|
BamaD -> RE: Stand your ground in Missouri OH NO!!! (7/31/2013 8:32:11 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: igor2003
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: igor2003
--FR—
I’m just wanting to touch on a few things I keep seeing pop up in various arguments.
First, there is the “went to his car” thing. The argument is often that the people should have gotten back into their canoes and left when he did that. My question is, how long did it take him to go to his car and return? Perhaps they didn’t have time to load back up and leave. How far away was his car? If you look at the map in the link I posted back on page 16 or 17 you can see that the road from Crocker’s house extends all the way to the gravel bank. His car could have been very near, and quite possibly within sight of the floaters, in which case they may not have had time to leave.
Also, along that same train of thought is this. The guy taking a piss had left the wooded area. Crocker went to his car. If the car was out of sight the rafters may, at that time, have assumed that the situation was over, that they were on the public right of way and therefore no longer trespassing, and that they did not expect Crocker to return. They had been canoeing for several hours and could have just been wanting to stretch their legs a few more minutes before continuing on their way, again, not expecting Crocker to return.
Earlier in the thread the argument was made that if experts didn’t know the laws concerning what was public access concerning waterways, then how could Crocker, or any property owner have known. My response to that is, if you are ready, willing, and able to take someone’s life over a simple trespass, then you damned well better know what the laws are even if the “experts” don’t know.
Much has been said about the fact that the boaters had been drinking. Apparently, not all of them had been, but although it may have impaired the judgment of some of them, there is nothing to indicate that their drinking was illegal, and it certainly, in no way, justifies one of them being shot and killed.
First the car thing.
A Crocker should have called the cops instead of getting the gun.
B They had told him they wouldn't leave so unless they were morons they would have known he was coming back.
C If they had been getting in the boats rather than screaming you can't make us leave it is virtually certain there would have been no shooting.
They stopped so he could make a pit stop and then go on.
They decided to prove Crocker couldn't make them leave, a stupid and ultimately tragic decision.
If the people in charge of setting the line can't tell you where they would draw it how can you expect the landowner know where it will be since they use varying criteria and decide on a case by case basis? Where does he get to defend his property? The living room.
Yes being drunk is the only excuse for bringing a rock to a knife fight or for moving on a angry man with a gun.
I will attempt to keep you from trapping yourself as a couple of others have.
NOBODY HAS SAID THE SHOOTING WAS JUSTIFIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Okay…(A) Yes, he should have called the police. Apparently he didn’t have a cell phone since he had to go to his neighbor’s place and ask them to call. Not that it really makes any difference…he should have contacted the police. I don’t think anyone is arguing about that. I’m not sure why you think you need to argue with me about it.
(B) If Crocker’s car was out of sight then he did leave the area. I don’t know if the people were morons or not. I don’t know whether Crocker told them he was coming back. Do you know? If Crocker didn’t tell them he was coming back, and they were now on what seems to be a public right of way, then there was ZERO reason to not think the confrontation was over. And if the car was within sight of the floaters, then they could not have had time to load up and get going before Crocker started waving the gun around.
(C) When you are dealing with someone that is that irate and irrational there is no such thing as a “virtual certainty” about anything they might or might not do. Personally, I most likely would have started backing away toward the canoes. One thing I would NOT do is to turn my back on him. I’m not saying that arguing with the guy was a smart thing to do, but it seems that the floaters were more within their rights than Crocker was.
Yes, the canoers stopped to make a pit stop. According to Mrs. Dart, “to refresh drinks and answer the call of nature,”. I’m sure she didn’t take the time to list each and every little detail about what all they intended to do during their “pit stop”. If you had ever done any boating, canoeing, rafting, or tube floating you would know that once in a while you do need to stop and stretch your legs, as well as to piss and/or refresh drinks, and/or any of a number of other things. So what was your point to mention this except to try to make some kind of nonsensical argument?
Crocker doesn’t get to arbitrarily decide where his rights begin or end. But apparently your argument is that since he had no way to know then he must have been within his rights to shoot the trespasser. HE TOOK A FUCKING LIFE. Since when does him not knowing the property lines, the public right of way, and the laws, give him the right to shoot someone? I know. I know. You have SAID repeatedly that nobody (you) has said the shooting was justified. And yet your arguments say otherwise. You’re trying to ride both sides. And yes, maybe he should have figured out where the lines and laws lay while still in his fucking living room before deciding to take some ones life.
The only person in any kind of “trap” is you by first saying one thing, then trying to argue the opposite.
The only reason you think I am saying one thing and arguing another is your inability to understand what I am saying.
If they had decided to say ok just let us get loaded up and we will be gone do you honestly think he would have gone for his gun?
If they had not changed the focus of the stop to taunting the old guy don't you think things could have turned out different?
Do you really think that threatening him with rock and trying to close with him in any way helped the situation?
Do I think he was wrong? Yes but they saw to it he went from might shoot them to did shoot one of them.
Why do you think that the fact that Crocker was wrong means everything the floaters did was right.
You and a couple of others seem to think that they are and must be considered saints or you are committing sacrilege.
That his guilt is dependent upon their sainthood. They were not by any means, in fact if he had called the cops they could possibly have been nailed for disturbing the peace. Is that a capital offense of course not, does it give him the right to shoot them of course not.
Face reality saints don't get into these situations
|
|
|
|
