Meramec River Shooting

[Feathers and Fins]

Harris its a long drawn out read and leaves the door open to "opinion" I have read it many times and scratch my head on some of it. Most likely the attorney is using [563.036. 1. #(3) as justification as the ( rocks ) were in their hand. That is the section that covers Property most closely to what it appears they are trying to use.

(3)

When entry into the premises is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering physical violence to any person or being in the premises and he reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony.

Just a guess on my part but what I thought when I read the defense statements.

As to what he said to the police that is a nonissue for me as under safe conditions in retrospect people have time to think and give an answer, in the heat of the moment when a person is in fear they do not have to react and do it fast. That question has been blown apart in many cases ( that of what could you have done or do you think you could have done different ) any good lawyer will take it apart.

[bfishn]

"in the premises"

[hank franklin]

The Castle law chapter here

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/chapters/chap563.htm

Central provision here

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5630000031.htm

Crocker has a very weak castle law defense. Protecting his property from what, peeing?

Once the jaws started jacking however I can see how he might claim self defense. BUT, Crocker put himself in that position. He could have withdrawn. If the drunks still came after him after he withdrew, then of course he is justified. Instead it appears Crocker shot a couple times and the drunks didn't leave. Crocker then engaged them further. Wrong move.

Crocker was looking for a fight and he got one.

[Quillback]

The whole thing with the rocks could be a factor also, Crocker is claiming they were throwing "softball sized" rocks at him before he shot, the canoers are saying that they did not pick up rocks until after the shooting. I think Crocker is lying, but if they can convince the jury that he was being stoned by a gang of people, he might be able to wiggle off the hook. There's going to be 2 versions of what happened.

[moguy1973]

One of em was stupid as dung, and the other one was stupid as dung and was shot.

Problem is though that the deceased was tryin to diffuse the situation according to the reports. Crocker even said he just shot the closest person to him and he didn't care who it was.

[Feathers and Fins]

Here are two questions I beleive will be the center of it all.

1. Were they on his Property? The courts will have to have the legal deffinition of the property which is what interest I think most here for the water rights aspect. IF they were as defined by law on his property then.

2. Did they have the rocks in hand and throwing them as Crocker contends? If so ( and that will be for the jury to decide ) then he would have justification under the law for self defense, there is no mandate to retreat that I saw in it.

Should he have withdrawn is moot as there is no mandate to retreat unless i missed it.

[Riverwhy]

I am assuming this is reasonably close to the events of that day:

1. A large group of floaters/partiers hit the river and begin drinking heavily.

2. They stop at the gravel bar to pee, grab more drinks out of the cooler and to visit with fellow partiers

3. They are probably oblivious to near by homes and simply do not care if they create a raucous commotion

4. At this point they are not meaning for any harm to anyone or their property. Just being a bit obnoxious.

5. Landowner is fed up with the loud drunks taking over what he feels is his private property during the summer weekends.

6. Landowner goes down to the gravel bar to run the floaters/partiers off " his gravel bar".

7. The patiers at this point allow alcohol and male hormones to interfer with judgement.

8. Rather than moving down to the next patch of gravel they decide to become beligerent.

9. They began to approach the landowner with rocks in hand and shout that they are going to show him who has the power.

10. Landowner becomes frightened by the crowd but the gun and his belief he has the right to protect his land keep him from fleeing.

11. Well meaning but drunk and with poor judgement a floater grabs the gun arm of the landowner.

12. In a split second response the landowner shoots the guy that grabbed his arm out of fear of being overpowered by the crowd.

In MY opinion:

The floaters are at fault for being drunk and rowdy on the river.

The floaters are not at fault for stopping on a gravel bar to take a break.

The landowner is at fault for bringing a gun to the situation. This is a really big unforgiveable fault.

The floaters are at fault for not leaving when they were asked

The floaters are at fault for approaching the landowner with rocks and threats -- really at fault on this one.

The floater who grabbed the arm of the landowner was insanely at fault for physical contact.

The landowner AT THIS POINT may well have been seriously beaten if he did not react.

The landowner shot the guy in the face rather than an attempt at a non fatal shot - landowner is at fault

BOTH landowner and floaters are at fault. They both need punished by the law.

I come from the perspective of someone who has floated and stopped and even camped on gravel bars all my life. I have my conceal carry but I NEVER carry. I believe the public should have unrestricted use of our waterways and I believe private property owners should never required to retreat from their own property because of houligans. We sure could use a common sense clarification of the law.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Exactly to prove and use Castle they first have to prove property rights.

No, Castle wasn't written to protect real estate. It was a law giving one the legal right to protect themselves and their possession, not just inside the shelter, but anywhere on their land, with deadly force, without facing charges of no permit or worse. It basically did away with the old saying " Pull them inside before the police arrive".

I don't think the defense will push any property rights other than the fact that he had a right to be armed under the Castle law. His real defense will probably be self defense. He's very unlikely to convince a jury that he had a need to kill someone to keep them from peeing on his land or to protect gravel bar. He already can likely prove he owns the gravel bar, but he can't restrict access if it's below the normal high water mark. He has to prove he had a reason to use the gun he was legally allowed to carry on his property.

If the defense can't shake up the witnesses and show some hint that their stories don't match I think he's toast.

[Feathers and Fins]

I agree Wayne, im trying to see it from the defense standpoint and some of even looking at it from thier point has me shaking my head but im trying to see it. To me on my personal level ( He knows full well people stop there no doubt, I also beleive he had enough and was going down to start scaring people off maybe even to get a reputation so people know to stay off his land. He did not need even though legal to take a gun and certainly did not need to fire it at anyone. Warning shots ??? wth is that If you carry and are forced to pull it you best be shooting to kill ) The only and I mean only exception would be IF the party was throwing rocks at him he then had a justification to fire ( in his mind ) and it is the mindset that determines that.

[fishinwrench]

It's scary to think that you can be legally shot and killed on a river if the shooter says "he was fixin' to throw a rock at me".

Hell, someone could float down a river on a busy weekend and mow down everyone they come across.

"It was a nice quiet float once I took care of all those rock throwing basturds."

LOL