quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

quote:

ORIGINAL: Powergamz1

Kind of like chasing someone and killing them over a stolen ATV?

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

Second Degree Murder: Definition

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Second-degree murder may best be viewed as the middle ground between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter

LOL. You need about 20 whacks with a stiff noodle! No one was killed, silly man . At the most he got a pellet or two from a long distance shot gun. Maybe as he dug out the pellets, he remembered...........hmmmmmmmmm I don't think I will go there anymore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

Our neighbor had no want to kill the man, but still he did shoot and could have killed him, its possible, it could have happened, hit someone in the right spot, sure they could die. The burglars were becoming more brazen, they weren't even waiting until the wee hours, to sneak, they were coming in daylight hours now, with someone just stepping inside there house now.WHat was next? It was to send a clear message to him and his buddies, don't come back, it will only get worse.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

In some states, property on a river or lake states the property line is at the high water mark, so does that mean during a flood? A dry season where the river is lower, what?

in every river there is erosion by the water so the seasonal high water mark is where erosion start and the riverside gets steep, so where the water marks the riverbed, during a flood the river is no more in it's bed. This is a picture to where I marked the high water mark.

Since you can't stand on the river side of the line in this picture they would have tobe on private property.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

In some states, property on a river or lake states the property line is at the high water mark, so does that mean during a flood? A dry season where the river is lower, what?

in every river there is erosion by the water so the seasonal high water mark is where erosion start and the riverside gets steep, so where the water marks the riverbed, during a flood the river is no more in it's bed. This is a picture to where I marked the high water mark.

Since you can't stand on the river side of the line in this picture they would have tobe on private property.

that was an example it's not the picture of the crime scene, some river have part of the bed that in summer you can walk on, what I meant is that the word mark means mark not immaignary line like the average hig level of sea during a year, it's where the water marked the riverbed with erosion, so it's not something you can't see it's there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

http://www.mysullivannews.com/2013/07/crawford-county-landowner-held-on-650000-bond-allegedly-shoots-floater-on-property/

The Sullivan Independent News obtained the Probable Cause Statement, written by Detective Zachary A. Driskill, of the Crawford County Sheriff’s Department.

quote:

And that's why you should never answer any questions asked by the police. This guy's own statements have convicted him of murder. His only hope is the prosecutor offers him manslaughter just to get the case off the docket quickly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

http://www.mysullivannews.com/2013/07/crawford-county-landowner-held-on-650000-bond-allegedly-shoots-floater-on-property/

The Sullivan Independent News obtained the Probable Cause Statement, written by Detective Zachary A. Driskill, of the Crawford County Sheriff’s Department.

And that's why you should never answer any questions asked by the police. This guy's own statements have convicted him of murder. His only hope is the prosecutor offers him manslaughter just to get the case off the docket quickly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

http://www.mysullivannews.com/2013/07/crawford-county-landowner-held-on-650000-bond-allegedly-shoots-floater-on-property/

The Sullivan Independent News obtained the Probable Cause Statement, written by Detective Zachary A. Driskill, of the Crawford County Sheriff’s Department.

And that's why you should never answer any questions asked by the police. This guy's own statements have convicted him of murder. His only hope is the prosecutor offers him manslaughter just to get the case off the docket quickly.

Read the report.
The deputy was incompetent.
Only quoted Crocker but gave generalities on all other statements.
But he did ask if them leaving would have taking care of things and Crocker said yes.
Looks like if they hadn't changed their plans to taunt the old guy nothing would have happened.

Edited to add
Still doesn't justify the shooting but one more problem for the DA

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

http://www.mysullivannews.com/2013/07/crawford-county-landowner-held-on-650000-bond-allegedly-shoots-floater-on-property/

The Sullivan Independent News obtained the Probable Cause Statement, written by Detective Zachary A. Driskill, of the Crawford County Sheriff’s Department.

And that's why you should never answer any questions asked by the police. This guy's own statements have convicted him of murder. His only hope is the prosecutor offers him manslaughter just to get the case off the docket quickly.

Read the report.
The deputy was incompetent.
Only quoted Crocker but gave generalities on all other statements.
But he did ask if them leaving would have taking care of things and Crocker said yes.
Looks like if they hadn't changed their plans to taunt the old guy nothing would have happened.

Edited to add
Still doesn't justify the shooting but one more problem for the DA

That was a probable cause statement. It has no need to give more than an enough to establish that there is probable cause to charge the suspect and his own statements are more than enough. He admitted to 2nd degree murder and there were no claims by him that would mitigate it to manslaughter no matter how badly you wish there were.

The trial could simply be the ME presenting the autopsy info, whatever forensic evidence exists and then the arresting officer and who ever else took his statement reading it into evidence. He confessed and the elements of 2nd degree murder are all in his statement. His only hope is an insanity defense and I doubt he'll even be allowed to try that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
It may not be that easy after all how many times did you tell us that Zimmerman had confessed to murder.
Ill intent, disregard?
He wanted them to leave him alone.
But I forget he had a gun, that makes him guilty.

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Perhaps the floater company should arm all thier boats with twin 50's and the next time some moron starts talking shit and shooting warning shots just open up on his punk ass and solve his problem. Would not the floaters be within thier rights to do so?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Perhaps the floater company should arm all thier boats with twin 50's and the next time some moron starts talking shit and shooting warning shots just open up on his punk ass and solve his problem. Would not the floaters be within thier rights to do so?

Don't think that would be legal.

quote:

And when did I say Crocker was right, I have just been pointing out problems with proving murder.
Since some of you are coming up with such silly options I must be doing a good job.

quote:


Even if this had happened in Crocker's front yard he would have a problem.
Maybe when told to leave by an unarmed man they shouldn't say you can't make us.