Croff, a licensed gun owner, is accused of chasing Herbert Silas and fatally shooting him after finding Silas in his backyard. Croff reportedly told police that his home had been broken into three times before the shooting early Monday.
The article reads like an apology for vigilante behavior. Several neighbors testify to the ever-increasing crime problem, how the real estate market is in the pits, and to the general frustration of everyone who lives there.
Police said Silas, who was unarmed, stopped running in the 9800 block of Philip as Croff chased him. Silas turned around, put his hands up and, according to a police source, told Croff: "What are you going to do? Shoot me?"
"Absolutely," Croff told investigators he responded. Silas was hit once in the chest.
I don't suppose any of the law-and-order, stand-up-for-your-rights folks would have the nerve to condone this, but I wonder how many of them secretly cheer. Wasn't that the appeal of Charles Bronson's movies and the Clint Eastwood attitude of "make my day?" These petty criminals are barely more than insects anyway, right?
Of course, I couldn't help notice how perfectly this story supports the theory that says there are too many unfit gun owners. I don't care how frustrated or frightened you are, what this guy did is worse than what the criminals do. It's worse because up until last week he was an upstanding citizen enjoying his god-given rights protected by the 2nd Amendment. And I'm afraid he's not the only one.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
One thing is apparent in this case: licensing didn't save anyone's life.
ReplyDeleteSo what gun control law would have prevented this?
Man, as a born Detroiter who visits the disintegrating city from time to time...last time, just last April, I know the frustration of those people trapped in an urban and suburban alternate reality.
ReplyDeleteDetroit, as a lot of American blight and social decay, was allowed to happen. You know, and admit it on bot sides of this debate, as these conditions evolve, people are left with no alternative but to go outside of the system.
It is inevitable that as the social fabic decays and the government is hamstrung in its ability to intervene, people take their own destinies into their own hands.
For better or for worse.
You saw people in New Orleans who empowered themselves to create their own reality during Katrina and execute those who they felt were invading their territory.
Now this happens in Detroit...I ask you, whose fault is this?
Is there fault to be found with the frustrated home owner?
Or is it the fault of decades of neglect and a government which has been forced to abandon its social obilgations to society through the selfish greed of willingly blinded system for the benefit of the extremely wealthy?
Mike, I came to your site this morning to tell you that I woke up this first new morning of a brand new decade with new improved super powers and I have the ability to pass them along to my blogging buddies!
ReplyDeleteCONSIDER YOURSELF EMPOWERED!
HAPPY 2010! THE TERRIBLE TEENS HAVE COMMENCED!
Microdot thanks for asking exactly the right questions. In this case there's plenty of fault to go around.
ReplyDelete"Now this happens in Detroit...I ask you, whose fault is this?
Is there fault to be found with the frustrated home owner?
Or is it the fault of decades of neglect and a government which has been forced to abandon its social obilgations to society through the selfish greed of willingly blinded system for the benefit of the extremely wealthy?"
There was a similar incident over here recently. Except the weapon was a cricket bat and not a gun and the injuries, although grave weer not fatal.
ReplyDeleteMaybe a lesson there?
Happy New Year anyway Mike!
Microdot I think made some useful commentary. There's no legal or moral doubt that it's murder, and it's wrong. He should be prosecuted.
ReplyDeleteBut the social compact that we make with government is that we surrender our right of retribution to the state. When the state refuses to take crime seriously, and is unable to live up to its end of the social compact, people will take the law into their own hands. If things get bad enough, prosecutors are going to have a tough time finding juries that will convict for this kind of thing.
We have a social contract that the police will handle criminals, and we will leave that to them, unless it is life-threatening.
ReplyDeleteWhat should people do if the police are not handling their end of the deal?
I don't think Croff was in the right, and unless there's something I'm unaware of he should be prosecuted, but his previous break ins and the fact that the Detroit police are overwhelmed should at least be mitigating circumstances--This is manslaughter rather than murder.
Sevasteen:
ReplyDeleteManslaughter? I don't think so, not if he chased the guy down and shot him after it was obvious the guy wasn't armed.
One of the reasons the Detroit PD is overwhelmed is because it and other local government departments are underfunded.
My little village of 800 people has had a number of incidents recently including a bank robbery and a man pulling a gun on a lady at a small antique store. In the latter incident, the police showed up 2.5 hours later after a citizen had disarmed the idiot.
ReplyDeleteCrime beyond simple theft was unheard of here until recently. And while crime is growing, our law enforcement departments are cutting staff in order to save money.
When police response is almost non-existent, we are left to protect ourselves. Now, based upon the original post, I do not condone Croff's actions. However, it is quite possible that there are circumstances beyond what the media conveys (I doubt anyone here would argue that point). If for instance the police have abandoned this neighborhood, and there were more to this story than reported, it would be harder to find fault with someone that has no training in police matters and has no 911 alternative.
Now assuming the account presented in the article is indeed correct, of course Croff would then probably be guilty of a crime.
Sevesteen, You say "manslaughter?"
ReplyDeleteFWM, You say "guilty of a crime?"
Maybe you've forgotten I'm supposed to be the one who's soft on criminals. This was murder. This was way worse than the Oklahoma pharmacist and way worse than the Harlem store owner. Did you read the story?
And it's not that I'm down on people who commit crimes with guns. Remember the kid who tried to hold up the AA meeting? I supported him against almost everybody. Of course in that case there was another gun slinger to blame.
What I'm saying is this story is one of the most clear-cut cases of vigilante murder that we've seen. I appreciate what Microdot said about the deteriorating society and all that, but you cannot explain away what this guy did.
Mike, If the account is anywhere remotely accurate, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then of course I agree with you and the man should be charged with murder.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but I was really responding and agreeing with Microdot's breakdown of society theory more than I was to your original post. If your friends, family and neighbours are routinely falling victim to a gang of criminals in an area abandoned by law enforcement, then I can see where residents would be fed up and take the law into their own hands "for better or worse" as Microdot said.
People crave order and safety even in the inner cities. If government has abandoned them, they tend to abandon the law managed by government in favor of what they consider basic wrong and right. That is where vigilantism comes from. Vigilantes are not born from criminal intent but rather the perceived, but sometimes misguided notion, of what "right" is. In the original post you mentioned Charles Bronson and I assume you were referring to the movie Deathwish. The majority of movie audiences never felt that the main character portrayed by Bronson was at all in the wrong though undoubtedly the law would and did in the film.
Again, I am not talking so much about Croff as I am to Microdot's post.
Sevesteen, You say "manslaughter?"
ReplyDeleteFWM, You say "guilty of a crime?"
Maybe you've forgotten I'm supposed to be the one who's soft on criminals. This was murder. This was way worse than the Oklahoma pharmacist and way worse than the Harlem store owner. Did you read the story?
Yes. I'll agree it was worse than either the pharmacist or the Harlem store owner--I'm near certain that this was a crime. The Harlem guy was justified, the pharmacist was unclear.
And it's not that I'm down on people who commit crimes with guns. Remember the kid who tried to hold up the AA meeting? I supported him against almost everybody. Of course in that case there was another gun slinger to blame.
Right. You seem to be more sympathetic to career criminals than ordinary people being forced to deal with criminals.
What I'm saying is this story is one of the most clear-cut cases of vigilante murder that we've seen.
And if this is as bad as vigilantism gets, and the vigilante is prosecuted, the law is doing OK here.
I appreciate what Microdot said about the deteriorating society and all that, but you cannot explain away what this guy did.
You are right, which is why I'm not totally excusing him, and think he should serve time--just not as much as a true criminal murderer. Manslaughter isn't the same as justified homicide.