Jackson Jambalaya

Highly doubt I'll see any of this deep shoe leather reporting out of Donner's Jackson Fake Press.

Can one of the attorneys reading here explain the significance behind the terminology change?

The duties owed to an invitee are heightened. Here, it may not matter, because what they allege is the defendant intentionally injured the trespasser. Premises owners have a duty to not willfully or intentionally injure anyone, whether invitee or trespasser.

Looks like he's trying an end run. The kid clearly was not a business invite, but arguing that the kid was a trespasser allows him to then argue that the business is liable for not preventing the wilfull and wanton conduct of its employee. Basically he is trying to put the shooter on trial.

The duty owed the plaintiff is different at common law.

You walk into Wal-Mart to buy some stuff. You're an "invitee." Wal-Mart has a duty to provide you a reasonably safe place in which to shop. Spills aren't allowed to sit on the floor so long they have footprints in them. They don't have heavy stuff hanging halfway off of top shelves that could fall and smash your head.

As to the "trespasser" duty...I'm thinking back 23 years to my torts class. There was a case where hooligans were continually vandalizing a guy's property. He set up a "spring gun," whereby if anyone came up on his porch got blasted. He violated the duty not to wanton and willfully harm the hooligans. The idea being -- and here's where the scumbag lawyers are going with this -- you can't use deadly force to prevent damage to personal or real property.

KF, this might have been covered, but which judge caught this case?

10:32 is right for the most part. The issue is that the shooter did not come out shooting. He tried to get the guy to leave, was chased, attacked, guy tried to get the gun and was killed. Clear self-defense.

Bigger picture:
(1) If Hinds County did not indict this man it is highly unlikely this suit would have been filed. In essence, a ridiculous prosecution has led to an even more ridiculous (and frivolous) civil law suit; and
(2) The civil defendant(s) here will win the suit, but the monetary damage received will be immense. Mississippi needs to adopt a reasoned "loser pays" law for frivolous civil litigation wherein the plaintiff and their attorneys are personally liable for all fees associated with defense of the claim if the defense prevails. In order for the loser pay rule to be invoked, it must be on petition of the defendant and determined by the court. That may not help in Hinds County, but it may be just enough of a deterrent to prevent this sort of BS. Moreover, if an attorney bringing these actions is determined to be frivolous more than a certain number of times within say 5 years, they should automatically receive a one year bar suspension.

Robert Shuler Smith should know about being falsely accused of a crime as well (supposedly). That is what makes this stink even more that he has not petitioned to voluntarily dismissed this prosecution with prejudice. He should be sanctioned and/or disbarred as well.

10:32 - Looks like Judge Gowan got the case based on teh "WAG" at the top of the filed pleading.

I believe there is a law about liability in a parking lot written by Charlie Ross. Might be worth reading about.


https://www.bakerdonelson.com/files/uploads/documents/guns_at_the_workplace_5-520-4933.pdf

There is the whole castle doctrine thing. Does it apply to your car? What are the parameters for a citizens arrest/lawful detainment?

its pretty clear he only fired AFTER chasing the thug around the car and wrestling for his life..

This is nothing more than a blatant money grab by a greedy lawyer and a greedy client. Does anyone believe this thug was at this business for any reason other than to steal something that did not belong to him? Absolutely not; and as for this so called mother, now that she has raised a thug, she wants to continue to profit from his death! What was Mr. Parish supposed to do, just watch him drive off in a car that belonged to the business in broad daylight? Sorry folks, it doesn't work that way! This is just one more reason that no one in their right mind would want to start or continue a business in the City of Jackson.

So, to be clear...I have a no trespassing sign clearly posted on my property. I need to amend it to state that I will shoot your ass if you trespass and get into a fight with me or break and enter or threaten me with deadly force or otherwise put me in fear for my life. Is that about it?

I did not realize I had a duty to protect trespassers on my property.

What a fucked up system.

"14. Defendants failed to provide adequate security which would have deterred Defendant Parish from exiting the store, in possession of a firearm, posing and ultimately causing harm and the death of Decedent."

Absolutely infuriating. The inmates certainly are running the asylum.

The change is irrelevant. It is simply the result of the plaintiff attorney using an old premises liability complaint, just changing the names and forgetting to change out the part where the injured was a trespasser and not an invitee. We see this A LOT in Hinds County, because plaintiff attorneys can afford to be real sloppy there and still win.

He likely changed it to "invitee" because the deceased was, very clearly, not an invitee and in addition to making the attorney look stupid, it opens him up to a motion for summary judgment (although I've never seen Judge Green grant one).

Perhaps not wanting to steal this story, a certain reporter just posted another story in the CL about Mr. Moore. The story? It was about a discovery violation in a civil case. An entire story about a discovery violation.

Now, Moore has been sanctioned for piss poor attorney work in the case he has against the Tupelo PD. He blames it on the "stress" of threats after suing to remove the flag. This guy is a joke. I recently saw that he opened an office in Clarksdale as well. Michael Carr of Cleveland needs to distance himself from this guy as fast as possible. Carr used to do insurance defense. Now he is suing insurance companies. Bite the hand that feeds you much?

So, somebody tell me why I should not move my 23-year service/supply business out of a rapidly crumbling area of north Jackson? I made the decision to move to Flowood about a year ago after a couple of break-ins, property damage and getting afraid to come back after dark. I was taking my time looking for a new site. I have found it and goodbye Jackson and I am taking my property taxes and sales tax collections with me. Another nail in the coffin. Maybe a hair twister or nail salon will take my space.

I agree with 2:44 on his comment on which businesses will take the place of the one's leaving. How much of a tax base will be provided by barbershops, auto detailers and cash advance establishments?

Mississippi's Castle Doctrine Law 97-3-15 CLEARLY states in NUMEROUS instances why Wayne Parish's actions are 110% CLEARLY JUSTIFIED! Period. PERIOD. The fact that a law abiding, GOOD man was put in the position by a NON LAW ABIDING CRIMINAL & was forced to invoke these rights while in fear for HIS life, is unfortunate. But the law is the law damnit! Something this criminal's mother may or may not have instilled in him...regardless, it was HIM that chose (and on a regular basis it seems) to NOT abide by the law! It's absurd that Mr. Parish was not only forced into this position to defend his life, but now our "injustice system" is making HIM out to be the bad guy?!? W.T.F.?!?!
http://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2010/title-97/3/97-3-15

2:44 and 5:51 - I suspect you are both wrong. I think it is more likely that that space gets turned into more offices for JPS or another non-taxpaying entity, as much of Metro Center has been turned over. The hair weavers would have to put their own start-up money at risk by opening there, and even they have more business sense than to take on that much risk.

Referring to some of the posts about loser pays and greedy lawyers, Mississippi does have a statute about this situation. It's called the "Litigation Accountability Act of 1988", however, I don't know if any attorney or plaintiff has ever been sanctioned. I guess that I could take the time to research it but it's not worth the time.

Also, as I recall, a property owner is only required to protect a trespasser from intentional infliction of harm such as a booby trap or remote firearm.

6:54, the Castle Doctrine, 97-3-15(3), is only a part of 97-3-15 and it states that it is presumed that a person has a reasonable fear in certain numerous circumstances. Those circumstances include when the victim is in an OCCUPIED vehice, but does not include an unoccupied vehicle. While Mr Parish may successfully use the defense of self-defense, the Castle Doctrine does NOT apply. The bottom line: if the Hinds DA prosecutes this case, Mr Parish may be entitled to have the jury instructed on the defense of self-defense, but Mr Parish cannot rely on a Castle Doctrine jury instruction. In other words, the jury may be instructed to find Mr Parish not guilty if the jury concludes that Mr Parish acted in self-defense, but the jury will not be instructed that it is presumed that Mr Parish was in reasonable fear.

10:39, I believe if you actually read all of the Castle law, you will discover that it covers more than a car. Whether the car was occupied or not, it was located on the property of the business in which Parish own half of the stock in. I realize to follow this, requires keeping more than one thing in mind.

I thought The Castle Doctrine applied to private property.
It's news to me that a property opened for commercial business can easily discern between a trespasser and a customer ( invitee). I thought the " invitee" laws were to protect the customer, not to allow the business owner to determine which customers are trespassers and which are invitees.
Now, if y'all are arguing that a car is your castle as well, will where it's parked matter? Will the Doctrine include a boat or raft you have brought to another location or is it only true if your raft or boat is on your property?
This ought to make car vandalism and road rage a lot more interesting!
But, I guess what is really bothering me is that the notion that theft of property is the same as threat to your life.
I wouldn't be so stupid enough as to take a gun and go outside to confront someone attempting to break into my car much less get close enough to that person ( who could have been armed) to let him grab my gun. If I had such a lapse of judgement, I hope I would have fired into the ground first to scare away the person . I wouldn't want to kill someone to protect insured " stuff" that can be replaced. I would call the police and then video with my cell the would be thief from a safe distance if possible. But, then I know western movies are for entertainment and that the west , in reality was brutal and called " wild" for a reason. It was uncivilized.

6:51 AM, this is 10:39 PM. You state "I believe if you actually read all of the Castle law, you will discover that it covers more than a car." Well, if you actually read ALL of my comment, you will see that I said "the Castle Doctrine, 97-3-15(3), is only a part of 97-3-15 and it states that it is presumed that a person has a reasonable fear in certain numerous circumstances. Those circumstances include when the victim is in an OCCUPIED vehice, but does not include an unoccupied vehicle." My comments recognized there are other circumstances where the Castle Doctrine presumes reasonable fear. However, as you said, "I realize to follow this, requires keeping more than one thing in mind" and also requires you (6:51) to read an entire comment.

The Castle Doctrine also recognizes a presumption of reasonable fear if a person was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the business or had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that business. The business and gate was open. There was no unlawful entry onto the business. Attempting to steal a car from an open business is unlawful but that act does not create a presumption of reasonable fear. If the now-dead criminal attempted to grab the gun from Mr Parish, a jury will hopefully conclude that Mr Parish was in reasonable fear for his life but the jury would not be instructed that the Castle Doctrine requires the jury to presume that fear.

6:52am that is the dumbest snowflake bullshit I have read today. Congrats!

Carlos will say absolutely ANYTHING to make money. Any civil award or criminal conviction will be overturned on appeal, which will take years and tons of money.

Welcome to The City of Soul...

It really doesn't matter what the LAW says, you need only to seat the "RIGHT" jury.

Let's clear something up, Wayne Parish did not chase McDonald around the car. Parish walks out of the building toward the back of the car where McDonald was at the time, then McDonald runs to the front of the car while Parish remains at the rear of the car. McDonald then runs toward Parish, goes for the gun, the struggle ensues around the car and McDonald is shot during the struggle. Toxicology report is out - McDonald tested positive for alcohol, MJ and PCP (very high level of PCP).

Will it help Mr. Parish's case that the deceased had alcohol and drugs in his system?

As someone who lives and works in Jxn I have to admit this situation was a deal changer for me. I used to think the black folks around here didn't mind me protecting myself if necessary with force. Now my mind has changed and I'm thinking this whole being a minority may not be such a great idea....