Man charged with murdering canoeist, castle defense?

[Noomi]

The question seems to be whether or not the boaters were on his property or not.
And who the **** shoots and kills someone just because someone pissed on the grass?
The boaters only picked up rocks to protect themselves from someone with a gun. They had a right to defend themselves as there is no evidence (yet) that they were in the wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, there’s nothing ‘wrong’ with castle doctrine/SYG laws; the problem is the ignorance of such laws by citizens and LE and their improper implementation and interpretation.

Every gun owner must know and understand the laws of his state and jurisdiction and abide by them, and be prepared to suffer the consequences if he doesn’t.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They couldn't find a picture of the shooter as a 14 year old kid?

 

[editec]

The death penalty for urinating on somebody's (maybe) sandbar?!

Seems a tad excessive to me.

 

[koshergrl]

They didn't get shot for pissing. They got shot for advancing on an armed man, after being told to leave and to stop, armed with rocks and ready to do some damage.

 

[Katzndogz]

It became self defense the minute they started throwing rocks. The property owner had a legal right to be where he was. The rock throwers had no right to be on private property. They had a right to use the navigable water, but not to piss on private property.

The property owner should be acquitted, he was in fear of his life and had a right to shoot.

 

[Missourian]

Yeah except they weren't on his property. They were on a gravel bar in the river.

Had that been the case, they would not have been trespassing.

In Missouri, landowner property rights end at the water line.

The only exception is portaging.

Portaging means the that in location where the waterway is impassable, carrying the craft overland to bypass the obstruction is permissible.

Like I said, I canoe and kayak Missouri waterways, and that has been the benchmark for as long as I can remember.

When I fish the creeks and streams, I put on my chest waders and don't step out of the water until I am in an area that is owned my the state.

All public road and bridge crossings are public right of ways, as are Department of Conservation Access Areas, which are numerous.

I found the MDC paddlers guide online edition...here is the link to the Trespassing Section... A Paddlers Guide to Missouri*

According to the Meramec section of the guide, there are AT LEAST four areas in that stretch of river where it was legal to land.

Here is the page, I believe this incident occurred at MM 44.4...A Paddlers Guide to Missouri*

*use the righthand table of contents "Know Trespassing Law" and "Meramec Valley"...it won't allow me to link directly to the page due to Java.

 

[Missourian]

Again, there’s nothing ‘wrong’ with castle doctrine/SYG laws; the problem is the ignorance of such laws by citizens and LE and their improper implementation and interpretation.

Every gun owner must know and understand the laws of his state and jurisdiction and abide by them, and be prepared to suffer the consequences if he doesn’t.

I agree. But what we are looking at here is the difference between the SPIRIT of the law and the LETTER of the law.

I believe in the spirit of this law...that a person should have the right to defend himself and his property from criminals intent on committing felonious harm.

I don't think the spirit of this law includes killing people over a trespassing dispute.

The problem becomes how to word a law that protects one but not the other that doesn't dilute the original intent into interpretational ambiguity?

 

[Katzndogz]

The question seems to be whether or not the boaters were on his property or not.
And who the **** shoots and kills someone just because someone pissed on the grass?
The boaters only picked up rocks to protect themselves from someone with a gun. They had a right to defend themselves as there is no evidence (yet) that they were in the wrong.

Put down the bong.

You do not defend yourself against a gun with a rock.

They were wrong. They were drunk and thought they could throw a rock faster than a bullet could reach their heads. They were, predictably, wrong.

Don't bring a rock to a gun fight.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Again, there’s nothing ‘wrong’ with castle doctrine/SYG laws; the problem is the ignorance of such laws by citizens and LE and their improper implementation and interpretation.

Every gun owner must know and understand the laws of his state and jurisdiction and abide by them, and be prepared to suffer the consequences if he doesn’t.

I agree. But what we are looking at here is the difference between the SPIRIT of the law and the LETTER of the law.

I believe in the spirit of this law...that a person should have the right to defend himself and his property from criminals intent on committing felonious harm.

I don't think the spirit of this law includes killing people over a trespassing dispute.

The problem becomes how to word a law that protects one but not the other that doesn't dilute the original intent into interpretational ambiguity?

Although lawmakers are not intentionally vague or unclear as to the laws they write, they understand that there are many contingencies they cannot anticipate, where the actual mechanics of a law will develop in the context of due process: how local law enforcement agencies interpret and enforce the law, how DAs prosecute alleged offenders, and how courts adjudicate those cases.

As precedent evolves and becomes accepted, law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges will have a body of case law to guide them with regard to future controversies.

Needless to say this current case will contribute to that developing jurisprudence, establishing clear precedent as to what was not the original intent of lawmakers in Jefferson City.