Vigilante, hero, or killer?

[LodgeDodger]

I know the guy was in the wrong, but I'm so sick of the thugs getting their way in this city. As I'd stated earlier, I would have aimed for nether regions, but I still would made sure my point was made.

[DetroitTeacher]

My friend was broken into multiple times, during the day. She had to walk away from her home, even though it was the hardest thing she's done. The last straw was when they kicked in her front door. They have also broken out 4 windows to get in. She is a single female, living alone. She just didn't feel safe. She thought of an alarm but figured the police response wasn't going to be adequate. She wasn't home enough for a dog. Her thought was that the next time someone broke in, she might be home...by herself and would not be so lucky as to come out of the situation alive. I saw her frustration and can only imagine how someone might react to being robbed while home. I don't agree that the guy should have chased the robbers, though.

[Maple Leaf Rag]

821,792 - 1 = 821,791

[Diehard]

Two points:
1. The homeowner had no way of knowing whether the guy was armed or not. He did know, however, that the guy had intended to make a victim out of him.
2. For anyone who says "he might have made a mistake, but he didn't deserve to die!" - well, crime is dangerous. Anyone who tries to break into someone's home should fear that they could end up dead.

[smudge pot]

My prayers go out to Mr. Silas and his family. Silas, for being a dead fool, and his family for raising such a dumb shit. I feel sorry for Mr. Croff, but it doesn't sound like what he did rose to the level of heroism, or even vigilantism, at that.

The only reason he shot was that he got "dissed". That kind of makes him a thug. Typical ghetto BS, everything gets escalated at a faster rate than common sense can keep up with. Another story in the Naked City.

[Diehard]

One more thing:
THREE robberies in a WEEK? Who wouldn't snap at the sight of No. 4 creeping up on him?

[eno]

Not guilty

[Ocean2026]

If Detroit had conviction rates that were reasonably high I would say never take the law into your own hands but it doesn't. Criminals need to know that its not just the occasional police officer that they need to fear. In Texas its definitely ok to shoot an intruder if you believe there is criminal intent. I don't usually lock my door anyway -even when I'm gone.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

821,792 - 1 = 821,791

I'm assuming this is Detroit's current population?? Another big drop from the last census.

[Bigb23]

I don't usually lock my door anyway -even when I'm gone.

And what city in southern Texas do you live, OCEAN 2026 ? That flat screen must be pretty cheap on resale.

[ct_alum]

The guy is a cold-blooded murderer, pure and simple. What gives anyone the right to take someone's LIFE over a property crime? Yes, folks, that is what a B&E is. Any of you blood-thirsty right-wing nut jobs who want to justify his actions can resign from the human race right now. In my years on the job I have seen "man's inhumanity to man" up close and personal and even the worst examples did not justify summary execution. I thought that we are [[or were) a nation of laws, correct? This kind of knee-jerk rationale makes the people who espouse it no different than the savages that they rant and rave so loudly against. One type of person'e life is more valuable than somebody else's? Who gets to decide that? You? Pretty big shoes to fill, I would say.

.

[Tig3rzhark]

I'll consider the man a hero in the aspect that he did what DPD has failed to do, take him and all like him off of the streets, permanently.

I would encourage people in the city who really care about it and their own lives to purchase a weapon for their home defense, so if you are there and someone does break into your house, you have every right to use deadly force to make sure that you're protected. If they get away, call the cops. Take care of home. If you have the means to make recordings of what goes on in your home while you're gone then that would help when it's necessary to defend your actions in court.

My house has been broken through before. The man was never caught and the only evidence of police involvement was a report, and nothing happened afterward. In the end, only the armed citizenry will be able to get rid of the criminal element.

[Downtown Lady]

The penalty for robbery should be death anyway.

What the hell -- the penalty for robbery should be DEATH?

And for those so eager to be on the jury so they can vote not guilty, your vote on the jury is supposed to be in line with the law -- you don't get to make a decision based on your own personal opinion. Of course you can just disregard the law and decide whatever the hell you want, but why bother even having a court system then?

[DetroitDad]

What the hell -- the penalty for robbery should be DEATH?

And for those so eager to be on the jury so they can vote not guilty, your vote on the jury is supposed to be in line with the law -- you don't get to make a decision based on your own personal opinion. Of course you can just disregard the law and decide whatever the hell you want, but why bother even having a court system then?

Innocent until proven guilty.

He killed an innocent man.

[Chuck_MI]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...02514885833865#

Do not talk to the police. Especially if you have done something like this guy has purported to have done. What a dumb-ass.

You killed somebody while you were defending your property. Oh, wait, your property was still intact, but the potential perpetrator was on the loose. You killed him. It would have all worked out just fine had you not introduced your bad=ass dialog into the murder investigation. You shot yourself in the foot homeboy.

[ct_alum]

He wasn't "defending his property" - He chased him down the street and shot him well off of his property, making him an even bigger dumb ass because he had absolutley no justification whatsoever. It wouldn't "have worked out just fine" even if he hadn't used his bad ass dialog.

[Chuck_MI]

He wasn't "defending his property" - He chased him down the street and shot him well off of his property, making him an even bigger dumb ass because he had absolutley no justification whatsoever. It wouldn't "have worked out just fine" even if he hadn't used his bad ass dialog.

All that I am saying is that the shooter would be in a much better position to defend himself had he not blabbed a statement to the police. I am not defending him. I am merely pointing out that he violated a cardinal rule as regards to speaking to police when you are being questioned.

[Ravine]

What the hell; I'll vote on this one.
Everything I write, of course, assumes that the account is accurate.

He's certainly not a hero. He's not even close to a hero.

By definition, he is not a vigilante. The accepted broad definition of that term includes the word "justice." Fatally shooting a person with their arms upraised, because he was in your backyard and taunted you, is not "justice." What he may have been intending to do is a separate issue. He was in the backyard. Probably, he was more than a mere Peeping Tom, but we don't know that. It wouldn't be the first time a drunk failed to recognize that the property he was on was not his own. [[I was at the party store on my corner, today at about 6:00 PM, and there was a guy, attempting to come in as I was leaving, who-- very clearly-- was having maximum difficulty with the "grab handle and pull toward you" segment of the entry process.) In the same theme, while I no longer drink, there have been times when I had drank so much beer that, in a moment of excruciating, actually painful bladder distress, if I had no better options and thought I would get away with it, hell yes I would piss on your backyard lawn. I know it's wrong & disgusting, but I'm being honest.

And that leaves: Killer. I'm not even really "against" the guy; I hope he doesn't have to serve any time. But, at that moment, he was not in any mortal danger, the victim-to-be was guilty of no more than trespassing and had surrendered, and the guy killed him. And we can figure that killing him was the intention. After all, someone meaning to kill you with a gun may end up shooting you in a non-fatal way, but I would venture to say that someone meaning to shoot you in a non-fatal way is damned unlikely to kill you.

[Zacha341]

Yeah, he was angry and with things as they are the robbers family will probably sue him and WIN! I've talked to police officers etc. and some have advised that if you suspect someone in your home, hold up in your "safe" room, and call 911 and explain what is going on, giving your address. Then put the phone down so they are on the phone to hear you get out your gun... preferably a long gun and with the appropriate "rack" effect sound [[which may change the mind of some intruders).

Then, IF the person comes for you you may have to shoot... and it is all recorded on the 911 call for your protection - verifying that it all happened in YOUR HOUSE upon your person. These guys may have been repeat offenders so he should have just waiting in his home for them and used lethal force once they were inside if no other option worked [[alarms, arrival of the police), such a "warning" shot. Though it could be argued that he [[the homeowner or renter) could have been overtaken, but most basic b&e types will flea behind the 'boom' of a SHOT GUN blast even if aimed at the ceiling as a warning shot!

Some who really do not want to shoot to kill, set up a couple of warning shots using small pellet bird shot to perhaps wound or scare the invader - followed by deadly XX buck shot loads... [[if the point has STILL not been made). This is an less-than-lethal option not available with a hand gun. Thus more and more homeowners are legally purchasing shot guns that can accommodate various round types.

Once the person is in your property you have the law on your side here in Michigan. Once you give chase outside of your domain it gets dicey...

The law says "reasonable" force. I'd be mad as hell too, but you can't chase and shoot them away from you're domicile.

Just wait inside, and have at it.

[Zacha341]

Yep, Michigan law says the perp has to be on "your" premises. A well placed "ceiling" shot of bird-shot load from a handy shot gun [[which does not require good aim) may have scare these cowards... and given them pause to consider a re-visit. They wold not know if it were bird shot or XX load. Now this homeowner or renter may find himself rolling "his" fingers in the ink at an arraignment, and even bigger problems if his gun was not registered. His choice speaks to frustration, but a defense attorney is going to step forward shortly....

This sh%t may work down in Texas, but that's not how we do things, up here. The robbers were scumbags, but this is pretty clear-cut: you shoot an unarmed man that's not only given up and is now facing you, but has his hands up, to boot, and you're going to jail. Just that simple. Dude was probably the biggest dick in the world to taunt a guy with a gun, but simply being a dick isn't a justification to murder someone. Not even sure why this is posed as a question.

Mr. Tigh now rightfully has to pay the cost for wanting to be the boss, as they say. Oh well. Now, instead of being a rightfully aggrieved property owner, Tigh is little more than a common murderer, and over some damned property, no less. This isn't even one of those cases where he could have a legitimate argument that his life, or the life of those around him, may have been in danger. Now, instead of missing some DVD's and whatever the hell he had stolen from him, he's going to prison. What a dumbf%ck.

[Zacha341]

Yes, the occupation of being a robber is dangerous and had he shot them INSIDE his home there'd be nothing family members could do but call Coles funeral home. Now they have other calls to make.

Two points:
1. The homeowner had no way of knowing whether the guy was armed or not. He did know, however, that the guy had intended to make a victim out of him.
2. For anyone who says "he might have made a mistake, but he didn't deserve to die!" - well, crime is dangerous. Anyone who tries to break into someone's home should fear that they could end up dead.

[Zacha341]

Every legal gun owner does not fit into the neat package of being a NRA right-wing nut job. This is ESPECIALLY true of Detroiters who may choose to arm themselves in their homes etc. for self-protection. I am NOT justifying what happened in this specific case, but the right-winged gun nut "box" does not fit or sum up every gun owner or every instance to use lethal force.

The guy is a cold-blooded murderer, pure and simple. What gives anyone the right to take someone's LIFE over a property crime? Yes, folks, that is what a B&E is. Any of you blood-thirsty right-wing nut jobs who want to justify his actions can resign from the human race right now. In my years on the job I have seen "man's inhumanity to man" up close and personal and even the worst examples did not justify summary execution. I thought that we are [[or were) a nation of laws, correct? This kind of knee-jerk rationale makes the people who espouse it no different than the savages that they rant and rave so loudly against. One type of person'e life is more valuable than somebody else's? Who gets to decide that? You? Pretty big shoes to fill, I would say.

.

[GLHA-Contractor]

It amazes me how anyone can defend the innocence of a man that was caught right in someones home after breaking in. Yes, You are innocent until proven guilty, but that is a presumption of the law built into the wording of the law. How much presumption other than the formality of the legal proceeding do you extend to anyone charged with a crime when you are caught in the act. It is nothing more than a formality of the process. If you did, the crime, you know you did it, God knows, you did it, the person who caught you knows you did it. The only ones left to convince are the jury and the judge.

If you can get away with creating doubt in the minds of the jury and the judge, does that mean everything else is just everyone elses imagination? How stupid do you think everyone else is? I know some are bound to their limited education because they were too busy doing something other than learning when they were in school, but that does not change common sense, just because you do not subscribe to it.

It's pretty sad when we spend our time rationalizing out robbery and any other crime to the same level as the paperboy missing the proch and putting the paper onto the roof again.

For anyone that thinks that homeowners must all be bound by the laws that we never voted for, that our polycrats decide for us, that we have to go along with and when the last defense of our most private sanctom of our home is desecrated by a fool, those of you who think fools have the same rights as the homeowner, try a little informal survey...

Go kick in the front door of 50 homes and allow yourself to be discovered by the occupant and see how long it takes you to find out how they feel about you being there. I suspect, the first homeowner may cast his or her vote in your backside before you get to the next 49 homes.

The argument is not the homeowner. Guilt or innocence of the homeowner is just a sidetrack to the real issue. If the guy that broke into the house in the first place had not done it, then we would not even be having this discussion. His bad choice is what ultimately lead to his demise.

If this much energy was put into deciding to quit committing robbery, then people in Detroit could start leaving their lawn mowers out on the front lawn overnight again and not have to worry about if it will be there in the morning. Right now they still don't cuz it won't be, which in itself is pretty sad.

[9mile&seneca]

At least that's one DPD may be able to solve...

[EastSider]

I thought that we are [[or were) a nation of laws, correct?

This is Detroit we're talking about, where law and order is only a tv show.