Jackson Jambalaya

There has to be more to the story than we are being told. Sure wish we would be told the truth. From what we have been told this man is getting screwed.
Add me on to the list of people who will never spend a dime in the city of Jackson again.

Unbelievable even for Hinds County.

Who is the ADA?

Zorro?

Let's see here; Mr. Parish is white; the car thief is black; but the thief's mother said "HE SUCH A GOOD BOY"!!!!!

I moved out of Jackson 10 years ago. I don't even eat, buy gas, or shop in Jackson anymore.

Sounds like Mr. Parish was trying to defend his livelihood. I would be willing to bet this man has been burglarized multiple times before. The business friendly climate of Jackson/Hinds County continues to take hits.

for those curious about the ADA "signature", that gibberish stems from Walter Bleck. Guess he's afraid to put a legible signature on a murder indictment...

Makes you wonder, about Mississippi justice, a black man in Grenada is indicted for a child's hot car death, a white woman in Madison is not, and a white man is for protecting property...
What's right/wrong with this picture?

All the more reason to stay out of Jackson!

As an attorney, I am always amazed at how people can read information on the media and be in a position to determine the truth of a matter and know what the outcome should be. A grand jury indicted him. Can we let the process work before we determine that this is one big injustice???

Let's just rename Jackson Little Detroit, close all the white owned businesses there and give it to the thugs; watch how long it takes for them to completely destroy it! In the interim, do not give them any operating money and see how long it takes for the citizens with some common sense to take charge.

"As an attorney" I ask that everybody just settle down and let the process work. The good people of Jackson will convict this white honkey and that will be that. Move along now....

Ham sandwich

i would not leave the shop, where I worked, use deadly force to protect a co workers car from a potential thief. that is what I recall of this crime. also that is just me, deadly force to save life. Now is he within his rights? Assume once the conflict got underway, up close, assume the shooter felt the need to defend his life?
a teaching moment on the use of the tool of last resort, a gun. even if the shooter is not convicted, he will be ruined, you lawyers know this is going to be one big bill.

6:27 you are absolutely correct. The guy will be ruined and the criminal defense lawyers are licking their chops. I've no clue what this guy is worth but you can bet your ass they will get every penny of it.

6:27pm is the most reasonable person on this thread.

Once the guy left his office to confront the kid, he chose to escalate the situation. Then he chose to bring a gun.

Well, he successfully defended his car. All it cost him is his life savings, and fear of prison for the next year until his trial concludes. Sometimes, being "right" isn't the best choice.

You know, in a "normal" city you can almost make the case the car owner over reacted. However, think about this statistic: AS A PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION, Jackson, MS had a higher murder rate in 2016 than freakin' CHICAGO!!!!!! It's no wonder people are on edge all the time in this city! Statistically, it's understandable why they are!!!

It's terrible when we have allowed a thug culture to rule the city and bend the law. This man worked hard for what he has and felt compelled to do what any person would do. Given that, he doesn't have a chance. Now, had he been in another locale then the issue would be he was protecting his property. Put yourself in his place for a moment.

Pitt, It may cost the man his life savings and fear of prison for a while but you seem to forget what it cost the criminal.
In this case I like the man's chances much better.

10:41 The problem is: the car owner is going to be tried by a jury of the BURGLAR'S peers, not his. This IS Jackson, after all....

Business owners have a right (and arguably an obligation) to protect the property of their customers while that property is in their possession.

People have a right to be armed in this state. Being armed does not affect/preclude the first rule above.

A man who is armed and trying to halt a felony in progress who is then confronted in a life threatening way has a right to defend himself using deadly force.

Remember: The man did not run out into the parking lot waving and shooting his pistol. He drew it only after fearing for his life. Even a jury of 12 Do-Raggers will see that.

The Castle Doctrine does not permit the use of deadly force to protect property, though it obviously allows deadly force to protect life. This should be decided based on whether or not this man felt a threat to his life when he confronted the burglar. If he cannot articulate that threat, then he will be convicted. Sadly, as has been mentioned, the jury pool in Hinds County will not be giving any benefits of the doubt here based on race. The same could just as likely be true in a predominantly white county elsewhere. That said, if he is convicted and there is evidence to support his proper use of force, it will get overturned on appeal. Of course, he will likely be bankrupt as a result of the legal process.

7:59: Please read

The so-called "Castle Doctrine" is based on Old English common law, which says a person is free to defend their homes and property without criminal or civil consequences.

11:16 the problem as I see it is there are not enough of the car owners peers left in Jackson to make up a jury.

Mississippi's "Castle Doctrine" is codified at Miss. Code §97-3-15, which states: “The killing of a human being… shall be justifiable... (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;.... Notice the requirement that the criminal be IN or in the "immediate premises thereof" and "occupied vehicle." I certainly wouldn't rely on this to run out of my office to shoot someone who is attempting to steal an unoccupied car in the parking lot.

I might rely on the castle doctrine in this situation if I had read the first Newell case out of Lowndes County.