Mississippi Teen Shot, Killed While Committing Property Crime
21 July 2016, Jackson, Mississippi
Young Mississippi child Charles McDonald should not be dead. Sadly, he is; shot down in broad daylight by a racist cop wannabee while he was standing near a car parked at Performance Oil Equipment, 920 McDowell Rd.
The racist, thinking that Charles was attempting break into a Lexus, gunned him down in cold blood. Then he probably used NRA/Klan contacts in the police department to wangle an initial determination of self-defense.
NRA and the Klan, working hard to make sure that white people can murder innocent minority children with no repercussions.
Tim Summers, Jr., writing in what appears to be some kind of editorial disguised as reporting for the Jackson Free Press, actually goes to great pains to point out the wrongness of the shooting. Even going so far as to compare this broad-daylight, crime-in-progress shooting of little Charlie to the Trayvon Martin shooting (wherein local Sanford, FL, dumb-ass G. Zimmerman followed little Trayvon down a dark path in the middle of the night, shooting him after an altercation.)
Mr. Summers found a college professor, Matt Steffey, of the Mississippi College of Law, willing to go on record about the “defensive gun use” and, regarding this specific shooting, said, "That's a highly questionable situation." Summers went on to write :
A person cannot just shoot a person if they come onto a property, or if they want them to leave, Steffey said.
"When it mentions the immediate premises of a business, it still has to be resisting an attempt to kill or a felonious assault," Steffey said. "So just seeing what you think is a car theft and running down the street and shooting the person doesn't meet the requirements of the statute."
Now, if defense of property or pursuit was what had actually happened, The Comedy Duo of Summers and Steffey might not be so laughable.
Especially the part where Mr. Summer’s bosses on the editorial board felt compelled to make clear their position that self-defense is murder:
Instead, an armed citizen acted as judge, jury and executioner of a minor. Many defend the shooter's actions, even as they did the black homeowner who went outside and shot the unarmed Quardious Thomas, also black, for breaking into his car. Still, not even the Castle Doctrine provides a defense for walking outside and killing someone for committing a property crime. That's what the legal system is for: to prove guilt before punishment.
But, as luck would have it, more than just The Jackson Free Press covered the story.
Morgan Howard, of WALB10, an ABC affiliate, cited the Jackson Police’s press release stating that there was damage to the vehicle consistent with a burglary, that the shooter fired a warning shot at little Chuckie McDonald who, instead of fleeing, charged the shooter.
The shooter, the owner of the business where the car was parked, then shot Lil’ Charlie twice in the chest. Choosing to stop Charles’ assault on him before it could begin.
Allie Ware, of 16 WAPT, a Hearst Television station, didn’t mention anything about a warning shot. She says that the shooter ordered the teen to stop and then shot him.
Does anybody else see what Messrs. Summers and Steffey did in their article? First, he conflates all justifiable homicides with Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground Laws. Then proceeds to tell us why that applies to shooting the man who comes after you after you ask them stop committing a felony at noon on a Thursday. So, of course, this is the perfect opportunity to bring up another broad daylight shooting of a black teen by a white man, the Trayvon Martin case.
What they’re counting on here is your inability to remember facts. Things like little Trayvon being 17 years old, 5’11”, and a svelte, tattooed 158 lbs., that pudgy schlub G. Zimmerman wasn’t white, and that the entire incident took place at night. So, not particularly relevant to the facts of this case.
Then, Summers & Steffey draw slightly-more-relevant parallels to the 2013 shooting of Quardious Thomas, a black Jackson resident who was shot by another black Jackson resident after he found Thomas rifling through his car. The shooter was not indicted in that case and we're not sure why they chose this example as it runs counter to their point; doubly so as the shooter was also black, so they can't even play the race card.
Frankly, we will be shocked, SHOCKED we tell you, if this man is not indicted. From what we can tell, sorting through the uninformed editorializing in some of the articles, the boss at Performance Oil was either informed of or found out that someone was breaking into a car in his parking lot. Being the good manager/owner that he is, he stepped out of the door to investigate and witnessed an auto burglary in progress.
This is where things get murky. Maybe he fired a warning shot, maybe he didn’t. We're pretty sure that he commanded McDonald to stop (of course, the gunshot and bullet whizzing past you should work just as well.)Then the burglar charged at the shooter, taking two bullets to the chest which would later prove fatal. (Note: at no time is there any “running” or pursuit on the part of the shooter mentioned in this incident mentioned by anyone except the Jackson Free Press.)
Now, we don’t know about you, but if we’ve got a gun on you, and possibly already proven our willingness to fire, running AT us would be sufficient proof that you are either completely out of your mind or determined to do us some serious damage.
Now, let’s be fair. Warning shots are almost never a good idea. Off the top of the head, we can’t come up with ANY times that it would be a good idea, but saying “never” is very definite and there very well may be a good reason out there.
But we say that you shouldn’t. You are responsible for every bullet that comes out of your gun.
Firing warning shots, generally, requires that you either take your eyes off of your attacker long enough to put a well-aimed shot into a different target or that you fire without sights, sending that round towards an unknown impact area.
While we can understand the desire to give the young man an opportunity to flee or surrender, neither options listed in the previous paragraph are good ideas. When the shooter walked out of his shop and found the felony in progress, simply holding him at gunpoint and delivering the verbal command to stop would have been sufficient unless the felon became more of a threat to you.
In this case, the felon obliged and, instead of fleeing or surrendering, advanced on the shooter.
Sorry, Timmy. We’re not lawyers, or even law professors, but we’re pretty sure that this was totally justifiable. Good try playing the Trayvon card, though.