Murder or Castle Doctrine?

[Rain Man]

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.

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

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.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that rocks were thrown first. Why? Because if rocks were thrown second you're saying a guy who unprovoked is willing to shoot someone....but magically when people start throwing rocks at him decides to STOP shooting. Reason would say if he's willing to shoot you before you throw rocks he's going to keep shooting at you when you start. No way could a small group drive him off before he fires off a bunch more rounds.

Now that could have happened....but it's a hell of a lot less likely than having a bunch of drunks start throwing rocks first.

Still it was stupid for all involved and the outcome will affect all for the rest of their lives.

[Rain Man]

Here is my dramatized theory about what happened, starring:

Nick Nolte as the shooter.
Ed Norton as the guy who got shot.
Giovanni Ribisi, John Goodman, and Robert Blake as fellow urinators.
The casts of Roseanne, My Name Is Earl, and Always Sunny as the extended family.

Ribisi needs to urinate. In drunken unison, Goodman, Blake, and the extended family all decide to urinate.

They pull up to the bank and get out.

Nolte appears with a gun and tells them to get out.

Blake mouths off. Goodman mouths off. Nolte mouths off.

Norton pulls down his shorts to urinate.

Nolte mouths off. Goodman mouths off.

Blake throws a rock.

Nolte shoots Norton in the face.

[WhawhaWhat]

Originally Posted by patteeu

No, not more plausible. Not even plausible at all.

I guess that's why they have juries.

[CrazyPhuD]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Nolte shoots Norton in the face.

The flaw with this theory is that Nolte would have shot him in the dick not the face. Unless you're suggesting that Norton is a dickhead?

[OrtonsPiercedTaint]

Intertubes, they have holes in the middle to pee through.

[ghak99]

I've come to despise what a lot of these float trips have become. Drunk ****s everywhere, trash left all over the place, and people walking right into peoples yards to take last nights beer and BBQ shit. Boats get unhooked from personal docks, coolers get looted, and idiots basically do whatever the hell they want because it's tough to enforce laws on these stretches of rivers. I've been on a bunch of them and had my share of fun, but a lot of them are no longer any place for kids. The few, have ruined them for the rest.

I'd say it's safe to assume the drunk ****s threw the rocks first or there would be more than one dead, but unless they had him cornered with no way to retreat I'd guess crazy man down by the river is probably going to do some time. Hopefully the rest of head rock chucker's group learned something.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by scott free

NO one is chucking ****ing rocks at a guy shooting real bullets at them...

The rocks came first, bet on it.

I just spent 5 minutes on the floor busting a gut at the thought of people running to go pick up rocks while being shot at. Oh man, it hurts

When shots get fired and you aren't armed it's get the hell out of Dodge anytime anyplace anywhere.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by scott free

NO one is chucking ****ing rocks at a guy shooting real bullets at them...

The rocks came first, bet on it.

Yea this is my biggest problem with the story and what immediately came to mind.

I am not going to be convinced he shot a guy in the face and the response was to pick up rocks. They would have been hauling ass or deserved what they got for being too ****ing dumb to survive anyway.

[notorious]

WTF is wrong with pissing in the river?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by notorious

WTF is wrong with pissing in the river?

WTF? Find a swimming pool, you heathen.

[CrazyPhuD]

The biggest issue is that the solution to the guys problem didn't require using a gun. All he had to do was breed a few batches of Piranhas and release them into the river. Boom...no more drunken float trips!

[Dayze]

Ban float trips and high capacity rafts /obligatory

[HoneyBadger]

Main question is, why did he just not pee in the water?

[tecumseh]

Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD

The biggest issue is that the solution to the guys problem didn't require using a gun. All he had to do was breed a few batches of Piranhas and release them into the river. Boom...no more drunken float trips!

Your close, however ,despite my being unfamiliar with the layout, just get some dogs. Nobody's going to shore when 3 or more mean assed dogs are barking aggressively. He never would have had to use the gun if he had dogs.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by tecumseh

Your close, however ,despite my being unfamiliar with the layout, just get some dogs. Nobody's going to shore when 3 or more mean assed dogs are barking aggressively. He never would have had to use the gun if he had dogs.

(Slapping own forehead.) Obvious solution. I never thought about that.