Skip to main content

Brockport man testifies he feared for his life, but didn't call police after looking down barrel of shotgun

By Howard B. Owens

A Brockport man who claims he had a shotgun pointed at his head by a local resident testified today that he couldn't get State Police to even consider his side of the story before he was arrested on a charge of criminal mischief.

After the charge against Micheal Crooks was dismissed (under what's called an ACD -- adjudication in contemplation of dismissal), he did what a trooper and attorney labeled "cop shopping." 

Crooks went to the Sheriff's Office and found that Sgt. Ron Meides was willing to listen to his side of the story. As a result, John Robinson, of North Lake Road, Bergen, was arrested by Deputy Matthew Butler and charged with menacing, 2nd.

The attorney for Robinson, Kevin DeCarolis, has requested Justice Donald Kunego dismiss the charge against his client "in the interest of justice."

Kunego held the hearing today as part of the motion process. He will issue a written ruling at a later date.

He's already received written arguments from both DeCarolis and Assistant District Attorney Kevin Finnell on the motion.

The case stems from a confrontation Jan. 13, 2013. Crooks contacted both the State Police and the Sheriff's Office about pursuing charges against Robinson in November 2013. Robinson was arrested in April of this year.

Trooper Eric Daigler, who arrested Crooks based on a complaint by Robinson that Crooks damaged his screen door while trying to get into his house, testified today that he was confused and angry when he learned Butler was about to arrest Robinson.

He said typically, law enforcement officers don't involve themselves in cases that have been handled by other agencies.

He felt the case had been closed in January 2013 with the arrest of Crooks.

"I was dumbfounded," Daigler said. "First and foremost, it's common practice not to take on other agencies cases. We refer to it as 'cop shopping.' It happens. Usually, we are pretty good at stopping people who are just trying to get the right answer. They are looking for the answer they want. That's usually the Sheriff's Office policy."

Daigler said it was his position at the time of the incident that Robinson was doing exactly what he's allowed to do under the law -- protect his property and himself. 

"He didn't conduct himself in a manner that he should be arrested," Daigler said. "He was in his home. He armed himself and he called 9-1-1 and informed dispatchers he had armed himself. He was well within his rights in his own home when a man he never met came to his door and was yelling and screaming."

Daigler consulted with his supervisor, Sgt. Ron Lobur, and other troopers, who all concurred, arrest Crooks, but not Robinson.

Since the arrest of Robinson, Daigler said, everybody he's spoken to in the local law enforcement community, with the exception of Meides, are bothered that Robinson was arrested.

"I've had 10 members of the Sheriff's Office come to me independently and voice their displeasure with the case," Daigler said.

Crooks testified that Daigler never even asked for his version of events before telling him he would be arrested.

Contrary to prior reports, Crooks said he didn't try to hide from troopers before being contacted. He said he didn't even know that in his "assertive" knocking he damaged the door, and to this day, he isn't convinced that he did.

After the confrontation, he said he went to a job site in Brighton -- he's a construction manager -- and then went home and discovered he had a message from Daigler that evening. He immediately returned the call, and when he didn't get a call back after an hour, he called again.

When he spoke to Daigler, Daigler told him to meet him at the Batavia barracks. When he asked why, he said Daigler told him he was going to be arrested on a criminal mischief charge.

At that point, Crooks said, he decided he wouldn't make a statement without an attorney present.

On the advice of his attorney, he didn't pursue charges against Robinson until after the term of his ACD expired (six months).

Crooks was upset, he said, because he believed Robinson was involved in some sort of relationship with is wife.

He said he first became aware of the relationship some time around October of 2012.

He thought it had ended, but on Jan. 12, he said, his wife went to a party with their two daughters, ages 11 and 14.

His wife became drunk at the party, he testified this afternoon, and placed numerous calls to Robinson.

The girls became aware of what was going on and tried to get her to stop. That led to a physical confrontation between mother and daughters, he said.

That was what really upset him, he said, and convinced him he should talk with Robinson about not having further contact with Mrs. Crooks because of the stress it was causing for his daughters.

He testified that he didn't make any verbal threats to Robinson. That the only thing he yelled once he figured out Robinson was in fact at home Jan. 13, 2013, was "come out you coward."

He said after about two minutes, when it was clear Robinson wasn't going to come out, he decided to leave. 

He testified that as he walked down a sidewalk close to the house he caught some movement through a window and turned to look.

"There was Mr. Robinson," Crooks said. "He was holding a shotgun and he rushed right towards the window and screamed absolutely bloody murder that he was going to blow my fucking head off."

He said the barrel was only inches from the window.

"My heart stopped," Crooks said. "I've never looked down the barral of a gun that wasn't removed from a gun that closely in my life. I've been around guns my whole life. I own guns. I've owned guns since I was 19. I'm not afraid to be around guns."

Under questioning by DeCarolis, Crooks admitted that despite this mortal threat, he didn't call police.

When Finnell asked him about why he didn't call police, Crooks said he dialed 9-1-1 and had his finger on the button, but then changed his mind.

"I was exhausted," Crooks said. "I was emotionally drained. I wanted this to be over. I just wanted to go to work and do what I had to do."

In closing arguments, Finnell urged Kunego to take into the account of events provided by Crooks. He didn't fault Daigler for arresting Crooks. Since he didn't have a statement from Crooks, he could only go on the information available to him at the time of the arrest. But now, he said, Kunego has just as Medies had, Crooks' version of events. He said the case should proceed based on Crooks' account.

DeCarolis dismissed the testimony of Crooks as vindictive and self-serving.

Daigler, he said, did something very unusual -- he testified for the defense rather than the prosecution. That never happens and that should carry a lot of weight with court, he said. Daigler's testimony should weigh heavily in favor of Robinson because he has nothing to gain from his testimony.

The testimony of Crooks is another matter, however.

"His action, his tone, his disposition all show he has a very significant animus against Mr. Robinson," DeCarolis said. "It's very clear he was cop shopping. I would ask, your honor, that you evaluate his testimony in that light."

Kunego set a follow-up appearance for Nov. 19, but said he will likely issue a written decision on the motion to dismiss "in the interest of justice" before that date.

The Batavian's exclusive previous coverage:

Raymond Richardson

I think everyone who feels Robinson is being persecuted on these ridiculous charges, should write the Judge urging him to rule in favor of dismissing the case.

Oct 2, 2014, 8:20am Permalink
Micheal Crooks

Howard, I would like to commend you for writing what I feel is a reasonably balanced article on this case.
I would like to clarify one issue. Your article states that Trooper Daigler arrested me based on Robinson's statement that "Crooks damaged his screen door while trying to get into his house". Nowhere in Robinsons statement or Daiglers report does it suggest that I tried in any way to gain entry. That would be absolutely absurd. If I wanted to gain entry I would imagine I could have reached down and turned the knob. How many people in the town of Bergen lock their doors on Sunday afternoon when they are home?
Regarding Trooper Daiglers sentiments regarding this case I can only express disappointment. I do believe he is a genuinely good person but for some reason he refused to even listen to my perspective of what took place. I liken it to giving someone half of a book and asking them to determine what happened. They can't be faulted if their conclusion is incorrect. But when they are offered the other half of the book and they refuse to read it how much credibility can remain? It seems Daigler's ego was bruised and it has effected his better judgment. The moniker of "cop shopping" is ridiculous. I simply asked for someone to listen to what I had to say and the first officer that did had a completely different take than Daigler. The sheriffs office did not take this lightly. They were very reluctant to pursue a case that the NY Troopers were previously involved in. But after taking my statement and interviewing Robinson they determined that his actions were unjustified. One only needs to compare comments on previous articles about this case that were based solely on Robinsons views to the lack of comments now that my perspective is included to recognize Trooper Daigler's error.

Oct 8, 2014, 10:28pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

I don't often ask this Howard. However Mr. Crooks comment and yours before it have piqued my interest and sparked that intuition that there is more to the story.

Howard could you give us an opinion on this particular story, I know you have talked to the police, and probably sat thru the court appearances so I am interested in what you think.

If you'd rather not thats ok too, but like I said there seems to be more to this story than what we have seen covered here. Thanks.

Oct 9, 2014, 6:54am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

I'm not going to offer an opinion at this time.

As for the whether there was an allegation of an attempt to gain entry, that is what I recall from the statements I read a couple of months back, but I don't have those documents available now to review again.

Oct 9, 2014, 9:46am Permalink
Micheal Crooks

Howard,
To clarify. There were no allegations of attempted entry in the original statement or report which I have copies of. They may have decided to change their story in later documents in an attempt to justify pointing a loaded gun and threatening to kill someone standing outside on the sidewalk.

Oct 9, 2014, 7:43pm Permalink
Kyle Couchman

Gee Michael I just re-read your supposed statement that you made at the time of your arrest. Something just doesnt quite jive with what you stated here today...

In his statement, the man said he had reason to believe Robinson was in his house and kept knocking on the door. He said when he went looking for another doorway, he walked past a window and saw movement so he took a closer look into the window.
He says he did call Robinson "a coward" for not coming out.
He said he saw Robinson on the phone and Robinson screamed at him, "get out of here or I'm going to (blow) your (sic) f---ing head off." He wrote, "John was saying this and pointing the gun at my head and he was only a few feet away from me."

Now when you make a statement to police they have you re-read it and sign it. So if that was your statement then, it doesnt seem you were standing on the sidewalk as you claim today.

So tell us which is the truth and why we should believe either story. I also recall 911 verifying they could hear you pounding and yelling. Doesn't sound so peaceful either.

Maybe you should just stay quiet instead of trying to convince us your the victim. I know some of my fellow forum members in this community they aren't very slow and all have degrees in the various schools of hard knocks.

Oct 9, 2014, 10:39pm Permalink

Authentically Local