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.
“These cases are really very confusing. They are difficult to interpret,” Styron said. “You are on private property, but you have a right to be there if it’s a navigable stream and as long as you are on a gravel bar that is submerged during parts of the year, because it’s part of the stream bed.”
So, the confusion is due to the nature of rivers. They are constantly changing, such that you cannot draw a property line, since it might change from year to year. The existence of the easement is not in doubt, though.
As a result, if they were on the easement part of the river, the shooter killed a guy who was not trespassing. If they were on the part of the shooter's land that does not have an easement, then he shot a guy who was reasonably confused about where the line was, because Missouri law is confusing. (And make no mistake, I don't defend the law. Missouri needs to properly define property rights along the river if it is this confusing. But for purposes of this case, we have to go by what the law is TODAY.)
In the former, the shooter goes to jail. In the latter, the shooter may still go to jail, but it depends on whether the fact of trespass in broad daylight by someone clearly not there to rob or commit a felony gives a property owner the right to take the life of the trespasser. The property owner will also use the cousin holding a rock and the grabbing for the arm to justify the shooting. My guess, and I don't practice in Missouri, so it is only a guess: He still goes to jail. Trespass is a misdemeanor. Generally, you can't kill to protect property. You can use deadly force at night inside the home, and to protect yourself or others from grave bodily injury. But not to stop someone from peeing on a river bank. So, I believe, it's a jail he'll be goin'. If there are aspects of Missouri self defense law I am not aware of, I will be happy to learn.
So, in a nutshell, this guy claimed the river out to the middle, and put a sign on the sandbar. He is wrong about that, as a legal matter. He accosted a group that was on the sandbar, and chased a guy who was behind some shrubbery taking a leak, and that guy ran out onto the sandbar, so was not trespassing any more. They got into an argument about whether he owned the sandbar. From the article:
The man said they were on private property and to get out. He waved his gun around and fired it in the air and into the ground near Paul Dart and her cousin, Loretta Dart said.
Crocker told a detective that men were yelling at him “stating that they weren’t going to leave and that the gravel bar was public property,” court records say.
At one point, Crocker told Kling, “I have the power here. I have the power,” Kling said.
They argued about the gravel bar, during which they were all on the gravel bar, and during which Crocker fired the weapon.
Sounds like the Darts were in the right all along, except that the cousin maybe was trespassing briefly. Yet one of the Darts is dead. Yup, Crocker is goin' to prison.
They are all dumb, The Darts should have got into their canoes and left, calling the cops when they were out of range. But they were stubborn like Missouri mules tend to be and they held their ground. I can't say I think less of them for that. They are probably good people who never in a million years thought some idiot would actually shoot them for being on a gravel bar in the middle of the river that millions of others stop on every year.
The bigger dummy is Crocker. He killed an unarmed man who was not trespassing on his land, after firing shots at other people who were not trespassing. If he thought they were trespassing, all he is allowed to do is call the cops. He can try to effect a citizens arrest and wait for the cops, but in the case of a misdemeanor, you cannot use force to hold someone if they resist. He can use deadly force if Missouri law authorizes it, but under these circumstances I don't think it would. And so his life, previously productive and valuable, is over because he is too stupid to know what an easement is, and too hot headed to know when to pull back.
A man is dead because of him.