor guy wasn't wearing safety colors to help identify him as human vs bear. Factor in that he was somewhere he shouldn't have been...and it's easy to see how easily this became tragic. Two broken families, heartache and incalculable sorrows.
"Know your target and what lies beyond it." Â Â I think this is the bottom line here... Â I can see some mitigation in the fact that the 2 men were trespassing on private property - had they NOT been trespassing, Mr Ochoa would not have been shot... Â However, I still believe that the ultimate responsibility rests with the person holding the gun; to know ("see; be able to identify") what s/he is shooting at, and also what might be hit if the shot misses the intended target.
Just my take on this, based on the info in this story... I'm sure there will be more definitive info coming out at trial...
@margay1 See my comment above. It's always a shooters responsibility to positively identify your target, without question. But the important element is that a man is dead most likely because a number of preventable events happened in sequence. Safety colors? Trespassing? Open hunting tags and the expectation of seeing a bear....
@honorbound @margay1 ~  Correct... which is why I included that last sentence in my post...  There is just not enough information here yet, and some of the to-be-determined facts may very well alter initial opinions about this event...
Regardless, I think it is sad that a man died...Â
@margay1Â I'm with you, but I still disagree as to the fact that he was simply trespassing as being a mitigating factor.Â
I do disagree wholeheartedly that ultimately Mr Collier is deserving of a manslaughter charge, conviction and applicable penalties.Â
@margay1 I completely agree...unless the trespasser was wearing a bear suit to sneak up on his prey unnoticed.
>'The defense lawyer for 68-year-old Eugene Irvin Collier said he was hunting with his 12-year-old grandson and believed he saw a bear.'
If you don't KNOW what you're shooting, it's best not to pull the trigger, moron. Manslaughter is the least of what he deserves.Â
I guess if there's one good thing that came from this, it's that the 12 year old now has a very clear memory of what happens when some trigger-happy nut job decides to 'hunt' using moving leaves as the target.Â
@MarkKpic Those "moving leaves" clearly had enough "bear-like" shape to create a compelling reason for this old-timer to make the decision to pull the trigger. Admit that it's easy to criticize someone if you're ignorant to the situations salient facts.
@MarkKpic Maybe he is someone who is a little senile combined with extremely poor judgement over a "trigger happy nut job". My grandpa at not much younger then that taught me when hunting you never pull the trigger on something unless you are 100% sure of what it is and have a clear shot so you don't wound it. That is something I am sure that 12 year old will always do in his lifetime.
@FreedomRocks @MarkKpic We were also taught to be aware of the backdrop. Those bullets travel a great distance, especially high powered rifles so it's best to consider what it's going to hit if you miss the intended target.Â
@FreedomRocks @MarkKpic I get your point, but I stand by my assessment. Someone with that demonstrated mentality, in my definition, is a 'trigger happy nut job'. If his mental capacities were such (senile), he should have voluntarily given up his hunting. ANY person who shoots blindly at something deserves (at the very least) to lose their right to use firearms. A felony conviction will effectively accomplish that.
@FreedomRocks @MarkKpic Yeah, and I'm also not considering groups like AARP and the skads of 'free speech' that they often use in order to 'gain access to' elected officials on ANY proposed legislation regarding persons over the age of 65.Â
Unfortunately, the reality that is often lost on people is that with great freedoms comes greater responsibilities.Â
@MarkKpic @FreedomRocks Sorry but have you ever seen the average elderly person willing give up driving let alone owning a gun? We had very practical parents but still had to take the car keys and guns away from them before they hurt someone.
@MarkKpic While I agree and the most basic hunting/shooting rules are SEE your target...
"The two men were trespassing on land owned by the Collier family."
That old timer was hunting on PRIVATE property. owned by him or his family. He did not expect any other people to be trespassing in their woods. Â
I'm not saying that makes it ok or negates the fact he screwed up but for me that is a mitigating circumstance.Â
@cwpholder @MarkKpic I do get that point. He was trespassing. From what I recall of the story, it was Mr Colliers property. I also recall that his story has changed from what was first reported. I'm all for self defense, but shooting blindly into some brush because you 'think' that there is a threat, or a prowler, or even a bear in it is, IMO, the very definition of irresponsible gun use.Â
@cwpholder We're in agreement, then. I assume that they're trying on Manslaughter 2, as the charge of Man 1 wouldn't seem to fit the scenario.
163.125¹Â
Manslaughter in the second degree
(1)Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the second degree when:
(a)It is committed recklessly;
(edited)
As I said above, I have zero sympathy for Mr Collier. His actions with regards to firing on an unidentified target (to me) fit the definition of Manslaughter 2.Â
@MarkKpic @Civ @cwpholder I'm lost lol but if this is the reply you meant was for me..
No, no I didn't mean to imply that at all. What I mean is this..
The man believed he was shooting a bear.. YES he irresponsibly didn't have a clear view of his target but since he was on his own/private property he didn't expect any humans to be in the bushes.
So my point is- he didn't lay eyes on his "bear" but surely he would've been more careful had he expected other people to be walking around the property. At least I HOPE he would've been more careful.Â
That's what I meant by the mitigating circumstance. He was VERY careless & irresponsible BUT he hadn't expected other people to be near/on the property.Â
@MarkKpic @cwpholder No problem, I get lost all the time, especially when there's a hot convo and the comments are posting quickly. :)Â
Cheers
@cwpholder I'm still figuring out the new K2 forums system. There's a reply below that was intended for you. Apologies.Â
@Civ @MarkKpic @cwpholderNot to be confrontational, but it appears that you are at least suggesting that shooting at someone for trespassing is justifyable? I'm hoping that I'm misreading your intention.Â
Mitigating:Â Verb 1. Make less severe, serious, or painful: "he wanted to mitigate misery in the world". Â 2. Lessen the gravity of (an offense or mistake).
I don't know that I agree that it, in any way, serves as a mitigating factor to me that someone was trespassing. Now, if the man came out of the brush with a gun, or approached him in a hostile manner... heck, if he even refused to show himself when confronted, I might give it some consideration. But, for someone, ANYONE to shoot blindly into a bush, on their own property or not, in my mind is the definition of irresponsible.ÂNow, someone mentioned senility. That I could entertain as mitigating circumstances. It wouldn't excuse it, and I still feel that he would deserve prosecution for manslaughter, but I could justify a lessor sentence.Â
@deejm2112 @Civ @MarkKpic @cwpholder That is a very good question
@Civ @MarkKpic @cwpholder They might not have known it was private property, wonder if any signs were posted?
@MarkKpic @cwpholder In any case , if these guys were not trespassing on private property , one of them would still be alive  ( it does not matter if the hunter fired blindly on his own property) culpability goes both ways on this one , more so on the shooter , but  the two people were trespassing on private property where an owner should expect that to be honored.Â
@MarkKpic @cwpholder Oh I don't believe it was self defense.. The old timer messed up BIG TIME! He fired without a clear view of his target nor a good idea of the background..
He did screw up- I just see some mitigation there because he did not believe any other humans were on the property from what I read..
He was extremely irresponsible- and even more so because he had a young man with him and should've been teaching SAFE hunting.Â