Home Forums Hunting & Shooting General Big Game Update on CO Bowhunter fatality

Ninety days in the county jail, one year of probation, and a $500 fine.


https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/morosko-sentenced-to-jail-for-fatal-shooting-of-bowhunter/

Pathetic 90 days & $500 for killing someone.

He needs his brains beat out

Two things from the article. First, before the trial the judge rejected a plea deal the prosecutor made that involved no jail time. That tells me the prosecutor didn't think he had a very strong case. And if you followed the trial, one of the defense's key contentions was that LE who investigated the incident did a shoddy job of it. And they've already said they'll appeal, so maybe the judge was trying to give a sentence light enough to avoid an appeal?

Second, the judge said he wasn't sure the shooter was taking responsibility for his actions.

Ya think?

seen this before on other cases if he was black or Indian the verdict would have been not guilty , but a non-resident old white guy might still get off ? this wearing camo is legal for bowhunter but gun hunters has to have orange on is a foolish law during a gun / muzzle loader season. yes he is guilty but a good criminal attorney would get him off it only takes lots of money. the longer this trial goes on the better chance the old white guy gets off yet ? >> he should have got life in prison but here in America criminals get off too easy.

Well when he's locked up, you'll know where to find him....

Pete:

1) The trial is over He's been sentenced

2) No one ever gets anything close to a life sentence in a case like this.

3) I wouldn't call him a criminal. His crime was unintentional.

Was it a felony or misdemeanor conviction, the article says both? He's stupid if he appeals, on another trial he could be found guilty and sentenced by a different judge. He got off lucky, he should never hunt again!

He had multiple charges, the most serious was a felony with a maximum sentence of 3 years in jail.

The judge did recommend that he be banned from hunting for life in Colorado and the compact states, but apparently that's something that CP&W has to do.

"another trial "> i was talking about a new trial ? that he may get off yet ? the Liberal Colorado rule / law that bowhunters can wear camo during a gun / orange wear season law might be enough that he may get off in a new trial " another new trial ". if he broke the law he is a criminal otherwise he goes free ,which he could still go free with again a new trail. also if he gets a felony he is a criminal .

LOL, you crack me up pete, you've got it exactly backwards. The law, or rather lack of a law that forces bowhunters to wear blaze orange is anything but liberal. In fact it's the opposite because it gives bowhunters the choice of whether to wear orange or not. In this case, the law is what it is because that's how Colorado bowhunters want it. I know it's outrageous, the audacity of Colorado bowhunters wanting a choice when people from Minnesota don't want them to have one.

The conservative position is to give people a choice, the liberal position is to mandate safeguards "for your own protection."

But let me ask you a question. Your comments imply that in this case, you think that the bowhunter not wearing orange is a valid defense for the muzzleloader who shot him. Is that really what you think?

smokepole;
Top of the morning to you sir, I hope you're getting seasonally appropriate weather in your part of Colorado and you're well.

Thanks for the further updates on this, I appreciate you taking the time.

When we did some submissions to the MoE regarding mandatory Blaze Orange here in BC, which had resulted from a Coroner's Inquest into what I believe was a questionable hunting related shooting, one of the points that myself and many other respondents made is that we know share the back country with many, many other users, not just hunters.

If then we were going to make all hunters wear BO for their safety, did we need to do that for all firewood cutters, mountain bike riders, mushroom pickers, wild flower pickers, bird watchers, cowboys and just folks taking a hike? The timber cruisers already usually have BO vests on, but prospectors and geologists don't always.

To my way of thinking the onus has to remain on the hunter to identify our target and what's beyond it.

Here and throughout most of the west at least, those backcountry users have always shared the mountain with each other - well okay not mountain bike riders perhaps, but here it was California 49ers following the lure of another strike that really opened up the area after the fur traders and FN folks.

Following close behind the placer miners were cattlemen who were feeding everyone and then the rest followed.

Anyways sir, again just random thoughts from a semi-geezer on a sunny Sunday and nothing more.

All the best to you in the upcoming week.

Dwayne

Thanks Dwayne, always good to hear from you. The weather down here has been appropriate, the problem is, that can mean anything in April. Sunny and 65 degrees here today, doing some yard work but can't plant anything because we'll have snow and a low of 17 on Tuesday.

Anyway, you hit the nail on the head with what you said, this has to be the foundation and we can't erode it, not one little bit:

your problem from the beginning, i had posted how this trial will end up more accurate than you did and this trial could go to another trial yet ? the orange /camo thing is wrong but the shooter who could get a Felony yet , which makes him a criminal . it is a valid point by lawyers in court the orange/camo thing but the muzzle loader hunter still should have first identified what he was aiming at . who knows maybe he was smoking legal liberal Colorado pot before he shot ? >>> get over it you have been wrong since the beginning of all these posts go smoke some more liberal Colorado pot , being wrong and always posting negative comments makes you look foolish man up !

So you do think the fact that the bowhunter was not wearing orange is a valid defense for the guy who shot him.

And you think I'm wrong here. Thank goodness the jury didn't agree with you.

No you didn't pete, you have a selective memory. Here are a couple of the things you posted before the trial:




Here's what I posted before the trial:

i know it was wrong but if you ever sat in on a court case you should be able to understand how lawyers twist the law and words around. as far as what he may get for charges he did not get much did he ? it should have been at least 10 years oh that`s right its liberal Colorado the pot state just give him another chance ? discussion with you is over your answers are not >VALID< again! maybe Big Stick can make you understand better or a 2x4 side the head ?

Pete, I've been on four juries and testified in court as an expert witness. And I watched about half of this trial on Webex.

Did you?


Pete, once again it's not what he "may get," it's what he's already gotten, he's been sentenced. As far as the sentence he got, the trail was in Dolores County. If you knew anything about the case or about Colorado, you'd know that's one of the most solidly red counties in the state.

smokepole....do you have a headache yet?...you need to look at this from petes view....that will require some gymnastics but that is the only way you can get on that level of thinking.....bob

Yeah, I'm gonna go watch some Perry Mason re-runs to get in the right frame of mind.

i noticed you " smokepole " felt this might happen ? but it didn`t . > right or wrong this muzzle loader shooter may ask for another trial yet ?