Murder or Castle Doctrine?

[Rain Man]

A case not too far from my hometown.

http://www.therolladailynews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130904/NEWS/130909638&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.

[loochy]

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

[loochy]

I didn't know Frazod moved to Missouri.

[Rain Man]

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

But I wasn't there.


Can you prove that?

[Rain Man]

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.

[loochy]

Can you prove that?

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

[Rausch]

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.

Neither.

That, raht thar, is Darwinism...

[Rausch]

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.

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

[Rain Man]

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

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.

[loochy]

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

[Sorter]

"When people say is this a case of the castle doctrine I say, 'yes, kind of..." Bert said.


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

LOL.

[loochy]

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.

[Rain Man]

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

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?

[BigCatDaddy]

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

[BlackHelicopters]

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

[Garcia Bronco]

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

[Radar Chief]

Some experts say it starts at the vegetation line; others say property rights extend to the center of a river or stream.

This is the way it works in Kansas.

[Rausch]

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.

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...

[DJ's left nut]

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?

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.

[vailpass]

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

[HemiEd]

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 fucking 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.

[Ming the Merciless]

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 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 FUCK and take cover.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

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

[Rausch]

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'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...

[Ming the Merciless]

Rashomon effect.

bonus points for a Kirosawa reference

[Rain Man]

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.



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.

[seclark]

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 fuckin 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

[HemiEd]

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...

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.

[Rausch]

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.

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

[Ming the Merciless]

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

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.

[cosmo20002]

A case not too far from my hometown.

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.

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.

Uh, yeah.


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.

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

[seclark]

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

[Earthling]

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...

[Ming the Merciless]

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)

[Dave Lane]

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

[HemiEd]

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.I like this perspective on TM (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=L9s900vZr_k#at=259)

[DJ's left nut]

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.

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.

[tooge]

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.

[Dave Lane]

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.

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.

[Graystoke]

Gun vs. Rocks.
Gun win!
Who knew?

[Radar Chief]

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

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.

[Earthling]

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..

[WhawhaWhat]

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.

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

[Rain Man]

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.

[seclark]

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.

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

[Radar Chief]

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)

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.

[Dave Lane]

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.

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.

[Rausch]

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

Has not killed anyone yet...

[Rain Man]

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

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

[trndobrd]

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.

[Radar Chief]

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..

Yea, I was wondering those things myself.

[Ming the Merciless]

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.

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....

[trndobrd]

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.



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

[Earthling]

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.

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...

[Radar Chief]

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....

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.

[Ming the Merciless]

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

[cosmo20002]

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.

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.

[Ming the Merciless]

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....

[Rain Man]

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.

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.

[Ming the Merciless]

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.

It IS an easement, precisely.

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

[tooge]

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.

First off, go fuck 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.

[listopencil]

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.

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.

[Iowanian]

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.

[Earthling]

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...

[Dayze]

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

Wildcats Rep

[Radar Chief]

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

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.

[Radar Chief]

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.

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.

[tooge]

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.

[Dayze]

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

: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.

[Dayze]

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

[Rain Man]

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.


"That guy shot me in three places."

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

[threebag]

Fry this fucker

[Radar Chief]

"That guy shot me in three places."

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

37* 43.153’N
95* 27.345’W

Just FYI. ;)

[Easy 6]

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

Back to reading...

[saphojunkie]

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

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

Buncha bullshit.

[Radar Chief]

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.

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.

[Easy 6]

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'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.

[Frosty]

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

Back to reading...

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

[Dayze]

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

[ClevelandBronco]

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

[vailpass]

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

Whoa. Not good.

[BWillie]

DERP DERP HE WAS PISSING ON MY LAWN, MY PROPERTY DOG GONE IT HE DESERVES TO DIE!! DERP DERP

[seclark]

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
sit in a canoe/kayak/innertube for a few hours in the hot sun slamming beers, you don't have any idea how drunk you're getting.
sec

[Dayze]

the bonus was my hand got some boob action whilst hoisting her out of the water into the raft.

[Radar Chief]

Whoa. Not good.

Totally believable though.

[Dayze]

sit in a canoe/kayak/innertube for a few hours in the hot sun slamming beers, you don't have any idea how drunk you're getting.
sec

yep. and this party was young. no way they were of age. They had all the makings of a bad day; Jack and Cokes, Jello Shots, beer bong.
nice little 100 degree day; 5 hour float.

good god.

[seclark]

the bonus was my hand got some boob action whilst hoisting her out of the water into the raft.

should have turned her over and picked her up like a 6-pack.
sec

[Frosty]

the bonus was my hand got some boob action whilst hoisting her out of the water into the raft.

That's probably not the only action she got if she was that drunk.

[Dayze]

should have turned her over and picked her up like a 6-pack.
sec

I thought about it. I was scared though man. I pulled her out, and she was limp. I put her into the raft on shore, sat her up. she had a pulse. fairly shallow breathing. Finally got her to open her eyes, and she was talking (albeit slurring/barely audible).


but my hand got some. So I figured we were square

[Radar Chief]

the bonus was my hand got some boob action whilst hoisting her out of the water into the raft.

LMAO Ground rule double.

[vailpass]

Totally believable though.

I don't doubt it for one second. We go to Havasu every year. I've seen plenty of that shit. Most of them topless.

[DJ's left nut]

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

Back to reading...

Yup. As has already been noted, it's the same as the "only a couple" answer on DUI checkpoints. As a public service - the answer is never "only a couple". That's exactly the answer the officer is looking for. The answer is always 'none'. I don't care if you throw up on the guy first, the answer is still none.

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.

Absolutely. And the author knew it.

"Dart and about 4 dozen of his extended family" sounds a lot better than "50 !@#$ing people" because anyone that's ever been on a float knows how those work out.

Based on what we have here, I just don't see how you can convict this guy of 2nd degree murder.

[Dayze]

LMAO Ground rule double.

"Quick! Someone help me pull her into the raft"!!


onlookers "...why is that guy pulling her out with her knees around his shoulders"?

[cosmo20002]

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.

Maybe you looked like you had to pee and he didn't want you to get any ideas.

[Easy 6]

Yup. As has already been noted, it's the same as the "only a couple" answer on DUI checkpoints. As a public service - the answer is never "only a couple". That's exactly the answer the officer is looking for. The answer is always 'none'. I don't care if you throw up on the guy first, the answer is still none.



Absolutely. And the author knew it.

"Dart and about 4 dozen of his extended family" sounds a lot better than "50 !@#$ing people" because anyone that's ever been on a float knows how those work out.

Based on what we have here, I just don't see how you can convict this guy of 2nd degree murder.

Yep, he'll get off with something much less than second.

[Radar Chief]

Maybe you looked like you had to pee and he didn't want you to get any ideas.

No, he’s just an old asshole.
I worked with his grandson and even he agreed the old fuck is an asshole. When I told him my story he said, “Yup, he’ll do that.”

[cosmo20002]

A case not too far from my hometown.

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.



That's not where they filmed Deliverance is it?
You can't just be floating down rivers in Missouri and expect not to be shot at sometimes, or, requested to squeal like a pig on occasion.

[seclark]

"Quick! Someone help me pull her into the raft"!!


onlookers "...why is that guy pulling her out with her knees around his shoulders"?

when my old man was a ranger at a park on the Meramac, some lady drove her car right down a boat ramp, committing suicide. he got there and went in the water to try to get her out...reached into the car window and grabbed her by the hair and it came off in his hand. she was wearing a wig. he was already pretty tense, but that freaked him out.
sec

[vailpass]

when my old man was a ranger at a park on the Meramac, some lady drove her car right down a boat ramp, committing suicide. he got there and went in the water to try to get her out...reached into the car window and grabbed her by the hair and it came off in his hand. she was wearing a wig. he was already pretty tense, but that freaked him out.
sec

Wow. Fuck that.

[WhawhaWhat]

I hope this guy gets life in prison. He's an asshole.

[cosmo20002]

when my old man was a ranger at a park on the Meramac, some lady drove her car right down a boat ramp, committing suicide. he got there and went in the water to try to get her out...reached into the car window and grabbed her by the hair and it came off in his hand. she was wearing a wig. he was already pretty tense, but that freaked him out.
sec

I think that's actually better though. The whole scalp would have been kinda gross.

[patteeu]

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 FUCK and take cover.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAH

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

That was the first thing I thought too.

[R8RFAN]

This is 2nd degree murder in NC

[WhawhaWhat]

That was the first thing I thought too.

Have you ever been down one of these rivers? You can't run and hide anywhere. If you have to go to the bathroom, you pull the canoe or raft onto the side of the river on a sand/gravel bank, find some trees to go behind and do your business.

Some of these responses make it seem like some of you think these rivers flow down the middle of a street with port-a-potties on every corner and this guy just got out and peed in his lawn.

[patteeu]

Have you ever been down one of these rivers? You can't run and hide anywhere. If you have to go to the bathroom, you pull the canoe or raft onto the side of the river on a sand/gravel bank, find some trees to go behind and do your business.

Some of these responses make it seem like some of you think these rivers flow down the middle of a street with port-a-potties on every corner and this guy just got out and peed in his lawn.

Yes, I have. And there's plenty of opportunity to run for cover.

[Easy 6]

Have you ever been down one of these rivers? You can't run and hide anywhere. If you have to go to the bathroom, you pull the canoe or raft onto the side of the river on a sand/gravel bank, find some trees to go behind and do your business.

Some of these responses make it seem like some of you think these rivers flow down the middle of a street with port-a-potties on every corner and this guy just got out and peed in his lawn.

The property owner may have been overzealous, but my money says this big group got cocky with the rocks, their drunken leader, egged on, started approaching and got popped.

Lesson is, don't get drunk and stupid... you usually never know who you're messing with.

[WhawhaWhat]

Yes, I have. And there's plenty of opportunity to run for cover.

If they are throwing rocks, I assumed they were on the side of the river still where the rocks collect. Where would anyone go hide?

[WhawhaWhat]

The property owner may have been overzealous, but my money says this big group got cocky with the rocks, their drunken leader, egged on, started approaching and got popped.

Lesson is, don't get drunk and stupid... you usually never know who you're messing with.

Depends on where the guy was. If I was standing behind a tree next to the river while taking a pee and some crazy asshole starts screaming at me, I would probably tell him to **** off too.

Doesn't make it not murder if he killed me, IMO.

[patteeu]

If they are throwing rocks, I assumed they were on the side of the river still where the rocks collect. Where would anyone go hide?

Down river, up river, across the river, wherever.

[WhawhaWhat]

Down river, up river, across the river, wherever.

So your plan for them was to outrun the bullets?

[Easy 6]

So your plan for them was to outrun the bullets?

They were almost certainly drunker than cootie brown, in large numbers and getting rowdier by the minute... they started this, i'd bet on it.

"WE'LL PISS WHERE WE WANT YA OLD MOTHER****ER"

[WhawhaWhat]

They were almost certainly drunker than cootie brown, in large numbers and getting rowdier by the minute... they started this, i'd bet on it.

"WE'LL PISS WHERE WE WANT YA OLD MOTHER****ER"

Just a difference in opinion, but I see it completely the other way. The guy goes to pee, this old dude comes running out yelling to get off his property and fires off a couple bullets - killing the guy, his friends panic and start chucking rocks to get the guy to back off.

The bullets may have been intended as warning shots but it doesn't matter when one of them kills someone.

[alnorth]

This isn't even a case where he was trying to stop a thief who was running off with his car or something, so "defending my property" is right out.

[Easy 6]

Just a difference in opinion, but I see it completely the other way. The guy goes to pee, this old dude comes running out yelling to get off his property and fires off a couple bullets - killing the guy, his friends panic and start chucking rocks to get the guy to back off.

The bullets may have been intended as warning shots but it doesn't matter when one of them kills someone.

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

The rocks came first, bet on it.

[alnorth]

This is 2nd degree murder in NC

It would be murder in Iowa too. If you are outside your home or place of employment around here, then you have a duty to retreat when it is a reasonable possibility. The only question that would be asked in court is "could he have run away?".

[patteeu]

Just a difference in opinion, but I see it completely the other way. The guy goes to pee, this old dude comes running out yelling to get off his property and fires off a couple bullets - killing the guy, his friends panic and start chucking rocks to get the guy to back off.

The bullets may have been intended as warning shots but it doesn't matter when one of them kills someone.

And you're making cracks about outrunning bullets? :facepalm:

[WhawhaWhat]

And you're making cracks about outrunning bullets? :facepalm:

Certainly more plausible than pushing the canoe back into the river and floating down stream to get away while the guy is shooting at you or even abandoning the canoe and running on foot in their water shoes.

[Aries Walker]

I suppose it will come as a surprise to absolutely no one that this would also be considered second degree murder here in Maryland.

Except, of course, that the only place in Maryland where you find both guns and water is downtown Baltimore, and if you start taking fire there, you have plenty of rusty dumpsters and discarded syringes to hide behind.

[patteeu]

Certainly more plausible than pushing the canoe back into the river and floating down stream to get away while the guy is shooting at you or even abandoning the canoe and running on foot in their water shoes.

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

[Rain Man]

I suppose it will come as a surprise to absolutely no one that this would also be considered second degree murder here in Maryland.

Except, of course, that the only place in Maryland where you find both guns and water is downtown Baltimore, and if you start taking fire there, you have plenty of rusty dumpsters and discarded syringes to hide behind.

Also, in downtown Baltimore there's no element of surprise since you're expecting to come under fire.

[vailpass]

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

The rocks came first, bet on it.

For sure.

[CrazyPhuD]

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]

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

I guess that's why they have juries.

[CrazyPhuD]

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?:hmmm:

[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 fucks 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 fucks 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]

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

The rocks came first, bet on it.

LMAO LMAO LMAO 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 LMAO

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

[Marcellus]

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 fucking dumb to survive anyway.

[notorious]

WTF is wrong with pissing in the river?

[patteeu]

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]

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]

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.

[Psyko Tek]

so you live along this lovely river spot, and assholes come along to party/fuck/piss on your property
get motion sensors that start playing the theme to Deliverance

[Valiant]

I do not think the sand bars are private property.

[CrazyPhuD]

so you live along this lovely river spot, and assholes come along to party/fuck/piss on your property
get motion sensors that start playing the theme to Deliverance

Meh just rig a system to dump a few pounds of baby ruths in the river whenever anyone floats bye.

[007]

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.

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.

I love how the media try to paint the case.

I say this one ends with a hung jury.

[Craqhead]

from "A Summary or Missouri Water Laws"

Page 138 or PDF Page 152
Navigability

Of all instream water uses, navigation is the only one provided for and protected by the U.S. Constitution (the Commerce Clause). 17 All navigable
rivers are subject to public use for navigation. 18 The legal term for this is “navigational servitude.” Determination of navigability may be made several ways. 19 If a stream is navigable under federal determination, then the national government or the state government holds title to the streambed.

Page 142 or PDF Page 156
Boating and Recreation

The Missouri case of Elder v. Delcour, 269 S.W.2d 17 (1954) recognizes the public right of recreational navigation in all watercourses that have flow sufficient to float a recreational boat. 24 “Congress mandated that Missouri, ”wrote the court," like many Midwestern states created from federal territories, 25 must recognize free navigability by the public of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, their tributaries, and portages between them.” This provision was derived from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, art. IV, 1 Stat. 52 (1789)

I voted Murder.
The guy has a right to be pissed about boaters (Drunks) pissing on his property. Bringing a gun down to confront them wasn't the smartest thing.
Throwing rocks at a guy holding a gun wasn't smart. A round or two in a safe direction probably would of ended the rock throwing. IF it didn't and they continued to throw rocks. CALL the Police. IF the drunks follow you and continue to throw rocks. Dig more graves.

[MOhillbilly]

He killed that guy. Instead of a pistol invest in a JYD.

[Radar Chief]

He killed that guy. Instead of a pistol invest in a JYD.

:thumb:

[MOhillbilly]

Also when I think of Steelville MO I think of Archie Kehr Kelsos. He sold and fought that strain for 60+ years.

[MOhillbilly]

:thumb:

I'm serious. I'd assume this guy had lived at the same spot with the same bs for years.
A mean ass Cujo would have fixed his problem.

I cruised around lake arrowhead a while back and the amount of Cujo lookin hounds was astonishing.
I didn't think they had them type hounds to be hospitable.

[Rausch]

I didn't think they had them type hounds to be hospitable.

They don't make screaming-mad-Deliverance-rednecks-with-shotguns for hospitality either.

Sounds like a float trip got a little too beer-brave with a guy who was a little less than stable...

[Radar Chief]

I'm serious. I'd assume this guy had lived at the same spot with the same bs for years.
A mean ass Cujo would have fixed his problem.

I cruised around lake arrowhead a while back and the amount of Cujo lookin hounds was astonishing.
I didn't think they had them type hounds to be hospitable.

I’m with you.
This is exactly why you approach a farm house around here slowly and in the least aggressive manner possible. Because it’s guaranteed that there will be a pack of mostly feral dogs hanging around that will furiously guard their gravy train.
Jim and Resin Bowie were said to sleep with a pack of Catahoula’s at the foot of their bed. There’s a reason for that.

[MOhillbilly]

I’m with you.
This is exactly why you approach a farm house around here slowly and in the least aggressive manner possible. Because it’s guaranteed that there will be a pack of mostly feral dogs hanging around that will furiously guard their gravy train.
Jim and Resin Bowie were said to sleep with a pack of Catahoula’s at the foot of their bed. There’s a reason for that.

I prefer pitbulls and anitolians. But yeah one that's about half wolf suits me and will keep the looky loos on the road.
The other part of the problem is that city people have zero fuckin clue how to operate in the country.
Motherfuckers move out here and think they got it made.
What they got is more money and pride than logic.

[tooge]

Years ago (like 20 or so), when I was much more into the partying aspect of floating, we were snorkeling around a hole, looking for big fish. We were fishing too. We found probably 15-20 Milwaukees Best beers that someone had dumped when their canoe tipped. We picked them up and threw them in our trash bag. Several hours later, some college aged gals came by all hammered and out of beer. They asked us if we had any extra. Of course, being the gentlemen we were, we told them "you bet, show us your tits". They did, and we promptly handed over the warm MB that we had found earlier that day. Ahhh, the good old days.

[Groves]

Went to high school with the lawyer. Carry on.