Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Road rage shooter found guilty

  1. #1
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    "The factor [the defense attorney] believes may have worked against his client the most was that Mosier was not armed."

    Duh-uh!

    Once again, as haseverbeen true before, HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD)is affirmed.HPCSD's wisdom, validity and accuracy are not even questioned anymore. We simply see the all too frequent corroborations of its logic. Here it is for any who may somehow have not been made aware of it, even though it has diffused widely throughout this land:


    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.



    Remember, HPCSDALWAYS applies.

    This postulate has never been refuted in all the years of its existence. It is an amazingand universally applicable construction. The instant case of the Yalanda Parrishisbutthe most recentexemplar of HPCSD.

    Too bad I did not get to her in time.




    August 01, 2009

    Road rage shooter found guilty

    By MATT THACKER


    A Clark County jury on Friday found Yalanda Parrish, 39, guilty on one count of class B felony aggravated battery and one count of class C felony criminal recklessness for shooting a Corydon man in the chest after what police described as a June 2008 road-rage incident.

    Wesley Mosier Jr., 54, got off his motorcycle at a red light at 10th Street and Allison Lane and approached Parrish’s sports utility vehicle, where she shot him once.

    Mosier fought through tears leaving the courtroom as he said the conviction vindicated him.

    “I just thank God,” Mosier said. “I’m tremendously thrilled this happened.”

    Mosier said he has been called a liar and a racist and felt the defense team tried to humiliate him throughout the trial. He added that he would take a polygraph test to prove he was telling the truth on the stand.

    “It happened just the way I said it happened,” Mosier said.

    The families of Mosier and Parrish had no reaction as the verdict was read. Parrish’s attorney, Brian Butler, said his client remained stoic and only turned to hug family members.

    Circuit Court Judge Dan Moore ordered Parrish immediately to the Michael L. Becher Adult Corrections Complex, where she will be held without bond until sentencing Aug. 18 at 10 a.m. She faces six to 20 years in prison.

    A judgment of conviction was only entered for the class B felony because the two charges are considered different levels of the same offense. Indiana guidelines call for a minimum sentence of six years with a maximum of 20 years. The advisory sentence is 10 years.

    The jury — comprised of eight white women, three white men and a black man — deliberated for less than three and a half hours.

    Prosecutor Steve Stewart said he had anticipated a guilty verdict from the outset.

    “Had this verdict not been a guilty verdict, I would have been very worried about what the future would hold for this community,” Stewart said.

    Darryl Mosier, 48, said he had not talked to his brother in seven years before the shooting. He said the one silver lining in the incident was that the two have become closer in the last year.

    “Justice has been served in my book,” he said after the verdict was read, adding that he hopes Parrish has learned the proper way to use a firearm.

    Butler said Parrish continues to believe she was justified in shooting Mosier, but said the jury’s verdict shows the people of Clark County disagree. The factor he believes may have worked against his client the most was that Mosier was not armed.



    CLARK COUNTY NOT

    THE ‘WILD WEST’

    Stewart asked that the jury be the conscience of the community.

    “This is not the Wild, Wild West, but even if this was Dodge City, you wouldn’t be able to walk away claiming self-defense after shooting an unarmed man,” Stewart said as he began his closing statements to the jury Friday morning.

    Stewart said the jury would have to decide if Parrish truly believed it was necessary to use deadly force and if a reasonable person would believe the amount of force she used was reasonable. He also argued that Parrish had many other options, such as driving away to avoid Mosier or locking her doors.

    Butler asked the jury to put themselves in Parrish’s position.

    “It’s awfully easy for us to sit back 14 months later and say she shouldn’t have shot Wesley Mosier,” Butler said.

    The focus of Butler’s closing arguments was on the reliability of Mosier’s testimony that he only went back to Parrish’s SUV to ask if he had done something wrong.

    “He’s telling these lies because he knew what his intention was,” Butler said. “He knew what he was going to do when he got back to that SUV. ... He was going back there, and he meant business.”

    Even Stewart admitted that Mosier was not innocent as the two drove down East 10th Street. Witnesses described both vehicles as driving erratically, although Mosier and Parrish have placed the blame solely on the other.

    “I’m not sure either one [Mosier or Parrish] is telling the complete truth about what happened between Sportsman Drive and Allison Lane,” Stewart said.

    “There is no question Mr. Mosier is not without fault, but did he deserve to die?” Stewart asked.

    Stewart pointed to Parrish’s focus on herself as she testified to the grand jury in July 2008.

    “I’m so sorry I had to go through this. This has been hard on me,” Parrish was heard saying on an audio tape played in court.

    Butler downplayed the importance of those tapes and newly released 911 tapes from the Clark County Sheriff’s Department, when Parrish called 911 to report she had shot someone. In the audio, Parrish can be heard yelling at someone to never run up on her car.

    “One person can hear panic. Another person can hear remorse,” Butler said.

    Butler said Parrish has been praying for Mosier since the incident.



    RACE AN ISSUE DURING

    CLOSING ARGUMENTS

    During closing arguments, Butler also brought up race for the first time during the trial. He said during closing statements that just like some white people are nervous passing a group of black men, race may have played a part in Parrish’s reaction.

    “You have an angry man, who happens to be white [and] who’s driving a motorcycle,” Butler said. “We’re all kidding ourselves if we don’t think that created extra apprehension.”

    Butler defended his decision to bring up race by saying it is only one of many factors that went into explaining why Parrish was scared for her safety. Butler said it is not his job to be politically correct.

    The attorney said after the verdict was read that he did not believe the jury’s racial makeup had an effect on the outcome.



    BOTH SIDES PREPARE FOR SENTENCING LATER THIS MONTH

    Butler said he believes there will be no aggravating factors and several major mitigating factors that could lead to a lighter sentence. Parrish had never previously been charged with a crime, and Butler said the judge can take into consideration that other factors led to the situation.

    Butler also noted that, by virtue of her felony conviction, Parrish will not be allowed to purchase another firearm.

    “We don’t need to put Yalanda Parrish in jail to protect the community,” Butler said.

    Stewart said there may be some additional evidence that was left out of the trial that may be considered at sentencing.

    Stewart said earlier in the day that he was disappointed that all of the evidence was not allowed into evidence.

    The evidence ruled inadmissible in court included Mosier’s criminal history, Parrish’s previous alleged road-rage incident and frequent 911 calls, and witness testimony that Parrish’s 15-year-old son kicked and cursed at Mosier after the shooting.

    “Anytime the truth is kept from the jury, I have a hard time swallowing it,” Stewart said. “You’re basically saying the jury is too stupid to understand.”

    Stewart said he will argue for a “substantial amount of jail time” at sentencing.

    “It’s only by an act of God we’re not here on murder charges,” Stewart said.

    Mosier said there had been an agreement between both parties Thursday that likely would have resulted in much less jail time. Butler confirmed his client rejected the offer, but the terms of that informal agreement were not released.

    Butler said he could not comment on a possible appeal because he does not handle the appeals process.

    The court staff said that none of the jurors — known only throughout the trial by numbers assigned to them — wanted to speak to the media.

    http://www.newsandtribune.com/local/...213025027.html


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I should like to include some information to modify the postulate, or more precisely the idea that it "always applies" "has never been refuted" and is "universally applicable". No offense, HankT. I just think others should have complete information on something so important. Hesitation over incomplete information, erroneously thinking they may not shoot,may get someone hurt or killed:

    ...Review the above. Six women. Four rapes prevented. Six very possible murders prevented. Four dead attackers, and two crippled for life as a result of their own vicious misadventure. Only one of these six women criminally charged, and she, finally acquitted. There are lessons here.
    Note, for example, that four of these six women were ruled justifiable in shooting their attackers even though the men they shot turned out to be unarmed. The principle is called “disparity of force.” The law understands that when a male violently attacks a female, even with just his bare hands, the likelihood of him inflicting death or crippling injury is so great that she is justified in using a lethal weapon against him in self-defense. (emphasis added). --Massad Ayoob

    http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/ayoob65.html

    Although I cannot provide a cite, I recall reading that an old man against a much younger, stronger man fits the definition of disparity of force.

    Also, Massad Ayoob, in his video Judicious Use of Deadly Force talks about:

    Being knocked down and being kicked, the issue being that you cannot roll with the blows the way you can when standing. He tells the class he will show them photos of people who died that way later in the week. Justified lethal force.

    And, an unarmedintruder coming towards you to take your gun away from you. Justified lethal force if the other elements of AOJ are present and there is no requirement to retreat, or if there is, the defender has run out of room to retreat.



    You have a nice idea, HankT. And a way of presenting it such that it makesan impression. Why not present it the way the rest of the self-defense world does? The principle of Disparity of Force. Disparity of force tends to admit the broader subject material.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    I should like to include some information to modify the postulate, or more precisely the idea that it "always applies" "has never been refuted" and is "universally applicable". No offense, HankT. I just think others should have complete information on something so important. Hesitation over incomplete information, erroneously thinking they may not shoot,may get someone hurt or killed:
    Citizen, you, as usual, jump to conclusions. Incorrect ones.

    HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD)does not preclude or prohibit a person from shooting an unarmed person.

    Look, read it again. But do not skip any of the words. Or add any additional words:

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


    HPCSD has never been refuted. It always applies...

    What do you think of this thread's Yalanda Parrish case, Citizen. Do you agree that an understanding of HPCSD would have helped her?

    Cat got your tongue, Citizen?



  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    SNIP Citizen, you, as usual, jump to conclusions. Incorrect ones.

    HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD)does not preclude or prohibit a person from shooting an unarmed person.

    Look, read it again. But do not skip any of the words. Or add any additional words:

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


    HPCSD has never been refuted. It always applies...

    What do you think of this thread's Yalanda Parrish case, Citizen. Do you agree that an understanding of HPCSD would have helped her?

    Cat got your tongue, Citizen?

    OK, Hank. I'll bite.

    How was it a bad strategy for the women in the Massad Ayoob angle to shoot unarmed rapists? Considering the possible consequences of not shooting, I would say not shooting is the bad strategy.

    I really can't make out your justification Hank. The rest of the self-defense world teaches disparity of force, AOJ, immediacy, unavoidability. Although I cannot claim to have studied every lethal force instructor, you are literally the only one I have come across who makes such an absolute claim about shooting an unarmed person.

    It occurs to me that your point might be shooting an unarmed person without all the elements of justified lethal force being present. But your principle doesn't say that. It says ''an unarmed person". A group that necessarily includes the subset: unarmed attackers.

    Add that you heave the principle into a gun forum, of all places, where readers will have attention on the self-defense angle, and I think its actually a disservice to muddle the issue for new readers. At least to the degree you are muddling it for a new person who is looking at it from a self-defense angle.

    I'm done biting. I'm notgoingto bite on the question about the person in the article. Even with your petty little baiting about a cat. Good night, Hank.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    The main issue is Parrish's role in the initial cause of the road rage incident. If both parties involved were acting ignorantly (and it sounds that way from this article), her legal grounds for shooting someone are very questionable. If the guy jumped out on her with no provocation telegraphing imminent bodily danger, I would be inclined to say NOT GUILTY immediately.

    Disparity of force applies to true victims or at least the idiot who tries to retreat after causing or escalating a problem.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

    Post imported post

    Ms Parish was out looking for a confrontation......again. This time it cost her more than a restraining order.

  7. #7
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    Hank,

    Assuming that you are using "strategy" to mean a pre-conceived plan of action towards a goal, of course it's a bad idea to go out with the intention of shootingan unarmed man. Is it not also a bad strategy to punch, kick, bite, throw to ground, or otherwisetouch in any violent manner anunarmed man?

    Are you postulating that it's a bad strategy to defendone's life as well?




  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    451

    Post imported post

    next time he'll think twice about getting off his motorcycle..

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    TheApostle wrote:
    The main issue is Parrish's role in the initial cause of the road rage incident.
    I agree, and this shows that the primary rule that applies to this case is Arentol's Rule, Don't be a Dumbass when Armed (ARDDA).

    It sounds like Parrish contributed significantly to this incident in some way before the guy got off his motorcycle. If you are armed you have a responsibility to NOT be a dumbass and provoke other people, whether in person or while on the road. Provocation to violence while armed negates any claim to self-defense.

    Also, I would normally say "Regardless of what happened previously the guy shouldn't have left his vehicle to confront her." However, if Parrish was already driving dangerously around this motorcyclist out of road rage, and she was lined up to follow him after the light changed, then a confrontation was warranted. Road rage towards another car is dangerous, but road rage towards motorcyclist is deadly. Anyone driving recklessly on purpose around a motorcyclist needs to be taken off the road until they can calm their rear end down.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    127

    Post imported post

    ...expect to catch some "flack" here on this comment; however Parrish had a MORE lethal "weapon" at her disposal - her vehicle.

    With that said, she could have drove away - maybe she was stuck in traffic, but she had the ability to roll up the windows, lock the doors, etc; or just simply leave the area of confrontation.

    Not going to get to deep into her local laws of "retreat" etc - but using a gun when another weapon, or method of escape was just plain dumb.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Not using deadly force also wasn't a great idea. "Dead men tell no tales."

    If he testified then why couldn't his criminal record be used?
    Defense always trashes witnesses, or if you are in the system you are
    granted protections the rest of us don't have?

    I agree using the car is a much safer weapon, you just go to a bar
    get drunk while waiting for police, and get off as a drunk at worse.
    But anyone who would agitate a SUV from a motorcycle is missing
    several brain cells to begin with.




  12. #12
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post


    HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD)is affirmed again.

    It is a bad strategy to shoot an unarmed person.


    Ho, hum. It's so, um, routine nowadays...

    Gawd, this woman Parrish was a pitiful example from the gun owner and carrier communities. OK, OK...she is my sister, my fellow gun and 2A advocate. But, boy oh, boy, she goofed up BIG TIME! She ruined her life and pretty well messed up her son's, too.

    Even though she is of my community, I condemn her actions. She simply did not represent us well.

    Even though I wasn't there, I think she usedye ole pistola injudiciously.

    All you who read this story, DON'T do what our sister did!





    August 20, 2009

    Yalanda Parrish sentenced to 10 years

    Road-rage shooter could served last 3 years on work release

    By MATT THACKER


    Yalanda Parrish — found guilty last month of two felonies for shooting a man during a road-rage incident in Jeffersonville — was sentenced to 10 years at the Indiana Department of Correction on Thursday afternoon. The final three years may be served as part of the work-release program.

    Parrish, 40, could only shake her head as she left the courtroom in custody of Clark County jail officers. Some friends and family members left in tears.

    Parrish shot Wesley Mosier Jr., 54, of Corydon, once in the chest in June 2008 after he got off his motorcycle at a red light at 10th Street and Allison Lane and approached her sport utility vehicle. The jury was asked to consider whether the shooting was in self defense.

    “It sounds like a fair deal,” Mosier said after the sentencing.

    The sentencing hearing lasted less than an hour, with only Mosier and Parrish being called to testify.

    “I didn’t deserve to get shot,” Mosier said during the hearing. “I didn’t do anything wrong that day.”

    Mosier — who spent 12 days at University Hospital in Louisville and still has a bullet lodged in his back — said that all he can do many days is lay in bed.

    “I hope she has to suffer just like I had to suffer,” Mosier told Judge Dan Moore.

    When asked after the hearing if he believes Parrish will suffer, he said he thinks she already is. Mosier also said that if he could do it all over, he would not get off his motorcycle, but that he never expected to be shot.

    “I’m from a smaller town,” he said. “They don’t act like that there.”

    Parrish, who elected not to testify during her jury trial, said at sentencing that she was “so sorry.”

    “I am profoundly remorseful for the situation, not only with the Mosier family suffering, but my family suffering as well,” Parrish said. “I just want to be treated fairly. I just want my freedom. I just want to go home.”

    Clark County Prosecutor Steve Stewart said it is always difficult to know whether someone is remorseful because of their actions or because they will be spending time in jail.

    “I’ll assume from her words that she’s telling the truth [about being sorry],” he said, and then added, “You can’t just shoot someone and say, ‘I’m sorry.’”

    Stewart said he was pleased with the sentence and hopes it sends a strong message to not let road-rage situations escalate into violence.

    Before giving a sentence, Moore said that a “reduced sentence would depreciate the crime.”

    On July 31, a Clark County jury found Parrish guilty of class B felony aggravated battery and class C felony criminal recklessness. A judgment of conviction was entered on the more serious count, because the charges were considered two levels of the same offense.

    All parties agreed that under Indiana law, the minimum sentence of six years for an aggravated battery charge could not be suspended to probation. The advisory sentence for a class B felony is 10 years with a maximum possible sentence of 20 years.

    Brian Butler, Parrish’s attorney, said judges have to make tough decisions, but added that it is wrong for the law the mandate that the minimum must be served in jail. He said this case is a perfect example of someone who should receive only probation.

    Parrish has never been convicted of a crime, and after being convicted of a felony, Parrish will not be allowed to carry a firearm.

    Without the gun in the equation, Butler argued, this situation would never happen again with Parrish.

    “I can’t think of a case where the circumstances are more unlikely to occur,” Butler said during the hearing. “This is a horrible perfect storm. I don’t think anybody believes if Yalanda Parrish is on the street, this would happen again.”

    Several letters were sent to the court on Parrish’s behalf. Butler said those letters were from friends and family members describing his client as a good church-going mother.

    Butler said they lost the case because the jury found Parrish was not reasonable in believing she was in danger.

    “I believe she believes she was acting in self defense, but the jury did not find that was reasonable,” Butler said.

    Moore had harsh words for Mosier and Parrish, saying that the two appeared to be in competition as they drove down 10th Street the day of the shooting.

    “Both of these adults on the roadway that day were engaged in conduct that was not that of mature adults,” Moore said.

    He said he drove down 10th Street after the jury trial concluded and counted 48 places either Mosier or Parrish could have exited to avoid the confrontation, and he even asked a staff member to drive down 10th Street and check his counting.

    Moore said he also sat in the parking lot at Thorntons twice in the past month watching traffic in order to visualize what might have happened that day.

    He found it “troubling” that Parrish never drove into the Thorntons parking lot and said Parrish “put lives at stake and endangered people on the roadway that day, maybe even people in the next lane.”

    Butler said he had never heard of a judge going out to the scene of a crime, but was not aware of any rule prohibiting judges from doing that.

    Parrish also was ordered to pay $1,881.62 in restitution for Mosier’s unpaid medical bills and new glasses and dentures, as they were damaged in the shooting. Mosier has medical insurance, but he said he has not been able to pay all of his deductibles and has been turned over to collections.

    With good time credit, Parrish likely would serve 31⁄2 years at the Department of Correction and 11⁄2 years on work release, Stewart said.

    Supporters of Parrish gathered outside the courthouse after the hearing. They said they had no comment but may release a statement at a later date.

    Parrish has 30 days to file an appeal. Butler said he does not do appellate work, but that Parrish’s case will be appealed.



    TIMELINE OF EVENTS

    • JUNE 17, 2008: Yalanda Parrish shoots and seriously injures Wesley Mosier Jr. following a road-rage incident at 10th Street and Allison Lane in Jeffersonville.

    • JULY 2008: A Clark County grand jury indicts Parrish on charges of aggravated battery, a class B felony, and criminal recklessness, a class C felony. She can only be convicted on one of the charges. Her gun permit is suspended by Indiana State Police.

    • AUGUST 2008: Parrish’s 15-year-old son is charged with battery for allegedly kicking Mosier after he is shot. He later agrees to a plea agreement, which is sealed by the court, but confirmed by Mosier, who was at the hearing.

    • JULY 28, 2009: After numerous delays, Yalanda Parrish’s trial begins.

    • JULY 31, 2009: A jury deliberates for only 31⁄2 hours before finding Parrish guilty on both felonies.

    • THURSDAY: Parrish was sentenced to 10 years at the Indiana Department of Correction. The final three years may be served as part of the work-release program.



    http://www.newsandtribune.com/clarkc...232170418.html



    I kinda feel a little bit sorry for her.



    If only she had known about and studied HankT's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense (HPCSD)...



  13. #13
    Regular Member MSC 45ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,845

    Post imported post

    Wonder what happened with her earlier road rage incident? Plea bargain? Should have been admissible in court as being relative... Shows intent and a pattern of behavior. How many other times has she had road rage and NOT been caught?

    There are lots of people like her out there. I admit to having it whenI was younger. I used to go around someone and cut them off after they had done the same to me. I'm fortunate to have "outgrown" that attitude and lived long enough to talk about it. I do the speed limit now wherever I go. LOTS of people tailgate me and then cut me off just because of it. too many people running around these days driving like idiots and not thinking about possible consequences.

    When you decide to carry a weapon, you also need to remember you have just accepted a HUGE responsibility not to use it the wrong way in the heat of the moment. You need to be ESPECIALLY level-headed when carrying.
    "If I know that I am headed for a fight, I want something larger with more power, preferably crew-served.
    However, like most of us, as I go through my daily life, I carry something a bit more compact, with a lot less power."
    (unknown 'gun~writer')

    Remington 1911 R1 (Back to Basics)
    SERPA retention or concealed...

    "Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
    (Borrowed from "The Perfect Day" by LTC Dave Grossman)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    127

    Post imported post

    MSC 45ACP wrote:
    Wonder what happened with her earlier road rage incident? Plea bargain? Should have been admissible in court as being relative... Shows intent and a pattern of behavior. How many other times has she had road rage and NOT been caught?

    There are lots of people like her out there. I admit to having it whenI was younger. I used to go around someone and cut them off after they had done the same to me. I'm fortunate to have "outgrown" that attitude and lived long enough to talk about it. I do the speed limit now wherever I go. LOTS of people tailgate me and then cut me off just because of it. too many people running around these days driving like idiots and not thinking about possible consequences.

    When you decide to carry a weapon, you also need to remember you have just accepted a HUGE responsibility not to use it the wrong way in the heat of the moment. You need to be ESPECIALLY level-headed when carrying.
    Amen... to that comment; there is truth in being wise(er) in your older age. An unfortunately expensive and time-costly lesson for Parrish, but the "law of averages" on stupid behavior does add up - and often not in your favor.


  15. #15
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    MSC 45ACP wrote:
    Wonder what happened with her earlier road rage incident? Plea bargain? Should have been admissible in court as being relative... Shows intent and a pattern of behavior. How many other times has she had road rage and NOT been caught?

    There are lots of people like her out there. I admit to having it whenI was younger. I used to go around someone and cut them off after they had done the same to me. I'm fortunate to have "outgrown" that attitude and lived long enough to talk about it. I do the speed limit now wherever I go. LOTS of people tailgate me and then cut me off just because of it. too many people running around these days driving like idiots and not thinking about possible consequences.

    When you decide to carry a weapon, you also need to remember you have just accepted a HUGE responsibility not to use it the wrong way in the heat of the moment. You need to be ESPECIALLY level-headed when carrying.
    I'm glad you changed your ways, MSC. Being a hothead and a gun carrier don't mix very well.

    Not even, for a "good person." Even ifsomeone is a good person, they can do really, really stupid and bad things. And using a gun stupidly isone of the worst things that a person can do.







    WLKY.com

    Road Rage Shooter's Husband Speaks Out
    Phillip Parrish Sr. Says Wife Is A Good Person

    POSTED: August 24, 2009


    JEFFERSONVILLE, Ind. -- [/b]The husband of a southern Indiana woman convicted in a road rage shooting is speaking about the case publicly for the first time.

    "Everybody thinks she's a bad person. She's not a bad person," said Phillip Parrish Sr.

    Yalanda Parrish was sentenced last week to seven years in prison for shooting Wesley Mosier Jr. after the two had an argument while driving on State Road 62 in Jeffersonville.

    Parrish said his wife is a kind, caring woman who was merely trying to protect herself from an aggressive man.

    "My wife is the best thing to ever happen to me and my son. I want her home. I miss her. My son misses her," said Parrish.

    WLKY’s Mike Petchenik sat down with Phillip Parrish Sr. Monday afternoon and asked him what he'd say to people who assume Yalanda was just ready to pull her gun out.

    “Let that man run up on one of them and pull down the door and be ready to whoop them. They don't understand what went down up there," said Phillips Parrish Sr.

    Yalanda Parrish turned down a plea deal that would have put her in prison for just one year.

    Previous Stories:

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    Actually people refer to Tomahawk's Postulate of Civilian Self-Defense. It makes much more sense, is a better approach to self-defense, and it's a step ahead of the archaic Hankt Postulate.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •