Posted on 07/23/2013 10:58:05 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
Well stated.
“I just shot the one closest to me...”
I can see the logic in that tactic as touch-close guy is a threat simply because he’s that close. At least in a confrontation with street thugs it would make sense to shoot closest guy first once someone in the group initiated violence.
How it plays out with ill-mannered middle class rafters vs a probably crazy redneck is another story.
Best tactic of all would have been for rafters to unass the AO when they saw the landowner had a gun.
Re-read what you wrote. Do you think he schemed and worked out some plan to "get away with it"? Of course not.
These conflicts happen because people are territorial. Government exists in part to work out ahead of time just who gets control over what territory and to establish a system for dealing with trespass.
Problems arise when government decides to ignore this basic responsibility and instead focus on more fun things like giving money away.
Now the shooter here obviously should not have done what he did. His instincts took over. He returned to a state of nature. But that's what happens when government stops working -- you end up with a Chicago or a Detroit moment on the banks of the Meramec.
He did cut one.
I had a sidearm that remained holstered.
How do you get air vehicle cops to respond on a moment's notice? And how do I get me some? (I guess that's two questions.)
“Your recitation leaves out a lot of relevant, determinative, facts.”
Maybe, but based on the little that was there, I don’t think I left anything out that would be relevant to a DA.
Can you get a conviction on 2nd degree manslaughter from a jury? Not in the sticks you can’t. You can in a blue city in a blue state, but not in the sticks.
Could you get a guy like this to plead on this one, and then hammer him if it happens again, almost definitely.
Which one cost the state less?
The plea.
Is the family going to be pissed?
Maybe, but then I’m sure they’ll get free advice along the lines of ‘when a property owner comes up to you with a pistol and asks you to leave, you probably should get back on your inner tube and leave. Picking up rocks, arguing with him, and then assaulting him isn’t the generally accepted method of diffusing a potentially dangerous situation.
If they plead him down and he does it again, its a lock to convict on the second incident.
Take him to trial and he wins, then he does it again, it’s like the first incident never happened, and worse, it establishes precedent for the second time he walks if the circumstances are similar enough.
With a plea, there’s an admission of guilt.
Tell them that you are making an arrest.
P.S.
I didn’t request any particular mode of travel, but I suspect that they may have already been on a call nearby. Land travel would have taken up the rest of their day easily.
This would never have happened in states that were very restrictive on gun ownership, or that didn't allow citizens to defend themselves. In Britain, for example, it would never happen because people aren't allowed to own guns or use them against burglars. In New York and Chicago, it would not happen because law-abiding citizens are afraid to use the few guns they are allowed because someone is on their lawn. But in liberty-minded states, people are accustomed to defending their property and themselves with their own guns, and calling the cops as backup.
When idiots use guns to do something because they think they are legally allowed to take a life, and they are wrong about that, it hurts those of us who believe strongly in the properly applied principles of self-defense. There are good people in Missouri, women mostly, who will be swayed now to demand more restrictions on guns or self defense laws. That would be wrong. What is needed is better education of those who own guns on when you can and can't use them. I don't know how we do that, or if I think we should require some basic knowledge with ownership of a gun. I don't want government involved in "granting" us our God-given rights. So how do we engender responsible ownership by knowledgable people? This guy, the shooter, clearly had no idea what he was doing, and thought that people on his property were fair game.
I'll be happy to wager that the shooter gets manslaughter or higher. I think more likely higher, but they might let him plea to manslaughter and 5 or 10 years.
How about when an armed man approaches you and orders you off his property and you not only stay, bu approach him and try to disarm him you accept responsibility for the consequences that ensue
Do you live in New York or some other anti-self defense state? Are you a judge? Because laws differ considerably from state to state, and I see you handing down a ruling without taking all of the facts into account. The devil is in the details, and the details are what is lacking in this story. I still can't figure out why when confronted by an armed man rather than leaving they approached him and apparently tried to take his gun away.
There were truckloads of stupidity on both sides, but what I can’t get over is if some guy comes with a gun and tells you to get off his property you pick up rocks and try to grab his gun rather than leaving EVEN IF you think you’re on an easement and you’re right. At that point the trespassers have escalated the confrontation.
Who's "he"? The shooter?
What makes you think I was talking about the shooter?
So if I come on to your property and relieve myself and you come out and tell me to get off your property you're the one determined to cause trouble. Guess I don't get the whole what's yours is mine mindset. I was taught to respect the property of others, but I'm apparently in the minority.
Some of my neighbors certainly think that my lawn is theirs for use of their dogs to relieve themselves, but then to me they're volunteering their lawns and driveways as places for me to dump my used motor oil.
And If I were a defense lawyer I could get rid of you from the jury pool for that statement WITHOUT using up one of my arbitrary removals. Nah, no bias on your part at all.
Nice of you to rewrite reality a bit. BTW aren't you late for a "Justice for Treyvon demonstration?"
Unlawful discharge ...on his own property?
Seems to me he was in his rights. Boating and alcohol is dangerous in many ways.
To put it bluntly, would you approach an angry, armed man whose standing in his yard telling you to leave and go up and grab his arm? What were Kling’s last words “hold muh beer”?
Knowing the way our local government works, I’ll put money on the fact that they’re counting your waterway as part of your land.
See post 155, but I don’t think you can learn anything.
I certainly can't learn anything from an ignoranus like you. Aren't you late for a "justice for Treyvon rally"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.