What are you gonna do, shoot me?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

"Absolutely."

I don't know how many of you know this story.

Homeowner's family sticks by his side as he faces shooting charges | freep.com | Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/article/20100103/NEWS01/1030404/1322/Homeowners-family-sticks-by-his-side-as-he-faces-shooting-charges-)

December 28th Tigh Croff returned home to find two men inside, the 4th time his home had recently been broken into. He is a security guard who has a CCW permit. He chased the two men out and ran after one, who turned to him with hands in the air and laughed, saying "What are you gonna do, shoot me?" Croff replied "absolutely," then fired once into the intruder's chest, killing him.

Should he do time for this? He should have followed the law and let them go, but it's easy to see how he could have been pushed too far. To jail him is not going to do anything but take up prison space that could be used to hold a criminal that would be paroled... and end up robbing, raping or murdering someone.

[miami_fan]

Where is the "become Gilbert Arenas' bodyguard" option?

[jeff061]

These stories anger me. He shouldn't eve be charged. If it's the word of the law, then change the wording.

Period. Fucker broke into someone's home. As a home owner with a legal firearm... shoot first, ask questions later. It should not be on the homeowner, in a likely fragile state of mind, to decide what the correct course of action is. Only the safest, and it's a zero sum decision.

[Izulde]

We had something similar happen in our neighborhood a few years ago and the person also received jail time, which created a huge uproar, but unfortunately wasn't overturned.

I originally voted the second option, but I could certainly see the value in probation to make sure things don't turn completely vigilante.

[jeff061]

“We have to all take a step back and look at property versus life and how we value it,” Assistant Police Chief Ralph Godbee said last week.

Oh and fuck him, I have bags of potato chips worth more too me than some piece of dirt invading my home and taking my shit.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

We had something similar happen in our neighborhood a few years ago and the person also received jail time, which created a huge uproar, but unfortunately wasn't overturned.

I originally voted the second option, but I could certainly see the value in probation to make sure things don't turn completely vigilante.

Yeah. I look at it and think how Marvin Gay, Sr. received 5 years probation for shooting his son in the back. I don't see how locking Croff up will protect society or rehabilitate him, which is essentially what prison is about. Probation and a loss of his CCW permit. A loss of his freedom would truly be a crime.

[cougarfreak]

Nope, I'm a little torn, because the guys were on the run, away from his house, but I probably would have done the same. If I would have time to think about it, I'd have probably shot to wound, in the knee or something, but hell, why not??

[BYU 14]

Tough choice, if they were in my house I would have to say I would be inclined to shoot, not knowing if they were armed or not I wouldn't take a chance and if somebody has to die, better them.

If they ran out as they did in this case and I chose to chase, if he had stopped and put his hands up I would have probably told him to get down and called the Police. If he made a threatening move or came at me, I would shoot.

In all honesty I would really hate to have to kill another human being unless absolutely necessary. It's easy to offer opinions one way or another without ever being in that situation and I hope I never have to make that choice. So many things can influence the decision too, especially the anger this guy must have felt as his house was broken into for the 4th time.

Out of curiosity has anybody on the board been faced with a situation like this ever?

[RainMaker]

Kind of a tough call since it wasn't a self-defense issue. More revenge than anything. I could give two shits about the guy who got shot but the law is the law regarding it.

[CU Tiger]

Had he shot him in the house, I be fine with it.
That he chased him out of the house, I am a little torn.

He should have shot him in the crotch to ensure he never reproduces, but hindsight is 20/20.

I'd say he probably deserves maybe a year in country club prison....with 10 months knocked off for good behavior.

[Shkspr]

In general, I'm of the opinion that deadly force is only acceptable in cases where danger is imminent. The phrase "chased the two men out and ran after one" along with the father's defense that the homeowner shot the man out of "frustration" lead me to believe that the shooting was indefensible under a justifiable homicide plea. If I were selected to this guy's jury, I'd vote to lock him up. I do admit I feel a bit better about my vote since it's Murder Two and not One.

[RainMaker]

I'm guessing a smart lawyer can make a case for self-defense though. If he's been robbed over and over, it's a matter of future threat. Haven't battered women been let off for killing their husbands in non-threatening positions because they were able to prove that the abuse was habitual and their future was in danger?

[dawgfan]

In general, I'm of the opinion that deadly force is only acceptable in cases where danger is imminent. The phrase "chased the two men out and ran after one" along with the father's defense that the homeowner shot the man out of "frustration" lead me to believe that the shooting was indefensible under a justifiable homicide plea. If I were selected to this guy's jury, I'd vote to lock him up. I do admit I feel a bit better about my vote since it's Murder Two and not One.
Bingo. Based off the account given, Croff was not in imminent danger. He had already chased the thieves out of his house, and it doesn't sound like they did anything that remotely deserved revenge at the level of murder, which is what it was - they hadn't raped his sister/mother/aunt, hadn't assaulted or killed any of his family, etc.

It'd be one thing if Croff had shot the guy in the leg to incapacitate him. But shooting him in the chest after chasing them out of his house, with no ? That's murder, and he absolutely should go to jail for it.

Now, if it turns out there's reasonable evidence to suggest that Croff was in danger, that changes things.

[RainMaker]

Bingo. Based off the account given, Croff was not in imminent danger. He had already chased the thieves out of his house, and it doesn't sound like they did anything that remotely deserved revenge at the level of murder, which is what it was - they hadn't raped his sister/mother/aunt, hadn't assaulted or killed any of his family, etc.

It'd be one thing if Croff had shot the guy in the leg to incapacitate him. But shooting him in the chest after chasing them out of his house, with no ? That's murder, and he absolutely should go to jail for it.

Now, if it turns out there's reasonable evidence to suggest that Croff was in danger, that changes things.
This was the 4th burglary of his home and nothing showed that this was ever going to stop. You could make the case that he was protecting himself from the 5th.

[Peregrine]

According to this news report - the intruders were never even inside his home - when he met them they were in his back yard, then he chased them out of his yard and down the street before killing one.

Man Shoots Burglary Suspect - Detroit Local News Story - WDIV Detroit (http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/22089705/detail.html)

[Shkspr]

I don't think even Texas lets you leave your home to go after a guy in retreat. If he shot the guy while in his house, then Castle Doctrine comes into play (in Michigan). But once the perp fled, you don't get to go after him. Nothing in the articles I have read indicates that the thief was threatening the shooter at the time of the shooting. If he had shot first, different story maybe. But I can't condone running after the guy to kill him - and I deal with thieves at work every day.

[jeff061]

In general, I'm of the opinion that deadly force is only acceptable in cases where danger is imminent.

I'm of the opinion that put in these situations the vast majority of people are not experienced or trained to make the right call over what is imminent and what is not. These are average people we are talking about, not trained soldiers and cops, in above average and stressful situations.

He chased one out. Idiot stopped running and turned around. He got what was coming.

[panerd]

I'm of the opinion that put in these situations the vast majority of people are not experienced or trained to make the right call over what is imminent and what is not. These are average people we are talking about, not trained soldiers and cops, in above average and stressful situations.

He chased one out. Idiot stopped running and turned around. He got what was coming.

Except didn't the initial post say the guy was in security with a gun license? A little more educated than your average Joe.

[Bad-example]

Chasing a guy down the street and shooting him in cold blood is indefensible. He belongs in jail for sure and also should be a prime target for a civil suit by survivors of the deceased. I hope he gets hammered in both cases.

[Shkspr]

I'm of the opinion that put in these situations the vast majority of people are not experienced or trained to make the right call over what is imminent and what is not.

So ignorance of the law is an excuse, is pretty much your defense?

[chadritt]

This was the 4th burglary of his home and nothing showed that this was ever going to stop. You could make the case that he was protecting himself from the 5th.

Was he worried this person was going to keep breaking into his house or did he plan on putting the head on a pike as a warning?

[molson]

There might be angle about property recovery - the guy might have some of your stuff on him, and you're usually allowed to use some kind of force to recovery property.

If I was prosecuting, and he had a history of anger, I might offer him dismissal in exchange for an anger management class or something. Maybe an unsupervised probation. But if he called my bluff and wanted to actually go to trial, I'd probably just dismiss it. A lot might depend on the "victim" too - if he's a career criminal/drug dealer, it's even a tougher case in front of a jury. If he's a punk kid that had a good life and made one mistake it might be a tougher decision.

And I agree that there's definitely an argument for self protection here too - I bet his house isn't burglarized again after this.

It's really tough to judge someone who walks into a home invasion/burglary and does what this guy did.

[Noop]

Put him in jail.

[dawgfan]

Was he worried this person was going to keep breaking into his house or did he plan on putting the head on a pike as a warning?
Exactly. Yeah, I get why he was so pissed at being robbed for the 4th time, but it still doesn't excuse shooting the guy in the chest after chasing him away from his home.

[jeff061]

So ignorance of the law is an excuse, is pretty much your defense?

Legally if the guy should go to jail, well there's not much of a debate. What's the point of posting in this thread at all. Cut and dry. They ought to change the law, but that wouldn't help this guy out.

Laws are by and large arbitrary. The guy should not be in jail.

[EagleFan]

Chasing a guy down the street and shooting him in cold blood is indefensible. He belongs in jail for sure and also should be a prime target for a civil suit by survivors of the deceased. I hope he gets hammered in both cases.

Total Bullshit!!!! They chose their path of action which started the chain of events. He didn't just start chasing some random person down.

In hindsight he should have shot to wound or held himfor the police but who is thinking calmly at that point?

Hell, how could he let a perfect setup line like "What are you going to do, shoot me?" go to waste?

[RPI-Fan]

This was the 4th burglary of his home and nothing showed that this was ever going to stop. You could make the case that he was protecting himself from the 5th.

You can certainly make that case, but the law doesn't care about it.

[Bad-example]

Total Bullshit!!!! They chose their path of action which started the chain of events. He didn't just start chasing some random person down.

That doesn't justify murder.

Hell, how could he let a perfect setup line like "What are you going to do, shoot me?" go to waste?

"I'll teach you to steal my G.I. Joe with the kung-fu grip...BLAMMO!!"

[Lathum]

This was the 4th burglary of his home and nothing showed that this was ever going to stop. You could make the case that he was protecting himself from the 5th.

Molson can probably address it better than I can, but I am pretty sure you can't use something that may happen in the future as justification for killing someone.

My opinion is the guy should go to prison. This is vigilantism pure and simple, the reason we have laws is to prevent stuff like this from happening.

[molson]

That doesn't justify murder.



I think most juries would decide that it does.

And the law is close enough, in most states.

[molson]

Molson can probably address it better than I can, but I am pretty sure you can't use something that may happen in the future as justification for killing someone.

My opinion is the guy should go to prison. This is vigilantism pure and simple, the reason we have laws is to prevent stuff like this from happening.

The defense can make (almost) any kind of creative argument they want to a jury - and the jury can disregard any law and acquit.

I can see a closing argument in this case with the defense attorney saying how terrified for his life this guy was, and he had no choice, etc, etc. The jury only has to follow the law to the benefit of the accused - they can disregard it and do their own thing when it comes to acquitting, and the state isn't allowed to appeal.

And of course usually, the statute/jury instructions that the jury gets are vague and open to interpretation (and they don't have the benefit of caselaw).

The defense probably couldn't get the case dismissed as a matter of law before the trial, (for many reasons, including the one you mentioned), but in front of a jury, pretty much anything goes, if you're the defendant.

And while that can be a tough system for the prosecutor, and occasionally, for justice, situations like this, IMO, highlight what's right about our system. No matter what vague, silly, poorly written statutes the legislature comes up with, if a handful or regular people don't want to send a guy for prison for this, he ain't going to prison. The jury has the power to tell the legislators to fuck off. And the prosecution knows that, and would be reluctant to try a case like this.

[Noop]

Didn't the same thing happen in Texas and the guy(ended up being his neighbor's house) got off with no jail time?

[claphamsa]

I agree no tough choice here at all. he murdered the dude. life!

[Bad-example]

I think most juries would decide that it does.

And the law is close enough, in most states.

I guess with an imperfect system lots of injustices can occur. Still, my money is on this guy not skating and not avoiding a civil suit.

[Logan]

This was the 4th burglary of his home and nothing showed that this was ever going to stop. You could make the case that he was protecting himself from the 5th.

Was it the 4th burglary by this particular group of guys? If not and they're independent incidents, I'm not sure that could hold up (if it even could if they were related).

[molson]

I think you have to get into the theories of punishment here too. Who are you protecting? Home invaders? Is this guy a danger to anyone that's not burglarizing him? Even if this makes someone technically guilty, the punishment would need to be minuscule, I think.

[MrBug708]

Hopefully he was a gang member that was shot

[CU Tiger]

WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS?!?!?!!?

[stevew]

Should have shot to wound. That's the major mistake he made.

[Lathum]

Should have shot to wound. That's the major mistake he made.

I think it would be easier to justify by saying he was trying to incapacitate him until law enforcement arrived.

[Mustang]

Should have shot to wound. That's the major mistake he made.

That and not putting another gun in the guys dead hand and discharging it into the air.

[Groundhog]

How far away was he when he fired? What gun did he use? He may well have just fired his gun in the guys direction and hit him in the chest. Most guns aren't very accurate, and I doubt a security guard is a master marksman.

[Lathum]

How far away was he when he fired? What gun did he use? He may well have just fired his gun in the guys direction and hit him in the chest. Most guns aren't very accurate, and I doubt a security guard is a master marksman.

I would wager it is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting and that the guy is an exceptional marksman.

[Groundhog]

I would wager it is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting and that the guy is an exceptional marksman.

Without reading anything outside of what is in this thread, I'd wager he just shot the guy from close range with his gun aimed at the guy's chest, in which case I think, given the other facts (guy was fleeing and outside of his property), it's murder. What the dead dude did was wrong and I understand why people would think it's an injustice, but you just can't encourage people to turn into vigilantes.

On the other hand, maybe it was from a distance, and maybe the guy wasn't actually trying to kill him. Maybe that makes no difference at all, but if it were the case I'd at least be a little more sympathetic to the shooter.

[judicial clerk]

Assuming the facts as they are stated, I think the shooter definitely needs to be prosecuted. I am not saying that he should be convicted of murder and be sentenced to life in prison, but his behavior needs to be addressed. We cannot allow people to be judge, jury, and executioner right in the street.

Now, I have no love lost for burglars and I believe in people being able to defend themselves (especially in their own home), but this suspect wasn't inside the house, he was in the backyard and committing a criminal trespass at that point. The story reads like the shooter assumed the guys were there to break into his house and he was probably right, but there is at least a chance that he was wrong. There is at least a chance that there is some crazy coincidence like these guys were 17 years old and ducked into the shooters yard to hide from a cop who just drove by and would have arrested them for a curfew violation.

that is why instead of executing them in the street after they give up, we need put them on trial after a thorough investigation.

Also, I realize that it sucks to be the victim of crime and it is a normal response to want to see victims get punished, but there are a hell of a lot of victims out there in the world who have endured a lot worse than this guy has had to deal with as a three-time burglary victim. I guess I feel a little like we belittle their efforts of, say, the victim of a stranger-rape who plays by the rules if we let the victim of a property trespass skate when he kills the suspect in the street who is actually giving up.

Finally, there is the issue of deterrence. if burglars think that society deems it okay to kill them if they are caught in a victim's house, they are less likely to go in a victim's house. if burglars think that society deems it okay to kill them after they give up, they are less likely to give up.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Hell, how could he let a perfect setup line like "What are you going to do, shoot me?" go to waste?

I never thought of the comedic aspect of this! Considering this, I can't see his his response being a whining "No." Then putting the gun in his belt, hands in his pockets & walking home with his head down sniffling & kicking stones. :lol:

[stevew]

I would wager it is the exact opposite of what you are suggesting and that the guy is an exceptional marksman.

Agreed. I'd say that in the hands of a street thug what groundhog describes is true. But in a lawful citizen with a CCW it is a deadly weapon.

In short, GH, a lot of us shoot way more than you can fathom.

[stevew]

I hate that the family of the deceased will have a good civil case. Being in the wrong and putting yourself in the position should void your rights to sue.

[ISiddiqui]

This was murder, pure and simple (based on the accounts posted). The guy should be thrown in jail for life.

[Groundhog]

I never thought of the comedic aspect of this! Considering this, I can't see his his response being a whining "No." Then putting the gun in his belt, hands in his pockets & walking home with his head down sniffling & kicking stones. :lol:

Actually reminds me back when I was a teenager and was walking down the street one night a group of guys a few years older than me stopped me and asked for my wallet. All of these guys were big (ie. "fat") guys, and I just figured screw it, and sprinted the opposite direction, and the brightest one of the bunch yells out "hey, stop you little shit". Righto buddy, sure thing...

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I hate that the family of the deceased will have a good civil case. Being in the wrong and putting yourself in the position should void your rights to sue.

"The family of the deceased" has yet to even go to the morgue to claim the body.

[Groundhog]

In short, GH, a lot of us shoot way more than you can fathom.

No doubt. But again, depends on what gun he fired. My flatmate is a cop and he often jokes that with a pistol at any kind of range you'd have a better chance of knocking them out by throwing the thing at them than pulling the trigger.

[Groundhog]

"The family of the deceased" has yet to even go to the morgue to claim the body.

That might change if there's money to be made...

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Actually reminds me back when I was a teenager and was walking down the street one night a group of guys a few years older than me stopped me and asked for my wallet. All of these guys were big (ie. "fat") guys, and I just figured screw it, and sprinted the opposite direction, and the brightest one of the bunch yells out "hey, stop you little shit". Righto buddy, sure thing...

I guess it's a good thing you didn't stop, spin around, throw your hands in the air and yell "What are you gonna do, eat me?" :D

[Chief Rum]

If how it went down is all there in the first post--then this guy should be on the inside of a jail cell and not leave it for 25 years min.

[dawgfan]

I think you have to get into the theories of punishment here too. Who are you protecting? Home invaders? Is this guy a danger to anyone that's not burglarizing him? Even if this makes someone technically guilty, the punishment would need to be minuscule, I think.
So you think home burglary would justify the death penalty? I'd love to discuss theories of punishment on this one, because I'd love to see you defend the idea that death is an appropriate punishment for what these alleged burglars did.

[dawgfan]

Assuming the facts as they are stated, I think the shooter definitely needs to be prosecuted. I am not saying that he should be convicted of murder and be sentenced to life in prison, but his behavior needs to be addressed. We cannot allow people to be judge, jury, and executioner right in the street.

Now, I have no love lost for burglars and I believe in people being able to defend themselves (especially in their own home), but this suspect wasn't inside the house, he was in the backyard and committing a criminal trespass at that point. The story reads like the shooter assumed the guys were there to break into his house and he was probably right, but there is at least a chance that he was wrong. There is at least a chance that there is some crazy coincidence like these guys were 17 years old and ducked into the shooters yard to hide from a cop who just drove by and would have arrested them for a curfew violation.

that is why instead of executing them in the street after they give up, we need put them on trial after a thorough investigation.

Also, I realize that it sucks to be the victim of crime and it is a normal response to want to see victims get punished, but there are a hell of a lot of victims out there in the world who have endured a lot worse than this guy has had to deal with as a three-time burglary victim. I guess I feel a little like we belittle their efforts of, say, the victim of a stranger-rape who plays by the rules if we let the victim of a property trespass skate when he kills the suspect in the street who is actually giving up.

Finally, there is the issue of deterrence. if burglars think that society deems it okay to kill them if they are caught in a victim's house, they are less likely to go in a victim's house. if burglars think that society deems it okay to kill them after they give up, they are less likely to give up.
Couldn't put it any better myself - you nailed it.

[Peregrine]

Hopefully he was a gang member that was shot

Well considering the guy he shot was 53 years old, probably not - unless he was part of the oldest gang in the world.

[Axxon]

The guy WAS an immediate threat to the guy. His response showed no respect for the gun which meant that the guard was in severe danger. We're constantly being told that having a gun isn't a defense and you're just as likely to have the gun used on you as using it for self defense.

If that's the case then the chances of that improve exponentially if the perpetrator isn't afraid of the gun holder. He's alone with this guy who had already broken into his house who was now challenging his only method of defense. What did you expect him to do in that case? Just give the fucker his gun? Try to walk away from a guy who could then jump him and take it? If he showed he was a coward and backed down then why wouldn't the CRIMINAL act on it? Because it's illegal? Right.

Dude does anything else and he's either beaten soundly or killed.

[Axxon]

To put it more succinctly, when the criminal turned around he was commiting an offensive act. A reasonable person not intending malfeasance would have kept running. Turning around was creating a confrontation and was not a passive act but an agressive one.

[Karlifornia]

Interesting case. On one hand, I think to myself that anyone who is unlawfully on someone else's property has what's coming to them no matter what. On the other hand, I think, damn this guy chased someone down and shot them in the chest, trying to get all Clint Eastwood on their ass. I can't decide exactly how I feel about this yet.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If a prosecutor is foolish enough to bring this to trial, it's a wonderful case for jury nullification to be applied.

[Blackadar]

To put it more succinctly, when the criminal turned around he was commiting an offensive act. A reasonable person not intending malfeasance would have kept running. Turning around was creating a confrontation and was not a passive act but an agressive one.

Um, no. When he turns around and puts his hands in the air, that's not an act of aggression, that's an act of surrender. Saying otherwise is just absurd. The guy is a murderer. Period. His best hope in court - and it's not inconceivable by any means - is to hope for jury nullification.

[Axxon]

Um, no. When he turns around and puts his hands in the air, that's not an act of aggression, that's an act of surrender. Saying otherwise is just absurd. The guy is a murderer. Period. His best hope in court - and it's not inconceivable by any means - is to hope for jury nullification.

He was laughing and taunting the guy, that is not an act of surrender no matter where his hands were. He was a danger. He was being aggressive clearly stating he felt no fear from the other guy.

[molson]

So you think home burglary would justify the death penalty? I'd love to discuss theories of punishment on this one, because I'd love to see you defend the idea that death is an appropriate punishment for what these alleged burglars did.

Well not "the death penalty" per se, because that implies a government punishment. I'm just saying that home invasions are a hugely risky behavior that is hugely detrimental to our society.

And since the #1 sentencing factor judges are supposed to consider is protection of the community (per case law in most states) - how is that really a concern here at all? "The community" is not home invaders. That's a behavior that's detrimental to the community. Is the community safer with this guy locked up? Maybe you could make that argument, but it's a stretch. It might actually be safer.

[Blackadar]

He was laughing and taunting the guy, that is not an act of surrender no matter where his hands were. He was a danger. He was being aggressive clearly stating he felt no fear from the other guy.

Then we have very different definitions of aggression. By your definition, putting your hands up in surrender and talking is "aggression" and mouthing off is justification for cold-blooded murder. I'm glad the police aren't allowed to use your definition.

"Freeze!"

*suspect puts hands up* "Screw you, pig, I'll get off in court"

*BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM* "I killed him for being aggressive"


Perhaps we should all live by your definition...it surely would make things interesting.

"Mother&@#$!, you cut me off in traffic!" *BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM*

[KWhit]

The guy should absolutely be prosecuted. You can't just shoot someone in the chest because you're pissed off at them.

[Coffee Warlord]

Should have shot to wound. That's the major mistake he made.

There is no such thing as "shooting to wound", any cop will tell you that. If you want to hit someone, you aim for center mass.

You point your weapon and fire at someone, you better be prepared to kill them. Plain and simple.

[Lathum]

The guy WAS an immediate threat to the guy. His response showed no respect for the gun which meant that the guard was in severe danger. We're constantly being told that having a gun isn't a defense and you're just as likely to have the gun used on you as using it for self defense.

If that's the case then the chances of that improve exponentially if the perpetrator isn't afraid of the gun holder. He's alone with this guy who had already broken into his house who was now challenging his only method of defense. What did you expect him to do in that case? Just give the fucker his gun? Try to walk away from a guy who could then jump him and take it? If he showed he was a coward and backed down then why wouldn't the CRIMINAL act on it? Because it's illegal? Right.

Dude does anything else and he's either beaten soundly or killed.

You sure are making a lot of assumptions here.

[Lathum]

He was laughing and taunting the guy, that is not an act of surrender no matter where his hands were. He was a danger. He was being aggressive clearly stating he felt no fear from the other guy.

umm, what?

So every time some shithead criminal gets arrested and mouths off to the cops they should shoot him?

This could be called the JIMG law.

[molson]

umm, what?

So every time some shithead criminal gets arrested and mouths off to the cops they should shoot him?

This could be called the JIMG law.

There's a big difference between an on-duty police officer and a civilian who just had his home invaded for the 5th or 6th time.

I think the only mistake he made was not killing both of them in his house.

If my house had been broken into 5 previous times - I'd absolutely resolve to kill any more intruders if I happened to run into them.

[claphamsa]

There's a big difference between an on-duty police officer and a civilian who just had his home invaded for the 5th or 6th time.

I think the only mistake he made was not killing both of them in his house.

If my house had been broken into 5 previous times - I'd absolutely resolve to kill any more intruders if I happened to run into them.


really? I would move.....

[molson]

really? I would move.....

Well sure, assuming that was an option economically, which I'm assuming it wasn't.

[Lathum]

There's a big difference between an on-duty police officer and a civilian who just had his home invaded for the 5th or 6th time.

.

How is there a difference?

Axxons argument is even though the man had his hands up he was still a threat because he was mouthing off. Unless I am mistaken cops are allowed to use deadly force if there is a threat of imminent danger.

Whats the difference?

[QuikSand]

So, for those who think this all makes perfect sense, a question.

Let's change the story just a bit. Thief gets run off the property by homeowner, and actually gets away. Two days later, the two happen to be at a nearby grocery store, and the thief looks back in line and makes a sneer and a wiseass comment about "hey buddy, too bad you can't shoot me or something," leaving no doubt that it's the same guy who was an intruder on the property earlier.

Still okay to kill him there, too? He's no longer on the property, he's no longer a threat to the person. Just how long does the license to kill extend? As long as your pulse remains high? As long as the guy keeps saying things that piss you off? I mean -- if your proposed law is basically "it's okay to murder anyone who is a confirmed dirtbag" then this guy still qualifies a few days later, right?

[molson]

How is there a difference?

Axxons argument is even though the man had his hands up he was still a threat because he was mouthing off. Unless I am mistaken cops are allowed to use deadly force if there is a threat of imminent danger.

Whats the difference?

For one, civilians are allowed to use deadly force in more scenarios than police officers.

And because so much of a defense of self-defense comes down to "reasonableness", an untrained civilian who's facing such constant threats is going to be judged more lleniently, by the law, prosecutors, and juries.

[claphamsa]

FWIW this thread scares me!

[molson]

I mean -- if your proposed law is basically "it's okay to murder anyone who is a confirmed dirtbag"

I don't think that's what anyone is saying.

I would say it's certainly OK to kill anyone who has invaded into your house and won't even retreat when you show up. I mean seriously, the guy turns around and wants to argue with the victim? I don't care that his hands are up, he's probably a lot faster on the draw than I am, and his friend is probably still nearby, maybe coming back around in the getaway car to help out. Why should the victim take that risk?

[bhlloy]

I have a lot of sympathy for the homeowner and very little for the guy that got shot, but it's pretty hard to get away from the fact that saying this is OK is basically mandating the death sentence for home invasion. Or is it just if you invade somebodies home and then taunt them afterwards? There has to be a line somewhere and I'm pretty comfortable with it being "if your life is in immediate danger". I don't believe for a second that turning around and putting your arms up in the air is that but if this guy wants to make that his defense in court he should run with it and see if a jury buys it.

The other issue to me is where do you draw the line... guy hits a kid with his car and appears to be drunk and not remorseful, do you gun him down? That's a worse crime to me than home invasion. And of course Quik's question above is very valid also. It's just a step in the direction of vigilante justice I'm not comfortable taking.

[Lathum]

For one, civilians are allowed to use deadly force in more scenarios than police officers.

And because so much of a defense of self-defense comes down to "reasonableness", an untrained civilian who's facing such constant threats is going to be judged more lleniently, by the law, prosecutors, and juries.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

Axxon is saying the guy was justified in killing the perp because he was still a threat based on the fact he showed no regard towards the fact he had a gun pointed at him.

My point is that police then should be able to kill in the same instance, since the guy is obviously a threat. In Axxons world.

I get that the police and a citizen are on a different level, but a threat is a threat, no?

[molson]

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

Axxon is saying the guy was justified in killing the perp because he was still a threat based on the fact he showed no regard towards the fact he had a gun pointed at him.

My point is that police then should be able to kill in the same instance, since the guy is obviously a threat. In Axxons world.

I get that the police and a citizen are on a different level, but a threat is a threat, no?

He might not be a threat to a trained police officer, but I'd argue he's still a threat to an untrained civilian. I think my last post addresses that.

Why is this guy still arguing with the victim? Why isn't he getting the hell out of there? I'd assume he's up to no good, or at the very least, I wouldn't be willing to take that chance.

Maybe the tone of voice is important here too - if the burglar was confrontrational "What are you gonna do punk, shoot me?" vs. crying "what are you going scary man with a gun, shoot me??"

[Lathum]

My guess is the perp is 53 and the victim is 31 and that's why he still isn't running.

[miked]

There's a big difference between an on-duty police officer and a civilian who just had his home invaded for the 5th or 6th time.

I think the only mistake he made was not killing both of them in his house.

If my house had been broken into 5 previous times - I'd absolutely resolve to kill any more intruders if I happened to run into them.

If my house had been broken in to 5 previous times, I'd get a fucking alarm. I mean, if I set a booby trap in my house and a home invader is killed, I get in trouble, right? I really fail to see how chasing somebody down that never even broke in to my house and gunned him down with his arms up is justifiable. It scares me that we have prosecutors with your attitude, that you will basically reward vigilante justice for a crime that would likely get somebody a few months jail time or probation. What if it was my car? What if he egged my house for the 5th time? I mean, there are plenty of crimes that justify vigilante justice...attempted breaking and entering...not so much.

[molson]

If my house had been broken in to 5 previous times, I'd get a fucking alarm. I mean, if I set a booby trap in my house and a home invader is killed, I get in trouble, right? I really fail to see how chasing somebody down that never even broke in to my house and gunned him down with his arms up is justifiable. It scares me that we have prosecutors with your attitude, that you will basically reward vigilante justice for a crime that would likely get somebody a few months jail time or probation. What if it was my car? What if he egged my house for the 5th time? I mean, there are plenty of crimes that justify vigilante justice...attempted breaking and entering...not so much.

Well, earlier I said that probation would be appropriate, now I'm just defending him on a human level.

I certainly don't think incarceration is appropriate, and that goes back to protection of the community, and how that sentencing goal wouldn't be enhanced by any incarceration.

The police in the article say "don't take matters into your own hands". Yet that's exactly what everybody think this guy should have done when he was taunted by a dangerous criminal (home invaders are dangerous) I guess the guy was supposed instruct the criminal to lie down, radio for backup, use his handcuffs on him, arrest him by force if necessary, etc. Or turn his back and walk away, which doesn't seem very smart either.

I think the responses that this guy should just move to a nicer area and get an alarm or whatever are pretty naive about what it's like to be a victim when you're at this economic level, in this kind of neighborhood. Maybe he should just hire a full-time security staff?

[RainMaker]

Um, no. When he turns around and puts his hands in the air, that's not an act of aggression, that's an act of surrender. Saying otherwise is just absurd. The guy is a murderer. Period. His best hope in court - and it's not inconceivable by any means - is to hope for jury nullification.
I'm not taking a side since I don't really know what went on in that confrontation. But if the guy turned around, why is it so far fetched for the shooter to believe the guy had a gun? If you are being chased by a guy with a weapon, wouldn't you only stop and turn around if you had a weapon to defend yourself with? If a guy is coming to rob your house, it is only fair to believe he probably has a weapon of sorts.

At least that is how I'd play the defense. A guy who repeatedly robbed a house stopped running away and turned to the guy with the gun. The only reason you'd do that is if you had a weapon of your own.

[RainMaker]

The police in the article say "don't take matters into your own hands". Yet that's exactly what everybody think this guy should have done when he was taunted by a dangerous criminal (home invaders are dangerous) I guess the guy was supposed instruct the criminal to lie down, radio for backup, use his handcuffs on him, arrest him by force if necessary, etc. Or turn his back and walk away, which doesn't seem very smart either.
I love that quote too by the police. Obviously the police weren't doing their job protecting his home so of course he had to take matters into his own hands. If the cops will not protect you, I don't have a problem with someone doing it themselves.

[Blackadar]

My guess is the perp is 53 and the victim is 31 and that's why he still isn't running.

Exactly. Besides, it's kind of hard to outrun a bullet.

I would say it's certainly OK to kill anyone who has invaded into your house and won't even retreat when you show up. I mean seriously, the guy turns around and wants to argue with the victim? I don't care that his hands are up, he's probably a lot faster on the draw than I am, and his friend is probably still nearby, maybe coming back around in the getaway car to help out. Why should the victim take that risk?

Hypothetical (and somewhat absurd) situations don't make good law. You're afraid that his partner might come back? GTFO and let the police handle it. You're under no obligation to stay. Retreat is always an option, until it's not (hence the reason you can shoot someone in your house since there's often no possibility of retreat).

If you see a purse snatcher, should you be able to gun the guy down in the street like a dog because he might have some friends that might show up and/or he might have a weapon that he might be able to draw if you decided to take a short nap while performing your citizen's arrest? Paranoid fantasies aren't usually the standard when determining reasonable force.

To point out the absurdity of what you posted, anyone short of Stephen Hawking could get a shot off with a gun pointed dead at the guy's chest before the guy - with his hands up - could reach for a weapon and get a round off. There ain't no "bullet time" in real life.

[Lathum]

I love that quote too by the police. Obviously the police weren't doing their job protecting his home so of course he had to take matters into his own hands. If the cops will not protect you, I don't have a problem with someone doing it themselves.

So the police should be everywhere at all times? Why couldn't the guy keep the gun on the perp and dial 911 with his free hand?

[RainMaker]

Hypothetical (and somewhat absurd) situations don't make good law. You're afraid that his partner might come back? GTFO and let the police handle it.
But police aren't handling it. That's the problem.

[RainMaker]

So the police should be everywhere at all times? Why couldn't the guy keep the gun on the perp and dial 911 with his free hand?
I'm not blaming the police. I'm saying that they have been unable to protect his home. Therefore he had to do it himself.

[jeff061]

What someone should be able to do and what the law says you can do are two different things. This is the split that has developed in this thread.

[Chief Rum]

But police aren't handling it. That's the problem.

I'm pretty sure even crappy police will respond to a 911 call where the caller says he has a burglar in front of him being held in place by the gun in his own hand.

[Blackadar]

I'm not taking a side since I don't really know what went on in that confrontation. But if the guy turned around, why is it so far fetched for the shooter to believe the guy had a gun? If you are being chased by a guy with a weapon, wouldn't you only stop and turn around if you had a weapon to defend yourself with? If a guy is coming to rob your house, it is only fair to believe he probably has a weapon of sorts.

At least that is how I'd play the defense. A guy who repeatedly robbed a house stopped running away and turned to the guy with the gun. The only reason you'd do that is if you had a weapon of your own.

You're missing two critical facts. As a prosecuting attorney, I'd have a field day with your defense.

1. The shooter is 31. The victim/perp is 53. Odds are high that the 31 year old caught up with the 53 year old. People give up all the time during chases when they feel they can't get away, or get tired. Taking a look at the guy from his picture, you're going to have a damn difficult time trying to convince anyone that a 53 year old man could reasonably escape from Mr. Croff. So Mr. Croff caught up with the deceased who stopped running once he realized there was no hope in getting away. That leads me to my second point...

2. The guy had his hands in the air, which is an obvious and universal sign of surrender. And if Mr. 53 didn't have a weapon, that's not going to play well. As a prosecutor, I'd say that the perp was obviously trying to surrender and by shooting him in cold blood, not only did Mr. Croff commit murder, but he also taught other criminals to not give up and to start carrying weapons of their own.

It's even going to be better if I can paint a picture that the deceased was unemployed and only trying to steal food or clothing. Imagine that playing with a jury...by the time I was done, they'd be ready to hang your guy.

Frankly, if I were the defending attorney, I'd play the "cops wouldn't protect me or my neighbors" card. In many neighborhoods in Detroit, an "us versus the cops" defense is going to play very well with a jury.

[molson]

I'm pretty sure even crappy police will respond to a 911 call where the caller says he has a burglar in front of him being held in place by the gun in his own hand.

Even a police officer wouldn't try to make a phone call while he has one criminal at gunpoint taunting him (and he doesn't know whether he's armed or not), and another one at large. He'd immediately try to secure him on the ground with handcuffs. And we're assuming the victim has ready access to a cell phone.

A Detroit jury would acquit this guy in two seconds.

[Chief Rum]

Even a police officer wouldn't try to make a phone call while he has one criminal at gunpoint taunting him (and he doesn't know whether he's armed or not), and another one at large. He'd immediately try to secure him on the ground with handcuffs. And we're assuming the victim has ready access to a cell phone.

A Detroit jury would acquit this guy in two seconds.

If the man didn't have control of the situation, then he should have either made moves to take control (order the man on the ground, for instance; or looked around for help), or he should have let him go.

I don't care what a Detroit jury would do. I care what's right and wrong. The man shot this guy in cold blood. He deserves to spend his life in prison, and then eternity in hell, if that's what you believe in.

[miked]

Well, earlier I said that probation would be appropriate, now I'm just defending him on a human level.

I certainly don't think incarceration is appropriate, and that goes back to protection of the community, and how that sentencing goal wouldn't be enhanced by any incarceration.

The police in the article say "don't take matters into your own hands". Yet that's exactly what everybody think this guy should have done when he was taunted by a dangerous criminal (home invaders are dangerous) I guess the guy was supposed instruct the criminal to lie down, radio for backup, use his handcuffs on him, arrest him by force if necessary, etc. Or turn his back and walk away, which doesn't seem very smart either.

I think the responses that this guy should just move to a nicer area and get an alarm or whatever are pretty naive about what it's like to be a victim when you're at this economic level, in this kind of neighborhood. Maybe he should just hire a full-time security staff?

My alarm system costs $30/month, surely a sound investment if you are losing property at the rate this guy apparently felt he was. You weren't really talking about a human level (well, you may have). You were saying as a prosecutor, you'd be loathe to even bring this to a trial. I guess we see it differently. I don't see an unarmed home invader (who didn't even get into the home) with his hands up and a 20 year disadvantage as a dangerous criminal at the wrong end of a weapon in the hands of a trained person. But I guess my point (and everyone else's) is what constitutes a dangerous person. Is a guy with his second DUI equally, if not more dangerous? Is a guy who steals the radio out of your car for the 3rd time dangerous?

[jeff061]

Right let him go so he can potentially come back for revenge. If you don't have the ability to control him, you put him down.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think the only mistake he made was not killing both of them in his house.

Or dragging them back inside afterwards, as I've been cautioned to do by law enforcement pretty much my entire adult (hell, teenage) life.

[RainMaker]

I'm pretty sure even crappy police will respond to a 911 call where the caller says he has a burglar in front of him being held in place by the gun in his own hand.
If it was a cop who shot him in the same situation, would he be acquitted?

[JonInMiddleGA]

If it was a cop who shot him in the same situation, would he be acquitted?

Depends.

Where did the incident take place and what were the races of the people involved?

[Chief Rum]

Right let him go so he can potentially come back for revenge. You put him down.

There are options besides the two extremes, a couple of which I list above. Welcome to a gray world, Jeff. It's not all black and white.

[molson]

My alarm system costs $30/month, surely a sound investment if you are losing property at the rate this guy apparently felt he was. You weren't really talking about a human level (well, you may have). You were saying as a prosecutor, you'd be loathe to even bring this to a trial. I guess we see it differently. I don't see an unarmed home invader (who didn't even get into the home) with his hands up and a 20 year disadvantage as a dangerous criminal at the wrong end of a weapon in the hands of a trained person. But I guess my point (and everyone else's) is what constitutes a dangerous person. Is a guy with his second DUI equally, if not more dangerous? Is a guy who steals the radio out of your car for the 3rd time dangerous?

I'd say the home invader is far more dangerous that the DUI guy or the guy that steals radios.

When you start breaking into people's homes, you're playing with fire. That's a big line to cross. People have all kinds of legal and moral leeway when it comes to their homes.

It's pretty reasonable to believe that this criminal was involved in the prior burglaries, and it's pretty reasonable to believe that the next time, he'll come back armed. Neither is guaranteed, but when it comes to self-defense, you're not required to play the odds.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't care what a Detroit jury would do. I care what's right and wrong.

I'll buy that part.

The man shot this guy in cold blood. He deserves to spend his life in prison

I think we have dramatically different definitions on what constitutes right or wrong here.

[Subby]

The scariest part of this thread is that it sounds like there is a state bar somewhere that molson was able to pass.

[RainMaker]

Like I said, I don't know the details of the situation enough. Nonetheless, the lesson here is that if you don't want to be shot, don't go breaking into people's homes. Once you do so, you are now considered someone who is dangerous and if you get shot by the homeowner, I'm going to consider it self-defense.

[Chief Rum]

If it was a cop who shot him in the same situation, would he be acquitted?

Acquittal isn't related to what I am talking about. As JIMG shows, acquittal brings in a whole lot of complication.

If you're sticking to my right/wrong point of view, it would be wrong for the cop to shoot someone with his hands up in surrender, no matter what the guy was saying.

[jeff061]

There are options besides the two extremes, a couple of which I list above. Welcome to a gray world, Jeff. It's not all black and white.

Please. This specific situation is black and white, from a non legal standpoint. Does the guy breaking into my home pose a threat? Yes. Only options are to control him or kill him. If you can't control, whether because of the situation or lack of ability, you have to ensure the threat is gone.

The shades of gray you reference only exist to help a potentially dangerous criminal, while exposing the victim to a unnecessary degree of risk.

Edit: Well not necessarily kill him, but at least wound. And as has been stated, you don't shoot to wound.

[Chief Rum]

I think we have dramatically different definitions on what constitutes right or wrong here.

That's probably explained by the fact you're from Georgia and I am from California. ;)

We're more apt to let law enforcement take a crack at things out here.

[molson]

The scariest part of this thread is that it sounds like there is a state bar somewhere that molson was able to pass.

Well asshole, I'm not making any any legal arguments, except earlier regarding the vagueness of self-defense statutes and the power and liklihood of jury nullification (and even those aren't legal arguments)

But what the fuck is your problem, seriously? You don't have to insult me and be a prick because you disagree with me. Everyone else disagreeing with me (and I definitely respect their opinions and it's been an interesting discussion) has managed to do so without being a dick.

[Chief Rum]

Please. This specific situation is black and white, from a non legal standpoint. Does the guy breaking into my home pose a threat? Yes. Only options are to control him or kill him. If you can't control, whether because of the situation or lack of ability, you have to ensure the threat is gone.

The shades of gray you reference only exist to help a potentially dangerous criminal, while exposing the victim to a unnecessary degree of risk.

The only black and white thing about this is killing an unarmed man who is not posing an immediate threat is wrong. You are defining options based on your own opinion, but thsoe are not the only options. You may find other options unpalatable, but they do exist and can be used.

Shades of gray is everywhere, in everything. People who see things only in black and white (Hitler, OBL) are the most dangerous people in the world.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Godwin'd!

/thread

[RainMaker]

Please. This specific situation is black and white, from a non legal standpoint. Does the guy breaking into my home pose a threat? Yes. Only options are to control him or kill him. If you can't control, whether because of the situation or lack of ability, you have to ensure the threat is gone.

The shades of gray you reference only exist to help a potentially dangerous criminal, while exposing the victim to a unnecessary degree of risk.

Edit: Well not necessarily kill him, but at least wound. And as has been stated, you don't shoot to wound.
It's not black and white though. Everyonoe has a different view on the potential crime the guy was going to commit. While someone in this thread said it was just an old guy looking to steal some food to eat, others would view it as someone who is potentially violent and putting lives of others in danger.

There is a major difference in how you view the potential crime of robbery. For instance, if that guy was caught raping the homeowner's daughter, would he have been charged with murder?

[bhlloy]

Right let him go so he can potentially come back for revenge. If you don't have the ability to control him, you put him down.

But many people in life have the potential to come back looking for revenge. A guy you hit on the freeway, your GF's ex, a guy you had to let go at work. Are you justified in "putting them down" as well?

[molson]

But many people in life have the potential to come back looking for revenge. A guy you hit on the freeway, your GF's ex, a guy you had to let go at work. Are you justified in "putting them down" as well?

Not all of them, it's a question of reasonableness, it's a case-to-case thing.

And what may be lawful self-defense for one person might not be for another in the same situation.

If tomorrow, someone breaks into Chief Rum's house and he kills them under facts simliar to this case - it would be tough for him to argue self-defense, because we know he doesn't perceive that person as a threat. But if someone else does perceive such actions as a threat, then it's a different argument.

[Doug5984]

How did the guy chasing know the burglar didn't have a pistol in his pocket, was waiting for him to lower his gun...just to say, the other person doesn't have to be armed to be a threat (to me at least)

[DanGarion]

Funny thing, if this guy had shot him in the back as he was running away people would be bitching about him shooting the guy in the back...

So how is one supposed to detain someone that refuses to cooperate even when you have a gun pointed at him? What was he supposed to do, just let the guy go?

He'll get off with a lesser offense, something like accidental homicide or whatever they call it, be thrown in for 3 years, left off in one with probation.

[bhlloy]

If you read the story it's pretty clear to me that the guy was just frustrated and didn't perceive the other guy as a threat. Even his families statements seem to back that up, they aren't even playing it like he was threatened, just that he was fed up.

If the other guy made a move toward to him or went for his pocket etc... then I think the shooting is justified. I guess we'll never know (or it will come out at the trial). But honestly, reading the story that is not what it sounds like to me.

[Blackadar]

Like I said, I don't know the details of the situation enough. Nonetheless, the lesson here is that if you don't want to be shot, don't go breaking into people's homes. Once you do so, you are now considered someone who is dangerous and if you get shot by the homeowner, I'm going to consider it self-defense.

Wonderful logic. We can apply it to so many crimes. If you don't want to get purposely run over, don't jaywalk. If you don't want to get your dick cut off, don't urinate in public. If you don't want to lose your hand, don't shoplift. If you don't want to get gang raped, don't flash your titties during Mardi Gras!

Gosh, I'm going to have a field day if they change the laws. It'll be like real-life Carmegeddon and that was a blast! I love this thread!!!!

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

What was he supposed to do, just let the guy go?


Seems to me that's more logical than killing him.

[RainMaker]

Wonderful logic. We can apply it to so many crimes. If you don't want to get purposely run over, don't jaywalk. If you don't want to get your dick cut off, don't urinate in public. If you don't want to lose your hand, don't shoplift. If you don't want to get gang raped, don't flash your titties during Mardi Gras!

Gosh, I'm going to have a field day if they change the laws. It'll be like real-life Carmegeddon and that was a blast! I love this thread!!!!
Those are not serious crimes that can be misconstrued as something more serious. If you break into someone's house to steal their TV, the homeowner has no idea of your intentions. He doesn't know if you're there to steal his TV, kill his family, rape his wife, or whatever. For his safety, he has to assume you are there to do the worst. If you don't want someone to assume that in that situation, don't commit the crime that would cause others to believe you are their for something more serious.

[Mustang]

All of you missed the bigger point. The guy that was shot proves that nothing good comes out of being cocky and funny.

[jeff061]

The only black and white thing about this is killing an unarmed man who is not posing an immediate threat is wrong. You are defining options based on your own opinion, but thsoe are not the only options. You may find other options unpalatable, but they do exist and can be used.

Shades of gray is everywhere, in everything. People who see things only in black and white (Hitler, OBL) are the most dangerous people in the world.

If you knew he was unarmed. How exactly can you be sure short of frisking the guy. An assumption?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

If you knew he was unarmed. How exactly can you be sure short of frisking the guy. An assumption?

Well, considering you chased him out of your house onto public property, where you were no longer threatened, I would think that you would not feel that he was an active threat to your life. I mean, why would you chase him if you felt he was?

No one has responded to QuikSand's interesting question yet. Could you shoot him the day after? Is that still justifiable?

[jeff061]

The second he stopped, turned and mocked him the situation changed.

If the guy stopped, didn't turn around and lay spread eagle on the ground I'd say you can't shoot him. There, that's my grey area :D.

[molson]

No one has responded to QuikSand's interesting question yet. Could you shoot him the day after? Is that still justifiable?

I think it depends on whether you reasonably perceive his comments/demeanor as a threat. Which can depend on all kinds of factors.

But in a crowded grocery store, you have more options than you do on the street, seconds after a felony was committed against you.

[Axxon]

I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

Axxon is saying the guy was justified in killing the perp because he was still a threat based on the fact he showed no regard towards the fact he had a gun pointed at him.

My point is that police then should be able to kill in the same instance, since the guy is obviously a threat. In Axxons world.

I get that the police and a citizen are on a different level, but a threat is a threat, no?

Really? A child with chicken pox poses no threat to an adult that already had the disease but could be deadly to an adult that has never had chicken pox. Ditto a simple bag of peanuts to a peanut allergic person.

Saying all threats are equal is bogus.

I'll guarantee you one thing though. The police officer isn't going to just put his weapon away until the criminal is secured in custody and if the criminal moves towards him he's likely to get shot. The civilian doesn't have the luxury of knowing backup is on the way nor the luxury of training and practicing this type of scenario over and over. He's winging it on his own and faced with someone who has just committed a crime against him and has called the person out.

The person who can't conceive someone being aggressive while mockingly holding their hands up is either being very naive or obtuse.

I saw someone do this to a cop. Hands up, moving towards him at all times, mouthing off. Cop didn't shoot him though, his partner tackled him from behind after rounding the corner, the criminal never saw him. It honestly didn't look to me like either cop assumed this guy was meek and passive just because he had his hands up but hey, you guys obviously know it all and there's no way possible someone could put their hands up without being all meek and passive and all and think I live in my own world. Right.

There's an reason we don't encourage vigilante justice and it's not because we want to make victims be more afraid. Had this guy waited like mentioned above then shot him it would clearly have been murder. As it was, maybe it should be something but murder it isn't and there's no way I could convict on any form of murder.

[Axxon]

Wonderful logic. We can apply it to so many crimes. If you don't want to get purposely run over, don't jaywalk. If you don't want to get your dick cut off, don't urinate in public. If you don't want to lose your hand, don't shoplift. If you don't want to get gang raped, don't flash your titties during Mardi Gras!

Gosh, I'm going to have a field day if they change the laws. It'll be like real-life Carmegeddon and that was a blast! I love this thread!!!!

Well, it already kinda is. I hit a guy who was jaywalking and he got ticketed. It's against the law. Now, if they could prove that I did it on purpose they could arrest me but a careful sociopath could easily make it look like an accident. I can definitely state that if you don't want to get run over in AZ, don't jaywalk because the law isn't on your side.

[jeff061]

And you can't really hold an average guy to the same standard you hold police in this situation. Despite what I've said here, no I don't think a cop should do this and they should go to jail if they do what this guy did.

A cop is both trained and paid to excel in these situations. They can better judge a threat, gain control of a suspect(in numerous ways) and radio for backup. This is what they do for a living. To expect the same out of some random guy protecting his house is silly.

[Noop]

I think some of you are batshit crazy. He killed a defenseless person and had no reason to kill him other then he was tired of getting his house robbed. I think this guy needs to be in jail for a long time because the act of running away is non-aggressive at that point the shooter should have let the police handle it.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Is he protecting his house after the robbers flee and he is chasing them down the street?

[jeff061]

He's protecting himself when the guy turns around, mocks him while questioning whether he would actually defend himself.

He didn't shoot a fleeing guy in the back guys. He certainly didn't know he was defenseless.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I think some of you are batshit crazy.

Well we can agree on that isolated statement.

How any sane person could have the slightest problem with someone eliminating the perp in this case completely eludes me. I feel a lot like Chris Tucker at this point

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-twUCEfzrDk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-twUCEfzrDk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Noop]

No he his manhood was questioned and being the idiot he was he decided to shoot the guy for making that comment. He should be in jail where is manhood will be taken from him.

[Vince, Pt. II]

I think the homeowner gave up all claim to "self-defense" once he continued to chase the criminals on public property. At that point (in my opinion, not sure how the law sees it) he went from 'victim' to 'aggresor.'

[SportsDino]

What is the standard for shooting in self defense OUTSIDE YOUR HOME, cause presumably if you can carry a gun around there must be some fathomable case history on it.

If you apply that to this case, I'm pretty sure this dude is going to get murder. We don't want people running around chasing 'crooks' and shooting them, because before you know it things spiral out of control and its mostly the 'crooks' doing the shooting.

[Blackadar]

Well we can agree on that isolated statement.

How any sane person could have the slightest problem with someone eliminating the perp in this case completely eludes me. I feel a lot like Chris Tucker at this point


Because we believe that "thou shall not murder" is generally a good idea for a civilized society.

However, I'm not all that civilized, so I'm willing to listen to alternative ideas.

[Bad-example]

I think some of you are batshit crazy. He killed a defenseless person and had no reason to kill him other then he was tired of getting his house robbed. I think this guy needs to be in jail for a long time because the act of running away is non-aggressive at that point the shooter should have let the police handle it.

Noop ftw!

The shooter clearly has no legs to stand on. "I was afraid he would come back another day and rob me again" is no defense to murder. Potential future threat of someone coming back and stealing your pogs and laserdisk collection are not justification to chase a guy down the street and open fire.

I understand the alleged thief stopped and taunted the shooter a little. It isn't like he threatened to come back another day and do him harm.

You can't chase a guy down the street and murder him because you are pretty sure he is coming back tomorrow for your NFL plate collection.

[Calis]

Yeah I side with going to jail group. I don't feel the least bit sorry for the "victim" that was shot, but in the end that's not the point. I don't want a precedent of people chasing criminals around the street firing on them. Where do you draw the line? Can a good samaritan that sees the perp fleeing open fire in a public place? Do you have to be the victim for this to be ok?

It is a terrible situation, and not knowing the guy I could definitely understand panicing and shooting because you were scared of a potential threat, but when you've chased them off your property you're obviously not feeling your life is threatened.

So yeah I can understand the feeling and have no sympathy for the burglar, but however poor they are we have a police force for a reason. I sure don't feel any safer with CCW people defending our streets.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Because we believe that "thou shall not murder" is generally a good idea for a civilized society.

Killing the piece of shit described here isn't "murder", it's a public service, he ought to be reimbursed for the cost of his rounds.

Alternately, justifiable homicide, he most surely defended himself with a great deal of efficiency and permanence.

[Young Drachma]

This is clearly a difficult case to judge, but I think everyone is trying to make a case under the whole "we don't want to set a precedent" notion, rather than judging this particular case on its very merits. Legal arguments aside, I think it'd be hard to know if those guys had weapons, if they'd come back with backup, if they'd wait a few days and hit the house again and do a better job.

I dunno, clearly this guy was acting in the heat of the moment and while I don't think he ought to just walk away from court and call it good, I do not think we ought to throw the book at him as if he's a criminal. After all, he was just coming home from work and I really don't know what I do in that instance, except to know that I'd be mortified to return home if they managed to get in or to think what they might do...

That said, this thread is really interesting the jokes aside with some interesting perspectives all around.

[Raiders Army]

Did my part for voting for Justifiable Homicide.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

I should have included an option where the proper thing to do would have been to spray him with Raid instead of shooting. I hate roaches.

[Axxon]

So far, not murder is winning the poll so it'll be interesting if this makes a jury trial. It isn't cut and dried how it'd turn out.

[claphamsa]

So far, not murder is winning the poll so it'll be interesting if this makes a jury trial. It isn't cut and dried how it'd turn out.
it is cut and dried, there are just a lot of loons on FOFC :)

[RainMaker]

I think the homeowner gave up all claim to "self-defense" once he continued to chase the criminals on public property. At that point (in my opinion, not sure how the law sees it) he went from 'victim' to 'aggresor.'
I think the criminal gave up his claim of being an innocent bystander the minute he chose to burglurize the home of an innocent person.

[Vince, Pt. II]

I think the criminal gave up his claim of being an innocent bystander the minute he chose to burglurize the home of an innocent person.

Just as the homeowner gives up his rights to self-defense once the criminals are "chased away," the criminals gave up their rights of innocent bystander once they became criminals. Just because the homeowner became the aggressor doesn't mean that the criminal became innocent again.

I think that the fact that the altercation moved from the homeowner's property to public property turns this into two separate (albeit connected) cases. Part one is the attempted burglary and the subsequent chase off the property. Part two is the continued chase on public property culminating in the altercation. The two are definitely linked, but I really feel that leaving the property makes this a much more complex case.

[AENeuman]

Killing the piece of shit described here isn't "murder", it's a public service, he ought to be reimbursed for the cost of his rounds.

Finally! I can't believe I had to scroll through 3 pages to read what I had hoped would have been the first reply.

My only wish was that the robber have been an illegal. I think your method of eliminating would have been quite creative:)

[dawgfan]

I would say it's certainly OK to kill anyone who has invaded into your house and won't even retreat when you show up.
Wait, what? Do you have a different, updated account of what happened? Because what I've read is that the alleged burglars weren't found inside his house, and they fled when confronted - both of these things run counter to how you're describing the incident.

[molson]

Wait, what? Do you have a different, updated account of what happened? Because what I've read is that the alleged burglars weren't found inside his house, and they fled when confronted - both of these things run counter to how you're describing the incident.

His "retreat" quickly turned into a taunt/challenge, which could reasonably be perceived as a threat, depending on lots of factors we don't know about.

And yes, at the time of that post, I was wrong about the in the house thing, I misread that part.

If he shot them while they were trying to break into the house, it would have been 100% justified. He should have killed both of them then. By waiting, he did create a tougher case for himself.

[Groundhog]

If he shot them while they were trying to break into the house, it would have been 100% justified. He should have killed both of them then. By waiting, he did create a tougher case for himself.

"He should have killed both of them then"? Jeezus.

[molson]

"He should have killed both of them then"? Jeezus.

I don't think the government should kill people, or punish them excessively, but when a criminal is killed on the street (especially via hazard of their own crime), it's not a sad day.

[Groundhog]

I don't think the government should kill people, or punish them excessively, but when a criminal is killed on the street (especially via hazard of their own crime), it's not a sad day.

If the situation calls for it (ie. your life is endangered) I have no problem with that. If you arrive home and some guys are attempting to break into your home but then flee, well, that's not one of those situations. Citizens shouldn't be dishing out their own death sentences when nobody was in any risk of getting hurt.

[Comey]

I don't know if it was said here...but if the 31-year-old lets the 53-year-old go, this turns into Death Wish. It's reasonable to believe that if the 53-year-old man is allowed to leave the 31-year-old who is holding a gun at him, he's coming back...and he's coming back with something of his own.

I don't really have a side here; in all honesty, this has way too many shades of gray. What if he shoots him in the leg? What if the other guy has a gun? Once I say I'm leaning towards one side, I think of the other and...well, I can't figure it out.

That said, I do believe that there's no jury in the world that would convict him. I think it's a situation that has a never-ending discussion cycle; it's also polarizing enough that you aren't convincing someone out of their initial conceptions one way or another.

For more evidence on that, please see this thread.

[Passacaglia]

I don't know if it was said here...but if the 31-year-old lets the 53-year-old go, this turns into Death Wish. It's reasonable to believe that if the 53-year-old man is allowed to leave the 31-year-old who is holding a gun at him, he's coming back...and he's coming back with something of his own.

I don't really have a side here; in all honesty, this has way too many shades of gray. What if he shoots him in the leg? What if the other guy has a gun? Once I say I'm leaning towards one side, I think of the other and...well, I can't figure it out.

That said, I do believe that there's no jury in the world that would convict him. I think it's a situation that has a never-ending discussion cycle; it's also polarizing enough that you aren't convincing someone out of their initial conceptions one way or another.

For more evidence on that, please see this thread.

endless loop alert

[Raiders Army]

You fuck with the bull, you get the horns.

[Comey]

endless loop alert

Bingo. I think.

[dawgfan]

His "retreat" quickly turned into a taunt/challenge, which could reasonably be perceived as a threat, depending on lots of factors we don't know about.
You assume it was a "taunt/challenge". It could've been exasperation.

Silas reportedly had his hands in the air - if true, I can't see how anyone can justifiably describe that as him posing a threat, unless he was charging at Croff (and that hasn't been reported).

If he shot them while they were trying to break into the house, it would have been 100% justified. He should have killed both of them then. By waiting, he did create a tougher case for himself.
He didn't wait - when he arrived, they were not inside his house.

[larrymcg421]

I think you have to get into the theories of punishment here too. Who are you protecting? Home invaders? Is this guy a danger to anyone that's not burglarizing him? Even if this makes someone technically guilty, the punishment would need to be minuscule, I think.

He's endangering anyone that could be out on that same street. This guy was a good shot. What if he wasn't? What if he hits someone else?

[gstelmack]

Even being in the home not necessarily enough:

AG seeks charges against Sen. Soles for shooting :: WRAL.com (http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/6757337/)

Original story when it happened with a bit more details on the incident:

Sheriff: Sen. Soles shoots man at home :: WRAL.com (http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/5851769/)

[Blackadar]

Killing the piece of shit described here isn't "murder", it's a public service, he ought to be reimbursed for the cost of his rounds.

Alternately, justifiable homicide, he most surely defended himself with a great deal of efficiency and permanence.

I don't think John is getting any Humanitarian of the Year awards anytime soon.

[dawgfan]

I don't think John is getting any Humanitarian of the Year awards anytime soon.
This doesn't surprise you does it? Jon is what he is, and while his attitudes on many things are insane, I do admire his consistency and conviction.

I will admit to some surprise at how many others are generally agreeing with him on this one though...

[Groundhog]

I will admit to some surprise at how many others are generally agreeing with him on this one though...

Ditto.

[CU Tiger]

I'm pretty sure even crappy police will respond to a 911 call where the caller says he has a burglar in front of him being held in place by the gun in his own hand.

When my shop was broken into last year(with me in the warehouse), it took them 64 minutes to arrive in exactly that scenario. The local satellite office is in the same business park.

[CU Tiger]

The only black and white thing about this is killing an unarmed man who is not posing an immediate threat is wrong. You are defining options based on your own opinion, but thsoe are not the only options. You may find other options unpalatable, but they do exist and can be used.

Shades of gray is everywhere, in everything. People who see things only in black and white (Hitler, OBL) are the most dangerous people in the world.

The bolded is not black and white.
Was he unarmed?
Did he pose a threat?

The more I think about this, good riddance piece of shit.

[dawgfan]

The bolded is not black and white.
Was he unarmed?
Did he pose a threat?
The reports state that he had turned around but put his hands in the air. If it turns out he then grabbed a weapon out of his pants or shirt, or reached quickly as though he were going to do so, or if he charged toward the shooter then shooting him is defensible. If not - if the report as stated before is accurate - it's a huge stretch to say that he posed a threat.

The more I think about this, good riddance piece of shit.
So theft of property deserves death as a response?

[JonInMiddleGA]

So theft of property deserves death as a response?

Absolutely, without hesitation or question afaic.

[Groundhog]

So theft of property deserves death as a response?

Thing is, it wasn't even that, if I understand it correctly. The dead guy didn't even get into the house in the first place, and fled while attempting to break-in. So attempted break-in is a death sentence for more than a few folks here at FOFC.

[Chief Rum]

When my shop was broken into last year(with me in the warehouse), it took them 64 minutes to arrive in exactly that scenario. The local satellite office is in the same business park.

But they did eventually get there, didn't they? ;)

[Chief Rum]

The bolded is not black and white.
Was he unarmed?
Did he pose a threat?

The more I think about this, good riddance piece of shit.

Actually, what I stated is black and white. Killing an unarmed man who is not posing an immediate threat is wrong. Can't really get more basic than that.

What you want to do is argue the facts of the case and make hypotheticals to make your argument look better. Sorry, I'm not interested in playing that game until we see facts that support your hypotheticals.

[jeff061]

The reports state that he had turned around but put his hands in the air. If it turns out he then grabbed a weapon out of his pants or shirt, or reached quickly as though he were going to do so, or if he charged toward the shooter then shooting him is defensible. If not - if the report as stated before is accurate - it's a huge stretch to say that he posed a threat.
For the life of me I don't know why you guys think an average person is capable of this under pressure. You treat the guy as if he was a cop.

The reports state that he had turned around but put his hands in the air. If it turns out he then grabbed a weapon out of his pants or shirt, or reached quickly as though he were going to do so, or if he charged toward the shooter then shooting him is defensible. If not - if the report as stated before is accurate - it's a huge stretch to say that he posed a threat.
The point is you can only say he wasn't a threat and wasn't armed after the fact. In the moment, you can't and average joe victim should not take any chances. The criminal does not get any benefit of the doubt. Hypotheticals are all that existed, so you need to assume the worse.

If you disagree with me, you are wrong.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I'm not sure an average person would have chased them down the street with a gun drawn.

[jeff061]

I'm not sure an average person would have chased them down the street with a gun drawn.

That I don't know and am not going to argue either way. I imagine he wasn't exactly in a right state of mind, who would be. I don't know how different people would be affected.

The end result was the idiot turning around and questioning the victims desire to defend himself.

[Bad-example]

If you disagree with me, you are wrong.

No. We are just better human beings.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

That I don't know and am not going to argue either way. I imagine he wasn't exactly in a right state of mind, who would be. I don't know how different people would be affected.

The end result was the idiot turning around and questioning the victims desire to defend himself.

If this guy were only interested in defending himself, is he safer in his house with his gun or running after this guy in the street?

[jeff061]

No. We are just better human beings.

Whatever makes you feel better.

[BYU 14]

If this guy were only interested in defending himself, is he safer in his house with his gun or running after this guy in the street?

The tragic death of Vernon Forrest can answer that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm not sure an average person would have chased them down the street with a gun drawn.

I'm not sure the average person has the sense God gave a goose either, so that may not be the best standard to apply here.

[Lathum]

The end result was the idiot turning around and questioning the victims desire to defend himself.

Question for you. If the guy hadn't said "what are you gonna do, shoot me?" would the killer still be justified in killing him?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

My guess is the ends justify the means. At least Jon is honest about that.

[Blackadar]

Absolutely, without hesitation or question afaic.

Tough guy on the internet alert!

In other news, JIMG has been made the spokesperson for the RIAA. In a press conference to introduce JIMG, he was asked to say a few words. He said, "In an effort to combat downloading, the RIAA wants to propose tough new penalties. We just believe that bankrupting our customers for downloading one song is insufficient. We need even further draconian punishment since the 8th amendment only applies to government and not private individuals or private enterprise. We can do whatever we want. So we're developing a program to to detect when any computer on the internet loads a Bittorrent program. Once we do, the RIAA in conjunction with the power company, will send a power surge back to the offending computer. The offending computer with explode, sending RIAA-approved shrapnel hidden in AMD and Intel chips hurtling through the monitor. Anyone within 20 yards will be instantly killed, preventing further abuse of copyright laws. We think this will be an effective deterrent until we can develop the program to nuke downloading thieves from orbit."

[claphamsa]

Absolutely, without hesitation or question afaic.


you are one sick sick sick person.

[JonInMiddleGA]

In other news, JIMG has been made the spokesperson for the RIAA. ...

Y'know, I actually had to read that to see if I wrote it myself.
edit to add: I wasn't sure I didn't write it at some point until the "nuke from orbit" part. I would likely have gone with something more elegant involving neutron bombs.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm not sure the average person has the sense God gave a goose either, so that may not be the best standard to apply here.

Yet even so, as you stated earlier in the thread, you're OK with letting the "average person", who has a gun, act as judge, jury and executioner in the street. It doesn't seem consistent to me.

And yet elsewhere you've said you would have no problem removing voting rights for vast swathes of Americans.

I ask because usually your views do have a consistency, and it's not appearing to me here.

[Autumn]

Question for you. If the guy hadn't said "what are you gonna do, shoot me?" would the killer still be justified in killing him?

Exactly. Remove the comment and we have a man chasing a would-be burglar down the street. The burglar stops, turns around with his hands up. The man shoots and kills him. Is there any doubt that without the dialogue this guy just killed a man who was surrendering?

So the question is simply what does saying "What are you going to do, shoot me?" turn the situation into?

[Subby]

Tough guy on the internet alert!

In other news, JIMG has been made the spokesperson for the RIAA. In a press conference to introduce JIMG, he was asked to say a few words. He said, "In an effort to combat downloading, the RIAA wants to propose tough new penalties. We just believe that bankrupting our customers for downloading one song is insufficient. We need even further draconian punishment since the 8th amendment only applies to government and not private individuals or private enterprise. We can do whatever we want. So we're developing a program to to detect when any computer on the internet loads a Bittorrent program. Once we do, the RIAA in conjunction with the power company, will send a power surge back to the offending computer. The offending computer with explode, sending RIAA-approved shrapnel hidden in AMD and Intel chips hurtling through the monitor. Anyone within 20 yards will be instantly killed, preventing further abuse of copyright laws. We think this will be an effective deterrent until we can develop the program to nuke downloading thieves from orbit."
You have to admit that particular measure would be pretty effective in combating illegal downloading. :D

[molson]

Question for you. If the guy hadn't said "what are you gonna do, shoot me?" would the killer still be justified in killing him?

It still depends. There's no clear line here. Did the criminal take a bunch of steps towards him? Did he look scared? Did he make any threatening gestures? Where was his co-criminal, exactly? Was it day or night?

All I'm saying is you better be sure this was done in "cold blood" as people claim here, before you lock up a guy, who was seconds earlier the victim of a violent crime, for life. And there's only one surviving witness, apparently.

I've never seen the criminal justice system defended more vigorously on this board as when the "victim" is a home invader, and the "criminal" is a constant victim. Odd. I'm glad we have a board full of people who are such cool customers who are so sure they'd never be impacted by violent crime and could act like trained police officers under extreme pressure. Otherwise, I'm sure they'd have problems with the moral superiority here.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

That's certainly one way to word it molson, but I'd prefer that some people on this board don't feel someone should be put to death for breaking into a house.

[molson]

No. We are just better human beings.

That's adorable.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yet even so, as you stated earlier in the thread, you're OK with letting the "average person", who has a gun, act as judge, jury and executioner in the street. It doesn't seem consistent to me.

And yet elsewhere you've said you would have no problem removing voting rights for vast swathes of Americans.

I ask because usually your views do have a consistency, and it's not appearing to me here.

Hmm ... let me ponder that for a moment, I'll agree on the appearance of a certain degree of inconsistency there myself.

I'm definite on the goose holding its own one and I'm definite on the need to sharply curb voting eligibility one, so the inconsistency has to lie with the most recent scenario.

I believe the distinction rests with the scenario at hand vs your interpretation/presentation of it. "OK with letting the "average person", who has a gun, act as judge, jury and executioner in the street" is different than the scenario (as I understand it) in this thread.

AFAIK this wasn't a deal where there was any doubt about who the perp was, caught red-handed apparently. No amateur detective work required, not even much in the way of needing to figure something out, not a lot riding on the intellectual prowess of the homeowner here. Basically, the situation was what it was. About the only real worry I've got here is whether the would-be victim exercises proper gun control & hits what he's aiming at.

It sort of reminds me of something else in the news earlier this week, the prison hospital death of the 89 y/o gunman in the Holocaust museum shooting back in June. The connection to that case was several stories I noticed referring to him as "the alleged gunman". Huh? I don't believe there was the slightest bit of doubt about him being the museum shooter, he wasn't just alleged, he was, no ifs ands or buts about it.

This deal is similar in that there really doesn't seem to be any reasonable doubt about who was in his sights, he didn't shoot an "alleged" criminal, he shot a red-handed bad guy. Unless the shooter was Stevie Wonder, I don't much room to think he got it wrong, regardless of his intelligence.

[molson]

That's certainly one way to word it molson, but I'd prefer that some people on this board don't feel someone should be put to death for breaking into a house.

The "put to death" angle misses the mark completely. I don't think someone should be put to death for breaking into a house either. That's not a realistic description of what happened here.

I'm saying that someone shouldn't have their life taken away by the government for killing an intruder into their house, when a reasonable perception is that the threat hasn't clearly ended (even if it actually has) - and ESPECIALLY when we can't really know exactly what happened.

Really, what other scenerios should we just lock someone up if we're pretty sure something looks bad and we feel we would do something differently? When should we lock someone else up forever for not following our own moral code about when deadly force is necessary or justified?

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's certainly one way to word it molson, but I'd prefer that some people on this board don't feel someone should be put to death for breaking into a house.

That's okay, I'd prefer everyone would agree that eliminating thieves is a net plus but I'm afraid neither of us are going to get what we'd wish for in a perfect world.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

The "put to death" angle misses the mark completely. I don't think someone should be put to death for breaking into a house either. That's not a realistic description of what happened here.

I'm saying that someone shouldn't have their life taken away by the government for killing an intruder into their house, when a reasonable perception is that the threat hasn't clearly ended (even if it actually has) - and ESPECIALLY when we can't really know exactly what happened.

Really, what other scenerios should we just lock someone up if we're pretty sure something looks bad and we feel we would do something differently?

As stated above, I think the game changed when he chased them out of his house, which I would say would be assumed to be safe, to the street, which I would say is definitely "less safe" than his house. That is, he willingly reduced his safety to chase after these guys for some reason. We can guess all night at why he did that, but even his own family acknowledges his frustration at being broken into. I can understand that frustration.

I can't understand, however, how that frustration could be allowed to end a man's life.

[molson]

As stated above, I think the game changed when he chased them out of his house, which I would say would be assumed to be safe, to the street, which I would say is definitely "less safe" than his house. That is, he willingly reduced his safety to chase after these guys for some reason. We can guess all night at why he did that, but even his own family acknowledges his frustration at being broken into. I can understand that frustration.

I can't understand, however, how that frustration could be allowed to end a man's life.

I can see that you disagree with his behavior, and would do things differently. That doesn't seem like a reason to take away the shooter's life too.

I don't see how this guy would think the safe would be safer than his house. His house is clearly not safe. He could be killed there anytime, in this neighborhood (though probably not anymore, thanks to his actions).

[flere-imsaho]

I believe the distinction rests with the scenario at hand vs your interpretation/presentation of it. "OK with letting the "average person", who has a gun, act as judge, jury and executioner in the street" is different than the scenario (as I understand it) in this thread.

AFAIK this wasn't a deal where there was any doubt about who the perp was, caught red-handed apparently. No amateur detective work required, not even much in the way of needing to figure something out, not a lot riding on the intellectual prowess of the homeowner here. Basically, the situation was what it was. About the only real worry I've got here is whether the would-be victim exercises proper gun control & hits what he's aiming at.

OK, that's what I thought, but thanks for clarifying.

Of course, the weakness that still exists is that if you encourage citizens to take the law into their own hands in "obvious" situations is that you'll have folks with varying ideas of what an "obvious" situation is.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I can see that you disagree with his behavior, and would do things differently. That doesn't seem like a reason to take away the shooter's life too.

This is true. I'm not convinced anyone should take away the shooter's life, for that matter. I was more reacting to the "he's done nothing wrong" sentiment. I'm truly ambivalent on what should be done with him.

[Blackadar]

Y'know, I actually had to read that to see if I wrote it myself.
edit to add: I wasn't sure I didn't write it at some point until the "nuke from orbit" part. I would likely have gone with something more elegant involving neutron bombs.

Yea, well...I had to throw in the tribute to Ripley/Aliens in there.


The "put to death" angle misses the mark completely. I don't think someone should be put to death for breaking into a house either. That's not a realistic description of what happened here.

I'm saying that someone shouldn't have their life taken away by the government for killing an intruder into their house, when a reasonable perception is that the threat hasn't clearly ended (even if it actually has) - and ESPECIALLY when we can't really know exactly what happened.

Really, what other scenerios should we just lock someone up if we're pretty sure something looks bad and we feel we would do something differently?

No, you're right. He wasn't put to death. He was murdered in cold blood.

We don't know EXACTLY what happened. But I find it amusing that the majority of the conjecture has come from the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" crowd. Phrases like "did he have a gun" (which is irrelevant unless he was reaching for it), "how threatening were his words/tone", "was he going for a weapon", "was he advancing towards the shooter", "did he pose a threat" and so forth have all been used to try to justify the actions of the shooter. That's an awful lot of speculation and none of it verified as fact.

I base my opinion on what we seem to know. A 53 year old man tried to break into a house. When the 31 year old Mr. Croff discovered the crime, the 53 year old man ran. The 31 year old chased him and it's very likely that he caught up to him given the physical conditioning of the 31 year old. But at this point neither man was on nor near the property where the attempted break-in happened. The 53 year old man put his hands up, turned and found a gun pointing straight at his chest. At some point, he said, "what are you going to do, shoot me?" at which point Mr. Croff replied "absolutely" and pulled the trigger.

That's what we have to base our decision on. That scenario is clearly defined as murder in the legal code and IMHO, rightfully so. Otherwise, we might as well go to a system of vigilante justice. I also find it interesting that none of the "kill him" crowd have responded to Quick's post. If he was a justified threat at that time, when does he not become a threat?

I don't think you'll find too many people who wouldn't think the guy was justified in shooting if the burglar turned around and charged at the man. But unless additional details come to light, it appears that's not what happened.

[molson]

Yea, well...I had to throw in the tribute to Ripley/Aliens in there.



No, you're right. He wasn't put to death. He was murdered in cold blood.

We don't know EXACTLY what happened. But I find it amusing that the majority of the conjecture has come from the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" crowd. Phrases like "did he have a gun" (which is irrelevant unless he was reaching for it), "how threatening were his words/tone", "was he going for a weapon", "was he advancing towards the shooter", "did he pose a threat" and so forth have all been used to try to justify the actions of the shooter. That's an awful lot of speculation and none of it verified as fact.

I base my opinion on what we seem to know. A 53 year old man tried to break into a house. When the 31 year old Mr. Croff discovered the crime, the 53 year old man ran. The 31 year old chased him and it's very likely that he caught up to him given the physical conditioning of the 31 year old. But at this point neither man was on nor near the property where the attempted break-in happened. The 53 year old man put his hands up, turned and found a gun pointing straight at his chest. At some point, he said, "what are you going to do, shoot me?" at which point Mr. Croff replied "absolutely" and pulled the trigger.

That's what we have to base our decision on. That scenario is clearly defined as murder in the legal code and IMHO, rightfully so. Otherwise, we might as well go to a system of vigilante justice. I also find it interesting that none of the "kill him" crowd have responded to Quick's post. If he was a justified threat at that time, when does he not become a threat?

I don't think you'll find too many people who wouldn't think the guy was justified in shooting if the burglar turned around and charged at the man. But unless additional details come to light, it appears that's not what happened.

I don't think you know what cold blood means.

I also think that justifiable homicide/self-defense law is a lot broader, more vague than people here are assuming.

[Blackadar]

I don't think you know what cold blood means.

I also think that justifiable homicide/self-defense law is a lot broader, more vague than people here are assuming.

No, it's pretty narrowly defined for a reason - to prevent stuff like this from happening. See: Goetz, Bernie.

[Lathum]

I've never seen the criminal justice system defended more vigorously on this board as when the "victim" is a home invader, and the "criminal" is a constant victim. Odd. I'm glad we have a board full of people who are such cool customers who are so sure they'd never be impacted by violent crime and could act like trained police officers under extreme pressure. Otherwise, I'm sure they'd have problems with the moral superiority here.

I don't think being a cool custoer has anything to do with it. If my house was burglarized and I cae hoe while it was happening my first thought wouldn't be to chase the guy, it would be oh fuck, I better call 911. It seems to me by chasing the guy he had a pretty clear intention of what he was going to do. If anything he was the cool customer in this situation. I am fairly certain it would take a much more extreme situation for me to pull the trigger and take a human life.

[molson]

No, it's pretty narrowly defined for a reason - to prevent stuff like this from happening. See: Goetz, Bernie.

To prevent what from happening? Goetz defended his property (and possibly his life) in a time when NYC was an incredibly violent place. And he was acquitted. The law was such that he was allowed to be charged, but the jury (and the city) spoke very loudly that he should not locked up. We want to to prevent that in the future? (Actually, the answer to that question scares me, so forget it).

[molson]

I don't think being a cool custoer has anything to do with it. If my house was burglarized and I cae hoe while it was happening my first thought wouldn't be to chase the guy, it would be oh fuck, I better call 911. It seems to me by chasing the guy he had a pretty clear intention of what he was going to do. If anything he was the cool customer in this situation. I am fairly certain it would take a much more extreme situation for me to pull the trigger and take a human life.

That's your choice, but the law, through juries, allow more than that for others.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Juries also allow for you to murder your ex-wife and a waiter.

[larrymcg421]

I've never seen the criminal justice system defended more vigorously on this board as when the "victim" is a home invader, and the "criminal" is a constant victim. Odd. I'm glad we have a board full of people who are such cool customers who are so sure they'd never be impacted by violent crime and could act like trained police officers under extreme pressure. Otherwise, I'm sure they'd have problems with the moral superiority here.

This is coming from the same person that blasted Ryan Moats for running a red light? A loved one dying isn't enough reason for us to be understanding, but we're gonna let someone chase another person out on the street and shoot them? Interesting.

[molson]

This is coming from the same person that blasted Ryan Moats for running a red light? A loved one dying isn't enough reason for us to be understanding, but we're gonna let someone chase another person out on the street and shoot them? Interesting.

Exactly the same scenerios, obviously.

I'm so lost on what your point is.

[molson]

Juries also allow for you to murder your ex-wife and a waiter.

The comparisons here are getting ridiculous.

OJ was aquitted because that jury found that that it wasn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed anyone.

Nobody is disputing the killing here, and nobody was disputing the shootings in Goetz. It's not even an issue of whether one feels his actions were right or wrong - we're talking whether his freedom should be taken away by the government.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Only point I was trying to make was that a jury acquitting someone doesn't mean that was they did was right, or even legal. Obviously they aren't the same situation.

[Lathum]

That's your choice, but the law, through juries, allow more than that for others.

I get that. I was more responding to your point about being cool customers. It seems to me you were painting a picture that this guy felt threatened and panicked. My point is how panicked could he be? He chased a guy while brandishing a firearm then when he caught him shot him. Seems to me he had an agenda and knew exactly what he was doing.

[molson]

Only point I was trying to make was that a jury acquitting someone doesn't mean that was they did was right, or even legal. Obviously they aren't the same situation.

In a self-defense case, the jury does decide what "legal" is, because the relevant statutes/jury instructions often ask the jury to determine "reasonableness". That's up to them, their experiences, their opinions about what reasonable behavior is. That's not an issue in a straight-up murder case, when a defendant denies killing anyone at all.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Right, but if another jury were to have found Goetz guilty, does that mean he stops being a hero and becomes a murderer? I don't need twelve random (and Jon's average) people telling me what is morally (or should be legally) correct.

[molson]

This is coming from the same person that blasted Ryan Moats for running a red light? A loved one dying isn't enough reason for us to be understanding, but we're gonna let someone chase another person out on the street and shoot them? Interesting.

I think I said that if Moats (or anyone) wanted to be somewhere in a hurry, generally it's a bad idea to be running red lights, because that's just going to delay you. (you might want to take the risk if the speed could make a different to someone's life/death, but that wasn't the case here). I certainly can understand someone making poor decisions in stress and I don't think he should have been punished at all.

The shooter in this case, other than the potential legal consequences, didn't have a negative outcome like Moats did. He actually had a very, very positive one. His house probably isn't going to be broken into anymore, which definitely increases his life expectancy. His house is a much safer place than it was before.

I guess I could ask you the same question - why are you so defending of Moats running a red light, being so understanding about people making poor decisions in highly stressful situations, and yet here, you want to lock a guy up forever for making what you personally consider a poor decision in a much, much more stressful situation. What is it about killing a criminal that brings out your inner-prosecutor?

[molson]

Right, but if another jury were to have found Goetz guilty, does that mean he stops being a hero and becomes a murderer? I don't need twelve random (and Jon's average) people telling me what is morally (or should be legally) correct.

That's the system we decided on, and it definitely has serious problems.

And yes, with a different jury - he becomes a murderer. That's kind of the idea, the peer review aspect. In the 1980's in NYC - people didn't see that as a crime in that kind of violent environment. Today in NYC - maybe that behavior is way less reasonable, because NYC is much safer place.

Same with this situation. In Detroit, this might not be a crime, where maybe in Suburban Boston or something it would be.

[Glengoyne]

My take is that he broke the law. The would be burglar wasn't a threat to his safety at the time of the shooting. He should be arrested. The DA should then decide if he wants to press charges, take it to the Grand Jury. Then if it goes to trial, let the jury ultimately decide his fate. Jury nullification, self-defense, guilty, or guilty of a lesser offense are all potential outcomes.

He needs to go through the system. That's the law. It's not what I think should happen, but that is the way our system works. I'd rather give the guy an award of some kind, but that is a bit too vigilante for me.

Earlier Texas was mentioned. I'm pretty sure the law in Texas is that if you catch anyone in the act of committing a crime(felony?), you can shoot them without consequences.

[Axxon]

That's certainly one way to word it molson, but I'd prefer that some people on this board don't feel someone should be put to death for breaking into a house.

No one deserves to be "put to death" for breaking into a house. That's not what this is about. It's about a man being able to defend himself against someone who is demonstrating aggressive behavior. I could give a damn about the house. It quit being about the house when the criminal turned to face the innocent civilian and challenged his resolve to defend himself.

The civilian certainly doesn't deserve to be put to death for chasing the criminal so I side with his getting what he deserves rather than the terminally stupid criminal who is used to preying on the weak.

[CU Tiger]

Actually, what I stated is black and white. Killing an unarmed man who is not posing an immediate threat is wrong. Can't really get more basic than that.

What you want to do is argue the facts of the case and make hypotheticals to make your argument look better. Sorry, I'm not interested in playing that game until we see facts that support your hypotheticals.

I am playing no hypotheticals, I dispute "Killing an unarmed man who is not posing an immediate threat is wrong." without further clarification.

Why am I killing said unarmed man?
If he recently murdered or raped my loved ones, I am ok with said killing
Do I know he is unarmed?
if I dont I may have killd an unarmed man who I thought was armed.
Posing an immediate threat
Who gets to decide this? Me in a high stress situation, or you in a calm cool climate controlled environment half way across thee country?

I'd prefer that some people on this board don't feel someone should be put to death for breaking into a house.

Another important distinction. I do not feel that the judicial system should make a cognitive decision that someone should die as a result of home invasion. I am however perfectly comfortable with the same person dieing BECAUSE of their actions, when they surprise an armed citizen.

You love to draw comparisons, I do not believe that a person should be put to death for driving under the influence, but I am perfectly ok if a drunk driver wraps his car around an oak tree and removes himself from society. I see this as no different, someone made a stupid choice and it ultimately cost him his life.

My initial thought and all my CCW training says you do not give chase. You blast the bastards and fire a warning shot through the roof after he is dead, but once he escapes you let him go. Had the guy been shot in the back I would be 180 degrees here. But the man not only stopped running away from an armed man, but then turned to face him. Had he have stopped and knelled down or even remained standing facing the other way
the victim's actions would be wrong. Once he turned though, all bets are off.

I also question who heard the statement, and how soon in time proximity it was to the muzzle blast. Its quite possible if he spun and retorted the words may have came from a dead man.

[Axxon]

I get that. I was more responding to your point about being cool customers. It seems to me you were painting a picture that this guy felt threatened and panicked. My point is how panicked could he be? He chased a guy while brandishing a firearm then when the guy turns around thus no longer fleeing or avoiding confrontation. Seems to me he had an agenda and knew exactly what he was doing.


Fixed that for you and he must be one psychic mofo to have an agenda that included the criminal turning to face him. I mean, if his agenda was to kill him he sure blew off a lot of chances. I don't know if the news has made it's way to these parts but you can shoot a guy in the back just as easily as in the front but our agenda filled civilian apparently never knew this. Pity.

[chadritt]

Honest question, how did he say it? He was just chased down by a man 20 years younger than him who had a gun, its not unreasonable that he was TERRIFIED when he asked "what are you going to do? shoot me?"

[jeff061]

Reasonable to ask a lot of questions. But given it's impossible to make that snap judgement on the spot in a stressful situation, the perp doesn't get the benefit of a doubt.

[Axxon]

Honest question, how did he say it? He was just chased down by a man 20 years younger than him who had a gun, its not unreasonable that he was TERRIFIED when he asked "what are you going to do? shoot me?"

If I was that terrified I'd never have stopped or if I did, I wouldn't turn to ask him that and I'd never show him my chest because I know it would be incitement and you don't do that to a pissed off person you've just robbed if you're terrified of them.

[Autumn]

If I was that terrified I'd never have stopped or if I did, I wouldn't turn to ask him that and I'd never show him my chest because I know it would be incitement and you don't do that to a pissed off person you've just robbed if you're terrified of them.

Turning to someone with your hands in the air is incitement? I would say continuing to flee is a little bit more incitement than surrendering. As I said earlier, the only thing that makes this 'inciting' is his words, as reported to us. I believe that putting up your hands when a gun is pointed at you is what the gunman usually wants, not some way to antagonize him.

[larrymcg421]

I think I said that if Moats (or anyone) wanted to be somewhere in a hurry, generally it's a bad idea to be running red lights, because that's just going to delay you. (you might want to take the risk if the speed could make a different to someone's life/death, but that wasn't the case here). I certainly can understand someone making poor decisions in stress and I don't think he should have been punished at all.

You called him a "dummy", accused him of wanting "moral superiority to someone in authority", and agreed with Jon that they were publicity whoring to get the cop fired. You certainly seem less sympathetic to Moats than this guy. I just found that curious.

The shooter in this case, other than the potential legal consequences, didn't have a negative outcome like Moats did. He actually had a very, very positive one. His house probably isn't going to be broken into anymore, which definitely increases his life expectancy. His house is a much safer place than it was before.

I'm not sure what to say to someone who doesn't see danger in a person running down the street with a gun trying to shoot someone who robbed them. I mean, this guy was in security and clearly a good shot. That won't always be the case. Innocent bystanders could get hit. He could misidentify the person he's going after and kill the wrong person. I made this point earlier in the thread in response to one of your posts, but you conveniently ignored it.

I guess I could ask you the same question - why are you so defending of Moats running a red light, being so understanding about people making poor decisions in highly stressful situations, and yet here, you want to lock a guy up forever for making what you personally consider a poor decision in a much, much more stressful situation. What is it about killing a criminal that brings out your inner-prosecutor?

When did I say I want to lock him up forever? Is that how your world works? Either he gets probation or gets locked up forever? And I couldn't care less about the guy being a criminal or not. Rodney King was a criminal. That doesn't excuse what those officers did.

[Lathum]

No one deserves to be "put to death" for breaking into a house. That's not what this is about. It's about a man being able to defend himself against someone who is demonstrating aggressive behavior.

You have a seriously messed up view of aggressive behavior.

[SportsDino]

In my opinion if you want to chase down a burgular and get revenge by shooting them, go ahead... just man up and feel it is worth it when the jury says you have to pay for it by going to jail.

The law considers chasing people down to shoot them because you are mad a very unlikely case of self-defense. Similarly, if you are in your home but there is enough doubt whether it was self defense at all, you can go to jail. Similarly, if you are out of your home, but you shoot someone in self defense (say walking down the street you are being shot at, the old school shootings wouldn't happen if teachers were packing line of thought)... I personally think you should win on self-defense as much as anywhere.

But in all cases, you don't know what the jury is going to do. In my shoes, someone is in my house and I have a gun (I don't)... they are either going to follow my instructions exactly or they are going to get shot. If I'm packing and someone pulls a knife on me and my girlfriend and thinks he is going to stab me... I shoot his ass all the same, even if my self defense case is weaker. In either case, my jury trial is the least of my concerns, I'm willing to go to jail to protect my life or those of ones I love.

But will I chase someone after the threat is averted? Hell no, vengence is not worth going to jail for me... and I'd consider it a stretch they are likely to come back (as a robber if I knew the person had a gun and could catch me there, I sure as hell wouldn't go there, I'd find easier pickings).

The guy needs to be prosecuted. It was a luxury killing, he wanted to stoke his ego up after being pissed on so many times in a row, and he created a situation where he could get his chance. He should be put in front of a jury and if the facts support it, he should be in jail for murder. Hell, if anything he should be considered stupid for leaving his home while chasing two guys... if they are smart they split up and then he doesn't know if the one he chooses not to chase is circling back to his house to get vengence of his own. I'd rather be with my gun, at my house, around my family while the cops are chasing down the losers with the best description I could give of them. Maybe try and locate their vehicle (likely nearby because they want to carry off loot presumably) and keep it under watch if convenient to point out to the cops so they have to escape on foot.

[Passacaglia]

From what I've heard in this forum before, one should be prepared to kill whatever they're pointing a gun at -- so shouldn't it be irrelevant whether the guy stopped and turned around?

[Axxon]

Turning to someone with your hands in the air is incitement? I would say continuing to flee is a little bit more incitement than surrendering. As I said earlier, the only thing that makes this 'inciting' is his words, as reported to us. I believe that putting up your hands when a gun is pointed at you is what the gunman usually wants, not some way to antagonize him.

Say what you want. I've seen aggressive hands up postures in real life before; I mentioned one above. If the cop kept his gun drawn and kept moving backwards I'm really, really, really not thinking he saw the issue your way and that the guy he was holding his gun on was a neutralized threat.

I can't believe how many people on here think that your hands over your head renders you harmless. How long does it take you to go from hands over head to thrown punch or punch posture? It only takes me less than a second. You're asking for complete and total trust from someone who is confronted by someone who has turned to confront them and challenged their resolve to defend yourselves.

I've lived in too many, too rough neighborhoods to be that naive about criminals.

[Axxon]

You have a seriously messed up view of aggressive behavior.

And you're way too naive for your own good. Try living in an apartment complex where they won't even deliver after dark and the person living one apartment under you has their throat slit as part of a drug deal gone bad. That's where I live now.

Now, maybve I have a messed up view of aggressive behavior but it's because I live in a place where the dead criminal would have chosen so you know, I kinda see how they act and it's not all fluffy bunnies and hands over their head means crap.

The guy could have done several non aggressive moves. On his knees, kissing the pavement, keeping running ( he wasn't getting shot at so this makes the most sense ) but he turned and challenged the will of the civilian to defend himself. Sorry, that's the wrong choice. The guy had no intentions of surrendering and GASP he was using his arms up posture to trick the guy since you know, the common wisdom is that no one can possibly lower their arms and fight for, what, an hour or two after raising them.

[Axxon]

In my opinion if you want to chase down a burgular and get revenge by shooting them, go ahead... just man up and feel it is worth it when the jury says you have to pay for it by going to jail.

The law considers chasing people down to shoot them because you are mad a very unlikely case of self-defense. Similarly, if you are in your home but there is enough doubt whether it was self defense at all, you can go to jail. Similarly, if you are out of your home, but you shoot someone in self defense (say walking down the street you are being shot at, the old school shootings wouldn't happen if teachers were packing line of thought)... I personally think you should win on self-defense as much as anywhere.

But in all cases, you don't know what the jury is going to do. In my shoes, someone is in my house and I have a gun (I don't)... they are either going to follow my instructions exactly or they are going to get shot. If I'm packing and someone pulls a knife on me and my girlfriend and thinks he is going to stab me... I shoot his ass all the same, even if my self defense case is weaker. In either case, my jury trial is the least of my concerns, I'm willing to go to jail to protect my life or those of ones I love.

But will I chase someone after the threat is averted? Hell no, vengence is not worth going to jail for me... and I'd consider it a stretch they are likely to come back (as a robber if I knew the person had a gun and could catch me there, I sure as hell wouldn't go there, I'd find easier pickings).

The guy needs to be prosecuted. It was a luxury killing, he wanted to stoke his ego up after being pissed on so many times in a row, and he created a situation where he could get his chance. He should be put in front of a jury and if the facts support it, he should be in jail for murder. Hell, if anything he should be considered stupid for leaving his home while chasing two guys... if they are smart they split up and then he doesn't know if the one he chooses not to chase is circling back to his house to get vengence of his own. I'd rather be with my gun, at my house, around my family while the cops are chasing down the losers with the best description I could give of them. Maybe try and locate their vehicle (likely nearby because they want to carry off loot presumably) and keep it under watch if convenient to point out to the cops so they have to escape on foot.

If he truly was trying to kill him why not shoot at him while he was running. It all breaks down there IMHO. There was no evidence that he was catching the guy and as many have said, he was in a public place. The chances of him not killing the guy goes up the longer he waits but yet he does wait until the guy turns around. I'm sure he could have planned that was going to happen. Right, because he's not just a citizen he's the super psychic Moriarty who schemed such a clever plan.


Or, he wasn't trying to kill the guy until the guy turned to confront him. If he was trying to kill the guy he belongs in jail but he didn't approach the issue that way.

[Axxon]

Really, seeing how that cop acted is why no one will ever convince me that a civillian should have acted any better. The cop kept his weapon drawn until his partner rescued him but if he didn't know that there was backup I'm pretty sure he'd have shot him.

Real life, that trumps any hypothetical belief that we have. In real life a cop feared a man who had his hands up and the cop was taking defensive maneuvers but all of you are saying that the average citizen doesn't get that luxury and must consider the criminal a 6 year old girl since you know, he had his hands up and all.

I'd say that this is the victim mentality defending it's very own existence.

[Axxon]

Another thing I think many are missing here is that

People lie. All the time. All hands in the air is a form of communication and sometimes people communicate the exact opposite of what the truth is. They do this for several reasons and a big one is to put the other person's guard down.

Criminals, also, I know this is a shocker, generally lie more than non criminals. It's kinda a way of life because when they tell people the truth, they generally go to jail, which they think is a bad thing. In fact, most people in jail are innocent. Just ask them.

This makes lying something of second nature to them.

I know, it sucks but honestly, it has happened before in history.

[chadritt]

Well then to be uber-cynical....isnt all of this based on the word of the shooter and his family? I mean, if were going to believe anyone is lying it could easily be the man facing murder charges.

[Lathum]

And you're way too naive for your own good. .

I'm far from naive. I currently live in a major city and in the past have lived is questionable places.

[Lathum]

The guy could have done several non aggressive moves. On his knees, kissing the pavement, keeping running ( he wasn't getting shot at so this makes the most sense ) .

or, ya know, put his hands up, which is pretty much the universal sign for giving up.

So what you are saying is if he was on his knees and made the same statement it wouldn't have been OK to shoot him?

[Axxon]

or, ya know, put his hands up, which is pretty much the universal sign for giving up.

So what you are saying is if he was on his knees and made the same statement it wouldn't have been OK to shoot him?

I'd say no, it wouldn't be alright. It's hard but not impossible to make an aggressive move when on ones knees with ones back to ones enemy ( the turning around thing is what seals the deal for me mostly ) but it'd be reasonably easy to make sure he couldn't get to you by not standing close enough. The guy is stationary. The cop was sure moving to create distance but again, he's trained and he has backup coming. If he was backed up against a wall, I'm sure he'd have shot, hands up or not. Every other indication was not of surrender.

[Autumn]

Jesus, I hope some of you never have kids sneaking back in their beds late at night.

Or a drunk guy trying to get into the wrong house.

[molson]

I'm not sure what to say to someone who doesn't see danger in a person running down the street with a gun trying to shoot someone who robbed them. I mean, this guy was in security and clearly a good shot. That won't always be the case. Innocent bystanders could get hit. He could misidentify the person he's going after and kill the wrong person. I made this point earlier in the thread in response to one of your posts, but you conveniently ignored it.



I'm not as obsessed with your posts as you seem to be with mine, but I think I got confused between responding to this argument about how he put everyone in the street in danger, and another poster that said there was zero threat because even Steven Hawking could shoot the guy before he pulled out a gun or anything. I don't know what either point has to do with with anything, but at least the second one created a humorous visual.

But ya, if he shot someone else, we obviously have a different analysis entirely. Is he waving the gun around with his eyes closes, shooting 100 bullets down a crowded street hoping he might hit the guy that broke into house? That's not good. Or if he lost sight of the guy, and then got in a taxi, went around the neighborhood for a saw a guy that that kind of looked like the criminal and killed him - but it turned out it was the wrong guy. Yes, I agree, that would be bad too. That's not what happened here though.

The favorite argument in this thread seems to be "what about if this happened?", "what about if that happened?", and then there's all these fact patterns that are very different than the thing that actually happened. I'm not sure what point that makes.

[molson]

Jesus, I hope some of you never have kids sneaking back in their beds late at night.

The 53-year old might have been his son?

You know the argument is just about over when the hypotheticals are absolutely out of control.

I don't think anybody here has said that they'd shoot blindly at any noise outside their house.

[molson]

I should add that I believe that breaking into someone's house is a horrible, horrible crime, maybe worse than some other people in this thread would seem to think it is. It's worse than DUIs, worse than any drug crime, it's something on par with rape and sexual abuse, it's a crime that intrudes your very peace and safety and security and it really takes something away from you that is difficult to get back.

Aside from this guy's decision to kill the guy, (the debate about whether that's the right thing to do or not) - a dead home invader to me, is a great thing, and that obviously clouds my view of the morality of killing them, and puts my "line" where it's acceptable, further in one direction than others here.

[dawgfan]

I should add that I believe that breaking into someone's house is a horrible, horrible crime, maybe worse than some other people in this thread would seem to think it is. It's worse than DUIs, worse than any drug crime, it's something on par with rape and sexual abuse, it's a crime that intrudes your very peace and safety and security and it really takes something away from you that is difficult to get back.

Aside from this guy's decision to kill the guy, (the debate about whether that's the right thing to do or not) - a dead home invader to me, is a great thing, and that obviously clouds my view of the morality of killing them, and puts my "line" where it's acceptable, further in one direction than others here.
Is there conclusive evidence that the man killed had actually invaded the home? The reports I've seen state the shooter come home to find the suspects in his back yard.

[jeff061]

Hmm, I can rape 35 women, seek forgiveness and declare jesus as my savior and I'm going to heaven. You know, as long as I truly believe it.

Or I can lead a perfect existence, 100% sacrificing myself to my community, but not believe in the divine savior Jesus and I'm going to hell.

Yeah, let's leave the whole Christian values thing the hell out of this discussion.

[larrymcg421]

Hmm, I can rape 35 women, seek forgiveness and declare jesus as my savior and I'm going to heaven. You know, as long as I truly believe it.

Or I can lead a perfect existence, 100% sacrificing myself to my community, but not believe in the divine savior Jesus and I'm going to hell.

Yeah, let's leave the whole Christian values thing the hell out of this discussion.

Yes, please leave it out if you're going to stereotype Christians like that. :banghead:

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Isn't it about time someone blamed this on Obama and his liberal homosexual unicorn abortion army? :D

[jeff061]

Yes, please leave it out if you're going to stereotype Christians like that. :banghead:

I was stereotyping the faith itself. Not necessarily each individual Christian :D.

[gstelmack]

Aside from the fact that most victims of rape or sexual abuse would either kick you in the balls or laugh at you for comparing rape to burglary, it's good to know that in modern Christian values, the safety of your stuff is more important than a human life.

You focused on "stuff", while he focused on "peace of mind". It's the violation of your one secure place so you can never feel secure anywhere, never truly comfortable or secure or able to let your guard down or relax. THAT was the point here, not the loss of stuff.

[stevew]

Intruder shooting suspect Croff remains out on bail | freep.com | Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com/article/20100111/NEWS01/100111088/1318/Tigh-Croff-remains-out-on-bail)

Herbert Silas ran for more than a block, trying to flee a man chasing him down with a gun in each hand.

When he couldn’t run any farther, Silas turned around, raised his hands and surrendered. Tigh Croff, his alleged pursuer, shot and killed him anyway.

That’s the scenario Wayne County prosecutors laid out in 36th District Court today as they asked a judge to put 31-year-old Croff back in jail as he awaits trial on a charge of second-degree murder. Croff is accused of chasing Silas and fatally shooting him after finding him in his yard on Manistique.


Croff reportedly told police that his home on Detroit's east side had been broken into three times before the shooting.


“We cannot have people taking the law into their own hands,” Assistant Prosecutor Molly Kettler told Judge Donna Robinson Milhouse during what was supposed to be Croff’s preliminary exam. The exam was adjourned until Jan. 27 because Croff retained a new lawyer, who said he needed time to review the evidence.


Kettler, in arguing that Milhouse should increase Croff’s $40,000 bond, said that as Croff chased 53-year-old Silas, he continually fired his two handguns, hitting a neighboring home. When he caught up to the unarmed suspect, he allegedly told Silas, “You’re going to die today.”


Police reportedly recovered at least seven casings and two live rounds in the block-plus between Croff’s yard and the spot on Philip Street where Silas was slain.


Milhouse did not increase Croff’s bond, which his parents posted for him, in part because he has no criminal record. But the judge did order that he be on GPS tether and not have access to any firearms.


Gerald Evelyn, Croff’s new lawyer, described his client’s actions Dec. 28 as an “aberration.”


“He’s been law-abiding for 31 years,” he said, adding that Croff attends church three times a week and had legally registered both guns allegedly used in the shooting.


DeAngula Robinson, 34, who said she is Silas’ niece, said Kettler’s description of the shooting was devastating.


“To hear he had his hands up in the air and somebody still shot him … That’s crazy,” said Robinson, who said the family is planning a funeral for next week.


Also, this blog entry was good, from a detroit CCW trainer.

LAID - Legally Armed In Detroit: Tigh Croff: Tragic Hero or Urban Vigilante (http://detroitcpl.blogspot.com/2010/01/tigh-croff-tragic-hero-or-urban.html)

*snip*

So, why do we advise CPL licensees to "lawyer up?" It is very difficult to clearly articulate the legality of your actions during the aftermath of a shooting. Victims, who have been attacked by criminals are undergoing scientifically documented mental and physiological effects that may cause their accounting of events to be inaccurate to what really happened.

You have only have one opportunity to make a first statement. If that statement does not fully incorporate all required elements that have to be present for a valid self-defense claim, the shooter will in all likelihood be charged with a crime. Additionally, police officers can use subterfuge to get a "victim" to confess to a crime: tell out-right lies, run psychological games, and make promises they have no authorization to make or keep. Yep, they can pretend to be your friend all the way up until the time they arrest you and announce in the media that you have confessed to a horrific crime.
*snip*

How does a tragedy like this happen? I haven't confirmed it, but it is my belief that he took a CCW Class in which the legal portion was conducted by a law enforcement officer. Cops tell students to make certain admissions to investigators on the scene. I have seen cop-conducted classes with my own eyes. This practice, as in the Tigh case, has already shown, can lead to tragic circumstances. Your rights are being trampled with your future hanging in the balance.

[stevew]

dola-

If he was firing wildly through the streets(7 rounds), then he needs to do some jail time, regardless of if the shooting was justified.

[CU Tiger]

dola-

If he was firing wildly through the streets(7 rounds), then he needs to do some jail time, regardless of if the shooting was justified.


+1

Reckless discharge is unacceptable

[flere-imsaho]

If the description that stevew posted is accurate, it sounds like he just snapped.

Now, to start a different debate, I'm sure we can all agree that people we think might "snap" should not have a CCW permit (or indeed any permit). But how do we know who might "snap"? And, following-on, is this case a good argument for or against gun control, or simply a one-off?

[Blackadar]

dola-

If he was firing wildly through the streets(7 rounds), then he needs to do some jail time, regardless of if the shooting was justified.

From that description, there is no legal justification for the shooting with the possible exception of temporary insanity.

[Lathum]

Curious to hear if the fact that he was shooting at the guy WHILE the guy was fleeing changes anyones opinion who stated he was justified because he was a threat by making the comments he had made.

IMO I think the opinion from the CCW trainer is so anti-law enforcement that it loses all credibility.

[molson]

Aside from the fact that most victims of rape or sexual abuse would either kick you in the balls or laugh at you for comparing rape to burglary, it's good to know that in modern Christian values, the safety of your stuff is more important than a human life.

Your strawman antics are getting out of control, even for a message board. Do you ever actually respond to anyone's point?

1. I didn't say anything about Christian values. WTF did that come from? (I'm guess that because I lean fiscally conservative/smaller government, you equate me with a bible thumper or something?)
2. I didn't say anything about the protection of stuff being more important than a human life.

[SportsDino]

Wow, well I think that article should remove all doubt unless we are going to debate making a John Woo film in the middle of a residential district.

Like I thought, crazed revenge... maybe an insanity defense but even then I don't think that justifies insane violence in public (presumably with several misses all heading towards people's houses/kids). Murder or at least some of the strictest gun violations they can get him with.