Missouri slaying case may hinge on property rights

Associated Press

STEELVILLE, Mo.

James Crocker had grown weary of the partying canoeists and rafters who encroached on his neatly kept property along Missouri’s Meramec River. When he caught a man about to relieve himself on a gravel bar by his yard last month, a nasty confrontation ensued that ended with one person dead and Crocker accused of killing him.

The case against Crocker is the latest to put a spotlight on “castle doctrine” laws, which allow the use of deadly force to protect property. Missouri is among at least 30 states that have enacted the statutes, which supporters say protect gun rights but others insist promote vigilantism.

Crocker’s attorney, Michael Bert of St. Louis, said that Crocker was defending himself and his property.

Prosecutors see it differently. Witnesses who testified at a hearing this month said Crocker was angry and raging, shooting into the crowd of people, narrowly missing two others before killing 48-year-old Paul Dart Jr. of Robertsville, Mo. Crocker has been charged with second-degree murder.

Even some supporters of the doctrine say the violence seemed avoidable.

“The smart thing is to back away, and nobody seemed to be willing to do that,” said Kevin Jamison, an attorney who lobbied for Missouri’s castle doctrine bill as a member of the Western Missouri Shooters Alliance.

Crocker, a 59-year-old plastics-plant worker, lives in a small home about eight miles west of Steelville, the self-proclaimed floating capital of the world. Thousands of people come to the region every year to raft, canoe or kayak down the Meramec. Residents have complained for years about loud parties, trash left behind and crude behavior.

On July 20, Dart, a carpenter, and around four dozen other members of an extended family gathered at a campground for their annual float trip. A few hours into the trip, Robert and Regina Burgess stopped their canoe on a gravel bar. Robert decided to relieve himself, he testified at the preliminary hearing.

Crocker confronted Burgess and the party. What happened then is in dispute, and will be a crucial part of the case.

Burgess and his wife testified that Crocker was immediately agitated and aggressive, firing two shots in their direction — Robert said one hit the ground near his feet. Another bullet hit Dart in the face.

Burgess said it was only after Dart was shot that members of the party picked up rocks to defend themselves against Crocker, who was armed with a 9mm semi-automatic pistol.

Crocker didn’t testify at the hearing, but his attorney gave a different account.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Bert said Crocker politely asked the party to leave. “The response he got was angry and profane,” Bert said.

Crocker and those in the party argued over whether the gravel bar was public land or Crocker’s. The men picked up “softball-sized” rocks and began pelting Crocker, Bert said. He said Crocker suffered head injuries, then fired his gun to defend himself.

Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper Joseph Peart testified that he saw no evidence that Crocker was hurt.

Whether or not the floaters were on Crocker’s property may be an issue in the case since Missouri law isn’t clear on where private property along a waterway begins.

“That may be a critical question,” said Jamison, of Kansas City, Mo. “If [Crocker] reasonably believed the man was on his property and he wasn’t, I’m not sure that’s enough.”