Another coward magically becomes a tough guy when holding a gun

Superfreak said:
yes moron, which is exactly what I stated. He was standing between the men... so how is it that he 'merely stepped up to the side of Crocker' as you claimed?
Click to expand...

I am just quoting the article and statements made.

You are the one trying to claim the deceased grabbed the gunman, which I'd like to point out no one...NOT EVEN THE SHOOTER claimed happened.
 
Superfreak said:
No, I didn't. The evidence supported his story (note, it did not prove it, but it most certainly was more viable than the prosecutions claims). His defensive wounds suggested he was telling the truth. The evidence was not there for a 2nd degree murder charge.
Click to expand...

Really?

I'd sure like to know which portion of Zimmerman's testimony you didn't believe.
 
Superfreak said:
Didn't you already post this one?

But again...

1) he asked them to leave his property, instead of arguing, they could have said ok and left his property.
2) when one of them picks up a rock and becomes aggressive, he has a right to defend himself
3) The guy who tried to grab him when he was holding a gun and clearly agitated was an idiot for doing so. Why not instead get his friend to drop the rock and get back in the canoe? Had he been smart instead of stupid, he would be alive today.
Click to expand...

this is ultimately why liberals are against gun rights. They can see themselves doing these stupid things. Just like they can see themselves violently attacking someone that wasn't doing anything illegal and expecting to get away with it. They are the dirty hippies that will start throwing rocks when their drum circle is interrupted. They know that it will be them one day, and they don't want to get shot for their idiocy.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
They were doing nothing illegal and rudeness isn't a crime.

Missouri law says they have a right to use the river and it's adjoining banks.
Click to expand...

You clearly didn't read your own links. It also stated that he went into the woods to take a piss. That is not the sand bar that is questionable as to property and easement rights.

Rudeness isn't a crime. But it clearly was not their land, the sandbar had a do not trespass sign on it, they were asked to leave. They could have talked shit all they wanted and you would be right. But one picked up rocks and escalated the situation. Another approached and tried to grab the property owner.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
I am just quoting the article and statements made.

You are the one trying to claim the deceased grabbed the gunman, which I'd like to point out no one...NOT EVEN THE SHOOTER claimed happened.
Click to expand...

Yes, you quoted the part that disproves your assertion that he 'merely stepped to the side of the gunman'

The story stated he 'jerked back' and then shot him. That is typical of actual physical contact, not someone stepping up to one side.
 
Thought Thieves said:
this is ultimately why liberals are against gun rights. They can see themselves doing these stupid things. Just like they can see themselves violently attacking someone that wasn't doing anything illegal and expecting to get away with it. They are the dirty hippies that will start throwing rocks when their drum circle is interrupted. They know that it will be them one day, and they don't want to get shot for their idiocy.
Click to expand...

Dirty hippy, you sound like a throwback from the sixties.
 
Superfreak said:
You clearly didn't read your own links. It also stated that he went into the woods to take a piss. That is not the sand bar that is questionable as to property and easement rights.

Rudeness isn't a crime. But it clearly was not their land, the sandbar had a do not trespass sign on it, they were asked to leave. They could have talked shit all they wanted and you would be right. But one picked up rocks and escalated the situation. Another approached and tried to grab the property owner.
Click to expand...

So he could easily have fired a warning shot but chose instead to shoot point blank in the face, that sounds like actions of an arsehole.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
So he could easily have fired a warning shot but chose instead to shoot point blank in the face, that sounds like actions of an arsehole.
Click to expand...

He DID fire a warning shot according to the victims family. The victim rather than getting his friend to drop the rocks and leave instead tried to confront the guy with the gun. The victim and the asshole cousin with the rocks escalated the issue. They could have left upon being warned. They chose not to.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
“I have the power, I have the power”

That's what gun-wielding tough guy James Crocker yelled at the two men he found on his property before shooting the man who tried to calm the situation, point blank in the face.


Missouri man faces new charges after shooting canoer he caught urinating on property line

teelville, Missouri homeowner James Crocker, already under arrest after shooting a man he believed to be a trespasser point-blank in the face, now faces additional charges related to the incident.

The incident, which cost Paul Franklin Dart his life, began after Dart and his family rented canoes and embarked down the Meremac River early on that June morning. When they reached the property of James Crocker — five hours later — Dart and his stepson Josh Kling went into the woods to urinate. There, Crocker confronted them with a loaded 9 mm handgun.

The man who rented the Darts the canoes, Paul Wilkerson, told the St. Louis Post Dispatch that the family had signed a release saying that they would avoid littering and politely listen to the requests of any property owners they should encounter. Crocker told police that the Darts did nothing of the sort, responding to his request to vacate his property by yelling “they weren’t going to leave and that the gravel bar was public property.”


According to witnesses, Crocker replied “I have the power, I have the power,” to which Kling responded “Put that gun down and we’ll see who has the power.” Kling then picked up a rock. At this point, Paul Dart attempted to intervene, standing between Crocker and Kling.

“My husband tried to calm the guy down,” Loretta Dart told the Post-Dispatch. “He went to the guy’s arm to try to stop him, but the guy jerked back and popped him in the face…I watched him be shot in the face and fall down. I watched my husband bleed to death. He was a wonderful man. He didn’t deserve this.”

Explaining himself to police, Crocker said “I just shot the one closest to me.”

This incident is just the latest to call attention to the so-called “castle doctrine,” the more lenient cousin of justifiable homicide that allows homeowners who feel imperiled to defend themselves and their property with lethal force. Justifiable homicide statutes, in contrast, require people to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an attempt was being made on their lives or the life of someone else close to them.

The question in this case is whether the Darts were actually on Crocker’s property. State law in Missouri dictates that waterfront properties extend to the middle of the river on which they’re situated. Much like a road, these rivers are considered public easements, available for use by all. But the land immediately adjacent is usually considered private property, and Crocker had posted signs to that effect at regular intervals along the vegetation line. However, given that the location of the vegetation line changes from year to year, Missouri law states that land adjacent to a “navigable stream” is part of the public easement.

What constitutes a “navigable stream” is itself up for debate. A Missouri lawyer contacted by the Post-Dispatch, Harry Styron, said that “[t]hese cases are really very confusing. They are difficult to interpret. You are on private property, but you have a right to be there if it’s a navigable stream and as long as you are on a gravel bar that is submerged during parts of the year, because it’s part of the stream bed.”


However, he added that the definition navigable “obviously doesn’t have anything to do with people shooting people. We don’t have a stand-your-gravel-bar law yet.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/...-canoer-he-caught-urinating-on-property-line/
Click to expand...

I may have this wrong but I don't think so, Chazz Palminteri said it best in "A Bronx Tale" when he caught "c" and the boys looking at hot guns on the street, "you think this gun makes you a tough guy? Its when the other guy also has a gun then we see who the tough guy is"...........most sage advice ever.

*quote may not be perfect word for word*
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, you quoted the part that disproves your assertion that he 'merely stepped to the side of the gunman'

The story stated he 'jerked back' and then shot him. That is typical of actual physical contact, not someone stepping up to one side.
Click to expand...


And yet you still can't point to a single quote from anyone at the scene that backs your allegation that one of the boaters grabbed the gunman before being shot.
 
Superfreak said:
You clearly didn't read your own links. It also stated that he went into the woods to take a piss. That is not the sand bar that is questionable as to property and easement rights.
Click to expand...

Is urinating in the woods a crime?

And I see you're also ignoring this fact: Missouri law states that land adjacent to a “navigable stream” is part of the public easement.

Easement...as in "a right to cross or otherwise use someone else's land for a specified purpose".

Superfreak said:
Rudeness isn't a crime. But it clearly was not their land, the sandbar had a do not trespass sign on it, they were asked to leave. They could have talked shit all they wanted and you would be right. But one picked up rocks and escalated the situation. Another approached and tried to grab the property owner.
Click to expand...

Right...the guy who picked up a ROCK is the one who "escalated the situation"...the guy who was so angry he brought a gun to run off some rafters did NOTHING to escalate anything.

And the gunman could have merely let them take the time they needed and no one would be dead.
 
OCA said:
I may have this wrong but I don't think so, Chazz Palminteri said it best in "A Bronx Tale" when he caught "c" and the boys looking at hot guns on the street, "you think this gun makes you a tough guy? Its when the other guy also has a gun then we see who the tough guy is"...........most sage advice ever.

*quote may not be perfect word for word*
Click to expand...


Exactly!

Having a gun just means you don't have the stones to handle a situation without resorting to the threat of deadly force.

Just try explaining that to STY.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And yet you still can't point to a single quote from anyone at the scene that backs your allegation that one of the boaters grabbed the gunman before being shot.
Click to expand...

and AGAIN, I point to what was stated in your article. Which you continue to ignore. So if you want, you can look up to my earlier responses as it is already addressed.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Is urinating in the woods a crime?
Click to expand...

Trespassing on private property is trespassing on private property.

And I see you're also ignoring this fact: Missouri law states that land adjacent to a “navigable stream” is part of the public easement.
Click to expand...

Again Zap... already addressed this, that is not what the guy did if he was pissing in the woods as the article stated. If you aren't going to read the answers provided to you, then quit pretending you know what was or was not addressed.

Easement...as in "a right to cross or otherwise use someone else's land for a specified purpose".
Click to expand...

Congrats, you figured out what easement means. Kudos. Now try reading the article.

Right...the guy who picked up a ROCK is the one who "escalated the situation"...the guy who was so angry he brought a gun to run off some rafters did NOTHING to escalate anything.
Click to expand...

Dearest Zap... if a guy comes to the bank on his property with a gun, a person who in turn picks up rocks and talks 'tough' to the man with the gun is indeed escalating the situation.

And the gunman could have merely let them take the time they needed and no one would be dead.
Click to expand...

Yet one of them picked up rocks and the guy who was shot tried to 'settle down the gunman' instead of his friend with the rocks. Again, the idiot would be alive if he weren't a fucking drunk moron.
 
The question in this case is whether the Darts were actually on Crocker’s property. State law in Missouri dictates that waterfront properties extend to the middle of the river on which they’re situated. Much like a road, these rivers are considered public easements, available for use by all. But the land immediately adjacent is usually considered private property, and Crocker had posted signs to that effect at regular intervals along the vegetation line. However, given that the location of the vegetation line changes from year to year, Missouri law states that land adjacent to a “navigable stream” is part of the public easement.
Click to expand...

The above is the part Zappa wants to pretend doesn't exist.
 
There's definitely a reason people with excellent communication skills can make big money. This was clearly an event that didn't have to happen. If the guy's pissing had just said "sorry" and waved none of this probably would have happened, they would have been on their way. I understand their being mad at the owner but where does that get you? (I keep thinking of that saying 'he who dies with the right of way still dies'). The owner with a gun obviously has issues to like feeling the need to shoot someone who took a piss on the edge of his property.

Maybe because I'm more of the non-confrontational type instead of a fighter I would have just said peace out to the owner and been on my way. Sad ending obviously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top