Another coward magically becomes a tough guy when holding a gun

Anti-Party said:
Ever been on a float trip? lol
Click to expand...

No, I prefer whitewater trips vs. float. Just personal preference.

You pay to go down these rivers and you stop at gravel bars to have good times with friends. It's what you pay for. But what happens when you have to poop on a float trip?..................You go to the grass and tree's. You don't poop in the water, excuse me, I dont...maybe you would.
Click to expand...

No, you pay to rent the rafts (at most). You do not pay to get to trespass on private property. No matter how bad you have to go, that does not provide you with the right to violate another persons property lines. As the articles have stated, sand/gravel bars are debatable in terms of easement rights given that during high water times they are under water and thus part of the river. But that is all you have, a 'maybe' on the sand/gravel bars.

When you buy property in these area's its expected and known that people float the river. It's known that people drink, jump off cliffs, show boobs and get a little crazy.
Click to expand...

Saying that people get crazy on these trips and that property owners just have to deal with it is nothing short of complete bullshit. It is not expected for people to do so on YOUR property. They do not have that right. Some property owners may not care, but that does not mean one can do it anywhere because you just happen to be 'drinking and getting crazy'. If there is a do not trespass sign up on the property, then that must be respected. Everyone knows that regardless of whether or not you are on a river or elsewhere. If you choose to ignore it, then you do not have a right to get pissy with the owner when he/she asks you to leave. Which is what the drunk morons should have done. A simple apology or just acknowledgement and then go... but no... they had to provoke him and prove just how tough they were. One of them died as a result.

You can justify this homicide all you want in hopes to paint every gun owner as a saint but it just makes you look like an uneducated gun owner. Don't you suppose the better option would have been to walk down and have a conversation about bounderies instead of walking down with a gun? Or is smart not your thing?
Click to expand...

I am not trying to paint every gun owner as a saint. It is you and your ilk that want to paint them all as crazy. Hence the title of the thread.

A better option would have been for them to get the fuck off of his land when asked, especially when they knew he had a gun. But they didn't. They were idiots. Drunk idiots at that.
 
OCA said:
Is that a snippet from the hidden admin. section which I assume you guys have here so staff can discuss things? If so that is highly unethical IMO to be posting that in the open forum.
Click to expand...


Now you did it.

The mods HATE to be told they might be doing something wrong.

Of course you're right...as evidenced by Billy's pissy little tantrum of a response.

If you post the contents of a PM from another poster it's a violation, but if the MODS post a private conversation from their admin section they've done nothing wrong.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
There is a world of difference between somebody climbing over a fence and pissing on your lawn or on your front doorstep and some guys in canoes stopping to have a piss in the woods. In England the owner would be charged with murder pure and simple unless it could be proved that he was in mortal danger.
Click to expand...

Of course this is the civilized, NUANCED response...and that is why you will never see it posted by SF.

Stepping a few feet into the woods to pee isn't reason enough to KILL someone.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, there is a world of difference. Perhaps you would actually READ the story. The guy killed was NOT the guy that was pissing in the woods. So please stop pretending that the guy got shot for taking a piss. That is not what happened.
Click to expand...

Yeah...the guy who got shot was just trying to calm the crazed gunman down when he was killed.

Killed for trying to DE-escalate a situation.
 
Superfreak said:
So toppy, you think only gun owners should be responsible? Drinkers shouldn't be held accountable for their own stupidity?
Click to expand...

Here is another version of the events, Crocker apparently fired off two shots before anybody picked up rocks. Paul Dart took a piss on the gravel and didn't even go into any woods. It is not clear that it was even on his land!

STEELVILLE, Mo. — James Crocker had grown weary of the partying canoeists and rafters who encroached on his neatly kept property along Missouri’s Meramec River. When he caught a man about to relieve himself on a gravel bar by his yard in July, a nasty confrontation ensued that ended with one person dead and Crocker accused of killing him.

The case against Crocker is the latest to put a spotlight on “castle doctrine” laws, which allow the use of deadly force to protect property. Missouri is among at least 30 states that have enacted the statutes, which supporters say protect gun rights but others insist promote vigilantism. Crocker’s attorney, Michael Bert of St. Louis, said that Crocker was defending himself and his property. “Here’s a man in fear for his life and fearful he might suffer bodily injury,” Bert said.

Prosecutors see it differently. Witnesses who testified at a hearing last month said Crocker was angry and raging, shooting into the crowd of people, narrowly missing two others before killing 48-year-old Paul Dart Jr., of Robertsville, Mo. Crocker has been charged with second-degree murder.
Even some supporters of the doctrine say the violence seemed avoidable.

“The smart thing is to back away, and nobody seemed to be willing to do that,” said Kevin Jamison, an attorney who lobbied for Missouri’s castle doctrine bill as a member of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance.

Crocker, a 59-year-old plastics plant worker with long hair and a thick goatee, lives in a small white frame home on a shaded gravel road about eight miles west of Steelville, the self-proclaimed floating capital of the world. Tens of thousands of people come to the region every year to raft, canoe or kayak down the Meramec and nearby rivers.
Drinking is sometimes part of the outings, resulting in bawdy behavior that doesn’t sit well with owners of land that touches the river. Many have complained for years about loud parties, trash left behind and crude behavior.

Herb Smelser, 77, who lives three houses down from Crocker, said it isn’t uncommon to find people using his yard as a restroom. The problem was so bad, he said, that he let his grass grow high to discourage trespassers.

Crocker, though, kept his yard trim and tidy — “like a park,” Smelser said. To keep out the unwanted, Crocker posted “No Trespassing” and “Private Property” signs along the hill that slopes down to a gravel area along the meandering river.

On July 20, Dart, a carpenter, and around four dozen other members of an extended family gathered at a campground for their annual float trip along the Meramec. A few hours into the trip, Robert and Regina Burgess stopped their canoe on a gravel bar. Robert, who had drunk about three beers, decided to relieve himself, he testified at the preliminary hearing.

Crocker confronted Burgess and other members of the party. What happened next is in dispute and will be a crucial part of the case.
Burgess and his wife testified that Crocker was immediately agitated and aggressive, firing two shots in their direction — Robert said one hit the ground near his feet. Another bullet hit Dart in the face.

Burgess said it was only after Dart was shot that members of the party picked up rocks to defend themselves against Crocker, who was armed with a 9mm semi-automatic pistol. “I’m standing there unarmed, and the guy’s got a gun,” Burgess said. Crocker didn’t testify at the hearing, but his attorney gave a different account.

In an interview, Bert said Crocker politely asked the float trip party to leave. “The response he got was angry and profane,” Bert said.
Crocker and those in the float trip party argued over whether the gravel bar was public land or Crocker’s. Eventually, the men picked up “softball-sized” rocks and began pelting Crocker, Bert said. He said Crocker suffered head injuries, then fired his gun to defend himself.

“When people say is this a case of the castle doctrine I say, ‘yes, kind of,’ but more importantly these people were armed with what I would consider weapons,” Bert said. Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper Joseph Peart testified that he saw no evidence that Crocker was injured. Police said Crocker told them, “I just shot the one closest to me.”

Whether or not the floaters were on Crocker’s property may be an issue in the case since Missouri law isn’t clear on where private property along a waterway begins. Some experts say it starts at the vegetation line; others say property rights extend to the center of a river or stream.
“That may be a critical question,” said Jamison, of Kansas City, Mo. “If (Crocker) reasonably believed the man was on his property and he wasn’t, I’m not sure that’s enough.”

Missouri’s castle doctrine statute, enacted in 2007, gives residents a legal right to defend themselves and their property against intruders. Supporters of such laws cite a number of cases in which homeowners were able to fend off burglars or other criminals without fear of prosecution. But Florida’s law gained notoriety after a neighborhood watch activist, George Zimmerman, fatally shot teen Trayvon Martin, and was acquitted of criminal charges.

A 2012 Texas A&M University study found that homicides ruled justifiable rose by 8 percent in states with “stand-your-ground” laws.
In the Missouri case, Crawford County detective Zachary Driskill said he asked Crocker if he could have called police instead of taking matters into his own hands. “I guess I could have, but it’s my property and I was going to protect it,” Crocker responded, according to case documents.

http://tbo.com/ap/national/missouri-case-tests-x2018castle-doctrinex2019-for-homeowners-20130904/
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Yeah...the guy who got shot was just trying to calm the crazed gunman down when he was killed.

Killed for trying to DE-escalate a situation.
Click to expand...

LMAO... yet it was his crazed drunken buddy that needed to be calmed down. He escalated the situation by trying to 'calm down' (again according to the wife of the drunken idiot) the guy with the gun.

De-escalation would have been getting his drunken cowardly friend with the rocks to LEAVE as requested. Instead he is another dead moron.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Now you did it.

The mods HATE to be told they might be doing something wrong.

Of course you're right...as evidenced by Billy's pissy little tantrum of a response.

If you post the contents of a PM from another poster it's a violation, but if the MODS post a private conversation from their admin section they've done nothing wrong.
Click to expand...

Thats crazy! I got dropped of of staff at Debate policy for revealing staff discussions AT ANOTHER BOARD!

Anyway i'm just trying to get a feel for what kind of staff we have here, whether we have a "do as I say not as I do staff or vice-versa, either way I know how to deal.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Here is another version of the events, Crocker apparently fired off two shots before anybody picked up rocks. Paul Dart took a piss on the gravel and didn't even go into any woods. It is not clear that it was even on his land!

STEELVILLE, Mo. — James Crocker had grown weary of the partying canoeists and rafters who encroached on his neatly kept property along Missouri’s Meramec River. When he caught a man about to relieve himself on a gravel bar by his yard in July, a nasty confrontation ensued that ended with one person dead and Crocker accused of killing him.

The case against Crocker is the latest to put a spotlight on “castle doctrine” laws, which allow the use of deadly force to protect property. Missouri is among at least 30 states that have enacted the statutes, which supporters say protect gun rights but others insist promote vigilantism. Crocker’s attorney, Michael Bert of St. Louis, said that Crocker was defending himself and his property. “Here’s a man in fear for his life and fearful he might suffer bodily injury,” Bert said.

Prosecutors see it differently. Witnesses who testified at a hearing last month said Crocker was angry and raging, shooting into the crowd of people, narrowly missing two others before killing 48-year-old Paul Dart Jr., of Robertsville, Mo. Crocker has been charged with second-degree murder.
Even some supporters of the doctrine say the violence seemed avoidable.

“The smart thing is to back away, and nobody seemed to be willing to do that,” said Kevin Jamison, an attorney who lobbied for Missouri’s castle doctrine bill as a member of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance.

Crocker, a 59-year-old plastics plant worker with long hair and a thick goatee, lives in a small white frame home on a shaded gravel road about eight miles west of Steelville, the self-proclaimed floating capital of the world. Tens of thousands of people come to the region every year to raft, canoe or kayak down the Meramec and nearby rivers.
Drinking is sometimes part of the outings, resulting in bawdy behavior that doesn’t sit well with owners of land that touches the river. Many have complained for years about loud parties, trash left behind and crude behavior.

Herb Smelser, 77, who lives three houses down from Crocker, said it isn’t uncommon to find people using his yard as a restroom. The problem was so bad, he said, that he let his grass grow high to discourage trespassers.

Crocker, though, kept his yard trim and tidy — “like a park,” Smelser said. To keep out the unwanted, Crocker posted “No Trespassing” and “Private Property” signs along the hill that slopes down to a gravel area along the meandering river.

On July 20, Dart, a carpenter, and around four dozen other members of an extended family gathered at a campground for their annual float trip along the Meramec. A few hours into the trip, Robert and Regina Burgess stopped their canoe on a gravel bar. Robert, who had drunk about three beers, decided to relieve himself, he testified at the preliminary hearing.

Crocker confronted Burgess and other members of the party. What happened next is in dispute and will be a crucial part of the case.
Burgess and his wife testified that Crocker was immediately agitated and aggressive, firing two shots in their direction — Robert said one hit the ground near his feet. Another bullet hit Dart in the face.

Burgess said it was only after Dart was shot that members of the party picked up rocks to defend themselves against Crocker, who was armed with a 9mm semi-automatic pistol. “I’m standing there unarmed, and the guy’s got a gun,” Burgess said. Crocker didn’t testify at the hearing, but his attorney gave a different account.

In an interview, Bert said Crocker politely asked the float trip party to leave. “The response he got was angry and profane,” Bert said.
Crocker and those in the float trip party argued over whether the gravel bar was public land or Crocker’s. Eventually, the men picked up “softball-sized” rocks and began pelting Crocker, Bert said. He said Crocker suffered head injuries, then fired his gun to defend himself.

“When people say is this a case of the castle doctrine I say, ‘yes, kind of,’ but more importantly these people were armed with what I would consider weapons,” Bert said. Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper Joseph Peart testified that he saw no evidence that Crocker was injured. Police said Crocker told them, “I just shot the one closest to me.”

Whether or not the floaters were on Crocker’s property may be an issue in the case since Missouri law isn’t clear on where private property along a waterway begins. Some experts say it starts at the vegetation line; others say property rights extend to the center of a river or stream.
“That may be a critical question,” said Jamison, of Kansas City, Mo. “If (Crocker) reasonably believed the man was on his property and he wasn’t, I’m not sure that’s enough.”

Missouri’s castle doctrine statute, enacted in 2007, gives residents a legal right to defend themselves and their property against intruders. Supporters of such laws cite a number of cases in which homeowners were able to fend off burglars or other criminals without fear of prosecution. But Florida’s law gained notoriety after a neighborhood watch activist, George Zimmerman, fatally shot teen Trayvon Martin, and was acquitted of criminal charges.

A 2012 Texas A&M University study found that homicides ruled justifiable rose by 8 percent in states with “stand-your-ground” laws.
In the Missouri case, Crawford County detective Zachary Driskill said he asked Crocker if he could have called police instead of taking matters into his own hands. “I guess I could have, but it’s my property and I was going to protect it,” Crocker responded, according to case documents.

http://tbo.com/ap/national/missouri-case-tests-x2018castle-doctrinex2019-for-homeowners-20130904/
Click to expand...

I'm 100% positive that the property owner was a loon and 100% responsible for the escalation of the situation.

Next time some kid's ball ends up in my yard i'm putting some size 6 pheasant load in his belly, i'm sick of them! *sarcasm on*
 
OCA said:
I'm 100% positive that the property owner was a loon and 100% responsible for the escalation of the situation.
Click to expand...

LMAO... please explain how he is 100% responsible? Because we already know that:

1) The rafters were trespassing
2) There were signs saying no trespassing
3) They were asked to leave and didn't
4) Instead of leaving one of the drunks picked up rocks and taunted the property owner (real fucking smart)
5) The other drunk decided to 'calm down' the guy with the gun rather than his drunk buddy with the rocks
6) The guy who died did something that caused the gun owner to 'jerk back' (words of the deceased's wife)... those are typically words associated with a reaction to an aggressor.

So with all of that... how is the gun owner 100% responsible?

Please also detail how it is that you are 100% positive given you were not there.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... please explain how he is 100% responsible? Because we already know that:

1) The rafters were trespassing
2) There were signs saying no trespassing
3) They were asked to leave and didn't
4) Instead of leaving one of the drunks picked up rocks and taunted the property owner (real fucking smart)
5) The other drunk decided to 'calm down' the guy with the gun rather than his drunk buddy with the rocks
6) The guy who died did something that caused the gun owner to 'jerk back' (words of the deceased's wife)... those are typically words associated with a reaction to an aggressor.

So with all of that... how is the gun owner 100% responsible?

Please also detail how it is that you are 100% positive given you were not there.
Click to expand...
.
Prosecutors see it differently. Witnesses who testified at a hearing last month said Crocker was angry and raging, shooting into the crowd of people, narrowly missing two others before killing 48-year-old Paul Dart Jr., of Robertsville, Mo. Crocker has been charged with second-degree murder. Even some supporters of the doctrine say the violence seemed avoidable.

“The smart thing is to back away, and nobody seemed to be willing to do that,” said Kevin Jamison, an attorney who lobbied for Missouri’s castle doctrine bill as a member of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance.

Crocker, a 59-year-old plastics plant worker with long hair and a thick goatee, lives in a small white frame home on a shaded gravel road about eight miles west of Steelville, the self-proclaimed floating capital of the world. Tens of thousands of people come to the region every year to raft, canoe or kayak down the Meramec and nearby rivers. Drinking is sometimes part of the outings, resulting in bawdy behavior that doesn’t sit well with owners of land that touches the river. Many have complained for years about loud parties, trash left behind and crude behavior
Click to expand...
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
There is a world of difference between somebody climbing over a fence and pissing on your lawn or on your front doorstep and some guys in canoes stopping to have a piss in the woods. In England the owner would be charged with murder pure and simple unless it could be proved that he was in mortal danger.
Click to expand...

So you guys don't have the innocent until proven guilty thing? Genuine question by the way, because here the STATE has to prove he wasn't in danger at all. The defendant has nothing to prove.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top