• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Charges reduced to manslaughter in Tigh Croff case

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
That is disappointing. I think 2nd degree murder would have been more appropriate. Gun carriers as well as those who merely keep guns for home defense need to be held to strict legal standards when it comes to the use of lethal force, and mere anger cannot be used as an excuse for firing at a non life threatening person. Indeed, there is NO excuse for shooting at any person who isn't threatening innocents lives. It gives legitimate gun users a bad name to suggest the preposterous notion that there were mitigating circumstances involved in this shooting.
 
Last edited:

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
That is disappointing. I think 2nd degree murder would have been more appropriate. Gun carriers as well as those who merely keep guns for home defense need to be held to strict legal standards when it comes to the use of lethal force, and mere anger cannot be used as an excuse for firing at a non life threatening person. Indeed, there is NO excuse for shooting at any person who isn't threatening innocents lives. It gives legitimate gun users a bad name to suggest the preposterous notion that there were mitigating circumstances involved in this shooting.

Good point.

This is interesting to say the least. So, now they will cite you and try to prosecute you for "legally" carrying a pistol on the street outside of Comerica Park, but murder is allowed (and this was clearly murder. They even justify it by saying, "(Judge Michael) Hathaway said. "He was clearly adequately and dramatically provoked."")? I get it. If one is "clearly provoke", then the good judge is saying that murder is justifiable. Brilliant! Can someone please cite the law which allows this. I'd love to see that one.

Talk about judicial activism.

Anyone got the pdf for the court decision?
 
Last edited:

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
I understand your worry about gun owners being portrayed as vigilantes, but lets not make the CRIMINAL the victim here. I would love to see you reaction to your possessions being stolen for a 3rd time in 1 week, and your reaction to the police saying "nothing we can do about it". There comes a time when a man has the right to defend himself, his family and his property that he has worked his whole life for. The thug got what he deserved.

I hope Mr. Croff walks!
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
Good point.

This is interesting to say the least. So, now they will cite you and try to prosecute you for "legally" carrying a pistol on the street outside of Comerica Park, but murder is allowed (and this was clearly murder. They even justify it by saying, "(Judge Michael) Hathaway said. "He was clearly adequately and dramatically provoked."")? I get it. If one is "clearly provoke", then the good judge is saying that murder is justifiable. Brilliant! Can someone please cite the law which allows this. I'd love to see that one.

Talk about judicial activism.

Anyone got the pdf for the court decision?
How is the judge saying it was justifiable if he is still being charges with manslaughter? Wouldn't a justifiable homicide mean he walks with no charge at all relating to the death?
 

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
How is the judge saying it was justifiable if he is still being charges with manslaughter? Wouldn't a justifiable homicide mean he walks with no charge at all relating to the death?

The charge was reduced from murder to manslaughter. The justification for reducing the charge was that Croff was "provoked", even though the dead man had given up and surrendered.

Putting aside any moral issues one may have, I don't recall that our laws allow us to be judge, jury, and executioner in any situation. We are simply allowed to defend ourselves from rape, death, or great bodily harm, and it appears that Croff wasn't in danger of any of these. In this case, he decided to play "cop". Even if our laws did allow us to engage in such actions, Michigan is most certainly not a death penalty state. This man purposely and knowingly took another man's life without any articuable danger or fear of rape, death, or great bodily harm. He simply acted in anger.

Ask yourself this: "If a LEO were to shoot and kill a suspect who had clearly surrendered and ceased resistance, would people still say the thug deserved it, and that the officer should get off with a lesser charge?" I certainly wouldn't, and neither should anyone else. Sadly, on other boards I've seen other people justify such action because of their own personal feelings rather than justice in our laws.

Remember, our laws and rights through due process and such are there to protect the rights of the innocent, but if you take them away from those you think deserve it, then you will loose yours.
 
Last edited:

eastmeyers

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,363
Location
Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
I understand your worry about gun owners being portrayed as vigilantes, but lets not make the CRIMINAL the victim here. I would love to see you reaction to your possessions being stolen for a 3rd time in 1 week, and your reaction to the police saying "nothing we can do about it". There comes a time when a man has the right to defend himself, his family and his property that he has worked his whole life for. The thug got what he deserved.

I hope Mr. Croff walks!

What he did was illegal.
Some states maybe it wouldn't be.
Maybe the law needs to be changed...
MAYBE:question: the police need to do a better job in Detroit.
Maybe when dispatch puts a call out they should respond the same day...
:dude:
 

Michigander

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2007
Messages
4,818
Location
Mulligan's Valley
What he did was illegal.
Some states maybe it wouldn't be.
Maybe the law needs to be changed...:

Not too many maybes involved. What he did contradicts the bill of rights, and as we have been talking about in the OC in a CEZ thread, a state cannot legally legislate away a constitutional right. Not the least of which is the right to life. We can't be talking out of both sides of our mouths, then we'd be like the politicians we hate so much.

The victim did nothing that would anywhere in the USA subject him to the death penalty, and even if he had, he was given no due process before he was killed. Due process is a very simple fundamental reason why the USA is my favorite country in the world. And it's for the same reason that this guy should receive at least 25 years in prison before he can be paroled.

The Founding Fathers; said:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation:

He could have done a citizens arrest. he could have installed a hidden video camera system to gather evidence. He could have done a lot of legal and effective maneuvers. But instead he chose to be a murderer, and he damn well doesn't deserve our respect or support.
 
Last edited:

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
Not too many maybes involved. What he did contradicts the bill of rights, and as we have been talking about in the OC in a CEZ thread, a state cannot legally legislate away a constitutional right. Not the least of which is the right to life. We can't be talking out of both sides of our mouths, then we'd be like the politicians we hate so much.

The victim did nothing that would anywhere in the USA subject him to the death penalty, and even if he had, he was given no due process before he was killed. Due process is a very simple fundamental reason why the USA is my favorite country in the world. And it's for the same reason that this guy should receive at least 25 years in prison before he can be paroled.



He could have done a citizens arrest. he could have installed a hidden video camera system to gather evidence. He could have done a lot of legal and effective maneuvers. But instead he chose to be a murderer, and he damn well doesn't deserve our respect or support.
Precisely.

We criticize cops, and other public authorities for placing themselves above the law, it should be no different here.
 

Agent1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
119
Location
The Thumb MI
Last edited:

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
Here's another thing (and as I've said, I've seen such sentiment on other gun boards).

I question the mentality of those who are in favor of this sort of vigilantism, who also carry guns. This man needs to go to jail, and quite frankly, so does anyone else who would follow in his footsteps.

Interesting note.

This may well be the true, "wild wild west" mentality that people supposedly improperly project onto gun carriers. Over the 4th weekend, I watched the John Wayne movie, "The Cowboys" with my parents. My mother was appalled at the ruthlessness of the cowboys when they finally dealt with the villain in the movie. I pointed out to her that there wasn't much else they could have done other than become victims again. Had they let the villain go, he would have just become a bigger problem (he'd already demonstrated this in the movie). Times are different now, and while our justice system may not always be perfect or just, if we individually decide that some people don't need to be accountable to it, then we may as well not have it. If that's what you want then maybe you should try Mexico where the authorities are more concerned with protecting their drug cartel employers while the soak the poverty stricken masses of what little they have (funny how so few are surprised to learn that Mexico is one of the wealthiest countries on the planet with all that poverty), because that's what it would be like here.

I've been a victim of criminal activity more than once in the past year, so don't talk to me about being tired of it. If you think it's okay to deprive someone of their rights, then maybe you should be the first to stand up and surrender yours. Kindly send your guns, ammo, and all related articles to me as you wont be needing them. Fill out an affidavit declaring that you no longer feel the need for due process, and that you'll be glad to let the poor, deprived thugs relieve you of your personal property (including yourself) since you no longer have any rights to it.
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
Here's another thing (and as I've said, I've seen such sentiment on other gun boards).

I question the mentality of those who are in favor of this sort of vigilantism, who also carry guns. This man needs to go to jail, and quite frankly, so does anyone else who would follow in his footsteps.

Interesting note.

This may well be the true, "wild wild west" mentality that people supposedly improperly project onto gun carriers. Over the 4th weekend, I watched the John Wayne movie, "The Cowboys" with my parents. My mother was appalled at the ruthlessness of the cowboys when they finally dealt with the villain in the movie. I pointed out to her that there wasn't much else they could have done other than become victims again. Had they let the villain go, he would have just become a bigger problem (he'd already demonstrated this in the movie). Times are different now, and while our justice system may not always be perfect or just, if we individually decide that some people don't need to be accountable to it, then we may as well not have it. If that's what you want then maybe you should try Mexico where the authorities are more concerned with protecting their drug cartel employers while the soak the poverty stricken masses of what little they have (funny how so few are surprised to learn that Mexico is one of the wealthiest countries on the planet with all that poverty), because that's what it would be like here.

I've been a victim of criminal activity more than once in the past year, so don't talk to me about being tired of it. If you think it's okay to deprive someone of their rights, then maybe you should be the first to stand up and surrender yours. Kindly send your guns, ammo, and all related articles to me as you wont be needing them. Fill out an affidavit declaring that you no longer feel the need for due process, and that you'll be glad to let the poor, deprived thugs relieve you of your personal property (including yourself) since you no longer have any rights to it.

I question the mentality of those who don't believe we have a right to protect ourselves, our families and our property. Just because we don't have a right to defend property in this state doesn't mean someone who believes in that right is of a lesser mentality of you.
 

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
One of the elements of Murder (Murder 1 and Murder 2) is that the defendant was committing or attempting to commit a specified felony of "intent" at the time of the act causing victim's death. It would be hard to prove the underlying felony (intent), if he was, in the words of the judge, provoked. I agree that what he did was "criminal" and "stupid" and I feel "death for theft" is too high a payment, but the facts needed would be hard to prove.

Manslaughter is nothing to laugh at: 15 years in prison is not a slap on the wrist. I don't think anyone here would think 15 years in prison and all of the issues that come with being a violent felon afterwards, would be "easy", especially if you felt somehow justified. This person is NOT in an enviable position.
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
One of the elements of Murder (Murder 1 and Murder 2) is that the defendant was committing or attempting to commit a specified felony of "intent" at the time of the act causing victim's death. It would be hard to prove the underlying felony (intent), if he was, in the words of the judge, provoked. I agree that what he did was "criminal" and "stupid" and I feel "death for theft" is too high a payment, but the facts needed would be hard to prove.

Manslaughter is nothing to laugh at: 15 years in prison is not a slap on the wrist. I don't think anyone here would think 15 years in prison and all of the issues that come with being a violent felon afterwards, would be "easy", especially if you felt somehow justified. This person is NOT in an enviable position.

Agreed, manslaughter is still a very serious charge, not mention possible loss of job, home, right to carry and many other consequences.
 

Agent1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
119
Location
The Thumb MI
One of the elements of Murder (Murder 1 and Murder 2) is that the defendant was committing or attempting to commit a specified felony of "intent" at the time of the act causing victim's death. It would be hard to prove the underlying felony (intent), if he was, in the words of the judge, provoked.

If he had made a statement to anyone about "being tired of it" that would surely be interpreted as intent. But these actions raise no doubt of his intent......

"after he admitted to chasing down and fatally shooting a man he believed was trying to break into his home. "I told him he was going to die, and I shot him," Croff said "

Murder, No brainer!
 

eastmeyers

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
1,363
Location
Hazel Park, Michigan, USA
He could have done a citizens arrest. he could have installed a hidden video camera system to gather evidence. He could have done a lot of legal and effective maneuvers. But instead he chose to be a murderer, and he damn well doesn't deserve our respect or support.

I agree what he did was wrong, and I agree what he did was murder. I also agree that he could have done other things, and should have.

...are you waiting for a but? nope...
 
Last edited:

DrTodd

Michigan Moderator
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,272
Location
Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
Not too many maybes involved. What he did contradicts the bill of rights, and as we have been talking about in the OC in a CEZ thread, a state cannot legally legislate away a constitutional right. Not the least of which is the right to life. We can't be talking out of both sides of our mouths, then we'd be like the politicians we hate so much.

The victim did nothing that would anywhere in the USA subject him to the death penalty, and even if he had, he was given no due process before he was killed. Due process is a very simple fundamental reason why the USA is my favorite country in the world. And it's for the same reason that this guy should receive at least 25 years in prison before he can be paroled.



He could have done a citizens arrest. he could have installed a hidden video camera system to gather evidence. He could have done a lot of legal and effective maneuvers. But instead he chose to be a murderer, and he damn well doesn't deserve our respect or support.

Since he is not a state actor, his actions being deemed a violation of someone else's "rights" fails. This would not be the case for a LEO doing the same, as they are state actors.
Also, the law does not say that if "Murder is when you do what he did without doing all of the actions you mentioned. The law does provide that if one is provoked, the charge of murder is not applicable. This ultimately is for the a judge to decide. As much as I detest what he did, it is within the judges power to decide that Murder (1st or 2nd degree) is not applicable. If the prosecutor feels otherwise, there is always the appeal process.
 
Last edited:

ghostrider

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2007
Messages
1,416
Location
Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA
I question the mentality of those who don't believe we have a right to protect ourselves, our families and our property. Just because we don't have a right to defend property in this state doesn't mean someone who believes in that right is of a lesser mentality of you.
As do I.

Unfortunately, in Michigan we do not have that right, so believing in it means little until we get the law changed.

However, this is not about, "protect(ing) ourselves, our families, and our property." this man was doing none of that when he shot. This was strictly a vengeance killing. The dead man had surrendered. Croff may as well have shot him in the back of the head while he was kneeling execution style.
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
As do I.

Unfortunately, in Michigan we do not have that right, so believing in it means little until we get the law changed.

However, this is not about, "protect(ing) ourselves, our families, and our property." this man was doing none of that when he shot. This was strictly a vengeance killing. The dead man had surrendered. Croff may as well have shot him in the back of the head while he was kneeling execution style.

I guess we can agree to disagree
 
Top