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.

[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.

Originally Posted by 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.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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

Has not killed anyone yet...

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

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]

Originally Posted by 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..

Yea, I was wondering those things myself.

[Ming the Merciless]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

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]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

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.

[Earthling]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

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]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

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]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

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]

Originally Posted by Radar Chief

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]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.