Pike County District Attorney's statement in the paper

When fugitive Kaunda Magee was captured, in Pike County, by a LA State Trooper and a private Citizen, the private citizen shot him. The private citizen was the reason he did not escape

I don't understand this statement in the paper. Pike County District Attorney "DEE" Bates said this to the Enterprise Journal:
"As for the resident who reportedly shot Magee, Bates said no decision has been made on whether or not to charge him. Bates added that he will need to collect all the facts before a decision can be made.

This man is a HERO, not someone to be prosecuted. It makes me wonder what woud happen to one of us that tried to defend his home and Family in Pike County.

Doug Bowser

wait a minute are you kidding me????

I think a few phone calls to DA is in order..

If that is what it said...it says "no decision has been made on whether or not to charge him. Bates added that he will need to collect all the facts before a decision can be made." THat means NO DECISION has been made. It is not smart for a public figure that is voted in or anyone for that matter just to spout off without the facts. Dee wasnt there for the incident so it is in his best interest to watch what he says until he can make a decision. Geezzz...

It is always smart to have "Some sort" of investigation into all matters. I know it happens all the time, but what if one of us was robbed when we were away from our home and an investigator just spouted off something and then didnt investigate it....We would be pretty aggrivated with the system.

I dont think law abiding heros should be treated like criminals, but we dont know everyone in the world. Therefore some of us law abiding citizens should be respectfully and lawfully investigated. It would be different if he was thrown in cuffs pepper sprayed put behind bars etc. then the incident be investigated.

if this hero is charged with an offense someone needs to hook him up with 2alawyer ASAP.

if others are truly interested, I can contact a few prosecutors in Hinds County and see how this would stand up in court and if there is any precedent in this man's favor.

also this is what the MS code says....

Mississippi Code 97-3-15 Homicide; justifiable homicide; use of defensive force; duty to retreat.

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

(d) When necessarily committed by public officers, or those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, in arresting any felon fleeing from justice;

(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;

(g) When necessarily committed in attempting by lawful ways and means to apprehend any person for any felony committed;

(2) (a) As used in subsection (1)(c) and (d) of this section, the term "when necessarily committed" means that a public officer or a person acting by or at the officer's command, aid or assistance is authorized to use such force as necessary in securing and detaining the felon offender, overcoming the offender's resistance, preventing the offender's escape, recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or others from bodily harm; but such officer or person shall not be authorized to resort to deadly or dangerous means when to do so would be unreasonable under the circumstances. The public officer or person acting by or at the officer's command may act upon a reasonable apprehension of the surrounding circumstances; however, such officer or person shall not use excessive force or force that is greater than reasonably necessary in securing and detaining the offender, overcoming the offender's resistance, preventing the offender's escape, recapturing the offender if the offender escapes or in protecting himself or others from bodily harm.

(b) As used in subsection (1)(c) and (d) of this section the term "felon" shall include an offender who has been convicted of a felony and shall also include an offender who is in custody, or whose custody is being sought, on a charge or for an offense which is punishable, upon conviction, by death or confinement in the Penitentiary.

(3) A person who uses defensive force shall be presumed to have reasonably feared imminent death or great bodily harm, or the commission of a felony upon him or another or upon his dwelling, or against a vehicle which he was occupying, or against his business or place of employment or the immediate premises of such business or place of employment, if the person against whom the defensive force was used, was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if that person had unlawfully removed or was attempting to unlawfully remove another against the other person's will from that dwelling, occupied vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof and the person who used defensive force knew or had reason to believe that the forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. This presumption shall not apply if the person against whom defensive force was used has a right to be in or is a lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or is the lawful resident or owner of the dwelling, vehicle, business, place of employment or the immediate premises thereof or if the person who uses defensive force is engaged in unlawful activity or if the person is a law enforcement officer engaged in the performance of his official duties;

(4) A person who is not the initial aggressor and is not engaged in unlawful activity shall have no duty to retreat before using deadly force under subsection (1) (e) or (f) of this section if the person is in a place where the person has a right to be, and no finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the person's failure to retreat as evidence that the person's use of force was unnecessary, excessive or unreasonable.

was this gentleman acting in assistance with or under the command of the LEO???

As far as the Mississippi statute goes, I pulled all of what seemed relevant to this matter from it. For the full reading of the statute see MS Code 97-3-15.

Without all the facts, it seems to me that he was clearly assisting the officer. Whether it was by the officer's command, only the ones there could tell. If the officer said something like "Don't let him get away" or "Watch for him around back" or otherwise verbally involved them, then yes it was by his command. If they were there hanging out and watching to see what happened on their own accord, then it could be questionable.

That said, pin a medal on the guy and buy him a bigger gun.

I guess you could argue that by shooting the guy, he was actually defending himself and the officer. You could reason that even though he was running away, it was still the officer's duty to stop him, and since the felon was obviously armed, he was an imminent danger to the officer in pursuit.

Mr. Doug, I'd have everyone I know in Pike County call the DA's office and remind him that he's elected and the man that stopped the fugitive may have saved many lives. We may need to do for him what we did for Mr. Mikell, get him a 12 gage and some #4 buckshot! LOL

J.B.

Is this the same DA who said if you shoot someone in self defence you will go to jail?

The District Attorney has attempted to clarify his remarks today in the paper:
http://www.enterprise-journal.com/news/article_587253d2-04b9-11e1-9ea7-001cc4c002e0.html

>>On another point, District Attorney Dee Bates clarified comments he made recently about whether the citizen who shot Magee could face charges.
Bates said the citizen — whom officials have not identified for his own protection — almost certainly won’t be indicted, but officials have to investigate the case.
“It was a tense situation,” Bates said this morning when contacted by the Enterprise-Journal. “The Castle Doctrine (of home defense) and a lot of other things potentially could apply. The citizen, it appears, was aiding law enforcement officers in the apprehension. It appears the guy (Magee) still had a gun, too. My personal opinion is it was justified. But you have to lay everything out. You just can’t say it sounded good. You have to look at the facts.”<<
Having been the victim of selective quotation and out-of-context reporting in the same paper, I must say we should give him the benefit of the doubt until we (and I mean members of our local club and/or MSFOA) can speak with this man in person. I found his initial quote VERY disturbing, but again, it was in the "Enterprise Journal", aka the "Surprise Journal".

Great post Herr Zinke