What are you gonna do, shoot me?

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by stevew

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]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

"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!!!]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

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?"

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Couldn't put it any better myself - you nailed it.

[Peregrine]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

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]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

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]

Originally Posted by Axxon

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]

Originally Posted by stevew

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

You sure are making a lot of assumptions here.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Axxon

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by claphamsa

really? I would move.....

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

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by miked

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]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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.

Originally Posted by Molsen

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

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]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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?