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

[Hudson69]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.



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.

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]

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]

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?

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

 

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Yesterday's conviction of Detroit homeowner Tigh Croff on charges of manslaughter and using a firearm in the commission of a felony has left a lot of Metro Detroiters with just those feelings — myself included.

Croff, a security guard, was convicted barely more than a year after he chased down, shot and killed a burglar he'd caught breaking into his east side home.

...

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.


Amos King, the victim's brother, agreed: "You cannot just shoot an unarmed man."

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]

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


...


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.

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]

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]

'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]

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]

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.

...
Prosecutor Molly Kettler said that the law can’t allow vigilante justice and that society can’t see “Silas as a piece of garbage and we’re better off without him and Mr. Croff is the hero."

...
Croff chased Silas for about two blocks before firing the fatal shot as Silas turned with raised hands. In a statement to police, Croff said Silas gave him “that mercy look.”
“I told him he was going to die and I shot him,” Croff told police.
Croff was convicted a month ago in a retrial. His first trial, during which Hathaway reduced the charge from second-degree murder to manslaughter, ended with a hung jury.
Kettler said that she understood residents’ frustration with crime “but this is not a free fire zone.”

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