Posted on 05/24/2017 3:53:58 PM PDT by marktwain
July 21, 2016 began as any other day for Wayne Parish. The Crystal Springs resident woke up, bid his family farewell and went to work at Performance Oil on McDowell Road in Jackson Mississippi. But the transformative events of that fateful day changed Parish’s life forever. On that day, the hard-working, law-abiding family man crossed paths with a 17-year-old delinquent named Charles McDonald.
Despite his youth, McDonald was already an aspiring criminal and a recidivist offender. On July 21, his mother, Yvette Mason-Sherman, tried to take him to the Henley-Young Youth Detention facility, which is located next to Performance Oil where Parish worked. McDonald had already been to the youth detention facility eight times in the past two years. During the ride, he jumped out of his mother’s car and ran off.
McDonald then entered the Performance Oil parking lot where a Lexus ES-350 caught his eye. It should be noted that at the time McDonald trespassed on to the lot, he had two outstanding warrants, one of which involved a police chase. McDonald then picked up a large rock and proceeded to smash the car’s driver’s side window in an effort to break in. His actions that day constituted a felony under Mississippi’s penal code.
The police were called and dispatched but Parish exited the store with a .38 Smith & Wesson and ordered McDonald, who was still trying to break into the car, to leave the premises. Instead of leaving, McDonald lunged at Parish in an effort to grab his gun. The two struggled for control of the revolver for less than 30 seconds but it likely seemed like an eternity for Parish. Toward the end of the life and death struggle, which was captured on surveillance video,
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
At the risk of a fire storm. The article does not state that the car was the property of Mr. Parish. He was at work, so the property was not his. If the car did not belong him and it was on someone else’s property, I do not see how a “castle defense” would fly in this circumstance.
Yes, a felony was being committed against another persons personal property on someone else’s parking lot, what was Mr. Parish’s legal authority to intervene in an event that did not threaten him directly. I do not see how Mr. Parish was in danger or had to respond with deadly force in this situation. Having said that, I do not have any issue with a person protecting his property or life with deadly force if required. But in this case, I do not see that.
Everything you need to know about the "DA" ...
Bull sheeeit click bait headline. “Mentally insane run amuck prosecutor (probably a Dim)” is better.
It doesn’t matter if it was his car or his property. He saw a crime in progress and attempted to stop it. When the thug attempted to harm him, he defended himself. He should be in the clear.
As for the thug’s mother, I assume she was in on the crime. She showed up way too quickly for coincidence. If I am correct, then I hope she suffers for the rest of her life with the guilt she deserves to feel.
It does matter, depending on what Mississippi State law states. Do I as a private citizen have a right to use deadly force when ever I witness a felony being committed?
That is not the “castle defense”.
I do not see how Mr. Parish was in danger or had to respond with deadly force in this situation. Having said that, I do not have any issue with a person protecting his property or life with deadly force if required. But in this case, I do not see that.
You raise some interesting points. Some of them depend on local law in Mississippi. Here is the relevant Mississippi code:
§ 99-3-7. When arrests may be made without warrant
(1) An officer or private person may arrest any person without warrant, for an indictable offense committed, or a breach of the peace threatened or attempted in his presence; or when a person has committed a felony, though not in his presence; or when a felony has been committed, and he has reasonable ground to suspect and believe the person proposed to be arrested to have committed it; or on a charge, made upon reasonable cause, of the commission of a felony by the party proposed to be arrested. And in all cases of arrests without warrant, the person making such arrest must inform the accused of the object and cause of the arrest, except when he is in the actual commission of the offense, or is arrested on pursuit.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/mscode/
In general, citizens have the power to stop felonies and make citizens’ arrests.
Mr. Parish went to considerable lengths to avoid shooting the person who was attempting felony damage. He then retreated to avoid having to shoot the person who attacked him.
Once attacked, and struggling to maintain control of his firearm, he was justified in using deadly force to defend himself.
We can second guess his decision to stop a felony in progress, but he appears to be justified under the law.
Thanks
Your idea that somehow anyone shouldn’t be able to attempt to stop an obvious crime is absolutely rediculous and illustrates just how far progressive ideology has penetrated this culture.
He didn’t “respond” with deadly force, he defended himself from a criminal attack.
How could the difference not be obvious?
Imagine the logical outworking of your way of thinking.
The law allows a citizen to intervene in a felon. It does not allow citizens to use deadly force to accomplish that goal. Should a citizen do so, as in this case, the use of deadly force may not be covered by this specific chapter of the law.
BS!, BS.
Nice try...
He was not using deadly force in response to a felony. He responded to a felony to stop the crime in progress and then used deadly force in self defense. Each action was legitimate at the time it was taken. I'm glad the thug is dead, glad I was not the one who had to shoot him, and disgusted with the criminal, the mother, and the parasitic prosecutor. Had he shot the criminal down from a distance and while there was no personal threat, that would have been what you are describing. What actually happened though was clearly both legal and neighborly of the armed citizen.
There is a difference between what is legal, and what is prudent.
I suspect Bull Snipe was considering all the hassle that Mr. Parish is going through, compared to what he could have avoided if he had waited a few more minutes.
I prefer an engaged and active citizenry, myself, but I can understand that point of view.
He had to use deadly force because he injected himself in to a situation involving someone else’s car and on someone else’s property. The criminal attack occurred because he involved him directly in an event that was on of his direct concern.
Given what you said, Mr Parish is in deep trouble.
The DA is shopping for a case to prove himself to his electorate. This is it.
Something to think about in defense shooting cases. Know who the DA is, what their politics are, and how they handle business.
If you find yourself in a similar situation as Mr. Parish, think about pulling up stakes and moving before you get yourself in a self defense situation where the best case resolution is bankruptcy and civil trial costs till you die.
These situations are what we pay the police to deal with.
a phone call and stand by. whole different story if the thug is breaking into your house. By all mean you may defend yourself, your family and your property with deadly force if necessary. But this not the case in this situation.
There would have been no personal threat if he had stood on the steps and dialed the police on his cell phone.
Sounds exactly what the left said about George Zimmerman's defense against the teen thug Travon Martin.
http://kfiam640.iheart.com/onair/bill-handel-30603/mississippi-carjackers-fatally-shot-6yearold-15845299/
....Also in Jackson MS.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.