What are you gonna do, shoot me?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Curious to hear if the fact that he was shooting at the guy WHILE the guy was fleeing changes anyones opinion who stated he was justified because he was a threat by making the comments he had made.

Sure, if it's a fact. It sounds like a prosecutorial theory trying to taint a jury pool, but I don't know that for sure. The best evidence there is finding the bullets everywhere, that definitely makes it better case for them, but I'm not sure how they can prove the rest of it. Were there witnesses?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

If the description that stevew posted is accurate, it sounds like he just snapped.

Now, to start a different debate, I'm sure we can all agree that people we think might "snap" should not have a CCW permit (or indeed any permit). But how do we know who might "snap"? And, following-on, is this case a good argument for or against gun control, or simply a one-off?

I think it's just a one-off. Honestly flere, I think the CCW is pretty much irrelevant here. If he was going to snap with a gun, the legality of obtaining one/carrying one would be irrelevant.

I also think that it's kind of insulting when places post "no concealed weapons in this facility." If i was going to use a gun for evil, a fucking sign is not going to stop me from doing a deed. It's like, "oh, i was going to shoot this fucking place up, but the sign prohibits it, and I'll listen to the sign." Now I understand that there's a very very slight possibility of accidental discharge, but c'mon.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

Your strawman antics are getting out of control, even for a message board. Do you ever actually respond to anyone's point?

1. I didn't say anything about Christian values. WTF did that come from? (I'm guess that because I lean fiscally conservative/smaller government, you equate me with a bible thumper or something?)
2. I didn't say anything about the protection of stuff being more important than a human life.

Your statement was beyond asinine. Let's look at it again.

Originally Posted by molson

I should add that I believe that breaking into someone's house is a horrible, horrible crime, maybe worse than some other people in this thread would seem to think it is. It's worse than DUIs, worse than any drug crime, it's something on par with rape and sexual abuse...

You do imply that a simple B&E is worse than someone who is in the act of jeopardizing someone's life (DUI). Then you equate it to a crime like rape and sexual abuse? It's not a horrible personal crime, it's a simple property crime. Yes, some people do have psychological effects after such a crime and fear of home intrusion. It's much, much different than personal crime like rape or sexual abuse. Frankly, you're out of your blasted mind.

Originally Posted by molson

Sure, if it's a fact. It sounds like a prosecutorial theory trying to taint a jury pool, but I don't know that for sure. The best evidence there is finding the bullets everywhere, that definitely makes it better case for them, but I'm not sure how they can prove the rest of it. Were there witnesses?

Oh, it's most definitely an attempt to influence the jury pool. But I find it interesting that constantly project your own fears in trying to justify the shooting, but quickly dismiss other evidence. The fact that the guy ran for over a block shooting wildly at the victim should give you some major pause as to your interpretation of the events. Also, there probably are other witnesses - some of the statements seem too specific to be made up.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You do imply that a simple B&E is worse than someone who is in the act of jeopardizing someone's life (DUI). Then you equate it to a crime like rape and sexual abuse? It's not a horrible personal crime, it's a simple property crime. Yes, some people do have psychological effects after such a crime and fear of home intrusion. It's much, much different than personal crime like rape or sexual abuse. Frankly, you're out of your blasted mind.

Nope, home invasion (even attempted home invasion) is more than a "property crime". It's a violent crime. It jeopardizes life and limb. The Supreme Court agrees with me. I was also clearly expressing a personal feeling about that particular crime, and how it impacts my feelings about why I don't have the sympathy for this thug that others do.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Oh, it's most definitely an attempt to influence the jury pool. But I find it interesting that constantly project your own fears in trying to justify the shooting, but quickly dismiss other evidence. The fact that the guy ran for over a block shooting wildly at the victim should give you some major pause as to your interpretation of the events. Also, there probably are other witnesses - some of the statements seem too specific to be made up.

What evidence am I dismissing? The only evidence referenced is the bullets that were found, which I said was important evidence. There's no other evidence in that article, just a prosecution theory. If there's witnesses, I'd love to hear what they saw.

If it can be proven he was shooting wildly down a street, he should be charged with something. I still understand what he did, and I'm glad he killed the thug, and nobody else. The story definitely looks different than it did when I first read it.

Some people made this distinction earlier, and it's a good one:

(IMO)
Legal: He's guilty of something (probably a couple of things, depending on state law), but should receive relatively light punishment
Moral Justification: I'm fine with killing the intruder. I applaud it. If he did it in a way that endangered the lives of others (and the evidence about the bullets seem to indicate that he did), that that was his greatest wrong here.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

Nope, home invasion (even attempted home invasion) is more than a "property crime". It's a violent crime. It jeopardizes life and limb. The Supreme Court agrees with me. I was also clearly expressing a personal feeling about that particular crime, and how it impacts my feelings about why I don't have the sympathy for this thug that others do.

A b&e without an intent to burglarize is considered "illegal trespass" and is a misdemeanor in most cases. It's a property crime. Your personal feelings don't change that. In fact, your reaction to something this simple goes far beyond the irrational.

Originally Posted by molson

What evidence am I dismissing? The only evidence referenced is the bullets that were found, which I said was important evidence. There's no other evidence in that article, just a prosecution theory. If there's witnesses, I'd love to hear what they saw.

If it can be proven he was shooting wildly down a street, he should be charged with something. I still understand what he did, and I'm glad he killed the thug, and nobody else. The story definitely looks different than it did when I first read it.

Well, we don't know about the veracity of the claims in the article, but they do coincide nicely with the one written before.

The point is that you've been projecting your fears into this case since you first read about it. That much is obvious. And if you're happy that the man died, I suppose that says a something about you. The fact that you applaud it makes you a very sick human being. Perhaps you think that any who is committing a felony deserves death without judge, jury or trial?

If so, I'm flexible, I can play by those rules. I'm going to hang out at the local bar and shoot everyone in the head who starts up a car after a few drinks.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by stevew

I think it's just a one-off. Honestly flere, I think the CCW is pretty much irrelevant here. If he was going to snap with a gun, the legality of obtaining one/carrying one would be irrelevant.

I also think that it's kind of insulting when places post "no concealed weapons in this facility." If i was going to use a gun for evil, a fucking sign is not going to stop me from doing a deed. It's like, "oh, i was going to shoot this fucking place up, but the sign prohibits it, and I'll listen to the sign." Now I understand that there's a very very slight possibility of accidental discharge, but c'mon.

I would imagine they legaly have to post that sign

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

The point is that you've been projecting your fears into this case since you first read about it. That much is obvious. And if you're happy that the man died, I suppose that says a something about you. The fact that you applaud it makes you a very sick human being. Perhaps you think that any who is committing a felony deserves death without judge, jury or trial?

If so, I'm flexible, I can play by those rules. I'm going to hang out at the local bar and shoot everyone in the head who starts up a car after a few drinks.

Speaking of assinine.....

No, I don't think anyone who is committing a felony deserves death without judge, jury, or trial. Certainly, I believe in our constitution, and limiting our government's powers to punish.

But if a guy's trying to break into a house and he gets killed - I don't feel sad about that, no, not at all. I can't say I'm happy about his death - but I'm glad he won't have a chance to commit crimes against people anymore. The world is a somewhat better place without him in it. I would feel the same way about any violent criminal.

The DUI comment is too stupid to respond to. Oh what the hell. I think it would be wrong to shoot people at the bar after they had a few drinks. If he gets killed later on trying to break into someone's house - tough shit. That doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't charge the guy that killed him, but that's a pretty sympathetic crime, to me.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

A b&e without an intent to burglarize is considered "illegal trespass" and is a misdemeanor in most cases. It's a property crime. Your personal feelings don't change that. In fact, your reaction to something this simple goes far beyond the irrational.

So you don't think he was intending to commit a crime in that house, he just wanted to look around?

I wonder what would have happened if he ran into an unarmed resident. Like an old lady, or a child.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

Speaking of assinine.....

No, I don't think anyone who is committing a felony deserves death without judge, jury, or trial. Certainly, I believe in our constitution, and limiting our government's powers to punish.

But if a guy's trying to break into a house and he gets killed - I don't feel sad about that, no, not at all. I can't say I'm happy about his death - but I'm glad he won't have a chance to commit crimes against people anymore. The world is a somewhat better place without him in it. I would feel the same way about any violent criminal.

No, he didn't get killed. He was murdered. There's a difference. And he wasn't murdered in the house. He was murdered a block and a half away with his hands in the air in surrender. If you're glad about that, then...you know, I can't even politely say it.

I have a number of friends that are former felons. Should I tell them they all deserve to be put to death? People aren't perfect, nor are they irredeemable. Maybe you'll learn that some day and you'll be better for it if you do.

Originally Posted by molson

The DUI comment is too stupid to respond to. Oh what the hell. I think it would be wrong to shoot people at the bar after they had a few drinks. If he gets killed later on trying to break into someone's house - tough shit. That doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't charge the guy that killed him, but that's a pretty sympathetic crime, to me.

Your positions are entirely inconsistent. Both are felonies that put people in danger.

So, what other crimes are punishable by vigilante murder?

And you've never answered Quick's question from 3 pages ago. If the guy deserves to be gunned down two blocks away after fleeing, why can't you gun him down in the grocery store next week?

Originally Posted by molson

So you don't think he was intending to commit a crime in that house, he just wanted to look around?

No, but you said that the Supreme Court said that a b&e is a violent crime. I'm merely pointing out that it, by itself, is not. It's a property crime, nothing more. Here's a hint...your shit ain't that important.

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder what would have happened if he ran into an unarmed resident. Like an old lady, or a child.

Sorry, I'm not playing the what-if game. I live in the real world.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I have a number of friends that are former felons. Should I tell them they all deserve to be put to death? People aren't perfect, nor are they irredeemable. Maybe you'll learn that some day and you'll be better for it if you do.

Nope, I don't think they should be "put to death". But if one of them commits a crime against someone, and he gets killed by them, I'm probably siding with the person. Shit happens if you decide you want to victimize people.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

So, what other crimes are punishable by vigilante murder?

I don't consider it "vigilante" if it's perptrated by the victim of the crime. That's not really the spirt of vigilantism.

Whether an individual is justified (morally or legally) in killing someone that commits a crime against them depends on the nature of the crime, and circumstances, of course.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

And you've never answered Quick's question from 3 pages ago. If the guy deserves to be gunned down two blocks away after fleeing, why can't you gun him down in the grocery store next week?

I think I did respond to that post (And I love that people keep chastizing me for not responding to every single post).

It's less justified if more time goes by, and they're in a more crowded place, definitely. I would say the more time goes by, the less justified. Seems obvious. Like I said, it would have been better if he killed the guy at the house.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

No, but you said that the Supreme Court said that a b&e is a violent crime. I'm merely pointing out that it, by itself, is not. It's a property crime, nothing more. Here's a hint...your shit ain't that important.

It's not about the shit to me. (And attempted burglarly is still a felony - a violent felony says the Supreme Court, at least as defined by that Act that they applied. DUI meanwhile, has been held not to be a violent felony, as defined by INS). Stealing a car is a property crime. Breaking into a house is not.

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Sorry, I'm not playing the what-if game. I live in the real world.

There's about 3 what-ifs your post, and you've posed several others. I've responded to your what-ifs, and you've criticized me for not responding to someone else's.

[molson]

Here's a little tidbit from the Supreme Court in James v. United States, about why this isn't a "property crime".


....
The main risk of burglary arises not from the simple physical act of wrongfully entering onto another’s property, but rather from the possibility of a face-to-face confrontation between the burglar and a third party—whether an occupant, a police officer, or a bystander—who comes to investigate. That is, the risk arises not from the completion of the burglary, but from the possibility that an innocent person might appear while the crime is in progress. Attempted burglary poses the same kind of risk. Interrupting an intruder at the doorstep while the would-be burglar is attempting a break-in creates a risk of violent confrontation comparable to that posed by finding him inside the structure itself. As one court has explained:

“In all of these cases the risk of injury arises, not from the completion of the break-in, but rather from the possibility that some innocent party may appear on the scene while the break-in is occurring. This is just as likely to happen before the defendant succeeds in breaking in as after. Indeed, the possibility may be at its peak while the defendant is still outside trying to break in, as that is when he is likely to be making noise and exposed to the public view. . . . [T]here is a serious risk of confrontation while a perpetrator is at-tempting to enter the building.” United States v. Payne, 966 F. 2d 4, 8 (CA1 1992).

Indeed, the risk posed by an attempted burglary that can serve as the basis for an ACCA enhancement may be even greater than that posed by a typical completed burglary. All burglaries begin as attempted burglaries. But ACCA only concerns that subset of attempted burglaries where the offender has been apprehended, prosecuted, and convicted. This will typically occur when the attempt is thwarted by some outside intervenor—be it a property owner or law enforcement officer. Many completed burglaries do not involve such confrontations. But attempted burglaries often do; indeed, it is often just such outside intervention that prevents the attempt from ripening into completion.

Concluding that attempted burglary presents a risk that is comparable to the risk posed by the completed offense, every Court of Appeals that has construed an attempted burglary law similar in scope to Florida’s has held that the offense qualifies as a “violent felony” under clause (ii)’s residual provision.

.........

The "confrontation" is 100% the criminal's fault. And whether or not one agrees with what the homeowner did, or no matter what they would have done themselves, you're creating quite a burden for someone when you victimize them in this way. You're presenting them with a huge, unknown, potentially violent risk. And then, I guess, you're asking them to act 100% reasonably with you when you're caught. That's just silly. If you break into people's houses, you might get killed, and if do, the blame is on you.

Victims of crime often act irrationally. Sometimes they act out, sometimes they deny that the crime even happened. If you want to victimize someone, you're at risk of their irrational behavior, and you deserve the result of that, IMO.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

The "confrontation" is 100% the criminal's fault. And whether or not one agrees with what the homeowner did, or no matter what they would have done themselves, you're creating quite a burden for someone when you victimize them in this way. You're presenting them with a huge, unknown, potentially violent risk. And then, I guess, you're asking them to act 100% reasonably with you when you're caught. That's just silly. If you break into people's houses, you might get killed, and if do, the blame is on you.

Victims of crime often act irrationally. Sometimes they act out, sometimes they deny that the crime even happened. If you want to victimize someone, you're at risk of their irrational behavior, and you deserve the result of that, IMO.

Irrational behavior is not generally an excuse to commit another crime. If we start accepting that as an excuse, the potential ramifications are beyond measure. There's a reason why courts use the "reasonable person" doctrine quite a bit. Reasonable person - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the way, the "huge, unknown, potentially violent risk" ended when the 53 year old started running like hell down the street. If someone breaks into my house, I'll have no problem slitting their throat and watching them bleed out before calling the cops. But the minute they're gone, there is no risk. End of story.

Oh, and for your own knowledge: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vigilante

At this point, I'm done arguing. I don't care about changing your mind. You'll have to grow up and do that yourself. By the way, it's generally better if no one dies at all.

[molson]

Just to follow up on this -

Judge reduces charge to manslaughter, and then hung jury declared on that charge.

It looks like prosecutors are going to try again (though that seems like a waste of time and money for a manslaughter charge where he could just be looking at probation even if convicted).

Hung jury declared in trial of man accused of killing would-be burglar | freep.com | Detroit Free Press

[Noop]

Another victory for justice.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Prosecutor: Judge should quit Tigh Croff case | MLive.com

Heaven forbid a judge & jury actually get this one right, instead the prosecution is apparently determined to keep banging their head against a wall for no good reason.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Heaven forbid a judge & jury actually get this one right, instead the prosecution is apparently determined to keep banging their head against a wall for no good reason.

The only thing I can think of is that maybe these prosecutors are pissed that this guy eliminated one of their cash cows/justification for their employement.

But if this is the mentality of Michigan prosecutors, that this is the case they get all excited and passionate about - I think it sheds light on the crime rates there.