Monday, February 25, 2013

Oregon Hunter Gets Away with Manslaughter



Eugene Collier admits he was shooting to kill when he fired the .270-caliber bullet that caused Christopher Ochoa's death on Oct 21, 2011.

But he thought he was shooting at a bear.

He was certain, he told a jury Friday, that the dark figure "on all fours" at the edge of his family's property where he was hunting that evening was a bear.

That jury agreed with him, acquitting him of a charge of second-degree manslaughter. The jury returned its verdict after about two hours of deliberations.

The 12-person jury decided that Collier was not reckless in the shooting death of the 20-year-old Ochoa, a marine reservist from California who had traveled to Oregon to help his friend, Raymond Westrom. The two of them set out to see the South Falls at Silver Falls State Park the night Ochoa was shot.
Usually they don't even bother to charge these guys. When they do, this is often the result.

16 comments:

  1. Sure, sure... because a human looks so much like a bear. Never mind that the hunter chose to fire without confirming his prey, while on Vicoden, with his grandson nearby.

    This is a travesty of justice. He's guilty as f*ck of manslaughter, but since it was a gun and was an "accident", then in our nation he is somehow relieved of all guilt. Now he's free to do it again. They can't even take away his hunting license or gunzzz.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are you proposing to do away with the jury trial system of justice we have in place?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, we're just proposing to call a shit verdict what it is.

      Delete
    2. Hmm, a transcript would be handy then, wouldn't it, mike?

      Delete
    3. You defend any gun owner, is that it? No matter how negligent, no matter how many of the 4 Rules he breaks. You're so biased, you can't even admit that there's no excuse for shooting someone by mistake, none.

      Why are you like that? Is it you're afraid someday you'll need the same generous treatment when you shoot someone by mistake?

      As a gun owner you should be the first one calling for strict responsibility in gun handling, not excusing negligence.

      Delete
    4. Speaking only for myself, I do expect gun owners to be responsible. Do I think the shooter was negligent? Yep. That said, I also try to avoid making judgments without facts. In this case, the few facts I've seen are contained in 5 short paragraphs, only 3 of which contain information about the shooting. If I were accused of any crime, I'd hate for a jury to make their decision based on such a paucity of information.

      Delete
    5. C'mon, man, you can do better than that. He fucking killed somebody in the woods by breaking basic safety rules. Take a shot. What do you think based on that one BIG fact.

      Delete
    6. Look above. I said I think he was negligent. But, in the absence of a transcript, I will not second guess the jury. Let me give a different example.

      I have always believed that OJ Simpson is guilty of murder. Several people on the jury said they were concerned that they were releasing a guilty man. They did so, they said, because the state did not make its case. Now, Marcia Clark's response to this was to revert to the classic "did too" defense. The problem is, I know defense attorneys and prosecutors who, at the time, said something like "if that's the best the state has and the best the prosecution can do presenting it, he will walk". They were right.

      In this case, I don't know the facts or how well they were presented. I only know what I think. I had a friend in high school who was accused of drunk driving resulting in a wreck in which someone else in the car was killed. A witness saw him unbuckle and exit from the left hand front door. It was only in the trial that it came out that the car was upside down. My friend had exited from the passenger side because he was a passenger. The driver, who died, had not buckled up.

      Delete
  3. If we give credence to the idea that juries generally try to deliver a sound judgement based on the facts presented in the case, it would appear the prosecution failed to convince them. Since the article doesn't provide a transcript of the trial it's pointless to ascribe any sort of meaning beyond that to the verdict.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Clearly this is a case where the law has failed, and traditionally if the law fails, vendettas start. If this fucking turd killed my kid accidentally and got off, I would take out 2 of his, or 2 of a relative.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because that's a sane, rational, and adult response to the failure of our criminal justice system.

      Oh wait. It isn't

      Delete
    2. The web's classiest troll suggests that, following a perceived failure of the justice system, he wouldn't target the person responsible for the death of his child, he'd instead kill two innocent children of that person or of one of their innocent relatives.

      WOW! I believe we have another Christopher Dorner on Your side Mike! But apparently, according to your rules, this would put Nick on our side of the issue.

      RKBA advocates are accused of violence and bloodthirst, but here's yet another example showing that Your side is the side that thinks it's correct and appropriate to kill the children of one's enemies.

      Disgusting and Reprehensible!

      Delete
    3. Grow up. This is not the sixth grade where people mistake bravado for being an adult.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous, didn't you see the "if" part of what Nick said?

      Delete
    5. I saw the if. It's a conditional statement. If this occurs, that will follow. Mikeb, you've said in the past that you like Nick's style. Do you support his statement here?

      Delete
    6. Yes, I saw the "if" in what nick said. He said that IF he suffered an injustice, he would murder two innocent children. Guess I should have said "anther Christopher Dorner in waiting."

      Of course, since you're defending that Nick only said that he would murder children if he suffered an injustice, and that he didn't actually do it, I guess you have no problem with what Nick said.

      You and he are both a couple of sick degenerates. Him for suggesting that he'd murder innocent children in revenge for an injustice, and you for defending his vile statement as only being hypothetical.

      Delete