- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Jackson, MS man indicted murder 1st after killing 17yo trying to steal his Lexus
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:11 pm to FalseProphet
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:11 pm to FalseProphet
I can imagine what the grand jury looked like. The man's in for a bumpy ride. Hope he has the financial base to weather the storm.
0
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:11 pm to ballscaster
quote:
Nah.
I hope you get robbed and buttfricked. Seriously.
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:12 pm to UF
quote:
That's the key to the indictment. Grand Jury didn't get to hear anything from the defense, or very little to support the defense. Instead they probably heard a prosecutor tell them "he had a gun, he ran outside to confront this man that was merely looking at his car and he said to himself, if he's stealing my car I'm gonna shoot him"
At trial this will be blown to pieces, namely through the fact that the guy didn't emerge from the building with the gun drawn.
Agreed completely. However, should it go to trial, the State will have a manslaughter charge as a lesser included and the jury can go manslaughter or murder.
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:13 pm to Bossier2323
quote:
I'll take my arse whipping instead of killing someone
So you think the thief went on the attack to deliver an arse whipping and that's all?
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:14 pm to UF
quote:
That's the key to the indictment. Grand Jury didn't get to hear anything from the defense, or very little to support the defense. Instead they probably heard a prosecutor tell them "he had a gun, he ran outside to confront this man that was merely looking at his car and he said to himself, if he's stealing my car I'm gonna shoot him"
That's the only way I can think of.
quote:
At trial this will be blown to pieces, namely through the fact that the guy didn't emerge from the building with the gun drawn.
Yup. Defense will counter that if his intent was to kill the guy, why didn't he just smoke him right off the bat? Or why chase him around the car?
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:15 pm to Bossier2323
quote:
Me being dead would probably be better than having to drag my family through litigation for a couple years with me possibly going to prison.
You're the dumbest human ever.
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:15 pm to UF
Thief didn't have a gun. tough to kill a grown man with just fists
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:16 pm to CommunityCollegeFTW
The use of deadly force, as a generality, is only permissible in order to protect life or grave bodily harm. Some states will have more nuanced laws, but that is the principle. You can't kill somebody to protect property. This idea is consistent with all other laws in this country. Think of why grand theft isn't a capital crime. Same principle. He shouldn't have confronted the guy. Stay inside and call the police. Let insurance cover it if it comes to that. Even without the law being what it is that was the smarter play.
This post was edited on 1/8/17 at 7:17 pm
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:16 pm to TigerNAtux
Murder statute from Justia.
Full text
I would obviously have to see the video, but Parrish didn't shoot until McDonald came at him. The prosecution can argue that he went out there with the intent to kill, but the fact that he didn't shoot until attacked should constitute reasonable doubt. It's far more likely he went out there to scare McDonald away.
Manslaughter is an easier case to make but no slam dunk.
LINK
It's possible one of those two definitions fits the events. But if McDonald attacked Parrish, they wouldn't apply.
I'd also be interested in whether he pulled the trigger intentionally.
quote:
(1) The killing of a human being without the authority of law by any means or in any manner shall be murder in the following cases:
(a) When done with deliberate design to effect the death of the person killed, or of any human being, shall be first-degree murder;
Full text
I would obviously have to see the video, but Parrish didn't shoot until McDonald came at him. The prosecution can argue that he went out there with the intent to kill, but the fact that he didn't shoot until attacked should constitute reasonable doubt. It's far more likely he went out there to scare McDonald away.
Manslaughter is an easier case to make but no slam dunk.
quote:
The unnecessary killing of a perpetrator while resisting a crime or after his or her failed attempts at committing the crime
quote:
Murder from sudden provocation while in the "heat of passion"
LINK
It's possible one of those two definitions fits the events. But if McDonald attacked Parrish, they wouldn't apply.
I'd also be interested in whether he pulled the trigger intentionally.
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:17 pm to UF
quote:
But this guy is going to walk. I guarantee you
Why are you saying this?
Have you read up on the case with what the media and people know thus far???
It seems like a bunch of people in this thread are saying it was justified... are y'all saying that just from the heart or from what it sounds like using MS case law???
I'm curious and hope hope hope to god y'all are right.... this is a good dude and In way shape or form do I think he needs to spend the rest of his life in a shitty arse place like Parcham State Pen.
Has my MS state counsel Mr Dojo checked in the thread yet?
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:19 pm to Bossier2323
quote:
Thief didn't have a gun. tough to kill a grown man with just fists
Doesn't matter. It can be considered deadly force assault if being hit in the hand or neck with the bony portion of the hand (fist).
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:21 pm to UGATiger26
quote:i always see this word 'premeditated' come up when talking about murder1, but where do people get that? You don't have to be premeditated for M1 does it... someone correct me
How the hell would you prove premeditation?
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:21 pm to TigernMS12
quote:
MS is an open, constitutional carry state (conceal included; no permit needed).
You are correct. But there is an enhanced carry permit. My point was establishing Parrish as an "everyday" carrier as part of his defense.
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:21 pm to SuperSaint
quote:
Troubled because his mother said he had been at Henley-Young eight times in the last two years.
Removing this winner from the gene pool should garner the shooter an award.
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:23 pm to Bossier2323
quote:wud radder b curried by 6 den huh Cuh...
Reading things like this is exactly why I don't carry a gun. Nothing but bad comes from having a gun when a confrontation happens. frick that. I'll take my arse whipping instead of killing someone
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:23 pm to Peazey
quote:
The use of deadly force, as a generality, is only permissible in order to protect life or grave bodily harm. Some states will have more nuanced laws, but that is the principle. You can't kill somebody to protect property. This idea is consistent with all other laws in this country. Think of why grand theft isn't a capital crime. Same principle. He shouldn't have confronted the guy. Stay inside and call the police. Let insurance cover it if it comes to that. Even without the law being what it is that was the smarter play.
Not entirely correct. The law provides that you can use non-deadly force to protect property. If in the process, the individual harming your property escalates the altercation to the point where you could use deadly force, then you can. You are not required to sit on your arse and do nothing. In this case, he went outside to confront the man, perfectly legal. Then the guy charged him and a struggle ensued, he shot. The question at that point is was it objectively reasonable to do so, and will be left for the jury. IMO, it was. Guy committing felony+actively using force against me=justified use of force.
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:25 pm to SuperSaint
quote:
i always see this word 'premeditated' come up when talking about murder1, but where do people get that? You don't have to be premeditated for M1 does it... someone correct me
quote:
First Degree Murder: Definition In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated
Murder 1 is reserved for the most heinous murders. Those which are done in "cold blood" and planned in advance of the act with the intent to kill the person.
This post was edited on 1/8/17 at 7:27 pm
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:25 pm to Bossier2323
quote:
Thief didn't have a gun. tough to kill a grown man with just fists
Maybe so.
quote:
He picked up an object and apparently tried to smash open a window and gain access to the vehicle.
Different story now.
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:26 pm to TigerNAtux
quote:
You are correct. But there is an enhanced carry permit. My point was establishing Parrish as an "everyday" carrier as part of his defense.
I have the enhanced carry. All it does is provide a few more areas that you can carry (schools, polling places, places where alcohol is primary item sold, etc.). You can carry in 95% of places in the state concealed or not without a permit. I'm just saying he could carry everyday without one.
Posted on 1/8/17 at 7:29 pm to zsav77
quote:didnt they say McDonald picked up a brick or rock or something to bust the windows of the Lexus??
quote:
Thief didn't have a gun. tough to kill a grown man with just fists
Doesn't matter. It can be considered deadly force assault if being hit in the hand or neck with the bony portion of the hand (fist).
Would that be considered having a deadly weapon?
Page 3 of 12
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News