Thread: Was this justice?

In most American states, no one can shoot someone except on their own property, and usually only within the dwelling. There's a joke, for example, that in Virginia if you shoot someone in your doorway, you must make sure they fall IN rather than away from the house.

This man gave chase and shot an unarmed man in the street. Unless he was similarly under threat from the victim, there's no justification for that. I don't even think it's wise for a police officer to shoot someone in this circumstance.

I notice that there was a hung jury on the charge. That means they can either drop the homocide or try him again on the charge. This looks like jury nullification, basically.

Originally Posted by Leo

Thanks for that - I had an idea that might have been the case. I just can't understand how the judge in this instance thought the man's actions were, at least in part, justified. Like a suspended three year sentence for murder? And two years for illegally discharging a firearm -what's that about?

This guy is lucky he isn't facing long time in prison.

The burglar turned and ran at Croff's arrival, and Croff gave chase for several blocks. When the burglar stopped and raised his hands, Croff told him the he was going to die, and shot him down in the street. That's not even manslaughter, that's cold blooded murder at that point.

The problem is, this is apparently a section of town where break-ins, vandalism and other such crimes are fairly common, at Croff's first trial, which included a charge of Murder-Two ended in a hung jury. Add in a somewhat sympathetic judge the second time, and you get a sentence of probation for the manslaughter charge.

The judge could not, however reduce the firearms charge, because the legislature has made it a crime with a minimum mandatory sentence of at least two years to use a gun while committing any other crime. Otherwise, the judge would no doubt have reduced that sentence as well. Unfortunately, everything the judge did was legal.

Originally Posted by Leo

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/in...h_croff_g.html

According to Croff (in another article), Silas stopped, put his hands in the air, and said "What are you going to do - shoot me?"

In the UK, an armed 32 year old who chased an unarmed middle-aged-to-elderly man for several blocks with the clear intent of killing him, caught up with him, and then told him he what he intended doing, before shooting him dead - all for attempting to break into his house, would not be charged with manslaughter, and would certainly not be given a suspended sentence for the crime.

But I am aware than the justice system is different in the USA (Castle Doctrine, and that sort of thing). My question being, does anyone here think this was (a) an appropriate charge, and (b) sentencing appropriate to the gravity of the crime?

In St. Louis Mr. Croft would have quite possibly been charged with 2nd or 3rd degree murder, almost certainly voluntary manslaughter.

Was it justice? No. Was Tigh Croff the first person to get away with murder? No, Will he be the last? No.

The jury system is not perfect, but it is better than the medieval trial by water.

Originally Posted by Leo

Basically this seems to come down to the attitude towards protecting inanimate property in our respective societies.

A bit over ten years ago, a Norfolk farmer shot and killed a young burglar who was in the process of breaking into one of his farm buildings. The farmer did not chase him, but he did shoot him as he was attempting to leave via the window. The farmer was charged with murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment (which was later reduced to ten years, as he was found to be mentally unstable).

The fact that the burglar did not attack the farmer and was attempting to withdraw convinced the jury that it was murder. But I suspect the law may be framed differently in the UK and the US. We do not, for example, have the 'Castle Doctrine' (and consider that unsound law), and you cannot exercise disproportionate violence when meeting a threat. So you cannot shoot someone dead if he is merely moving towards you in a threatening manner.
This can be inconvenient, especially if you are a "Make my day, punk!" type , but we consider it the more prudent course.

About the 'castle doctrine,' it makes sense in those places where the police are not quick to hand. There are plenty of homes in the US that may be 40 miles from the sheriff. The right to defend one's own property, rather than insisting that some authority do it, does make sense in a nation so obsessed with the rights and responsibilities of individuals. OHOH, I've seen enough personal narratives recounting incidents where a father has shot his son entering the house late and night, unannounced, to believe it's a rare sort of incident.

Nothing justifies shooting at a person who is withdrawing--and you'll notice that no one has come to this perpetrator's defense here.