What are you gonna do, shoot me?
 

"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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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??

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Put him in jail.

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.

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.

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?

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

That doesn't justify murder.


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

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.

I think most juries would decide that it does.

And the law is close enough, in most states.

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.

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

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

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.

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).

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.

Hopefully he was a gang member that was shot

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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...