Another coward magically becomes a tough guy when holding a gun

zappasguitar

Well-known member
“I have the power, I have the power”

That's what gun-wielding tough guy James Crocker yelled at the two men he found on his property before shooting the man who tried to calm the situation, point blank in the face.


Missouri man faces new charges after shooting canoer he caught urinating on property line


Steelville, Missouri homeowner James Crocker, already under arrest after shooting a man he believed to be a trespasser point-blank in the face, now faces additional charges related to the incident.

The incident, which cost Paul Franklin Dart his life, began after Dart and his family rented canoes and embarked down the Meremac River early on that June morning. When they reached the property of James Crocker — five hours later — Dart and his stepson Josh Kling went into the woods to urinate. There, Crocker confronted them with a loaded 9 mm handgun.

The man who rented the Darts the canoes, Paul Wilkerson, told the St. Louis Post Dispatch that the family had signed a release saying that they would avoid littering and politely listen to the requests of any property owners they should encounter. Crocker told police that the Darts did nothing of the sort, responding to his request to vacate his property by yelling “they weren’t going to leave and that the gravel bar was public property.”


According to witnesses, Crocker replied “I have the power, I have the power,” to which Kling responded “Put that gun down and we’ll see who has the power.” Kling then picked up a rock. At this point, Paul Dart attempted to intervene, standing between Crocker and Kling.

“My husband tried to calm the guy down,” Loretta Dart told the Post-Dispatch. “He went to the guy’s arm to try to stop him, but the guy jerked back and popped him in the face…I watched him be shot in the face and fall down. I watched my husband bleed to death. He was a wonderful man. He didn’t deserve this.”

Explaining himself to police, Crocker said “I just shot the one closest to me.”

This incident is just the latest to call attention to the so-called “castle doctrine,” the more lenient cousin of justifiable homicide that allows homeowners who feel imperiled to defend themselves and their property with lethal force. Justifiable homicide statutes, in contrast, require people to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an attempt was being made on their lives or the life of someone else close to them.

The question in this case is whether the Darts were actually on Crocker’s property. State law in Missouri dictates that waterfront properties extend to the middle of the river on which they’re situated. Much like a road, these rivers are considered public easements, available for use by all. But the land immediately adjacent is usually considered private property, and Crocker had posted signs to that effect at regular intervals along the vegetation line. However, given that the location of the vegetation line changes from year to year, Missouri law states that land adjacent to a “navigable stream” is part of the public easement.

What constitutes a “navigable stream” is itself up for debate. A Missouri lawyer contacted by the Post-Dispatch, Harry Styron, said that “[t]hese cases are really very confusing. They are difficult to interpret. You are on private property, but you have a right to be there if it’s a navigable stream and as long as you are on a gravel bar that is submerged during parts of the year, because it’s part of the stream bed.”


However, he added that the definition navigable “obviously doesn’t have anything to do with people shooting people. We don’t have a stand-your-gravel-bar law yet.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/...-canoer-he-caught-urinating-on-property-line/
 
Didn't you already post this one?

But again...

1) he asked them to leave his property, instead of arguing, they could have said ok and left his property.
2) when one of them picks up a rock and becomes aggressive, he has a right to defend himself
3) The guy who tried to grab him when he was holding a gun and clearly agitated was an idiot for doing so. Why not instead get his friend to drop the rock and get back in the canoe? Had he been smart instead of stupid, he would be alive today.
 
Didn't you already post this one?

But again...

1) he asked them to leave his property, instead of arguing, they could have said ok and left his property.
2) when one of them picks up a rock and becomes aggressive, he has a right to defend himself
3) The guy who tried to grab him when he was holding a gun and clearly agitated was an idiot for doing so. Why not instead get his friend to drop the rock and get back in the canoe? Had he been smart instead of stupid, he would be alive today.

Kindly show everyone where it states the man shot "grabbed" the one with the gun.
 
shooting some for peeing next to a river is sociopathic.

why do you on the right love sociopathy so much?
 
Kindly show everyone where it states the man shot "grabbed" the one with the gun.

“My husband tried to calm the guy down,” Loretta Dart told the Post-Dispatch. “He went to the guy’s arm to try to stop him, but the guy jerked back and popped him in the face…I watched him be shot in the face and fall down. I watched my husband bleed to death. He was a wonderful man. He didn’t deserve this.”

Here is a more unbiased accounting...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_a2774d0e-578c-5d01-89e2-d334dbe7c9c3.html

Again, they had the ability to leave, they chose instead to be confrontational. They chose to be aggressive. They provoked the man with the gun... on his own property, which they refused to leave. All they had to do was leave. But they chose not to. Why?
 
shooting some for peeing next to a river is sociopathic.

why do you on the right love sociopathy so much?

Pissing on another persons property and then refusing to leave when asked is fucking retarded. Picking up rocks when the property owner has a gun is fucking retarded. Trying to calm the guy with the gun rather than get your friend to drop the rocks is fucking retarded. Trying to grab the guy with the guns arm is fucking retarded.
 
Here is a more unbiased accounting...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_a2774d0e-578c-5d01-89e2-d334dbe7c9c3.html

Again, they had the ability to leave, they chose instead to be confrontational. They chose to be aggressive. They provoked the man with the gun... on his own property, which they refused to leave. All they had to do was leave. But they chose not to. Why?

Odd that I don't see the word "grabbed" or the phrase "grabbed his arm" anywhere in the highlighted portion.

"Went to his arm" indicates he merely stepped to one side of the man, and was then shot.
 
they like it when having a gun means you can kill anyone you want to if you make up a good enough reason
 
Pissing on another persons property and then refusing to leave when asked is fucking retarded. Picking up rocks when the property owner has a gun is fucking retarded. Trying to calm the guy with the gun rather than get your friend to drop the rocks is fucking retarded. Trying to grab the guy with the guns arm is fucking retarded.

And threatening unarmed people with a gun is just another chickenshit move from a coward too scared to deal with his fellow humans unless he's "got the power"!
 
Odd that I don't see the word "grabbed" or the phrase "grabbed his arm" anywhere in the highlighted portion.

"Went to his arm" indicates he merely stepped to one side of the man, and was then shot.

lmao... ok Zappa... which is why he 'jerked back'... understood. It doesn't say 'he merely stepped to one side of the man'.

Two things that suggest I am right and you are wrong...

1) The article states he jerked back, that is typical terminology from when someone grabs you, not when someone steps to the side of you.

2) If he 'merely stepped to the side of him'... then the article would not have said he was standing between the gunman and the man with the rocks. If he was to the side of him why would the gunman not shoot the greater threat? Which would be the man with the rocks that would now be in front of him not the man 'merely stepping to his side'.

Again... the man should have stopped his friend from escalating the event. But they were drunk according to the witness and they obviously acted foolishly.
 
they like it when having a gun means you can kill anyone you want to if you make up a good enough reason

Yup...it's shoot whoever you want right now and get your story straight while waiting for the police.

Incidentally...MISSOURI STATE LAW dictates that waterfront properties extend to the middle of the river on which they’re situated. Much like a road, these rivers are considered public easements, available for use by all. But the land immediately adjacent is usually considered private property, and Crocker had posted signs to that effect at regular intervals along the vegetation line. However, given that the location of the vegetation line changes from year to year, Missouri law states that land adjacent to a “navigable stream” is part of the public easement.
 
And threatening unarmed people with a gun is just another chickenshit move from a coward too scared to deal with his fellow humans unless he's "got the power"!

The only people to witness it were friends of the deceased moron. So they could claim he said and acted any way they want. It is many vs. one.

But you don't care about what they did, you simply care that one of the idiots got himself shot. You just want to rant against guns.
 
lmao... ok Zappa... which is why he 'jerked back'... understood. It doesn't say 'he merely stepped to one side of the man'.

Two things that suggest I am right and you are wrong...

1) The article states he jerked back, that is typical terminology from when someone grabs you, not when someone steps to the side of you.

2) If he 'merely stepped to the side of him'... then the article would not have said he was standing between the gunman and the man with the rocks. If he was to the side of him why would the gunman not shoot the greater threat? Which would be the man with the rocks that would now be in front of him not the man 'merely stepping to his side'.

Again... the man should have stopped his friend from escalating the event. But they were drunk according to the witness and they obviously acted foolishly.


From the article:

According to witnesses, Crocker replied “I have the power, I have the power,” to which Kling responded “Put that gun down and we’ll see who has the power.” Kling then picked up a rock. At this point, Paul Dart attempted to intervene, standing between Crocker and Kling.

Right there in the article...maybe you should take a minute and read it.
 
Yup...it's shoot whoever you want right now and get your story straight while waiting for the police.

Incidentally...MISSOURI STATE LAW dictates that waterfront properties extend to the middle of the river on which they’re situated. Much like a road, these rivers are considered public easements, available for use by all. But the land immediately adjacent is usually considered private property, and Crocker had posted signs to that effect at regular intervals along the vegetation line. However, given that the location of the vegetation line changes from year to year, Missouri law states that land adjacent to a “navigable stream” is part of the public easement.

So signs were posted saying it was private property, they ignored it, then when asked to leave they not only refused, but escalated the situation. Real fucking smart.
 
From the article:

According to witnesses, Crocker replied “I have the power, I have the power,” to which Kling responded “Put that gun down and we’ll see who has the power.” Kling then picked up a rock. At this point, Paul Dart attempted to intervene, standing between Crocker and Kling.

Right there in the article...maybe you should take a minute and read it.

yes moron, which is exactly what I stated. He was standing between the men... so how is it that he 'merely stepped up to the side of Crocker' as you claimed?
 
The only people to witness it were friends of the deceased moron. So they could claim he said and acted any way they want. It is many vs. one.

But you don't care about what they did, you simply care that one of the idiots got himself shot. You just want to rant against guns.

The only witness to George Zimmerman's murder of Trayvon Martin was Zimmerman himself...and you accepted every word from him as fact.

Suddenly you don't want to accept witness statements?

Very curious? Why would that be?
 
So signs were posted saying it was private property, they ignored it, then when asked to leave they not only refused, but escalated the situation. Real fucking smart.

They were doing nothing illegal and rudeness isn't a crime.

Missouri law says they have a right to use the river and it's adjoining banks.
 
The only witness to George Zimmerman's murder of Trayvon Martin was Zimmerman himself...and you accepted every word from him as fact.

Suddenly you don't want to accept witness statements?

Very curious? Why would that be?

No, I didn't. The evidence supported his story (note, it did not prove it, but it most certainly was more viable than the prosecutions claims). His defensive wounds suggested he was telling the truth. The evidence was not there for a 2nd degree murder charge.
 
Back
Top