Meramec float trip ends in fatal shooting after dispute over property rights along waterway

St. Louis Post-Dispatch ^ | July 23, 2013 | Kim Bell, Paul Hampel

[rwa265]

It was just supposed to be a pit stop.

A group of family and friends on an annual float trip stopped at a gravel bar in the Meramec on Saturday afternoon to refresh drinks and answer the call of nature, according to Loretta Dart, who was on the trip. Her cousin went into the woods to urinate.

In doing so, he apparently ignited the ire of a property owner along the river fed up with people traipsing on his property. James Robert Crocker, 59, confronted the group with a 9 mm handgun, and in an altercation over property rights that rapidly escalated to gunfire, fatally shot Dart’s husband in the head from a few feet away, authorities say.

[Moonman62]

“My husband tried to calm the guy down,” Loretta Dart said. “He went to the guy’s arm to try to stop him, but the guy jerked back and popped him in the face.” (Emphasis supplied)

Is it possible that the guy who got shot was going for the gun? Tough case as you say, and we can't rely on what's in the paper either.

[Nebr FAL owner]

Lets see a tuber stops at the gravel bar in the middle of the stream then walks off unto a private land owners property to take a dump. The land owner who is armed confronts the drunk party of tubers, one of the drunks tries to grab the land owner & gets shot for being stupid is that the basic premise of this story ?

If so there is a lesson here RESPECT THE LAND OWNER & DON’T TRY TO WRESTLE AN ARMED LAND OWNER. Hope this has been a useful teachable moment.

[Manly Warrior]

Certainly not, but to have a handgu drawn is not a good way to deal with it either. in a holster on the hip,. concealed or not, a rifle/shotgun carried at low port arms to me is less preferable although certainly more appropriate (handguns are the tools used to get to the nearest long gun).

Shooting warning shots is not a good idea.

Shooting the nearest guy is not wrong, if you are indeed not the aggressor nor if the other party has withdrawn etc.

Since Crocker apparently (as to the story, not necessarily the facts) fired warning shots (not at the parties apparently, as incoming rounds have a very effective deterrent effect on folks in their right minds and not otherwise purposed), he may be seen legally as in fear for his safety, and in MO, one does not have a duty to retreat on ones own property, however, intent will be the first thing to be determined. Rocks in hand, multiple males, refusal to depart etc, all can speak to reasonable fear.

Finally, a bunch of drunk witnesses do not necessarily make a water tight prosecution. A good attorney will fillet their stories and any inconsistencies will be magnified- reasonable doubt is the standard to convict....

The guys coming up to the house afterwards and stating “we want him” etc, will be used to great advantage by the defense.

Lesson for open carry/CCW folks, keep your weapon holstered/concealed until deadly force is required....

[Augie]

In addition to arrogant you are also a presumptuous little bustard.

I didn’t didn’t offer an opinion. I simply stated how things are on that river every weekend all summer long.

[ArrogantBustard]

No presumption necessary. You yourself wrote " but drunken floaters are a fact of life on Ozark streams and that’s just the way it is."

Yep, that's just the way it is. You OK with that? You seem to be.

As for the rest ...

Yep. Arrogant Bustard says it all. Can't say I didn't warn you.

BTW, in some circles, a "floater" is a dead, decaying corpse in the water. In other circles, one will find a "floater" in the toilet bowl. So ... calling these obnoxious folk on the river "floaters" seems very appropriate.

[Springfield Reformer]

Ah yes, that’s the one. Thanks.

[Kartographer]

We never had a major disagreement and most as far as I remember we have generally agree, so I will ask you this question and except your answer.

Right or wrongly you confront trespassers on your property they refuse to leave and appear they have had plenty to drink. One of the group grabs a rock and starts towards you a second member of the party grabs your arm. Do you shoot?

I say if the Crocker had not been arm we would likely be read a story about a property own who confronted some trans passers and got his head bashed in for his trouble

[Kartographer]

BINGO! We have a WINNER!

[MileHi]

I had that sign at the entrance to 40+/- acres I have in So Colo. Someone stole it while I wasn't there, which is most of the time. I don't think they stole it because they liked the sign either.

[Kartographer]

I am sorry, but it takes a lot more then being able to float down a body of water on an innertube to make it navigable.

It also funny I never realized that property owners rights depend on where the property is located or the level of desire of the public to use it for their own purposes.

[Augie]

My statements were simple and crystal clear. Twice.

Go find someone else to screw with. I’m not interested.

[Defiant]

Glad you have a good understanding of Missouri law on the status of the Meramec River in terms of its navigability and where the property lines end for those who own property along the river. Your certainty should be shared with those involved in this case, because it seems there is a lot of confusion based on a lot of confusing case law. The article should have quoted you instead of the Missouri lawyer. Then you could tell us where the easement began.

Looking at this picture, and reading what the article described as to the law in Missouri, it seems to my feeble mind that the small trees at the edge of the river bank and along the sand bar are probably within the easement, but the woods beyond those trees are not. That is what is probably confusing to people, because the exact line is indefinite, and we as property owners usually like to have a boundary.

Another confusion you may have is regarding the legal definition of navigible. You see, in Missouri, navigable does not mean the same as in the Delaware River or the Hudson. A canoe that can make its way down most of the year probably makes a river navigable. A creek that only has running water after a storm is not.

The picture also makes it appear as though the guy who was shot was shot out in the middle of the sand bar. If he shot the guy there, it's a jail he'll be goin'. The easement is definitely going to extend onto that sand bar. Which means he acosted people who had a right to be where they were. Unless your knowledge of Missouri case law indicates otherwise, in which case, I am happy to hear your legal argument.

[Kartographer]

I’ll ask you:

Right or wrongly you confront trespassers on your property they refuse to leave and appear they have had plenty to drink. One of the group grabs a rock and starts towards you a second member of the party grabs your arm. Do you shoot?

[Kartographer]

Also I did read the article and no one interviewed stated 100% were the property line is. In fact the everyone interviewed in the article gave the opinion was that it was a very gray area.

That said with your 100% for sure knowledge of Missouri law it seems to me that you are the one that should have been interview.

[Defiant]

If they have an easement to be on my property, they are not trespassers. If they grab a rock after I have brandished a gun, fired shots in the air and at their feet, it is likely because I have put them in imminent fear of great bodily harm, and they are doing whatever they can (no matter how little) to protect themselves. (i.e., utilizing their right to self defense).

The premises of your question are nowhere close to the undisputed facts of this case.

[Usagi_yo]

So as a property owner I’m obliged to confront trespassers unarmed?

Think about it again. Man comes down and confronts them with gun drawn. I mean I can see coming down with a breached shotgun or slung down, but a drawn pistol? Too aggressive of a posture. The people have absolutely no idea of the mans intent. If they had a gun they would have had every right to shoot him dead even on his property, other than in his house of course. Marginal if just near his house or property of value.

Murder 2 with a great chance of conviction. Certainly manslaughter.

[Kartographer]

The premise of the story is as I said if the man had not been armed he more than likely would have had his head bashed in. That was clearly the case and demonstrated by the the demand for the police to turn the guy over to them.

[0.E.O]

3. Guns goes off. Idiot is killed.

You make it sound like an accident rather than the deliberate act the story makes clear it was.

[Usagi_yo]

Brilliant.

[0.E.O]

If there’s Castle Doctrine and/or Stand Your Ground he might get off. If the pre-dead guy laid a hand on him on his property it’s even more like self defense.

Pre-dead guy had a right to be where he was. Pre-in-jail-for-years guy was the aggressor.