General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSCUT FARKUS NOT GUILTY IN SHOOTING DEATH OF LIL RALPHIE PARKER UNDER INDIANA STAND YOUR GROUND LAW
Evidence Suggests Ralphie Was Straddling, Striking Defendant When Farkus Shot Out Boys Eye, Brains
HOHMAN, Ind. Scut Farkus, the so-called yellow-eyed bully accused of murdering Ralphie Parker, was found not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter Thursday afternoon.
The verdict marks the end of a legal saga which had gripped the country since last December when the tragedy was first reported in the national press, and televisions across the nation were filled with little else but the story of little Ralphie Parker throughout the holiday season.
Farkus all smiles after verdict
At the time of those initial reports, the incident was widely thought to be a clear cut murder case a fight provoked by a bully which ended in the tragic, inexplicable shooting death of his victim, Ralphie Parker, a boy who was just trying to walk home.
Young Ralphie Parker
As the prosecution put it: Farkus had been following Ralphie all over town, making him feel unwelcome and uneasy in his own neighborhood; all Ralphie wanted to do was get to get to his house unmolested.
Further supporting the impression that Farkus provoked an altercation with Ralphie was the widely reported fact that the older boy had been asked to break off his pursuit of young Parker.
Much more... http://www.citizenschwartz.com/ripralphie/
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Some people have way too much free time.
but also clearly a case of self defense.
Since all Farkus ever really did was chase people, and in this incident he was attacked for merely mocking Mr. Parker with the words "you gonna cry? Go on, cry?"
It is believed that Mr. Parker was suffering from the effects of soap poisioning as he apparently ingested several bars of soap in the previous week in attempts to get high.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Take it as entertainment I guess.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)meow2u3
(24,743 posts)The way I read those laws, it's so vague--perhaps intentionally so--that it can be interpreted to mean a license to murder anyone the shooter doesn't like.
Even the race, class, or national origin/ancestry of the victim can be, and often is, construed as "suspicious behavior." In other words, a criminal who picks a fight can get away with murder--literally. It's about time the courts took a close look at the license to kill laws.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)That said 'stand your ground' has been the law of the land for centuries. There was a brief stint when some states changed to a standard they called "duty to retreat"..it was a failure because it unjustly punished and imprisoned far too many innocent people...when this failure was determined 'duty to retreat' was repealed and replaced with a standard some states call 'stand your groung'...it is a reversion back to the old standard which has always been the standard in federal cases..to this day..The federal standard was enshrined by, iirc, Oliver Wendell Holmes. in the 1920's..It will stay..there's piles of case law supporting it, and the alternative is worse...some guilty will go free to ensure less innocent are punished..
rurallib
(62,342 posts)True, it was about 10 below 0, but that should be no excuse as there are alternatives.
And I am fairly sure that Parker's blood contained traces of Ovaltine a well-known stimulant.
ileus
(15,396 posts)We have the perfect example of common law / SYG in the country IMHO.