# I told him he was going to die, and I shot him.



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 9, 2010)

Frustration with the criminal justice system can run high.  People want to do something about crime, and nobody likes burglars.  However, those who choose to go about armed also have to consider if their actions are going to be considered legal after the fact.

http://www.freep.com/article/201008...?-Shootings-highlight-frustrations-in-Detroit



> Today, Tigh Croff becomes the first to stand trial: a homeowner charged with second-degree murder for chasing down and fatally shooting a man Croff said he believed was about to break into his home.If convicted, Croff, 31, faces a potential life sentence. He's also charged with using a firearm in the commission of a felony, a crime that carries a mandatory two-year prison term.
> ...
> In the predawn of Dec. 28, 2009, Croff pulled into his driveway on Manistique after a shift as a private security guard. The headlights revealed two men at his side widow and door of his home.The men bolted through the yard and Croff ran after them. He was carrying two pistols, a 9mm and a .25-caliber. He pulled out the .25.
> Croff, who had a permit to carry a concealed pistol, caught Herbert Silas on Philip Street. Silas put his hands up.
> ...


----------



## Carol (Aug 9, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Frustration with the criminal justice system can run high.  People want to do something about crime, and nobody likes burglars.  However, those who choose to go about armed also have to consider if their actions are going to be considered legal after the fact.
> 
> http://www.freep.com/article/201008...?-Shootings-highlight-frustrations-in-Detroit



"Chasing down" - very important words right there.


----------



## terryl965 (Aug 9, 2010)

I understand the shooter view but when he said you are going to die he became the assaulant and must be dealt with as such. people are tired and feed up with the laws to protect the criminals of the world, victoms have no right it seems anymore, I do not have any answers how to make it better but to hold people accountable for their own actions.


----------



## MJS (Aug 9, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Frustration with the criminal justice system can run high. People want to do something about crime, and nobody likes burglars. However, those who choose to go about armed also have to consider if their actions are going to be considered legal after the fact.
> 
> http://www.freep.com/article/201008...?-Shootings-highlight-frustrations-in-Detroit


 
IMO, the only thing that I see wrong with this is the fact that he shot the guy.  Now, had he chased after him, held him at gunpoint and called the cops, well, maybe he wouldn't be facing the charges he is today.

And yes, I know....chasing after him was a dumb thing for him to do.  Doesnt seem like they actually gained access to the house and if they did, I didn't see anything that said they took anything.  Should he have even bothered to chase after them?  As I said, probably not.  Call the cops, provide them with good descriptions, and hope that they'll be caught.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 9, 2010)

To me, it's interesting that this man did what a lot of people say they would do.  I've read a lot of comments online from people who believe he is a hero.  So I get the point that resentment, fear, and anger are running deep.

To me, there is a pretty clear difference between self-defense and vigilante justice, but I think sometimes people have a hard time distinguishing that line.

If he had been at home and the men had entered and he shot them, I don't think he would be facing charges; he'd be another good guy taking lawful action to defend himself and his home.  Even if he had confronted them outside and they had stood their ground or attacked him, same thing.

I would even venture to say that if he had given pursuit and shot the man while he fled, he might have been OK legally (in some states it is legal for a citizen to use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspected felon when that citizen has personally witnessed the felony) but that's a bit more iffy and most likely subject to scrutiny.

That the suspect stopped, turned, and raised his hands in the air changes things.  The statement made by the homeowner didn't help, of course.  If he had said that he thought the man was about to charge him, he might have faced a different situation with regard to the police and DA, but if his statement is a true report of the events, I'm afraid he went well beyond what the law allows.

Personally, I would not pursue someone under those circumstances, but that's a personal choice on my part.  However, I would be thinking that the guys might be armed, and pursuing them is a serious risk to my life.  I'd secure my home and call the police.  Yes, they'd probably get away, but I don't want to put my life at risk to pursue fleeing suspects over property.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 9, 2010)

MJS said:


> IMO, the only thing that I see wrong with this is the fact that he shot the guy.  Now, had he chased after him, held him at gunpoint and called the cops, well, maybe he wouldn't be facing the charges he is today.
> 
> And yes, I know....chasing after him was a dumb thing for him to do.  Doesnt seem like they actually gained access to the house and if they did, I didn't see anything that said they took anything.  Should he have even bothered to chase after them?  As I said, probably not.  Call the cops, provide them with good descriptions, and hope that they'll be caught.



I don't even fault him for chasing the dude, although I don't think I would have.  One of the questions people should ask themselves before they even think about being in such a situation is _'what do I do with him if I catch him'_?  I don't mean he should have asked himself that question in that second, I mean he should have considered it long ago as a _'what if'_ scenario.

You chase after someone fleeing from a property crime, and you are putting yourself at risk; he may be armed, he may turn the tables on you and gain access to your gun, etc.  He may have a car waiting, full of friends who won't like you.  You could even slip and fall down or hurt yourself going over a fence, get shot by a neighbor as you race across their backyard in hot pursuit, etc.  Once you catch the dude, you may have to wrestle with him, and you don't have handcuffs, a radio to call for backup, or backup to call for anyway.  How do you subdue other than rendering him unconscious or dead if he decides to fight it out?

And presuming the guy does exactly what the homeowner says this guy did; turn and give up, putting his hands in the air; now what?  If he runs away, do you shoot him?  If he charges you?  Do you march him back to your house and somehow get the door unlocked, get him inside, and call the cops, all while hoping his accomplice doesn't circle back and take a pot-shot at you from the darkness?

For me, there's just too much risk here for property thieves.  Self-defense means defense of self.  I'm not a cop, I want to stop crime but I don't carry a badge.  Like you, I'd get a description, secure my home, call the police.  Yeah, it sucks that they're probably going to get away.


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 9, 2010)

If what was reported is correct, this guy shot a person in cold blood.  That is murder and he should be punished as such.

Many of these guys who say they would have chased the criminals down and done this and that are just living in a fantasy.  If nothing else, for a normal human being there are consequences that have to be dealt with when you do violence upon another human being.  Even if that violence is deserved.  It is one thing to _say _you would shoot someone and quite another to do it and watch the blood and life poor out of the person you just shot.


----------



## MJS (Aug 9, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> To me, it's interesting that this man did what a lot of people say they would do. I've read a lot of comments online from people who believe he is a hero. So I get the point that resentment, fear, and anger are running deep.


 
Comments on this forum, from similar cases or elsewhere?  Speaking for myself, and I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, due to forgetting, but I believe the only thing that I've said was that I feel that people should fight back.  I believe I've said that once the threat is over, that we should not continue beating the person.  



> To me, there is a pretty clear difference between self-defense and vigilante justice, but I think sometimes people have a hard time distinguishing that line.


 
I'd say this was a case of vigilante justice.  



> If he had been at home and the men had entered and he shot them, I don't think he would be facing charges; he'd be another good guy taking lawful action to defend himself and his home. Even if he had confronted them outside and they had stood their ground or attacked him, same thing.


 
Agreed.



> I would even venture to say that if he had given pursuit and shot the man while he fled, he might have been OK legally (in some states it is legal for a citizen to use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspected felon when that citizen has personally witnessed the felony) but that's a bit more iffy and most likely subject to scrutiny.


 
Thats true, and I dont know the laws where this guy lives.  



> That the suspect stopped, turned, and raised his hands in the air changes things. The statement made by the homeowner didn't help, of course. If he had said that he thought the man was about to charge him, he might have faced a different situation with regard to the police and DA, but if his statement is a true report of the events, I'm afraid he went well beyond what the law allows.


 
Agreed.



> Personally, I would not pursue someone under those circumstances, but that's a personal choice on my part. However, I would be thinking that the guys might be armed, and pursuing them is a serious risk to my life. I'd secure my home and call the police. Yes, they'd probably get away, but I don't want to put my life at risk to pursue fleeing suspects over property.


 
Good points.  Just because no weapon may have been visable, doesnt mean that the suspects didnt have weapons.


----------



## MJS (Aug 9, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't even fault him for chasing the dude, although I don't think I would have. One of the questions people should ask themselves before they even think about being in such a situation is _'what do I do with him if I catch him'_? I don't mean he should have asked himself that question in that second, I mean he should have considered it long ago as a _'what if'_ scenario.
> 
> You chase after someone fleeing from a property crime, and you are putting yourself at risk; he may be armed, he may turn the tables on you and gain access to your gun, etc. He may have a car waiting, full of friends who won't like you. You could even slip and fall down or hurt yourself going over a fence, get shot by a neighbor as you race across their backyard in hot pursuit, etc. Once you catch the dude, you may have to wrestle with him, and you don't have handcuffs, a radio to call for backup, or backup to call for anyway. How do you subdue other than rendering him unconscious or dead if he decides to fight it out?
> 
> ...


 
NOt 100% related to this, but its relevant to a point.  I think I've shared this story before, but here it is again:

This was a few years ago.  I took a call from a resident who said that her husband was chasing after someone, who was crank calling their house repeatedly.  A little backside to the incident.  Someone called a pizza place and placed a large order to be delivered.  When the driver got to the house, the homeowner declined the order, stating that nobody called.

This pissed off the driver, who did his own vigilante justice, but crank calling them.  Somehow, the womans husband figured out where the calls were coming from (a payphone) staked out the phone, was communicating with his wife via cell phone, and when he saw the guy, he gave chase.  

She calls 911 and is relaying to me, where her husband was going.  I told her repeatedly to tell him to stop chasing the car.  He had the plate, it matched the car, so stop, wait for the cops and let them do their job.

Just another case of someone doing something similar.  The risk to the other people on the road, the risk to the people involved....the risk to chasing after someone who tried to break into your house at night, when you dont know what may happen.

Back to this story though....you made good points.  Assuming you get the guy, what then?  It may be possible to hold him at gunpoint and use your cell phone.  Do you have the phone?  Do you know where you are?  Like I said, the guy was probably pissed off and acted on a knee jerk reaction.  If the guy wanted to do something, he'd have been better off chasing him and hitting him with his bare hands vs. shooting him.


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Aug 9, 2010)

Look where this happend, a hellhole run into the ground by Liberal and racial politics and a hands tied police force to boot.

 He killed a scumbag, I really dont care as the man lives in American Beruit.

 I'd have a differnt view if he did this in a low crime area but where he was good luck with getting a cop there on time, better to kill criminals and bleed their numbers and blunt their boldness.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 9, 2010)

MJS said:


> Comments on this forum, from similar cases or elsewhere?  Speaking for myself, and I apologize in advance if I'm wrong, due to forgetting, but I believe the only thing that I've said was that I feel that people should fight back.  I believe I've said that once the threat is over, that we should not continue beating the person.



I should have been more clear, sorry.  I meant comments about this specific case made in the media here in the Detroit area.  There are plenty of people who see this man as a hero.  And I do understand their feelings, even if I don't agree with them.  The shooter is a decent, hard-working man with no criminal background who had a low-paying job and manage to steer clear of the drugs, violence, gangs, and criminality that pervade the metro Detroit area.  He was truly being a 'good guy' in the way he was living his life, from what I can tell.

And people are really fed up with things in Detroit.  The police are hopelessly underfunded, not enough cops on the streets, the criminals practically run things, it's horrible.  People who can, flee to the suburbs.  Those who can't feel trapped inside Detroit, or angry because they feel their city no longer belongs to them.  It's really not good.

So I get the anger, resentment, and the idea that vigilante justice may not be the worst thing that can happen.  Unfortunately, it's not the answer either.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 9, 2010)

Carol said:


> "Chasing down" - very important words right there.


 
I think thi bit is rather important as well



> *Silas put his hands up*.
> "He turned around and looked dumb," Croff told investigators. "He had that mercy look like, 'Please don't do nothing.'


----------



## Hudson69 (Aug 9, 2010)

WC_lun said:


> If what was reported is correct, this guy shot a person in cold blood. That is murder and he should be punished as such.
> 
> Many of these guys who say they would have chased the criminals down and done this and that are just living in a fantasy. If nothing else, for a normal human being there are consequences that have to be dealt with when you do violence upon another human being. Even if that violence is deserved. It is one thing to _say _you would shoot someone and quite another to do it and watch the blood and life poor out of the person you just shot.


 
There was no cold blood here. The guy was attempting to burglarize his home; I have chased myself when I caught some guys stabbing my car tires for no reason (gun in hand).

"Even if that violence is deserved"? Have you ever been a victim? I don't agree with whacking someone if you catch them and they surrender but "watch the blood and life poor out of the person", really? If I have a reason to frag someone the only reason I would stay and watch is because of a safety issue or I am waiting for law enforcement.

I wont say this guy is right based off of the information (has this guy been a victim before, how truthful about the events and what was said is the media being and so on) but maybe the other guy who ran and got away will think twice about trying to break into someones home such as the elderly or where children are at or some other common victim that cannot adequately defend themselves.

My opinion only


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 9, 2010)

Hudson69 said:


> There was no cold blood here. The guy was attempting to burglarize his home; I have chased myself when I caught some guys stabbing my car tires for no reason (gun in hand).



One very practical question is here is what do you do with the gun when you catch the person?  You will have trouble restraining him with the gun in one hand, and if you holster it or set it aside, you stand a chance of having it taken from you.  I would consider chasing someone 'gun in hand' only if I were justified in firing that weapon.  For what other purpose would I have drawn it in the first place?

It is my opinion that too many people see a firearm as a magic wand.  You take it out, wave it a bit, and the situation gets better.  The situation seldom gets better after a gun is introduced, IMHO.



> I wont say this guy is right based off of the information (has this guy been a victim before, how truthful about the events and what was said is the media being and so on) but maybe the other guy who ran and got away will think twice about trying to break into someones home such as the elderly or where children are at or some other common victim that cannot adequately defend themselves.



Vigilante justice is seldom rewarded by the court system.  Extenuating circumstances are sometimes taken into consideration in terms of the degree of the crime, or in sentencing, in an attempt to recognize that (in this case) it may not have been cold-blooded, premeditated murder but rather the 'heat of passion', etc.  However, the law, properly speaking, does not care about whether the other guy will 'think twice about it' and so on.  These things are understandable as opinions (as you said yours was), but the law doesn't care.

This seems to me to be a good reason to think about such things ourselves.

I would not want to try to make a jury understand that I was just 'sending a message' to the thugs out there, whilst my home was being foreclosed on because I lost my job when I got arrested.  Know what I mean?  I have to go to work everyday.  I really don't have time to be arrested and prove to a court of law that those thugs needed to be taught a lesson and I was just the guy to do it.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Aug 9, 2010)

> "I told him he was going to die, and I shot him," Croff said.


 
Well THAT was a brilliant statement to give!

For all we know the home owner ment he told the guy to stop or else, and the theif tried to run or fight and for all practical purposes he was dead on his feet.

But you see, when you talk to cops, if you have a motor-mouth you can stay some pretty stupid things that can be taken many ways.

And that is why you a) tell the cops they dynamics of the situation, b) point out any evidence, and c) SHUT UP and ask for your lawyer.

Yes the guy may have ment he was gonna kill him no matter what, but he may have ment it another way.

And yes, he is in big do-do. Now he really needs a lawyer.

My only question is, why did he grab the .25 auto when he had a 9mm?

Weird.

Deaf


----------



## WC_lun (Aug 9, 2010)

Hudson69 said:


> There was no cold blood here. The guy was attempting to burglarize his home; I have chased myself when I caught some guys stabbing my car tires for no reason (gun in hand).
> 
> "Even if that violence is deserved"? Have you ever been a victim? I don't agree with whacking someone if you catch them and they surrender but "watch the blood and life poor out of the person", really? If I have a reason to frag someone the only reason I would stay and watch is because of a safety issue or I am waiting for law enforcement.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, I have been a victim.  More than once unfortunately.  I also live in a less than stellar neighborhood where burgularly and assault is common place.   So I'm not talking from a vaccumn of information.

If the information is correct then shooting the guy was cold-blooded.  The criminal wasn't resisting, attacking, or offering any threat.  In fact, according to the statement, he was pleading for his life in a manner of speaking.    As a criminal, he deserves to have his freedom taken away and I could even see him getting roughed up a bit.  Killing though?  Sorry, but I don't think of that as being even remotely justified.

The homeowner went from being innocent to being a criminal himself.  I can only imagine his family is going through hell as well.  Our actions have consequences.  Niether of the men involved in this story seem to have realized that.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Aug 9, 2010)

:rpo: :rpo: **FACEPALM**    :rpo: :rpo:


----------



## Balrog (Aug 10, 2010)

This is a sad story.  The guy did the right thing by cleaning some garbage out of the environment.  But he did it in the wrong way and now he's going to pay a heavy penalty.

Sad, sad, sad.


----------



## Hudson69 (Aug 10, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One very practical question is here is what do you do with the gun when you catch the person? You will have trouble restraining him with the gun in one hand, and if you holster it or set it aside, you stand a chance of having it taken from you. I would consider chasing someone 'gun in hand' only if I were justified in firing that weapon. For what other purpose would I have drawn it in the first place?
> 
> It is my opinion that too many people see a firearm as a magic wand. You take it out, wave it a bit, and the situation gets better. The situation seldom gets better after a gun is introduced, IMHO.
> 
> ...


 
Holsters are an under-rated tool and when going hands on that is what they are for.  If you have to take time to holster and the guy gets away then holster otherwise you risk an AD and remember there is a lawyer attached to every bullet and he doesn't get off until the bullet stops (sometimes never depending on what it hits).

Plus if the guy is compliant then just keep him at gunpoint until the cops arrive, nothing wrong with that.

A runner is a runner if you can catch him then do so but not to the point where you or someone innocent is at risk.  The guys statement though, about shooting him was not good (spoken mildly).

As far as guns go I dont think I would pursue a burglar with anything less as an option because you never know how a criminal has armed his or her self.

Last year in Colorado Springs, Colorado a CSPD Officer caught two burglars in the act and shot one, killing him and tazing the other.  http://www.springsgov.com/news.aspx?newsid=64  This was broad daylight in a low crime area. Sure it was the police who fired the shot but it could have been anyones home...


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 10, 2010)

Hudson69 said:


> Holsters are an under-rated tool and when going hands on that is what they are for.  If you have to take time to holster and the guy gets away then holster otherwise you risk an AD and remember there is a lawyer attached to every bullet and he doesn't get off until the bullet stops (sometimes never depending on what it hits).
> 
> Plus if the guy is compliant then just keep him at gunpoint until the cops arrive, nothing wrong with that.
> 
> ...



Here's the problem; if you have a gun in your hand and you are NOT legally justified in employing deadly force and the guy wants to wrestle with you, you have to either shoot him anyway, or find a place to put the firearm while you wrestle with him.

This was a standard drill when I was involved in law enforcement.  You don't draw unless you have authority to use deadly force.  Drawing the weapon and hoping someone gives up is fine; until they don't give up.  If you don't have the legal right to shoot them and they charge you, now you've got a problem.  A gun in the hand can be quite a liability when you're trying to defend yourself without using to shoot with.


----------



## Hudson69 (Aug 10, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Here's the problem; if you have a gun in your hand and you are NOT legally justified in employing deadly force and the guy wants to wrestle with you, you have to either shoot him anyway, or find a place to put the firearm while you wrestle with him.
> 
> This was a standard drill when I was involved in law enforcement. You don't draw unless you have authority to use deadly force. Drawing the weapon and hoping someone gives up is fine; until they don't give up. If you don't have the legal right to shoot them and they charge you, now you've got a problem. A gun in the hand can be quite a liability when you're trying to defend yourself without using to shoot with.


 
I am in law enforcement and I think that you cannot with good concious allow a burglar to go without a chase if you see them.  At the same time chasing after someone trying to break into your home without a gun when you have one is just as bad.

My last .02 only


----------



## MJS (Aug 11, 2010)

Well, a police officer has to make the same call....if you chase after someone, is the danger of chasing them less than the immediate danger to the public, should you let them go.  Or something like that.   So, in this case, the guys were in the process of breaking in.  He could have chased them, he could have gotten a good description, called the cops, and hopefully they would've caught them.  But if he chases them, whats he going to do when he catches them?  Do they have weapons?  If he has a weapon, and catches the badguys, what will he do then?  Shoot them?  Hold them at gunpoint?  Does he have a way to call for help?

Then again, we hear stories all the time, about people doing what this guy did, so its a judgement call at best, IMO.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 11, 2010)

Based on the story

Guy tries to break into house

Owner comes home

Guy runs away

Owner chases guy

Guy stopped, 

Guy surrendered, 

The guy did not appear to have any weapons 

The guy did not put owner in fear of his safety nor was there a threat of physical harm from guy towards owner

Owner shoots guy.

Owner was not justified to shoot

The owner is now the criminal


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Aug 11, 2010)

Xue Sheng said:


> Based on the story
> 
> Guy tries to break into house
> 
> ...


 
Yeah that pretty much covers it.

I've posted ad nauseam on the forums about the AOJ triad and it breaks down just the same way here.

All three elements (Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy) must be present AT THE SAME TIME to justify deadly force( some states require a fourth criteria called Preclusion)

Now in most states, had the entire crime taken place *inside* the shooter's home, under the Castle Doctrine, A-O-J would have been assumed and there would have been no duty to retreat.

The guy may have had the ABILITY( size/strength, weapon, whatever) to kill/gravely harm the homeowner, but as soon as he ran he removed OPPORTUNITY( close enough to carry out threat without obstacle or impediment) and along with it he removed JEOPARDY( not acting in such a way that a "reasonable person" in the homeowner's place with the homeowner's knowledge/training would conclude that they were in IMMINENT( "If I wait any longer it'll be too late") JEOPARDY of death or grave bodily harm.)

His first mistake was what we call RE-ENGAGEMENT--that is, once the dear departed broke and ran, that was the *end* of the encounter. His following him outside after that point made HIM the initial agressor in a second encounter.

Not being a police officer, he did not have the right of pursuit, and the single circumstance which would have given a citizen the right of pursuit( subject is known by the pursuer to be a continuing threat to the general public in an immediate, ongoing crime, such as a mall shooting for example) was not present.

Then, the subject stopped and surrendered. Not being a police officer, he has to either let him go, or *could* perform a citizen's arrest and take him and hold him at gunpoint( note I say *could*, that doesn't automatically equate with *should*--I've been shown *how* to take someone at gunpoint( and yes there is a right and wrong way to do so) but I never recommend it and would only do so in very limited circumstances which would not include a situation like this one described).

At this point, once again, Ability might be present but again, Opportunity and Jeopardy are not.

All must be present to put him in the clear to employ deadly force.

All were not.

Now , given the details of his actions/words in the report since then, what could have been an open/shut self defense case with no shots fired, is now an otherwise good guy probably going up on Murder One charges.


Two and a half MILLION successful defensive gun uses a year in America by good people, 15 out of every 16 of which never even require a single shot fired.

One guy who's watched too much TV.

What is the public going to remember?

*grumble mutter cuss harrumph*


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 11, 2010)

Hudson69 said:


> I am in law enforcement and I think that you cannot with good concious allow a burglar to go without a chase if you see them.  At the same time chasing after someone trying to break into your home without a gun when you have one is just as bad.
> 
> My last .02 only



A law enforcement officer has a duty to the public; and their terms of employment generally require that they respond as a law enforcement officer 24x7.  Therefore, the response expected of a police officer is very different from that expected from a citizen.  

A citizen may pursue a criminal if he or she wishes; however, they are themselves liable to be shot, hurt, or even sued if they break any laws themselves as they pursue the criminal.  The law enforcement officer is protected by training, equipment, radio to request backup, actual backup, and a liability insurance policy through his employer or police benevolent association that protects him from any except the most grievous breaches of the law.  

In other words, if he gets attacked, he has been trained to deal with it and it's in the normal course of his duties.  If he has to shoot, he knows the law concerning employment of deadly force.  He is probably wearing a vest, he has a number of weapons with him, including the means to restrain a criminal once he brings him down, and he has a radio to call for help. If he gets sued, the city he works for will protect him and pick up the tab if there is a settlement.  

The homeowner has NONE of those things.

Cops are required to chase crooks.  That's their job.  You may recall I used to carry a badge, I know the game.  But I am not a cop now.  Chasing crooks is not my job. My first priority is to my own self.  I can't protect my family if I'm dead, I can't feed them if I get my *** sued off, I can't pay the rent with no job.  Therefore, I won't go chasing around in the dark after some guy who was trying to break into my house.  I'll secure my residence, call 911, and file a report.  I have insurance, and my gun is to protect my life, not my aluminum siding.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 11, 2010)

MJS said:


> But if he chases them, whats he going to do when he catches them?  Do they have weapons?  If he has a weapon, and catches the badguys, what will he do then?  Shoot them?  Hold them at gunpoint?  Does he have a way to call for help?



That's the key, I think.

Imagine this.  You chase after the guy.  He gets tired and stops.  You order him to put his hands in the air.  He says, _"No, I'm going to walk away now."_  And then he does.

What do you do now?

Or here's another.  You stop the guy, he puts his hands up and says _"I give up."_  You order him to come with you and he refuses.  Nope, not going anywhere.  Now what?


----------



## Gaius Julius Caesar (Aug 11, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> One very practical question is here is what do you do with the gun when you catch the person? You will have trouble restraining him with the gun in one hand, and if you holster it or set it aside, you stand a chance of having it taken from you. I would consider chasing someone 'gun in hand' only if I were justified in firing that weapon. For what other purpose would I have drawn it in the first place?
> 
> It is my opinion that too many people see a firearm as a magic wand. You take it out, wave it a bit, and the situation gets better. The situation seldom gets better after a gun is introduced, IMHO.
> 
> ...


 

 If you catch him and the weapon is in your hand and he attacks you (or comes toward you "You aint gonna shoot me.") you put 2 in his torso and one in his skull. If he keeps running , well the law says you can't kill himn and I probably would not either for the legal hassles you bring up.

 If he stops and is smart he will surrender if not you purify the gene pool a little.

 Granted I would not chase someone very far and it depends greatly on what they have taken.

 Another reason I am moving to the country, out there on your property you can do what you think is tacticly and morally correct alot easier than in the burbs or a city.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 11, 2010)

Gaius Julius Caesar said:


> If you catch him and the weapon is in your hand and he attacks you (or comes toward you "You aint gonna shoot me.") you put 2 in his torso and one in his skull. If he keeps running , well the law says you can't kill himn and I probably would not either for the legal hassles you bring up.



If you're not justified in shooting him if he refuses to stop, then why are you chasing him?  You endanger yourself for no reason.  He could be armed and kill you.  He could be a better fighter than you.  He could have friends and lead you right to them.  You could even trip in the dark and break your leg.  What is the point of chasing someone when you won't be able to do anything to them when you catch them, other than shoot them if they happen to attack you?



> If he stops and is smart he will surrender if not you purify the gene pool a little.



Cell block A is going to purify your gene pool a little when you get to prison and they find out you're there for venting one of their buddies.  Good luck being a bad man's boyfriend.



> Granted I would not chase someone very far and it depends greatly on what they have taken.
> 
> Another reason I am moving to the country, out there on your property you can do what you think is tacticly and morally correct alot easier than in the burbs or a city.



I wish you the best and hope you never decide to behave the way you talk.


----------



## Carol (Aug 11, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's the key, I think.
> 
> Imagine this.  You chase after the guy.  He gets tired and stops.  You order him to put his hands in the air.  He says, _"No, I'm going to walk away now."_  And then he does.
> 
> ...



Ever see that calendar, 365 uses for Duct Tape?   I think I just thought of a 366th


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 12, 2010)

Carol said:


> Ever see that calendar, 365 uses for Duct Tape?   I think I just thought of a 366th



A good argument for carrying duct tape with you.  Of course, if you don't happen to have any...


----------



## Hudson69 (Aug 16, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> A law enforcement officer has a duty to the public; and their terms of employment generally require that they respond as a law enforcement officer 24x7. Therefore, the response expected of a police officer is very different from that expected from a citizen.
> 
> A citizen may pursue a criminal if he or she wishes; however, they are themselves liable to be shot, hurt, or even sued if they break any laws themselves as they pursue the criminal. The law enforcement officer is protected by training, equipment, radio to request backup, actual backup, and a liability insurance policy through his employer or police benevolent association that protects him from any except the most grievous breaches of the law.
> 
> ...


 
Okay, this really is my last .02 but I wanted to clarify an earlier statement.  I wasn't talking about being in uniform and chasing someone.  I was saying that if you are willing and able to stand up for what is right and not let bandits like this get away then give chase; not necessarily kack them when you catch them.

I do know how I would handle passive resistance to being detained and how I would handle active resistance but that is part of the being able to pursue.

I understand where some people will not chase because they are apprehensive about the liabilities related to this but I, personally, feel that as a citizen of this country and member of this society then I need to stick up for what is right.  Allowing a burglar or pair of burglars get away without so much as a chase then I am doing a dis-service to myself and my community because all I will have done is embolden them for another attempt somewhere else, maybe against someone less able to defend themselves or their family.  

The martial arts training alone is reason enough since I dont go to classes to learn a set series of movements for the sake of learning the movements.  I study the combative arts for a reason, anything less is just a dance and I would pursue if I was not a minorly skilled H2H practitioner or an LEO because in my eyes I have to because it is the right thing to do - and again be willing to apply the necessary force to finish what I start and not just kack somebody once I catch them because then I am no better, if not worse than the bandits I am trying to stop.

This is just how I feel about it, I wanted to clarify my earlier statement and just to let you know Bill, I had no idea you used to be in law enforcement


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 16, 2010)

Hudson69 said:


> Okay, this really is my last .02 but I wanted to clarify an earlier statement.  I wasn't talking about being in uniform and chasing someone.  I was saying that if you are willing and able to stand up for what is right and not let bandits like this get away then give chase; not necessarily kack them when you catch them.
> 
> I do know how I would handle passive resistance to being detained and how I would handle active resistance but that is part of the being able to pursue.
> 
> I understand where some people will not chase because they are apprehensive about the liabilities related to this but I, personally, feel that as a citizen of this country and member of this society then I need to stick up for what is right.  Allowing a burglar or pair of burglars get away without so much as a chase then I am doing a dis-service to myself and my community because all I will have done is embolden them for another attempt somewhere else, maybe against someone less able to defend themselves or their family.



That is a choice people have to make for themselves.  I never told anyone not to pursue; I offered good and logical reasons why a person might want to think twice about it.  Personally, I would not do it under those circumstances.  My ending up dead doing 'a service for my community' would be cold comfort for my wife.  Who would pay her my salary, you?

So she would be out on the street with no job and no money and I'd be dead, but I've have 'done my duty' to the community.  Hey, I'm a veteran, and I worked in civilian law enforcement too.  I've **done** my duty.  Now my duty is to myself and my family, period.  But that's just me.



> The martial arts training alone is reason enough since I dont go to classes to learn a set series of movements for the sake of learning the movements.  I study the combative arts for a reason, anything less is just a dance and I would pursue if I was not a minorly skilled H2H practitioner or an LEO because in my eyes I have to because it is the right thing to do - and again be willing to apply the necessary force to finish what I start and not just kack somebody once I catch them because then I am no better, if not worse than the bandits I am trying to stop.
> 
> This is just how I feel about it, I wanted to clarify my earlier statement and just to let you know Bill, I had no idea you used to be in law enforcement



No problem.  I recognize that people have to make their own decisions.  You do what you think is right, I do what I think is right.  However, I would not counsel people do automatically run after criminals as this guy did; I point out that there are dangers involved that the average homeowner might not even be aware of.  From falling in the dark and hurting themselves to being attacked to being sued, or even finding oneself arrested for taking actions that were 'iffy' in terms of legally; most of us have to go to work in the morning, and most of us don't have a huge stash of money for lawyers and doctors.

Duty to my community?  Absolutely!  But my duty to my family comes first.  That means staying alive, healthy, and employed to the extent that I can control it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Aug 25, 2010)

Once they fled his property, he would have been better served to have called the police.  Chasing them down, as Bill pointed out, is very risky, especially if there is more than one person.

If the report is accurate, this man acted very foolishly.

Daniel


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 25, 2010)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Once they fled his property, he would have been better served to have called the police.  Chasing them down, as Bill pointed out, is very risky, especially if there is more than one person.
> 
> If the report is accurate, this man acted very foolishly.
> 
> Daniel



Just an update: there was a hung jury.  So he gets tried again.  Next trial begins August 30.

http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=12999094



> DETROIT (AP) - A judge has declared a mistrial for a Detroit homeowner on trial for manslaughter in the shooting death of a man he caught breaking into his house.
> Tigh Croff went on trial for second-degree murder, but Wayne County Circuit Judge Michael Hathaway last week reduced the charge to manslaughter.
> ...
> Authorities say Croff chased Silas to the next street, where they say the drunken burglar taunted Croff before Croff shot him.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 19, 2011)

Another Update:  Tigh Croff has been convicted of Manslaughter and sentenced to prison.

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/01/conviction_of_detroit_man_who.html



> *Conviction of Tigh Croff, Detroit homeowner who killed burglar, proof that justice can frustrate*
> 
> 
> Sometimes, justice can be tough to digest. I'm not talking about  miscarriages of justice or justice deferred either. Sometimes, justice   fair, honest decisions guided by facts and the rule of law  can still  leave you feeling ticked off and dissatisfied.
> ...


...


> Croff, 32, will have to serve a mandatory two years in prison for  the firearm offense, plus up to 15 years for the manslaughter  conviction. Judge Michael Hathaway allowed Croff to remain free on bond  pending the Feb. 18 sentencing.The case drew wide attention as a test of  a homeowner's license to protect his property.
> 
> 
> "I  can understand the frustration of people and crime, but this is not a  free-fire zone," said Assistant Prosecutor Molly Kettler.
> ...



For those who do not recall this case, a quick recap.  Croff, a security guard with a clean record, came home and caught two men attempting to break into his house.  He chased one of them down on foot.  When he caught up with the man, the man stopped, turned, raised his hands, and said "What are you going to do, shoot me?"  Croff replied that yes, he was going to shoot him.  Then he did, killing the man.  He told police the same story.  He was arrested and charged with murder.  His first trial ended in a hung jury.  This is the result of the second trial.

You can defend yourself with deadly force.  You cannot chase down a person who tried to break into your house, and when he surrenders, shoot him.  Unfortunate situation, but the result is reflective of our laws.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 19, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Another Update: Tigh Croff has been convicted of Manslaughter and sentenced to prison.
> 
> http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2011/01/conviction_of_detroit_man_who.html
> 
> ...


His course of action was unfortunate. While I am 200% behind a homeowner defending him or herself with lethal force, I am not behind chasing down the guy and killing him after he surrenders. 

For one, people need to think about what they plan to do with the would-be burglar once they catch them. Hold them at gunpoint and wait for the police to arrive? Bind them with duct tape? Give them a stern talking to and then tell them to get out? Shoot them to wound? Or kill them? Or take them hostage, set up a sophisticated set of electrodes, capacitors, and such in order to harness the electrical energy of the human body as a charging station for your i-pod?

He might have been better off if he'd shot them on the spot. Once it got to 'are you going to shoot me?' and answering, 'yup. Hey buddy, yer dead' it was beyond being able to say, 'I saw them and thought that they were dangerious so I shot at them before they gained entry to my home,' which may have elicited greater sympathy from a jury.

Thanks for the update, Bill.

Daniel


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 19, 2011)

The absolute worst parts of the story for this guy, from a juries perspective, is not that he pursued........it's from his own statements about the guy giving him 'the mercy look', him then telling him that he was going to do, and shooting him.

Why would you admit to that?!  Doing it is one thing, but being proud enough of it to admit it to the police?  That's dumb.

It's also what may likely hang him in front of a jury.......he obviously wasn't in fear for his life, and his statements lend credibility to pre-meditation.

'It was dark........he reached for something......I was in fear for my life.......I want my lawyer'........far better choice of words!

Who tells the rest as if they were bragging, even if they did it?  Sounds like he's not the brightest bulb on the tree.


----------



## Steve (Jan 19, 2011)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 'It was dark........he reached for something......I was in fear for my life.......I want my lawyer'........far better choice of words!



Even if it's not true?  That's a little scary, actually. 

Reminds me of this from South Park:  OH MY GOD!  It's coming right for us!!! 

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Even if it's not true? That's a little scary, actually.
> 
> Reminds me of this from South Park: OH MY GOD! It's coming right for us!!!
> 
> http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us


 

Actually I would have avoided the situation, myself........but IF I was stupid enough to do it, I sure wouldn't be stupid enough to be honest about why.......I've been around enough lawyers to know better than that...........quite frankly your mindset is only knowable by you. Never lie about a material fact, but your mindset is not a material fact..........but I promise you, even if your shooting was justified, and you say something stupid about your mindset, it will come back to haunt you!

Quite frankly I would not shoot anyone unless I was in fear for my life or someone else's. 

That's a little legal self-defense advice, free of charge, so take it for what it's worth..........because as someone who interrogates people for a living, I know intimately what words i'm looking for when talking to someone.........and this guys words are key to arguing premediation, without ever revealing a discoverable material fact.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Feb 18, 2011)

Breaking news update:

http://www.freep.com/article/201102...on-killing-suspected-burglar?odyssey=nav|head



> *Detroit homeowner sentenced to 2 years in prison for killing suspected burglar*
> 
> 
> Wayne County Circuit Judge Michael Hathaway sentenced Detroit  homeowner Tigh Croff  to a mandatory two years in prison this morning  for using a gun in the commission of a crime for the December 2009  killing of a suspected burglar.Croff' was also sentenced to three years' probation for manslaughter, a significant departure from sentencing guidelines.
> ...



It may not be over yet - the DA is challenging the light sentence given by the judge, which departs from mandatory sentencing requirements.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Feb 22, 2011)

Gaius Julius Caesar said:


> Look where this happend, a hellhole run into the ground by Liberal and racial politics and a hands tied police force to boot.
> 
> He killed a scumbag, I really dont care as the man lives in American Beruit.
> 
> I'd have a differnt view if he did this in a low crime area but where he was good luck with getting a cop there on time, better to kill criminals and bleed their numbers and blunt their boldness.


 

If the man was a violent criminal I might agree with you, but because he was apparently at his mercy, then this guy is a WORSE criminal for doing what he did in the name of so called "justice".


----------



## elwin (Mar 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Frustration with the criminal justice system can run high. People want to do something about crime, and nobody likes burglars. However, those who choose to go about armed also have to consider if their actions are going to be considered legal after the fact.
> 
> http://www.freep.com/article/201008...?-Shootings-highlight-frustrations-in-Detroit


 
Totally un-justified considering the situation. Yeah he should have ran after them to catch one or possibly both, but should he have killed him? NO! Should he have made an example of him? Absolutely! 

Hit him with the gun, maybe shoot him through the knee, then call the police to take him away. Leave him with something that will make him remember that day for the rest of his life, swearing never to do something like that again. 

No-ones life needed to be in danger anymore after the situation was disabled.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 2, 2011)

It's stupid to chase after people anyway unless you're a cop and that's your job. What if the burglar pulled a gun the driver did? It's idiocy to chase down potentially dangerous people just to get some sort of sick self-satisfaction.


----------

