What are you gonna do, shoot me?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Lathum

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.

That's your choice, but the law, through juries, allow more than that for others.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Juries also allow for you to murder your ex-wife and a waiter.

[larrymcg421]

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.

This is coming from the same person that blasted Ryan Moats for running a red light? A loved one dying isn't enough reason for us to be understanding, but we're gonna let someone chase another person out on the street and shoot them? Interesting.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

This is coming from the same person that blasted Ryan Moats for running a red light? A loved one dying isn't enough reason for us to be understanding, but we're gonna let someone chase another person out on the street and shoot them? Interesting.

Exactly the same scenerios, obviously.

I'm so lost on what your point is.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Juries also allow for you to murder your ex-wife and a waiter.

The comparisons here are getting ridiculous.

OJ was aquitted because that jury found that that it wasn't proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed anyone.

Nobody is disputing the killing here, and nobody was disputing the shootings in Goetz. It's not even an issue of whether one feels his actions were right or wrong - we're talking whether his freedom should be taken away by the government.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Only point I was trying to make was that a jury acquitting someone doesn't mean that was they did was right, or even legal. Obviously they aren't the same situation.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by molson

That's your choice, but the law, through juries, allow more than that for others.

I get that. I was more responding to your point about being cool customers. It seems to me you were painting a picture that this guy felt threatened and panicked. My point is how panicked could he be? He chased a guy while brandishing a firearm then when he caught him shot him. Seems to me he had an agenda and knew exactly what he was doing.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Only point I was trying to make was that a jury acquitting someone doesn't mean that was they did was right, or even legal. Obviously they aren't the same situation.

In a self-defense case, the jury does decide what "legal" is, because the relevant statutes/jury instructions often ask the jury to determine "reasonableness". That's up to them, their experiences, their opinions about what reasonable behavior is. That's not an issue in a straight-up murder case, when a defendant denies killing anyone at all.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Right, but if another jury were to have found Goetz guilty, does that mean he stops being a hero and becomes a murderer? I don't need twelve random (and Jon's average) people telling me what is morally (or should be legally) correct.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

This is coming from the same person that blasted Ryan Moats for running a red light? A loved one dying isn't enough reason for us to be understanding, but we're gonna let someone chase another person out on the street and shoot them? Interesting.

I think I said that if Moats (or anyone) wanted to be somewhere in a hurry, generally it's a bad idea to be running red lights, because that's just going to delay you. (you might want to take the risk if the speed could make a different to someone's life/death, but that wasn't the case here). I certainly can understand someone making poor decisions in stress and I don't think he should have been punished at all.

The shooter in this case, other than the potential legal consequences, didn't have a negative outcome like Moats did. He actually had a very, very positive one. His house probably isn't going to be broken into anymore, which definitely increases his life expectancy. His house is a much safer place than it was before.

I guess I could ask you the same question - why are you so defending of Moats running a red light, being so understanding about people making poor decisions in highly stressful situations, and yet here, you want to lock a guy up forever for making what you personally consider a poor decision in a much, much more stressful situation. What is it about killing a criminal that brings out your inner-prosecutor?

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Right, but if another jury were to have found Goetz guilty, does that mean he stops being a hero and becomes a murderer? I don't need twelve random (and Jon's average) people telling me what is morally (or should be legally) correct.

That's the system we decided on, and it definitely has serious problems.

And yes, with a different jury - he becomes a murderer. That's kind of the idea, the peer review aspect. In the 1980's in NYC - people didn't see that as a crime in that kind of violent environment. Today in NYC - maybe that behavior is way less reasonable, because NYC is much safer place.

Same with this situation. In Detroit, this might not be a crime, where maybe in Suburban Boston or something it would be.

[Glengoyne]

My take is that he broke the law. The would be burglar wasn't a threat to his safety at the time of the shooting. He should be arrested. The DA should then decide if he wants to press charges, take it to the Grand Jury. Then if it goes to trial, let the jury ultimately decide his fate. Jury nullification, self-defense, guilty, or guilty of a lesser offense are all potential outcomes.

He needs to go through the system. That's the law. It's not what I think should happen, but that is the way our system works. I'd rather give the guy an award of some kind, but that is a bit too vigilante for me.

Earlier Texas was mentioned. I'm pretty sure the law in Texas is that if you catch anyone in the act of committing a crime(felony?), you can shoot them without consequences.

[Axxon]

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.

No one deserves to be "put to death" for breaking into a house. That's not what this is about. It's about a man being able to defend himself against someone who is demonstrating aggressive behavior. I could give a damn about the house. It quit being about the house when the criminal turned to face the innocent civilian and challenged his resolve to defend himself.

The civilian certainly doesn't deserve to be put to death for chasing the criminal so I side with his getting what he deserves rather than the terminally stupid criminal who is used to preying on the weak.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

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.

I am playing no hypotheticals, I dispute "Killing an unarmed man who is not posing an immediate threat is wrong." without further clarification.

Why am I killing said unarmed man?
If he recently murdered or raped my loved ones, I am ok with said killing
Do I know he is unarmed?
if I dont I may have killd an unarmed man who I thought was armed.
Posing an immediate threat
Who gets to decide this? Me in a high stress situation, or you in a calm cool climate controlled environment half way across thee country?

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

I'd prefer that some people on this board don't feel someone should be put to death for breaking into a house.

Another important distinction. I do not feel that the judicial system should make a cognitive decision that someone should die as a result of home invasion. I am however perfectly comfortable with the same person dieing BECAUSE of their actions, when they surprise an armed citizen.

You love to draw comparisons, I do not believe that a person should be put to death for driving under the influence, but I am perfectly ok if a drunk driver wraps his car around an oak tree and removes himself from society. I see this as no different, someone made a stupid choice and it ultimately cost him his life.

My initial thought and all my CCW training says you do not give chase. You blast the bastards and fire a warning shot through the roof after he is dead, but once he escapes you let him go. Had the guy been shot in the back I would be 180 degrees here. But the man not only stopped running away from an armed man, but then turned to face him. Had he have stopped and knelled down or even remained standing facing the other way
the victim's actions would be wrong. Once he turned though, all bets are off.

I also question who heard the statement, and how soon in time proximity it was to the muzzle blast. Its quite possible if he spun and retorted the words may have came from a dead man.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I get that. I was more responding to your point about being cool customers. It seems to me you were painting a picture that this guy felt threatened and panicked. My point is how panicked could he be? He chased a guy while brandishing a firearm then when the guy turns around thus no longer fleeing or avoiding confrontation. Seems to me he had an agenda and knew exactly what he was doing.

Fixed that for you and he must be one psychic mofo to have an agenda that included the criminal turning to face him. I mean, if his agenda was to kill him he sure blew off a lot of chances. I don't know if the news has made it's way to these parts but you can shoot a guy in the back just as easily as in the front but our agenda filled civilian apparently never knew this. Pity.

[chadritt]

Honest question, how did he say it? He was just chased down by a man 20 years younger than him who had a gun, its not unreasonable that he was TERRIFIED when he asked "what are you going to do? shoot me?"

[jeff061]

Reasonable to ask a lot of questions. But given it's impossible to make that snap judgement on the spot in a stressful situation, the perp doesn't get the benefit of a doubt.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by chadritt

Honest question, how did he say it? He was just chased down by a man 20 years younger than him who had a gun, its not unreasonable that he was TERRIFIED when he asked "what are you going to do? shoot me?"

If I was that terrified I'd never have stopped or if I did, I wouldn't turn to ask him that and I'd never show him my chest because I know it would be incitement and you don't do that to a pissed off person you've just robbed if you're terrified of them.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Axxon

If I was that terrified I'd never have stopped or if I did, I wouldn't turn to ask him that and I'd never show him my chest because I know it would be incitement and you don't do that to a pissed off person you've just robbed if you're terrified of them.

Turning to someone with your hands in the air is incitement? I would say continuing to flee is a little bit more incitement than surrendering. As I said earlier, the only thing that makes this 'inciting' is his words, as reported to us. I believe that putting up your hands when a gun is pointed at you is what the gunman usually wants, not some way to antagonize him.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

I think I said that if Moats (or anyone) wanted to be somewhere in a hurry, generally it's a bad idea to be running red lights, because that's just going to delay you. (you might want to take the risk if the speed could make a different to someone's life/death, but that wasn't the case here). I certainly can understand someone making poor decisions in stress and I don't think he should have been punished at all.

You called him a "dummy", accused him of wanting "moral superiority to someone in authority", and agreed with Jon that they were publicity whoring to get the cop fired. You certainly seem less sympathetic to Moats than this guy. I just found that curious.

The shooter in this case, other than the potential legal consequences, didn't have a negative outcome like Moats did. He actually had a very, very positive one. His house probably isn't going to be broken into anymore, which definitely increases his life expectancy. His house is a much safer place than it was before.

I'm not sure what to say to someone who doesn't see danger in a person running down the street with a gun trying to shoot someone who robbed them. I mean, this guy was in security and clearly a good shot. That won't always be the case. Innocent bystanders could get hit. He could misidentify the person he's going after and kill the wrong person. I made this point earlier in the thread in response to one of your posts, but you conveniently ignored it.

I guess I could ask you the same question - why are you so defending of Moats running a red light, being so understanding about people making poor decisions in highly stressful situations, and yet here, you want to lock a guy up forever for making what you personally consider a poor decision in a much, much more stressful situation. What is it about killing a criminal that brings out your inner-prosecutor?

When did I say I want to lock him up forever? Is that how your world works? Either he gets probation or gets locked up forever? And I couldn't care less about the guy being a criminal or not. Rodney King was a criminal. That doesn't excuse what those officers did.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Axxon

No one deserves to be "put to death" for breaking into a house. That's not what this is about. It's about a man being able to defend himself against someone who is demonstrating aggressive behavior.

You have a seriously messed up view of aggressive behavior.

[SportsDino]

In my opinion if you want to chase down a burgular and get revenge by shooting them, go ahead... just man up and feel it is worth it when the jury says you have to pay for it by going to jail.

The law considers chasing people down to shoot them because you are mad a very unlikely case of self-defense. Similarly, if you are in your home but there is enough doubt whether it was self defense at all, you can go to jail. Similarly, if you are out of your home, but you shoot someone in self defense (say walking down the street you are being shot at, the old school shootings wouldn't happen if teachers were packing line of thought)... I personally think you should win on self-defense as much as anywhere.

But in all cases, you don't know what the jury is going to do. In my shoes, someone is in my house and I have a gun (I don't)... they are either going to follow my instructions exactly or they are going to get shot. If I'm packing and someone pulls a knife on me and my girlfriend and thinks he is going to stab me... I shoot his ass all the same, even if my self defense case is weaker. In either case, my jury trial is the least of my concerns, I'm willing to go to jail to protect my life or those of ones I love.

But will I chase someone after the threat is averted? Hell no, vengence is not worth going to jail for me... and I'd consider it a stretch they are likely to come back (as a robber if I knew the person had a gun and could catch me there, I sure as hell wouldn't go there, I'd find easier pickings).

The guy needs to be prosecuted. It was a luxury killing, he wanted to stoke his ego up after being pissed on so many times in a row, and he created a situation where he could get his chance. He should be put in front of a jury and if the facts support it, he should be in jail for murder. Hell, if anything he should be considered stupid for leaving his home while chasing two guys... if they are smart they split up and then he doesn't know if the one he chooses not to chase is circling back to his house to get vengence of his own. I'd rather be with my gun, at my house, around my family while the cops are chasing down the losers with the best description I could give of them. Maybe try and locate their vehicle (likely nearby because they want to carry off loot presumably) and keep it under watch if convenient to point out to the cops so they have to escape on foot.

[Passacaglia]

From what I've heard in this forum before, one should be prepared to kill whatever they're pointing a gun at -- so shouldn't it be irrelevant whether the guy stopped and turned around?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Autumn

Turning to someone with your hands in the air is incitement? I would say continuing to flee is a little bit more incitement than surrendering. As I said earlier, the only thing that makes this 'inciting' is his words, as reported to us. I believe that putting up your hands when a gun is pointed at you is what the gunman usually wants, not some way to antagonize him.

Say what you want. I've seen aggressive hands up postures in real life before; I mentioned one above. If the cop kept his gun drawn and kept moving backwards I'm really, really, really not thinking he saw the issue your way and that the guy he was holding his gun on was a neutralized threat.

I can't believe how many people on here think that your hands over your head renders you harmless. How long does it take you to go from hands over head to thrown punch or punch posture? It only takes me less than a second. You're asking for complete and total trust from someone who is confronted by someone who has turned to confront them and challenged their resolve to defend yourselves.

I've lived in too many, too rough neighborhoods to be that naive about criminals.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Lathum

You have a seriously messed up view of aggressive behavior.

And you're way too naive for your own good. Try living in an apartment complex where they won't even deliver after dark and the person living one apartment under you has their throat slit as part of a drug deal gone bad. That's where I live now.

Now, maybve I have a messed up view of aggressive behavior but it's because I live in a place where the dead criminal would have chosen so you know, I kinda see how they act and it's not all fluffy bunnies and hands over their head means crap.

The guy could have done several non aggressive moves. On his knees, kissing the pavement, keeping running ( he wasn't getting shot at so this makes the most sense ) but he turned and challenged the will of the civilian to defend himself. Sorry, that's the wrong choice. The guy had no intentions of surrendering and GASP he was using his arms up posture to trick the guy since you know, the common wisdom is that no one can possibly lower their arms and fight for, what, an hour or two after raising them.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

In my opinion if you want to chase down a burgular and get revenge by shooting them, go ahead... just man up and feel it is worth it when the jury says you have to pay for it by going to jail.

The law considers chasing people down to shoot them because you are mad a very unlikely case of self-defense. Similarly, if you are in your home but there is enough doubt whether it was self defense at all, you can go to jail. Similarly, if you are out of your home, but you shoot someone in self defense (say walking down the street you are being shot at, the old school shootings wouldn't happen if teachers were packing line of thought)... I personally think you should win on self-defense as much as anywhere.

But in all cases, you don't know what the jury is going to do. In my shoes, someone is in my house and I have a gun (I don't)... they are either going to follow my instructions exactly or they are going to get shot. If I'm packing and someone pulls a knife on me and my girlfriend and thinks he is going to stab me... I shoot his ass all the same, even if my self defense case is weaker. In either case, my jury trial is the least of my concerns, I'm willing to go to jail to protect my life or those of ones I love.

But will I chase someone after the threat is averted? Hell no, vengence is not worth going to jail for me... and I'd consider it a stretch they are likely to come back (as a robber if I knew the person had a gun and could catch me there, I sure as hell wouldn't go there, I'd find easier pickings).

The guy needs to be prosecuted. It was a luxury killing, he wanted to stoke his ego up after being pissed on so many times in a row, and he created a situation where he could get his chance. He should be put in front of a jury and if the facts support it, he should be in jail for murder. Hell, if anything he should be considered stupid for leaving his home while chasing two guys... if they are smart they split up and then he doesn't know if the one he chooses not to chase is circling back to his house to get vengence of his own. I'd rather be with my gun, at my house, around my family while the cops are chasing down the losers with the best description I could give of them. Maybe try and locate their vehicle (likely nearby because they want to carry off loot presumably) and keep it under watch if convenient to point out to the cops so they have to escape on foot.

If he truly was trying to kill him why not shoot at him while he was running. It all breaks down there IMHO. There was no evidence that he was catching the guy and as many have said, he was in a public place. The chances of him not killing the guy goes up the longer he waits but yet he does wait until the guy turns around. I'm sure he could have planned that was going to happen. Right, because he's not just a citizen he's the super psychic Moriarty who schemed such a clever plan.


Or, he wasn't trying to kill the guy until the guy turned to confront him. If he was trying to kill the guy he belongs in jail but he didn't approach the issue that way.

[Axxon]

Really, seeing how that cop acted is why no one will ever convince me that a civillian should have acted any better. The cop kept his weapon drawn until his partner rescued him but if he didn't know that there was backup I'm pretty sure he'd have shot him.

Real life, that trumps any hypothetical belief that we have. In real life a cop feared a man who had his hands up and the cop was taking defensive maneuvers but all of you are saying that the average citizen doesn't get that luxury and must consider the criminal a 6 year old girl since you know, he had his hands up and all.

I'd say that this is the victim mentality defending it's very own existence.

[Axxon]

Another thing I think many are missing here is that

Spoiler

People lie. All the time. All hands in the air is a form of communication and sometimes people communicate the exact opposite of what the truth is. They do this for several reasons and a big one is to put the other person's guard down.

Criminals, also, I know this is a shocker, generally lie more than non criminals. It's kinda a way of life because when they tell people the truth, they generally go to jail, which they think is a bad thing. In fact, most people in jail are innocent. Just ask them.

This makes lying something of second nature to them.

I know, it sucks but honestly, it has happened before in history.

[chadritt]

Well then to be uber-cynical....isnt all of this based on the word of the shooter and his family? I mean, if were going to believe anyone is lying it could easily be the man facing murder charges.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Axxon

And you're way too naive for your own good. .

I'm far from naive. I currently live in a major city and in the past have lived is questionable places.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Axxon

The guy could have done several non aggressive moves. On his knees, kissing the pavement, keeping running ( he wasn't getting shot at so this makes the most sense ) .

or, ya know, put his hands up, which is pretty much the universal sign for giving up.

So what you are saying is if he was on his knees and made the same statement it wouldn't have been OK to shoot him?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Lathum

or, ya know, put his hands up, which is pretty much the universal sign for giving up.

So what you are saying is if he was on his knees and made the same statement it wouldn't have been OK to shoot him?

I'd say no, it wouldn't be alright. It's hard but not impossible to make an aggressive move when on ones knees with ones back to ones enemy ( the turning around thing is what seals the deal for me mostly ) but it'd be reasonably easy to make sure he couldn't get to you by not standing close enough. The guy is stationary. The cop was sure moving to create distance but again, he's trained and he has backup coming. If he was backed up against a wall, I'm sure he'd have shot, hands up or not. Every other indication was not of surrender.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Jesus, I hope some of you never have kids sneaking back in their beds late at night.

Or a drunk guy trying to get into the wrong house.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I'm not sure what to say to someone who doesn't see danger in a person running down the street with a gun trying to shoot someone who robbed them. I mean, this guy was in security and clearly a good shot. That won't always be the case. Innocent bystanders could get hit. He could misidentify the person he's going after and kill the wrong person. I made this point earlier in the thread in response to one of your posts, but you conveniently ignored it.

I'm not as obsessed with your posts as you seem to be with mine, but I think I got confused between responding to this argument about how he put everyone in the street in danger, and another poster that said there was zero threat because even Steven Hawking could shoot the guy before he pulled out a gun or anything. I don't know what either point has to do with with anything, but at least the second one created a humorous visual.

But ya, if he shot someone else, we obviously have a different analysis entirely. Is he waving the gun around with his eyes closes, shooting 100 bullets down a crowded street hoping he might hit the guy that broke into house? That's not good. Or if he lost sight of the guy, and then got in a taxi, went around the neighborhood for a saw a guy that that kind of looked like the criminal and killed him - but it turned out it was the wrong guy. Yes, I agree, that would be bad too. That's not what happened here though.

The favorite argument in this thread seems to be "what about if this happened?", "what about if that happened?", and then there's all these fact patterns that are very different than the thing that actually happened. I'm not sure what point that makes.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Jesus, I hope some of you never have kids sneaking back in their beds late at night.

The 53-year old might have been his son?

You know the argument is just about over when the hypotheticals are absolutely out of control.

I don't think anybody here has said that they'd shoot blindly at any noise outside their house.

[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, it's a crime that intrudes your very peace and safety and security and it really takes something away from you that is difficult to get back.

Aside from this guy's decision to kill the guy, (the debate about whether that's the right thing to do or not) - a dead home invader to me, is a great thing, and that obviously clouds my view of the morality of killing them, and puts my "line" where it's acceptable, further in one direction than others here.

[dawgfan]

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, it's a crime that intrudes your very peace and safety and security and it really takes something away from you that is difficult to get back.

Aside from this guy's decision to kill the guy, (the debate about whether that's the right thing to do or not) - a dead home invader to me, is a great thing, and that obviously clouds my view of the morality of killing them, and puts my "line" where it's acceptable, further in one direction than others here.

Is there conclusive evidence that the man killed had actually invaded the home? The reports I've seen state the shooter come home to find the suspects in his back yard.

[jeff061]

Hmm, I can rape 35 women, seek forgiveness and declare jesus as my savior and I'm going to heaven. You know, as long as I truly believe it.

Or I can lead a perfect existence, 100% sacrificing myself to my community, but not believe in the divine savior Jesus and I'm going to hell.

Yeah, let's leave the whole Christian values thing the hell out of this discussion.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Hmm, I can rape 35 women, seek forgiveness and declare jesus as my savior and I'm going to heaven. You know, as long as I truly believe it.

Or I can lead a perfect existence, 100% sacrificing myself to my community, but not believe in the divine savior Jesus and I'm going to hell.

Yeah, let's leave the whole Christian values thing the hell out of this discussion.

Yes, please leave it out if you're going to stereotype Christians like that.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Isn't it about time someone blamed this on Obama and his liberal homosexual unicorn abortion army?

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Yes, please leave it out if you're going to stereotype Christians like that.

I was stereotyping the faith itself. Not necessarily each individual Christian .

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Aside from the fact that most victims of rape or sexual abuse would either kick you in the balls or laugh at you for comparing rape to burglary, it's good to know that in modern Christian values, the safety of your stuff is more important than a human life.

You focused on "stuff", while he focused on "peace of mind". It's the violation of your one secure place so you can never feel secure anywhere, never truly comfortable or secure or able to let your guard down or relax. THAT was the point here, not the loss of stuff.

[stevew]

Intruder shooting suspect Croff remains out on bail | freep.com | Detroit Free Press

Herbert Silas ran for more than a block, trying to flee a man chasing him down with a gun in each hand.

When he couldn’t run any farther, Silas turned around, raised his hands and surrendered. Tigh Croff, his alleged pursuer, shot and killed him anyway.

That’s the scenario Wayne County prosecutors laid out in 36th District Court today as they asked a judge to put 31-year-old Croff back in jail as he awaits trial on a charge of second-degree murder. Croff is accused of chasing Silas and fatally shooting him after finding him in his yard on Manistique.


Croff reportedly told police that his home on Detroit's east side had been broken into three times before the shooting.


“We cannot have people taking the law into their own hands,” Assistant Prosecutor Molly Kettler told Judge Donna Robinson Milhouse during what was supposed to be Croff’s preliminary exam. The exam was adjourned until Jan. 27 because Croff retained a new lawyer, who said he needed time to review the evidence.


Kettler, in arguing that Milhouse should increase Croff’s $40,000 bond, said that as Croff chased 53-year-old Silas, he continually fired his two handguns, hitting a neighboring home. When he caught up to the unarmed suspect, he allegedly told Silas, “You’re going to die today.”


Police reportedly recovered at least seven casings and two live rounds in the block-plus between Croff’s yard and the spot on Philip Street where Silas was slain.


Milhouse did not increase Croff’s bond, which his parents posted for him, in part because he has no criminal record. But the judge did order that he be on GPS tether and not have access to any firearms.


Gerald Evelyn, Croff’s new lawyer, described his client’s actions Dec. 28 as an “aberration.”


“He’s been law-abiding for 31 years,” he said, adding that Croff attends church three times a week and had legally registered both guns allegedly used in the shooting.


DeAngula Robinson, 34, who said she is Silas’ niece, said Kettler’s description of the shooting was devastating.


“To hear he had his hands up in the air and somebody still shot him … That’s crazy,” said Robinson, who said the family is planning a funeral for next week.

Also, this blog entry was good, from a detroit CCW trainer.

LAID - Legally Armed In Detroit: Tigh Croff: Tragic Hero or Urban Vigilante

*snip*

So, why do we advise CPL licensees to "lawyer up?" It is very difficult to clearly articulate the legality of your actions during the aftermath of a shooting. Victims, who have been attacked by criminals are undergoing scientifically documented mental and physiological effects that may cause their accounting of events to be inaccurate to what really happened.

You have only have one opportunity to make a first statement. If that statement does not fully incorporate all required elements that have to be present for a valid self-defense claim, the shooter will in all likelihood be charged with a crime. Additionally, police officers can use subterfuge to get a "victim" to confess to a crime: tell out-right lies, run psychological games, and make promises they have no authorization to make or keep. Yep, they can pretend to be your friend all the way up until the time they arrest you and announce in the media that you have confessed to a horrific crime.
*snip*

How does a tragedy like this happen? I haven't confirmed it, but it is my belief that he took a CCW Class in which the legal portion was conducted by a law enforcement officer. Cops tell students to make certain admissions to investigators on the scene. I have seen cop-conducted classes with my own eyes. This practice, as in the Tigh case, has already shown, can lead to tragic circumstances. Your rights are being trampled with your future hanging in the balance.

[stevew]

dola-

If he was firing wildly through the streets(7 rounds), then he needs to do some jail time, regardless of if the shooting was justified.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by stevew

dola-

If he was firing wildly through the streets(7 rounds), then he needs to do some jail time, regardless of if the shooting was justified.

+1

Reckless discharge is unacceptable

[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?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by stevew

dola-

If he was firing wildly through the streets(7 rounds), then he needs to do some jail time, regardless of if the shooting was justified.

From that description, there is no legal justification for the shooting with the possible exception of temporary insanity.

[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.

IMO I think the opinion from the CCW trainer is so anti-law enforcement that it loses all credibility.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Aside from the fact that most victims of rape or sexual abuse would either kick you in the balls or laugh at you for comparing rape to burglary, it's good to know that in modern Christian values, the safety of your stuff is more important than a human life.

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.

[SportsDino]

Wow, well I think that article should remove all doubt unless we are going to debate making a John Woo film in the middle of a residential district.

Like I thought, crazed revenge... maybe an insanity defense but even then I don't think that justifies insane violence in public (presumably with several misses all heading towards people's houses/kids). Murder or at least some of the strictest gun violations they can get him with.