In Jackson Mississippi, A Man’s Home is not his Castle

Frontpage Mag ^ | 23 May, 2017 | Ari Lieberman

[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,

[Bull Snipe]

bottom line, this man risked his life to save someone else’s Lexus.

[Pollster1]

There would have been no personal threat if he had stood on the steps and dialed the police on his cell phone.

Agreed. If the question is what would the most prudent or appropriate response be, your answer may be correct. If the question is did this armed citizen commit first degree murder, as charged, there is no reasonable doubt that my answer is correct.

[trebb]

People in Jackson, MS, elect very bad people to , or is there an exception?

Jackson is Mississippi's Philadelphia or Georgia's Atlanta, or Maryland's Baltimore, or the College system's Berkeley......

[T-Bone Texan]

"...the property was not his...."

Here in TX you can kill a perp who is harming or stealing from a 3rd party.

And I don't mean "stop him", I mean "kill him".

That's what Joe Horn did, and he is a hero. He killed a perp right in front of a police detective.

[Maverick68]

The good people should gather outside this DA’s home every day of the week and protest his sorry azz.

[editor-surveyor]

.
The DA must have on-set Alzheimer’s.

What a doofus!

[editor-surveyor]

.
Constitutionally, Mr. Parish has the very same rights, powers, and responsibilities as any appointed police officer has.

The constitution does not have provision for a citizenship classification of “Law enforcer.”

All citizens have that responsibility/right.

How does your Brown Shirt fit these days?
.

[T-Bone Texan]

"...think about pulling up stakes and moving ..."

One of Derbyshire's Rules for White People is "Never live in a municipality governed by blacks".

This is exactly why.

White people become hunted animals at the whim of a bad person.

[Oil Object Insp]

When seconds count a cop is only minutes away.
Or as an alternate,. Why does he carry a pistol?, Because a cop is way too heavy.

Citizens willing to assist in the protection of society at large should not be hunted,. Especially for what appears on so many levels as political, and possibly racial motivation. All the while costing an apparently honest and innocent man lots of legal fees. Meanwhile everyone stands on the sidelines and does nothing. Congratulations!!

[Bull Snipe]

This was not in Texas

[Yosemitest]

"The law allows a citizen to intervene in a felon.
It does not allow citizens to use deadly force to accomplish that goal. "

WRONG !

From Source:

MS § 97-3-15. Homicide; justifiable homicide.

State: Mississippi

 

Mississippi Code Annotated (M.C.A.)

Title 97.  Crimes

Chapter 003.  Crimes Against the Person

§ 97-3-15. Homicide; justifiable homicide.

(1)  The killing of a human being by the act, procurement or omission of another shall be justifiable in the following cases:

(a) When committed by public officers, or those acting by their aid and assistance, in obedience to any judgment of a competent court;

(b) When necessarily committed by public officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or to the discharge of any other legal duty;

(c) When necessarily committed by public officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in retaking any felon who has been rescued or has escaped;

(d) When necessarily committed by public officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in arresting any felon fleeing from justice;

(e) When committed by any person in resisting any attempt unlawfully to kill such person or to commit any felony upon him, or upon or in any dwelling, in any occupied vehicle, in any place of business, in any place of employment or in the immediate premises thereof in which such person shall be;

(f) When committed in the lawful defense of one’s own person or any other human being, where there shall be reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury, and there shall be imminent danger of such design being accomplished;

(g) When necessarily committed in attempting by lawful ways and means to apprehend any person for any felony committed;

(h) When necessarily committed in lawfully suppressing any riot or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

(2)

(a)  As used in subsection (1)(c) and (d) of this section, the term “when necessarily committed” means that a public officer or a person acting by or at the officer’s command, aid or assistance is authorized to use such force as necessary in securing and detaining the felon offender, overcoming the offender’s resistance, preventing the offender’s escape, recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or others from bodily harm; but such officer or person shall not be authorized to resort to deadly or dangerous means when to do so would be unreasonable under the circumstances. The public officer or person acting by or at the officer’s command may act upon a reasonable apprehension of the surrounding circumstances; however, such officer or person shall not use excessive force or force that is greater than reasonably necessary in securing and detaining the offender, overcoming the offender’s resistance, preventing the offender’s escape, recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or others from bodily harm.

(b) As used in subsection (1)(c) and (d) of this section the term “felon” shall include an offender who has been convicted of a felony and shall also include an offender who is in custody, or whose custody is being sought, on a charge or for an offense which is punishable, upon conviction, by death or confinement in the Penitentiary.

(c) As used in subsections (1)(e) and (3) of this section, “dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind that has a roof over it, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, including a tent, that is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night, including any attached porch;

(3)  A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person’s will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or is the lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or if the person is a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties;

(4)  A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person’s failure to retreat as evidence that the person’s use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable.

(5)

(a)  The presumptions contained in subsection (3) of this section shall apply in civil cases in which self-defense or defense of another is claimed as a defense.
(b) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant acted in accordance with subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section. A defendant who has previously been adjudicated “not guilty” of any crime by reason of subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section shall be immune from any civil action for damages arising from same conduct.

[Bull Snipe]

Thanks for the information.

[JimRed]

Is there a “stop the riots before they start” component to this indictment? Have the “Runnin’ Reverends” come a-runnin’ yet?