Murder or Castle Doctrine?
 

A case not too far from my hometown.

http://www.therolladailynews.com/app...8&refresh=true

Slaying case may hinge on property rights


STEELVILLE, Mo. — James Crocker had grown weary of the partying canoeists and rafters who encroached on his neatly kept property along Missouri's Meramec River. When he caught a man about to relieve himself on a gravel bar by his yard last month, a nasty confrontation ensued that ended with one person dead and Crocker accused of killing him.

The case against Crocker is the latest to put a spotlight on "castle doctrine" laws, which allow the use of deadly force to protect property. Missouri is among at least 30 states that have enacted the statutes, which supporters say protect gun rights but others insist promote vigilantism.

Crocker's attorney, Michael Bert of St. Louis, said that Crocker was defending himself and his property.

"Here's a man in fear for his life and fearful he might suffer bodily injury," Bert said.

Prosecutors see it differently. Witnesses who testified at a hearing this month said Crocker was angry and raging, shooting into the crowd of people, narrowly missing two others before killing 48-year-old Paul Dart Jr. of Robertsville, Mo. Crocker has been charged with second degree murder.
Even some supporters of the doctrine say the violence seemed avoidable.

"The smart thing is to back away, and nobody seemed to be willing to do that," said Kevin Jamison, an attorney who lobbied for Missouri's castle doctrine bill as a member of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance.

Crocker, a 59-year-old plastics plant worker with long hair and a thick goatee, lives in a small white frame home on a shaded gravel road about eight miles west of Steelville, the self-proclaimed floating capital of the world. Tens of thousands of people come to the region every year to raft, canoe or kayak down the Meramec and nearby rivers.

Drinking is sometimes part of the outings, resulting in bawdy behavior that doesn't sit well with owners of land that touches the river. Many have complained for years about loud parties, trash left behind and crude behavior.

Herb Smelser, 77, who lives three houses down from Crocker, said it isn't uncommon to find people using his yard as a restroom. The problem was so bad, he said, that he let his grass grow high to discourage trespassers.
Crocker, though, kept his yard trim and tidy — "like a park," Smelser said. To keep out the unwanted, Crocker posted "No Trespassing" and "Private Property" signs along the hill that slopes down to a gravel area along the meandering river.

On July 20, Dart, a carpenter, and around four dozen other members of an extended family gathered at a campground for their annual float trip along the Meramec. A few hours into the trip, Robert and Regina Burgess stopped their canoe on a gravel bar. Robert, who had drunk about three beers, decided to relieve himself, he testified at the preliminary hearing.

Crocker confronted Burgess and other members of the party. When happened then is in dispute, and will be a crucial part of the case.

Burgess and his wife testified that Crocker was immediately agitated and aggressive, firing two shots in their direction — Robert said one hit the ground near his feet. Another bullet hit Dart in the face.

Burgess said it was only after Dart was shot that members of the party picked up rocks to defend themselves against Crocker, who was armed with a 9mm semi-automatic pistol.

"I'm standing there unarmed and the guy's got a gun," Burgess said.
Crocker didn't testify at the hearing, but his attorney gave a different account.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Bert said Crocker politely asked the float trip party to leave. "The response he got was angry and profane," Bert said.

Crocker and those in the float trip party argued over whether the gravel bar was public land or Crocker's. Eventually, the men picked up "softball-sized" rocks and began pelting Crocker, Bert said. He said Crocker suffered head injuries, then fired his gun to defend himself.

"When people say is this a case of the castle doctrine I say, 'yes, kind of,' but more importantly these people were armed with what I would consider weapons," Bert said.

Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper Joseph Peart testified that he saw no evidence that Crocker was injured.

Police said Crocker told them, "I just shot the one closest to me."

Whether or not the floaters were on Crocker's property may be an issue in the case since Missouri law isn't clear on where private property along a waterway begins. Some experts say it starts at the vegetation line; others say property rights extend to the center of a river or stream.

"That may be a critical question," said Jamison, of Kansas City, Mo. "If (Crocker) reasonably believed the man was on his property and he wasn't, I'm not sure that's enough."

Missouri's castle doctrine statute, enacted in 2007, gives residents a legal right to defend themselves and their property against intruders. Supporters of such laws cite a number of cases in which homeowners were able to fend off burglars or other criminals without fear of prosecution. But Florida's law gained notoriety after a neighborhood watch activist, George Zimmerman, fatally shot teen Trayvon Martin, and was acquitted of criminal charges.

A 2012 Texas A&M University study found that homicides ruled justifiable rose by 8 percent in states with "stand-your-ground laws.

In the Missouri case, Crawford County detective Zachary Driskill said he asked Crocker if he could have called police instead of taking matters into his own hands.

"I guess I could have, but it's my property and I was going to protect it," Crocker responded, according to case documents.

Without having been there and having only read the article, I call it murder.

But I wasn't there. I was, however, in B 4 POLE

I didn't know Frazod moved to Missouri.

Can you prove that?

If you click the link, I bet the first thing his lawyer does is get him a haircut, a shower, and a suit. First impressions count in a murder trial.

No, I can't prove anything. I wasn't there.

Neither.

That, raht thar, is Darwinism...

I would think the BAC of the float party would be as well...

So you can't prove that you were not there.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, note that he has no alibi. No alibi at all.

u
g
l
y
you aint got no alibi
you ugly, uh uh you ugly

LOL.

Castle Doctrine....as opposed to the Cassel Doctrine, in which goofy dudes pick up rocks and throw them, but overthrow the target by 10 feet every time.

Yeah, that's gong to be a tough one given the time it likely took to get law enforcement there. Maybe they can get credit card receipts to see how much beer was bought that weekend.

This is an interesting he said/she said case. Will there be any witnesses who saw drunk boaters, and does it matter? And if there are no witnesses, do you convict the guy because there's a dead body, or do you acquit him because you can't prove whether he was being attacked by a bunch of drunks?

I've learned not to believe shit I read in the paper or see on the news at this point.

Dude may be guilty of bad judgement, but not murder.

Was he in his house? No. He was outside? It's murder.

This is the way it works in Kansas.

The dead guy's should be pretty easy to determine.

Other than that pretty much any part of either story would be hard to determine.

The only thing I know is when some crazy bastard with a gun tells you to get off their property you do it. Right or wrong - leave...

On 2nd degree murder? Seems to me you have to acquit him.

But if the jury believes the testimony of the others in the group, then you have proved that he wasn't being attacked by a bunch of drunks, in which case you can convict.

Witness testimony is sufficient proof. Well, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. The key for the prosecution is to establish that the parties that are testifying on behalf of the prosecution have no legal motive to lie; they're not on trial here. Meanwhile, the guy that shot someone in the face certainly has a motive to fabricate the events. And frankly, it's a whole of witnesses vs. 1 here.

Though I feel like the media's screwed up the Castle Doctrine again (and I'm convinced they'll never get 'stand your ground' right). The defense here isn't going to be a Castle Doctrine defense; at least it shouldn't be. Rather, the defense should be simple old self defense. His story is that they were throwing softball sized rocks at him and converging on him after he told them to leave. Well if it's a dozen vs 1 and that dozen is throwing big rocks at you, you're probably in 'justifiable fear of grievous bodily harm' - at which time lethal force is authorized.

This isn't a Castle Doctrine case. Once the defense centered around a drunken mob angrily throwing rocks at an old man, it became good ol' fashion self defense.

But that doesn't get people to think about Trayvon and buy your newspaper, so it's not nearly as sexy.

I don't want anyone pissing on my property but me. Don't know that I'd shoot them over it.

Gun play was out of line, period.

He was not threatened in his house, but just tired of all of the disrespect for his property. That doesn't justify murder, and that is what I would call it.

He could have had some fun by ****ing with these groups, in many ways. String barbed wire across the lake almost submerged? Stumps just barely under water? Dog feces all over the sand bar?

But shooting into them deserves severe punishment for the murder that it is.

I call bullshit. A dude gets blasted with a 9mm and you pick up a rock and chuck it at the crazy motherfcucker with the gun? YOU RUN LIKE **** and take cover.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

Sorry pal, the rocks were thrown 1st, just admit it.

That's the thing: is that how it happened?

Do you have a right to carry a gun on your property?

Do you have a right to ask people to leave your property?

Do you have a right to defend yourself if they respond with violence?

Rashomon effect. Good luck to all having to determine exactly what happened...

bonus points for a Kirosawa reference

Aren't the other witnesses viewed as biased since they're part of the dead guy's tribe? And depending on who you believe, active rock chuckers of the dead guy's tribe? If I was on a jury I'd discount them pretty heavily.

as crazy as it gets down in that area w/floaters, I can't believe this hasn't happened before.

I've sat on the river bank and watched floaters pull up to a gravel bar and be so ****in drunk they fell on their face after crawling out of their canoes. watched one father and his 3 grown sons get in a fist fight while the rental dude is loading up their shit on a trailer. cops came and took the whole bunch off. I went over and asked the rental guy what the deal was and he said they were regulars...they'd get released the next morning then be back the next week and do the whole thing over again.

i get tired of people trashing the river and banks as it is, and I don't own any property down there. if I was an owner, i'd really be pissed. but, that's one of the communities main sources of income(floaters), so they're not going to put an end to it.

I vote idiots on both sides.
sec

I don't disagree with any of that, except that I don't like the idea of someone "protecting" their property from being pissed on with a gun.
If the guy's safety was threatened, well yes, by all means.

Pawnmower's reasoning does make some sense, that the rocks were probably thrown first, thus the gun play may be justified.

If you own a gun and hear people on your property do you take it when you go to see what's going on?

Eerily similar conceptually to the Trayvon Martin case....

Two morons who meet up and both do stupid shit.

No one HAD to die....but neither one backed off.

Shit keeps escalating......

Is it "murder" when both parties choose to escalate stuff to a violent level and then one party suddenly finds themselves defending their life?


In the TM vs. GZ case, the Jury said no, it is not murder.

Unless there is some sort of proof or evidence that this man came down to his sand bar looking to kill someone, it shouldnt be murder either. Maybe negligent homocide or manslaughter....MAYBE.

Uh, yeah.


Let's face it, everyone knew he was going to shoot someone in the face eventually.

i'll also add that this article is the first I've read on this case where it mentions the old dude getting rocks chucked at him. I was under the impression they were all mouthing/threatening him.
sec

There has to be a joke somewhere in this about a guy taking a leak at a bar...

Can the owner fence off the sandbar? Assuming property extends halfway across the water...

I doubt it, even if the bolded part were true...

but the bolded part may not be true ( I personally don't think it is true....but it definitely a gray area fraught with legal problems)

Based on appearances alone I would convict after seeing that picture.

I like this perspective on TM

Yeah, they're going to have a bias, sure.

But who's more likely to lie here? The friends of the dead guy that have literally nothing on the line (and could potentially be subject to civil liability if the shooter walks and finds a creative plaintiff's attorney) or the dude who's going to jail for the rest of his life?

It's about weighing respective credibility at that point. If you have to choose one party or the other that's more likely to lie, aren't you going to go with the shooter? He damn sure has more riding on it.

The Jury's going to look at it initially just as you are - that's why the prosecutor has to rehab their credibility without overtly doing so.

In a he said/she said kind of case, it's all about relative biases. Is it enough to convict? Probably not - but given that there's unquestionably a dead guy and the shooter unquestionably shot him, the order of the story is all that's going to matter here. As such, determining the credibility of those witnesses is going to be the key thing for the jurors and the major job of the prosecution.

I canoe the rivers of southern MO a couple of times a summer. I've got my son with me, and we are fishing, so were pretty tame as floaters go. We do stop on sand bars all along the river to fish from them, eat lunch, or swim a bit. I've only once had a man come down and tell me that technically, I was on his land, but he didn't care.

I'm guessing the story lies somewhere in the middle, but it'll be a he said/he said type of thing where only the people there will really know what happened.

If a guy starts shooting at my friends and I, I'm not picking up rocks and throwing them at him, I'm running my ass away in a serpentine path.

I'll bet the drunk floaters didn't want to be told that they can't be there, argued, it escalated, stones got thrown, and he shot at them.

I'd probably acquit him based on the story above.

He came down to chase off some boaters that were taking a leak with a gun. There's only one reason you take a gun and aim it at someone taking a leak on your property.

Gun vs. Rocks.
Gun win!
Who knew?

I’m sure he could but how? Ever drive on a gravel bar, dig a hole in one? The water lever is just below the surface, that’s what makes river gravel one of the slickest substances to get stuck in.

I was just thinking that if thousands of people each year use that waterway for canoeing and rafting is that a new phenomenon or did it start after he had bought the property? I suspect it has been happening for a very long time prior to his arrival as owner. Maybe he should have considered that before the purchase..?? I also wonder if a single person has been ticketed for violating property rights around there for rafting in that waterway..?? Pertinent questions one would think..

Where were they supposed to take cover? In the river?

This is really a tough case. I'm glad I'm not on the jury.

If you're a landowner, it's got to be extremely frustrating when drunk people are repeatedly coming onto your property and messing it up. And after a moment's thought, I see the point where you should be able to take a gun with you to fend off trespassers.

But it seems like there should've been a better solution than shooting a guy. The odds that he was coming onto your property to intentionally cause harm is quite low.

You can't really fence off the property. He had signs posted, and that didn't work. You can't booby trap the place. Maybe you could install a water cannon or something, but that would undoubtedly cause escalation. The only thing I can think of is to inform them that you're videoing the area and will show their small genitalia on the Internet.

I initially thought this guy has to get convicted, but the more I think about it, self-defense could be a quite viable defense.

The real problem here is people getting drunk and not respecting property. If you could enforce that, you wouldn't have this problem. But there's not anywhere near the law enforcement manpower you'd need to enforce public drunkenness on the river in that part of the state.

plus, even if you did, the first time you had a small flood it'd wash it all out.
sec

Don't know about MO but it is most definitely true in Kansas, been through this argument with law enforcement officers.
In fact if the land owner owns the property on both sides of the river that section of the river belongs to them.

Stupidest comment in history. Yeah they started mouthing off and throwing rocks at a guy with a 9mm pistol. Yeah thats bound to be true.

Look at his picture there's literally no way he wasn't at fault.

Has not killed anyone yet...

They may have thrown rocks because they thought he was an attacking sasquatch.

First, the reporter completely misrepresents the Missouri Castle Doctrine law. It does NOT "allow the use of deadly force to defend property." It makes clear that a person does not have to retreat from a "dwelling, residence or vehicle" if they believe physical force is required to protect himself.* Basically, it provides a protection against prosecution based on the theory that you should have tried to escape from your home instead of shooting the robber. There is no 'Castle Doctrine" defense in this case.

Second, as DJ mentioned, this is just a plain old self defense case. Would a 'reasonable person' have felt a threat of death or severe bodily harm by a couple drunk Yahoos throwing rocks?





2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury,[ rape, sodomy or kidnapping or serious physical injury through robbery, burglary or arson] or any forcible felony; or

(2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person.

3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.

Yea, I was wondering those things myself.

http://www.nationalrivers.org/PDF/RiverLawHandout.pdf

Federal law would probably bar anyone from fencing off or blocking the gravel bars even if an owner owned BOTH sides of the river. No matter what state.

As long as there is ankle deep water....there is probably an easement.



Not really an area I have any experience with though....

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/htVkGx4_GqA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Since it has been previously been used conspicuously, and notoriously for an easement of sorts for rafters Mr. Crockers case might not hold water. Here in CO (Kansas as well), if you use part of a neighboring property conspicuously and notoriously for a certain number of years (20yr I believe) it becomes part of your own property. (As in a farmer whose fence-line around his fields is actually partly on anothers property.)

Whatever, this certainly presents an interesting case...

Ah, yes, the fencing off. I was talking strictly about property.
I imagine Fish and Game Dept. would have something to say about modifying the river bed so you’re probably right.

The property issue is actually interesting too...

Here's my (very basic) take on it...

You would be better off NOT owning to the middle of the river...for it doesnt do you any good other than placing you at a greater risk of liability and need of insurance.

You cant build or control anything in the middle of the river anyway, because of the easement laws, so "owning" to the middle of the river is basically meaningless......Unless I am not thinking of something...like maybe if the river dries up? I dunno....but just looking at the river itself, theres almost no reason to 'want' to be the owner of the middle of the river in my mind.

I know this is a total tangent, but my mind wanders....

LOL

Yeah, but does that mean there is right to exclude all use of the water flowing through? I don't think so. I can't recall the term, but it is similar to an easement, where the pubic can't be excluded from utilizing the water flowing through.

One side note in looking at the federal law....it seems the FLoaters do have the right to use gravel bars and the banks of the river.....as an easement...as long as they dont try and travel onto the guy's property. But they DO seem to have a right to use the gravel banks etc as they travel down the river.

Whether they should get violent and throw rocks / confront the property owner while doing so is another issue....

Yeah, maybe it differs by state, but I thought that anybody can float on any body of water as long as they don't touch land.

Now having said that, there's a creek flowing through the Denver Country Club that I wouldn't want to test that on. They're very protective and have enough rich members to produce a body or two without repercussion.

It IS an easement, precisely.

The easement extends even to the bank and gravel bars etc...as I understand it.

First off, go **** yourself. Secondly, the guy probably wasn't brandishing his weapon as he went down there. Finally, have you ever been away from your stargazing and Jesus bashing long enough to go to one of these rivers? The canoeists on the river are complete idiots half of the time. They leave their beer cans, flip flops, clothing, baggies, etc., all over the river and its banks. Most of them are highly inebriated, foul mouthed, and doing things that are illegal (showing tits, smoking weed). There is no way they stood there throwing rocks at a guy with a gun. No chance.

Was it right to shoot them? No. He should have walked back up the hill to his house and called the cops, but if they were throwing rocks at him, or simply wouldn't leave his property when asked, then they broke the law, not him. I think by the letter of the law, he could have shot more of them until they left his property.

When I saw the thread title I assumed that Rain Man was referring to the fact that even though they attempted to pelt the homeowner with rocks, none of them threw accurately enough, far enough, or with great enough force to injure him. Or perhaps they just folded under the pressure of the pistol formation.

I'm all for property rights for the land owner, but you can't shoot someone for taking a piss.

The behavior of too many floaters is ruining it for most, especially families. We used to go every year as a kid, but I'm not interested in subjecting my kids to the behavior on those rivers the past several years.

In a way the rafters might have been lucky. I mean Crocker could have grabbed his brother-in-law, followed them for a ways, and made a couple of them squeal like a pig...

Wildcats Rep

Oh I agree. In my experience it’s just an excuse for grouchy old assholes to act like an asshole, which I assume gives them some weird pleasure.

I was once shot at while float fishing on the Neosho river for this very reason. When I complained to police I was told that I should stay away from that guys section of the river in the future.

Like I said, in 30 years of floating several of the rivers of Missouri, including the Meremac, I've only been aproached by a landowner once, and the guy was totally cool because we were just standing there fishing. Often times, the floaters have very loud music, are swearing like sailors, and are drunk as shit. I'm not saying what the guy did was right, but I'm sort of surprised it took this long for it to happen.

:doh!: well, duh. I'm not saying the guy in case was in the right, but I'm sure the rise in homicides was due to scumbags being in a place where they shouldn't have been, or were intentionally aggressive towards the person with the firearm.

if it were on the Niangua, it would've been categorized as a Walk Trip, seeing how the water is an inch deep

"That guy shot me in three places."

"Well, don't go back to those places next time."

Fry this ****er

37* 43.153’N
95* 27.345’W

Just FYI. ;)

Dude was only on his third beer during a canoe trip? that's a lie.

Back to reading...

Yeah I bet there isn't even a river to "canoe" on.

Buncha bullshit.

Last time we floated the Elk River near Noel, MO they were trying to clean that up, handing out hefty fines for drug use, exposing yourself.

I'd say that's about the sum of it, murder is for the jury to decide... but its way easy to believe the property owner was sick to death of rude behavior and trash always being strewn about the place.

I've been down the Current twice and no doubt there are a LOT of idiots, and also, if the victim was with two dozen others, you can damn near bet he was being a jackoff, i've seen it myself down there... the bigger the group, the bigger the assholes they're capable of being.

A lot like the "only two beers" drunk drivers always claim.

I saved a gal from Drowning a few years back. she was so hammered she could barely remain conscious. I saw her dipping under; then again....eyes closed....I could tell she was struggling in the 6' + feet of water. I hopped out of the canoe and pulled her ashore. I put her in a raft of some other drunk a**es in her party. I yelled out for someone in her party, and a guy and gal came up to me; trashed. I said "Dude, make sure she doesn't get out of this raft. She nearly drowned.

Yeah about 10 minutes later I saw the group, and the same drunk B was out splashing in the water. I didn't have to give CPR but it was very very close. We saw them the next day when we headed home at a breakfast buffet. My brother says in passing "You're welcome by the way". They looked at him like he had 4 heads and asked "What"? He proceeded to tell them that the chick (who was HUNGover at the table) nearly drowned and we pulled her out. NONE of them had any idea.

Scary

We're missing essential information. Was anyone involved an ethnic minority? If so, it's probably not going to go well for that guy.

Whoa. Not good.