What are you gonna do, shoot me?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

"He should have killed both of them then"? Jeezus.

I don't think the government should kill people, or punish them excessively, but when a criminal is killed on the street (especially via hazard of their own crime), it's not a sad day.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think the government should kill people, or punish them excessively, but when a criminal is killed on the street (especially via hazard of their own crime), it's not a sad day.

If the situation calls for it (ie. your life is endangered) I have no problem with that. If you arrive home and some guys are attempting to break into your home but then flee, well, that's not one of those situations. Citizens shouldn't be dishing out their own death sentences when nobody was in any risk of getting hurt.

[Comey]

I don't know if it was said here...but if the 31-year-old lets the 53-year-old go, this turns into Death Wish. It's reasonable to believe that if the 53-year-old man is allowed to leave the 31-year-old who is holding a gun at him, he's coming back...and he's coming back with something of his own.

I don't really have a side here; in all honesty, this has way too many shades of gray. What if he shoots him in the leg? What if the other guy has a gun? Once I say I'm leaning towards one side, I think of the other and...well, I can't figure it out.

That said, I do believe that there's no jury in the world that would convict him. I think it's a situation that has a never-ending discussion cycle; it's also polarizing enough that you aren't convincing someone out of their initial conceptions one way or another.

For more evidence on that, please see this thread.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Comey

I don't know if it was said here...but if the 31-year-old lets the 53-year-old go, this turns into Death Wish. It's reasonable to believe that if the 53-year-old man is allowed to leave the 31-year-old who is holding a gun at him, he's coming back...and he's coming back with something of his own.

I don't really have a side here; in all honesty, this has way too many shades of gray. What if he shoots him in the leg? What if the other guy has a gun? Once I say I'm leaning towards one side, I think of the other and...well, I can't figure it out.

That said, I do believe that there's no jury in the world that would convict him. I think it's a situation that has a never-ending discussion cycle; it's also polarizing enough that you aren't convincing someone out of their initial conceptions one way or another.

For more evidence on that, please see this thread.

endless loop alert

[Raiders Army]

You fuck with the bull, you get the horns.

[Comey]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

endless loop alert

Bingo. I think.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by molson

His "retreat" quickly turned into a taunt/challenge, which could reasonably be perceived as a threat, depending on lots of factors we don't know about.

You assume it was a "taunt/challenge". It could've been exasperation.

Silas reportedly had his hands in the air - if true, I can't see how anyone can justifiably describe that as him posing a threat, unless he was charging at Croff (and that hasn't been reported).

If he shot them while they were trying to break into the house, it would have been 100% justified. He should have killed both of them then. By waiting, he did create a tougher case for himself.

He didn't wait - when he arrived, they were not inside his house.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

I think you have to get into the theories of punishment here too. Who are you protecting? Home invaders? Is this guy a danger to anyone that's not burglarizing him? Even if this makes someone technically guilty, the punishment would need to be minuscule, I think.

He's endangering anyone that could be out on that same street. This guy was a good shot. What if he wasn't? What if he hits someone else?

[gstelmack]

Even being in the home not necessarily enough:

AG seeks charges against Sen. Soles for shooting :: WRAL.com

Original story when it happened with a bit more details on the incident:

Sheriff: Sen. Soles shoots man at home :: WRAL.com

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Killing the piece of shit described here isn't "murder", it's a public service, he ought to be reimbursed for the cost of his rounds.

Alternately, justifiable homicide, he most surely defended himself with a great deal of efficiency and permanence.

I don't think John is getting any Humanitarian of the Year awards anytime soon.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I don't think John is getting any Humanitarian of the Year awards anytime soon.

This doesn't surprise you does it? Jon is what he is, and while his attitudes on many things are insane, I do admire his consistency and conviction.

I will admit to some surprise at how many others are generally agreeing with him on this one though...

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I will admit to some surprise at how many others are generally agreeing with him on this one though...

Ditto.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

I'm pretty sure even crappy police will respond to a 911 call where the caller says he has a burglar in front of him being held in place by the gun in his own hand.

When my shop was broken into last year(with me in the warehouse), it took them 64 minutes to arrive in exactly that scenario. The local satellite office is in the same business park.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

The only black and white thing about this is killing an unarmed man who is not posing an immediate threat is wrong. You are defining options based on your own opinion, but thsoe are not the only options. You may find other options unpalatable, but they do exist and can be used.

Shades of gray is everywhere, in everything. People who see things only in black and white (Hitler, OBL) are the most dangerous people in the world.

The bolded is not black and white.
Was he unarmed?
Did he pose a threat?

The more I think about this, good riddance piece of shit.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

The bolded is not black and white.
Was he unarmed?
Did he pose a threat?

The reports state that he had turned around but put his hands in the air. If it turns out he then grabbed a weapon out of his pants or shirt, or reached quickly as though he were going to do so, or if he charged toward the shooter then shooting him is defensible. If not - if the report as stated before is accurate - it's a huge stretch to say that he posed a threat.

The more I think about this, good riddance piece of shit.

So theft of property deserves death as a response?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

So theft of property deserves death as a response?

Absolutely, without hesitation or question afaic.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

So theft of property deserves death as a response?

Thing is, it wasn't even that, if I understand it correctly. The dead guy didn't even get into the house in the first place, and fled while attempting to break-in. So attempted break-in is a death sentence for more than a few folks here at FOFC.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

When my shop was broken into last year(with me in the warehouse), it took them 64 minutes to arrive in exactly that scenario. The local satellite office is in the same business park.

But they did eventually get there, didn't they?

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

The bolded is not black and white.
Was he unarmed?
Did he pose a threat?

The more I think about this, good riddance piece of shit.

Actually, what I stated is black and white. Killing an unarmed man who is not posing an immediate threat is wrong. Can't really get more basic than that.

What you want to do is argue the facts of the case and make hypotheticals to make your argument look better. Sorry, I'm not interested in playing that game until we see facts that support your hypotheticals.

[jeff061]

The reports state that he had turned around but put his hands in the air. If it turns out he then grabbed a weapon out of his pants or shirt, or reached quickly as though he were going to do so, or if he charged toward the shooter then shooting him is defensible. If not - if the report as stated before is accurate - it's a huge stretch to say that he posed a threat.

For the life of me I don't know why you guys think an average person is capable of this under pressure. You treat the guy as if he was a cop.

The reports state that he had turned around but put his hands in the air. If it turns out he then grabbed a weapon out of his pants or shirt, or reached quickly as though he were going to do so, or if he charged toward the shooter then shooting him is defensible. If not - if the report as stated before is accurate - it's a huge stretch to say that he posed a threat.

The point is you can only say he wasn't a threat and wasn't armed after the fact. In the moment, you can't and average joe victim should not take any chances. The criminal does not get any benefit of the doubt. Hypotheticals are all that existed, so you need to assume the worse.

If you disagree with me, you are wrong.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

I'm not sure an average person would have chased them down the street with a gun drawn.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm not sure an average person would have chased them down the street with a gun drawn.

That I don't know and am not going to argue either way. I imagine he wasn't exactly in a right state of mind, who would be. I don't know how different people would be affected.

The end result was the idiot turning around and questioning the victims desire to defend himself.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by jeff061

If you disagree with me, you are wrong.

No. We are just better human beings.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by jeff061

That I don't know and am not going to argue either way. I imagine he wasn't exactly in a right state of mind, who would be. I don't know how different people would be affected.

The end result was the idiot turning around and questioning the victims desire to defend himself.

If this guy were only interested in defending himself, is he safer in his house with his gun or running after this guy in the street?

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

No. We are just better human beings.

Whatever makes you feel better.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

If this guy were only interested in defending himself, is he safer in his house with his gun or running after this guy in the street?

The tragic death of Vernon Forrest can answer that.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'm not sure an average person would have chased them down the street with a gun drawn.

I'm not sure the average person has the sense God gave a goose either, so that may not be the best standard to apply here.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by jeff061

The end result was the idiot turning around and questioning the victims desire to defend himself.

Question for you. If the guy hadn't said "what are you gonna do, shoot me?" would the killer still be justified in killing him?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

My guess is the ends justify the means. At least Jon is honest about that.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Absolutely, without hesitation or question afaic.

Tough guy on the internet alert!

In other news, JIMG has been made the spokesperson for the RIAA. In a press conference to introduce JIMG, he was asked to say a few words. He said, "In an effort to combat downloading, the RIAA wants to propose tough new penalties. We just believe that bankrupting our customers for downloading one song is insufficient. We need even further draconian punishment since the 8th amendment only applies to government and not private individuals or private enterprise. We can do whatever we want. So we're developing a program to to detect when any computer on the internet loads a Bittorrent program. Once we do, the RIAA in conjunction with the power company, will send a power surge back to the offending computer. The offending computer with explode, sending RIAA-approved shrapnel hidden in AMD and Intel chips hurtling through the monitor. Anyone within 20 yards will be instantly killed, preventing further abuse of copyright laws. We think this will be an effective deterrent until we can develop the program to nuke downloading thieves from orbit."

[claphamsa]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Absolutely, without hesitation or question afaic.

you are one sick sick sick person.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

In other news, JIMG has been made the spokesperson for the RIAA. ...

Y'know, I actually had to read that to see if I wrote it myself.
edit to add: I wasn't sure I didn't write it at some point until the "nuke from orbit" part. I would likely have gone with something more elegant involving neutron bombs.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not sure the average person has the sense God gave a goose either, so that may not be the best standard to apply here.

Yet even so, as you stated earlier in the thread, you're OK with letting the "average person", who has a gun, act as judge, jury and executioner in the street. It doesn't seem consistent to me.

And yet elsewhere you've said you would have no problem removing voting rights for vast swathes of Americans.

I ask because usually your views do have a consistency, and it's not appearing to me here.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Question for you. If the guy hadn't said "what are you gonna do, shoot me?" would the killer still be justified in killing him?

Exactly. Remove the comment and we have a man chasing a would-be burglar down the street. The burglar stops, turns around with his hands up. The man shoots and kills him. Is there any doubt that without the dialogue this guy just killed a man who was surrendering?

So the question is simply what does saying "What are you going to do, shoot me?" turn the situation into?

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Tough guy on the internet alert!

In other news, JIMG has been made the spokesperson for the RIAA. In a press conference to introduce JIMG, he was asked to say a few words. He said, "In an effort to combat downloading, the RIAA wants to propose tough new penalties. We just believe that bankrupting our customers for downloading one song is insufficient. We need even further draconian punishment since the 8th amendment only applies to government and not private individuals or private enterprise. We can do whatever we want. So we're developing a program to to detect when any computer on the internet loads a Bittorrent program. Once we do, the RIAA in conjunction with the power company, will send a power surge back to the offending computer. The offending computer with explode, sending RIAA-approved shrapnel hidden in AMD and Intel chips hurtling through the monitor. Anyone within 20 yards will be instantly killed, preventing further abuse of copyright laws. We think this will be an effective deterrent until we can develop the program to nuke downloading thieves from orbit."

You have to admit that particular measure would be pretty effective in combating illegal downloading.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Question for you. If the guy hadn't said "what are you gonna do, shoot me?" would the killer still be justified in killing him?

It still depends. There's no clear line here. Did the criminal take a bunch of steps towards him? Did he look scared? Did he make any threatening gestures? Where was his co-criminal, exactly? Was it day or night?

All I'm saying is you better be sure this was done in "cold blood" as people claim here, before you lock up a guy, who was seconds earlier the victim of a violent crime, for life. And there's only one surviving witness, apparently.

I've never seen the criminal justice system defended more vigorously on this board as when the "victim" is a home invader, and the "criminal" is a constant victim. Odd. I'm glad we have a board full of people who are such cool customers who are so sure they'd never be impacted by violent crime and could act like trained police officers under extreme pressure. Otherwise, I'm sure they'd have problems with the moral superiority here.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

That's certainly one way to word it molson, but I'd prefer that some people on this board don't feel someone should be put to death for breaking into a house.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

No. We are just better human beings.

That's adorable.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Yet even so, as you stated earlier in the thread, you're OK with letting the "average person", who has a gun, act as judge, jury and executioner in the street. It doesn't seem consistent to me.

And yet elsewhere you've said you would have no problem removing voting rights for vast swathes of Americans.

I ask because usually your views do have a consistency, and it's not appearing to me here.

Hmm ... let me ponder that for a moment, I'll agree on the appearance of a certain degree of inconsistency there myself.

I'm definite on the goose holding its own one and I'm definite on the need to sharply curb voting eligibility one, so the inconsistency has to lie with the most recent scenario.

I believe the distinction rests with the scenario at hand vs your interpretation/presentation of it. "OK with letting the "average person", who has a gun, act as judge, jury and executioner in the street" is different than the scenario (as I understand it) in this thread.

AFAIK this wasn't a deal where there was any doubt about who the perp was, caught red-handed apparently. No amateur detective work required, not even much in the way of needing to figure something out, not a lot riding on the intellectual prowess of the homeowner here. Basically, the situation was what it was. About the only real worry I've got here is whether the would-be victim exercises proper gun control & hits what he's aiming at.

It sort of reminds me of something else in the news earlier this week, the prison hospital death of the 89 y/o gunman in the Holocaust museum shooting back in June. The connection to that case was several stories I noticed referring to him as "the alleged gunman". Huh? I don't believe there was the slightest bit of doubt about him being the museum shooter, he wasn't just alleged, he was, no ifs ands or buts about it.

This deal is similar in that there really doesn't seem to be any reasonable doubt about who was in his sights, he didn't shoot an "alleged" criminal, he shot a red-handed bad guy. Unless the shooter was Stevie Wonder, I don't much room to think he got it wrong, regardless of his intelligence.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

That's certainly one way to word it molson, but I'd prefer that some people on this board don't feel someone should be put to death for breaking into a house.

The "put to death" angle misses the mark completely. I don't think someone should be put to death for breaking into a house either. That's not a realistic description of what happened here.

I'm saying that someone shouldn't have their life taken away by the government for killing an intruder into their house, when a reasonable perception is that the threat hasn't clearly ended (even if it actually has) - and ESPECIALLY when we can't really know exactly what happened.

Really, what other scenerios should we just lock someone up if we're pretty sure something looks bad and we feel we would do something differently? When should we lock someone else up forever for not following our own moral code about when deadly force is necessary or justified?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

That's certainly one way to word it molson, but I'd prefer that some people on this board don't feel someone should be put to death for breaking into a house.

That's okay, I'd prefer everyone would agree that eliminating thieves is a net plus but I'm afraid neither of us are going to get what we'd wish for in a perfect world.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by molson

The "put to death" angle misses the mark completely. I don't think someone should be put to death for breaking into a house either. That's not a realistic description of what happened here.

I'm saying that someone shouldn't have their life taken away by the government for killing an intruder into their house, when a reasonable perception is that the threat hasn't clearly ended (even if it actually has) - and ESPECIALLY when we can't really know exactly what happened.

Really, what other scenerios should we just lock someone up if we're pretty sure something looks bad and we feel we would do something differently?

As stated above, I think the game changed when he chased them out of his house, which I would say would be assumed to be safe, to the street, which I would say is definitely "less safe" than his house. That is, he willingly reduced his safety to chase after these guys for some reason. We can guess all night at why he did that, but even his own family acknowledges his frustration at being broken into. I can understand that frustration.

I can't understand, however, how that frustration could be allowed to end a man's life.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

As stated above, I think the game changed when he chased them out of his house, which I would say would be assumed to be safe, to the street, which I would say is definitely "less safe" than his house. That is, he willingly reduced his safety to chase after these guys for some reason. We can guess all night at why he did that, but even his own family acknowledges his frustration at being broken into. I can understand that frustration.

I can't understand, however, how that frustration could be allowed to end a man's life.

I can see that you disagree with his behavior, and would do things differently. That doesn't seem like a reason to take away the shooter's life too.

I don't see how this guy would think the safe would be safer than his house. His house is clearly not safe. He could be killed there anytime, in this neighborhood (though probably not anymore, thanks to his actions).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I believe the distinction rests with the scenario at hand vs your interpretation/presentation of it. "OK with letting the "average person", who has a gun, act as judge, jury and executioner in the street" is different than the scenario (as I understand it) in this thread.

AFAIK this wasn't a deal where there was any doubt about who the perp was, caught red-handed apparently. No amateur detective work required, not even much in the way of needing to figure something out, not a lot riding on the intellectual prowess of the homeowner here. Basically, the situation was what it was. About the only real worry I've got here is whether the would-be victim exercises proper gun control & hits what he's aiming at.

OK, that's what I thought, but thanks for clarifying.

Of course, the weakness that still exists is that if you encourage citizens to take the law into their own hands in "obvious" situations is that you'll have folks with varying ideas of what an "obvious" situation is.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by molson

I can see that you disagree with his behavior, and would do things differently. That doesn't seem like a reason to take away the shooter's life too.

This is true. I'm not convinced anyone should take away the shooter's life, for that matter. I was more reacting to the "he's done nothing wrong" sentiment. I'm truly ambivalent on what should be done with him.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Y'know, I actually had to read that to see if I wrote it myself.
edit to add: I wasn't sure I didn't write it at some point until the "nuke from orbit" part. I would likely have gone with something more elegant involving neutron bombs.

Yea, well...I had to throw in the tribute to Ripley/Aliens in there.

Originally Posted by Molson

The "put to death" angle misses the mark completely. I don't think someone should be put to death for breaking into a house either. That's not a realistic description of what happened here.

I'm saying that someone shouldn't have their life taken away by the government for killing an intruder into their house, when a reasonable perception is that the threat hasn't clearly ended (even if it actually has) - and ESPECIALLY when we can't really know exactly what happened.

Really, what other scenerios should we just lock someone up if we're pretty sure something looks bad and we feel we would do something differently?

No, you're right. He wasn't put to death. He was murdered in cold blood.

We don't know EXACTLY what happened. But I find it amusing that the majority of the conjecture has come from the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" crowd. Phrases like "did he have a gun" (which is irrelevant unless he was reaching for it), "how threatening were his words/tone", "was he going for a weapon", "was he advancing towards the shooter", "did he pose a threat" and so forth have all been used to try to justify the actions of the shooter. That's an awful lot of speculation and none of it verified as fact.

I base my opinion on what we seem to know. A 53 year old man tried to break into a house. When the 31 year old Mr. Croff discovered the crime, the 53 year old man ran. The 31 year old chased him and it's very likely that he caught up to him given the physical conditioning of the 31 year old. But at this point neither man was on nor near the property where the attempted break-in happened. The 53 year old man put his hands up, turned and found a gun pointing straight at his chest. At some point, he said, "what are you going to do, shoot me?" at which point Mr. Croff replied "absolutely" and pulled the trigger.

That's what we have to base our decision on. That scenario is clearly defined as murder in the legal code and IMHO, rightfully so. Otherwise, we might as well go to a system of vigilante justice. I also find it interesting that none of the "kill him" crowd have responded to Quick's post. If he was a justified threat at that time, when does he not become a threat?

I don't think you'll find too many people who wouldn't think the guy was justified in shooting if the burglar turned around and charged at the man. But unless additional details come to light, it appears that's not what happened.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Yea, well...I had to throw in the tribute to Ripley/Aliens in there.



No, you're right. He wasn't put to death. He was murdered in cold blood.

We don't know EXACTLY what happened. But I find it amusing that the majority of the conjecture has come from the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" crowd. Phrases like "did he have a gun" (which is irrelevant unless he was reaching for it), "how threatening were his words/tone", "was he going for a weapon", "was he advancing towards the shooter", "did he pose a threat" and so forth have all been used to try to justify the actions of the shooter. That's an awful lot of speculation and none of it verified as fact.

I base my opinion on what we seem to know. A 53 year old man tried to break into a house. When the 31 year old Mr. Croff discovered the crime, the 53 year old man ran. The 31 year old chased him and it's very likely that he caught up to him given the physical conditioning of the 31 year old. But at this point neither man was on nor near the property where the attempted break-in happened. The 53 year old man put his hands up, turned and found a gun pointing straight at his chest. At some point, he said, "what are you going to do, shoot me?" at which point Mr. Croff replied "absolutely" and pulled the trigger.

That's what we have to base our decision on. That scenario is clearly defined as murder in the legal code and IMHO, rightfully so. Otherwise, we might as well go to a system of vigilante justice. I also find it interesting that none of the "kill him" crowd have responded to Quick's post. If he was a justified threat at that time, when does he not become a threat?

I don't think you'll find too many people who wouldn't think the guy was justified in shooting if the burglar turned around and charged at the man. But unless additional details come to light, it appears that's not what happened.

I don't think you know what cold blood means.

I also think that justifiable homicide/self-defense law is a lot broader, more vague than people here are assuming.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't think you know what cold blood means.

I also think that justifiable homicide/self-defense law is a lot broader, more vague than people here are assuming.

No, it's pretty narrowly defined for a reason - to prevent stuff like this from happening. See: Goetz, Bernie.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

I've never seen the criminal justice system defended more vigorously on this board as when the "victim" is a home invader, and the "criminal" is a constant victim. Odd. I'm glad we have a board full of people who are such cool customers who are so sure they'd never be impacted by violent crime and could act like trained police officers under extreme pressure. Otherwise, I'm sure they'd have problems with the moral superiority here.

I don't think being a cool custoer has anything to do with it. If my house was burglarized and I cae hoe while it was happening my first thought wouldn't be to chase the guy, it would be oh fuck, I better call 911. It seems to me by chasing the guy he had a pretty clear intention of what he was going to do. If anything he was the cool customer in this situation. I am fairly certain it would take a much more extreme situation for me to pull the trigger and take a human life.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

No, it's pretty narrowly defined for a reason - to prevent stuff like this from happening. See: Goetz, Bernie.

To prevent what from happening? Goetz defended his property (and possibly his life) in a time when NYC was an incredibly violent place. And he was acquitted. The law was such that he was allowed to be charged, but the jury (and the city) spoke very loudly that he should not locked up. We want to to prevent that in the future? (Actually, the answer to that question scares me, so forget it).