shipleys in starkville?

[Seymore]

http://mississippicriminaldefenseblog.com/2010/04/15/mississippi-castle-doctrine/

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

(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;

A “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;

You should be covered.

That makes me feel better. The argument then becomes was the guy really a threat. While I think slashing the throat of the 65 yo lady removes any doubt lets say he has his hand in a coat pocket and says he has a gun and is pointing it at you like there's a gun there demanding money. You pull and shoot and there's no gun. Only the two of you and no other witnesses. I think you are going to be screwed in that situation. That's why I said in a post a couple months ago that I would just hand my wallet over and let it go. Unless I see the weapon or the crime is being committed with witnesses there to back up my story I'm not going to pull. No matter how bad I may want to put a bullet between his eyes.

The pharmacist was okay up until he pumped five slugs in the guy while the guy was on the floor. All on video tape. No explanation can get one out of that. I do question why he shot the guy who didn't have the gun. My understanding is the guy who got away was the one who actually had the weapon. Why shoot his accomplice if he was unarmed. Granted he is committing a felony and you should be covered but it seems the immediate threat was the guy with the gun.

It's real easy to Monday morning quarterback it. I hope I'm never in a situation to find out any of this.

[farmerc83]

I have not seen this.

from the article above (huffington post):

When Ersland stepped back inside the store, he retrieved a Kel-Tec .380 from a nearby drawer and shot Parker five more times. The shooting occurred off camera, so Parker's posture at the time remains unclear

eesh I do imagine that would be a little hard to defend

Wouldn't there be a strong argument that when Ersland did this the assailant had caused him so much emotional distress that Ersland thought it was a justified use of force? Not like Ersland planned on killing this guy when he showed up at work that morning.

[JDgator]

http://mississippicriminaldefenseblog.com/2010/04/15/mississippi-castle-doctrine/

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

(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;

A “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;

You should be covered.

That makes me feel better. The argument then becomes was the guy really a threat. While I think slashing the throat of the 65 yo lady removes any doubt lets say he has his hand in a coat pocket and says he has a gun and is pointing it at you like there's a gun there demanding money. You pull and shoot and there's no gun. Only the two of you and no other witnesses. I think you are going to be screwed in that situation. That's why I said in a post a couple months ago that I would just hand my wallet over and let it go. Unless I see the weapon or the crime is being committed with witnesses there to back up my story I'm not going to pull. No matter how bad I may want to put a bullet between his eyes.

The pharmacist was okay up until he pumped five slugs in the guy while the guy was on the floor. All on video tape. No explanation can get one out of that. I do question why he shot the guy who didn't have the gun. My understanding is the guy who got away was the one who actually had the weapon. Why shoot his accomplice if he was unarmed. Granted he is committing a felony and you should be covered but it seems the immediate threat was the guy with the gun.

It's real easy to Monday morning quarterback it. I hope I'm never in a situation to find out any of this.

Worst-case scenario: It would go to a jury of 12 Mississippians. You only need one honest man to think of his grandmother's throat being slit. I think your odds of not guilty are pretty good.

But it wouldn't come to that because the DA wouldn't be gaining any political clout by sticking you with those charges. He or she probably wants to be a judge next, and knows that nobody votes for a judge who lets perps walk but chases defenders of senior citizens.

[DeltaCotton12]

That makes me feel better. The argument then becomes was the guy really a threat. While I think slashing the throat of the 65 yo lady removes any doubt lets say he has his hand in a coat pocket and says he has a gun and is pointing it at you like there's a gun there demanding money. You pull and shoot and there's no gun. Only the two of you and no other witnesses. I think you are going to be screwed in that situation.

Sad when the would be robber has more rights than the guy being robbed. If you walk into a dwelling and attempt to rob someone, your rights as a US citizen are gone and the rest is history. I am sick and tired of this crap.

[Smoke68]

I do question why he shot the guy who didn't have the gun. My understanding is the guy who got away was the one who actually had the weapon. Why shoot his accomplice if he was unarmed.

It took me several times watching it on tape to see that only one of them had a gun. If he robs a store with a mask on, and his buddy has a gun, you better believe every concealed carrier or police officer for that matter is going to assume he is armed as well and will treat him as such. It's an unfortunate incident, and I don't think he'll end up serving the entire sentence. Like JDGator said, politics play a part in these type things. The right governor will eventually come along and commute his sentence.

They got him on 1st degree murder though. They sure are defining premeditated murder rather narrowly in this case. I'm with farmer, he didn't come to work wanting to kill somebody. But it does seem like he wants to shoot every thief he can, armed or not. Can't say I blame him.

Bottom line, I don't think he should have taken the last 5 shots. He shouldn't go to prison for it though. It was in the heat of the moment, and it was a moment he was in no way responsible for. The dead guy was responsible.

[DeltaCotton12]

Bottom line, I don't think he should have taken the last 5 shots. He shouldn't go to prison for it though. It was in the heat of the moment, and it was a moment he was in no way responsible for. The dead guy was responsible.

Could not agree more..

[jburt80]

http://mississippicriminaldefenseblog.com/2010/04/15/mississippi-castle-doctrine/

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

(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;

A “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;

You should be covered.

That makes me feel better. The argument then becomes was the guy really a threat. While I think slashing the throat of the 65 yo lady removes any doubt lets say he has his hand in a coat pocket and says he has a gun and is pointing it at you like there's a gun there demanding money. You pull and shoot and there's no gun. Only the two of you and no other witnesses. I think you are going to be screwed in that situation. That's why I said in a post a couple months ago that I would just hand my wallet over and let it go. Unless I see the weapon or the crime is being committed with witnesses there to back up my story I'm not going to pull. No matter how bad I may want to put a bullet between his eyes.

The pharmacist was okay up until he pumped five slugs in the guy while the guy was on the floor. All on video tape. No explanation can get one out of that. I do question why he shot the guy who didn't have the gun. My understanding is the guy who got away was the one who actually had the weapon. Why shoot his accomplice if he was unarmed. Granted he is committing a felony and you should be covered but it seems the immediate threat was the guy with the gun.

It's real easy to Monday morning quarterback it. I hope I'm never in a situation to find out any of this.

Worst-case scenario: It would go to a jury of 12 Mississippians. You only need one honest man to think of his grandmother's throat being slit. I think your odds of not guilty are pretty good.

But it wouldn't come to that because the DA wouldn't be gaining any political clout by sticking you with those charges. He or she probably wants to be a judge next, and knows that nobody votes for a judge who lets perps walk but chases defenders of senior citizens.

I dont know that I could let him walk away. The Castle Law gives you the right to defend your life and property. Who's to say that he really does have a gun and he shoots you after you give him your wallet. I'd rather take my chances with a Grand Jury. Thats just me. Every situation is different and everyone has a different take on it.

[3spop]

I have seen too many people murdered in flat out cold blood even after complying with the scumbags. I know there are a lot of variables, but I have made my mind up to fight for my life and the lives of my loved ones. I refuse to go around scared about what could happen if I have to use force in self defense. That's almost like a form of terrorism. Do what is necessary if , God forbid, the time comes.