Vigilante Croff Stays Free on Bond

The Detroit News reports on the latest developments in the vigilante murder that took place a couple weeks ago.

A Wayne County prosecutor failed today in an effort to revoke bond for a former security guard charged with murder for the alleged vigilante shooting of a man he chased from his backyard.

Although 36th District Judge Donna Robinson Milhouse added restrictions to the conditions of 31-year-old Tigh Croff's release from custody, he will remain free pending trial for the slaying of Herbert Silas, 53.

Croff has been free on bond since New Year's Day, one day after being charged with shooting Silas in the chest after allegedly chasing the Detroit man a block from Croff's recently burglarized east side home. The incident has drawn public support for Croff from residents who are fed up with lawlessness in the city, and outrage from authorities who see his actions as more lawlessness.

I find it truly amazing that this man is not in jail. Notwithstanding the exasperation of the residents of these crime-ridden neighborhoods of Detroit, what Croff did was over the top. Is it the fact that he has a clean record or that he had been a security guard, or is it simply that everybody is so fed up with the criminals that this modern-day Bernhard Goetz is getting special treatment.

I say it's a bad message to all the others who are fed up. Taking the law into their own hands will lead to many more incidents like this. The very definition of DGU will change.

What's your opinion? Would you consider this one a legitimate DGU?

Please leave a comment.

The Case of Cory Maye

As PhuckPolitics said when he sent me the link, you might find this one interesting even though it's old.

Indeed it is interesting because it touches on some of our favorite discussions. Cory Maye was in his Mississippi home at night with his baby daughter when the police barged into the place. In a desperate attempt at self-defense, he shot and killed the first one through the door. He claims he thought they were home invaders, the police say they announced themselves clearly. Cory was convicted and sentenced to death. Later the sentence was changed to Life, and now a new trial is in the offing.

Wikipedia describes the ramifications of the case like this.

His case attracted little attention until late 2005, when Reason magazine senior editor and police misconduct researcher Radley Balko brought it to light on his blog "The Agitator." Maye's supporters say his conviction and sentence raise issues about the right to self-defense, police conduct in the War on Drugs, and racial and social inequities in Mississippi. They have also raised questions about whether he has received competent legal representation.

What's your opinion? Is this a case which the left and the right can agree upon? The lefty anti-capital-punishment and civil rights crowd and the righty stand-your-ground self-defense folks can come together at last on this one, don't you think?

Legitimate DGUs / Concealed Carry Murderers

Now that Weer'd Beard is getting on the bandwagon of posting DGUs, I thought we should keep an eye on this site too. H/T to The Gun Guys.

Concealed handgun permit holders have killed at least nine law enforcement officers in addition to 108 private citizens (including 13 shooters who killed themselves after an attack) since May 2007 according to the latest update of Concealed Carry Killers, a Violence Policy Center (VPC) on-line resource that tallies news reports of such killings.

It's been clear to me for a long time that the claim that DGUs equal or outnumber criminal misuse of guns is bogus. But perhaps a different comparison would yield a better result. Weer'd plans to post once a week with a DGU story; perhaps the VPC site can keep pace. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

Legitimate DGU - Yes or No?

From The Armed Citizen.

From the Publication of January 6, 2010

Burglary suspect shot by Jarales homeowner

Charges are pending against a man who was shot in the chest by a Jarales resident while allegedly trying to break in.

Valencia County Sheriff’s Deputy Chris Trujillo said the shooting occurred shortly after midnight on New Years Day at a house on Mill Road.

According to the deputy, the homeowner, whose name has not been released, heard someone trying to break into his home and called 911. When the suspect entered the house, the homeowner shot him once in the chest, Trujillo said.

“The intruder was airlifted to University of New Mexico Hospital,” Trujillo said.

He said the suspect’s condition was not immediately known Monday, but he is expected to face breaking and entering and other charges upon his release from the hospital. Police are not releasing the suspect’s name until the charges have been filed.

Trujillo said the homeowner is not being charged with any crime.

“He was defending his property,” Trujillo said.

My contention is that many of these so-called DGUs are nothing of the kind. In this story, for example, it sounds like the homeowner laid in wait for the burglar. I pictured a spider quietly awaiting his prey. In my opinion there's too much emphasis on the stand-your-ground defending-what's-mine mentality and too little emphasis on the value of life, even the criminal's.

Even when these incidents fall within the letter of the law, it is morally wrong to shoot someone when it can be avoided.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Gun Banning in the Philippines

The New York Times reports on the gun ban which has been implemented in the Philippines.

A nationwide gun ban took effect Sunday in the Philippines to stave off any increase in political violence as elections draw closer, officials said.

Elections in the Philippines are almost always bloody, mainly because of the dominance of political dynasties, the presence of nearly 70 private armies and militias and the proliferation of what are called “loose firearms” — mostly unlicensed and unregistered weapons.

But what does it actually mean when they say "gun ban?" As it turns out, it simply means you have to leave your guns at home, that's all. It's certainly nothing nearly as dramatic as a gun confiscation.

What's interesting is they think it's necessary. They think, based on past experience, that the folks who own guns cannot be trusted with them during the volatile election period. That's pretty much the way gun control people in America feel about concealed carry permit holders.

But, in all fairness, maybe your average gun owner in the Philippines is much more dangerous and untrustworthy than his American counterpart.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Like Re-Charging a Gun

H/T to De Rosa for this wonderful ad. Where do you think this comes from though? Is it that idyllic time in America when real men could be reached with images of the shotgun and that nifty hat? Is this from that Utopian period before guns and gun images were politically incorrect? What do you think?

Illinois Attorney General Madigan on McDonald

Chicago Public Radio reports on the legal brief by the State Attorney General. Thanks for the tip, FishyJay.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan is turning a traditional NRA argument on its head in her effort to keep handgun bans in Chicago and Oak Park. The National Rifle Association has long fought gun bans saying the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Gun advocates are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to find Chicago, and Oak Park's gun bans unconstitutional.

But in a brief submitted to the Court, Illinois Attorney General argues that the whole point of the second amendment is to protect local governments from the might of the federal government. So it would be ironic if the federal government in the form of the U.S. Supreme Court, stepped in to the gun debate and now used the second amendment to diminish local powers.

Madigan argues that local governments should regulate guns based on local conditions. Federal courts should not, "enforce a national standard with which every state and locality must comply, regardless of popular will or circumstance." The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in the case march second.

I believe this has come up before. On this very blog, it's been explained that a similar irony exists in the Heller vs. D.C. ruling.

Do you see any inconsistency in the pro-gun activist who generally abhors the federal government's dictates yet can't wait for the Supreme Court to rule in the Chicago case?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.