Charles Jordan, 41, left, Marc Carrion, 32, and Brenda Jordan, 20.
Guns dot com
A Philadelphia father was arraigned Monday for voluntary manslaughter charges that he faces after fatally shooting a man he found in his daughter’s bedroom last month.
Charles Jordan, 41, maintains his innocence and said he only shot at 32-year-old Marc Carrion because he felt threatened and believed Carrion had broken into his home.
On Sept. 15, around 11:30 p.m., Jordan grabbed his handgun when he heard unfamiliar noises coming from the bedroom of his daughter, Brenda. Jordan told authorities that after he entered her bedroom, he noticed something out of place about Brenda’s window before he found Carrion crouched down in a corner next to the window, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
Jordan said he believed that Carrion had broken into the home through his daughter’s window, but would later discover that his daughter had invited Carrion, whom she had known for about a month, up to the second-floor apartment.
Wasn't there a case like this last year in which the reactionary dad was not charged? Or is this just one of those lengthy investigations that results in charges?
"Wasn't there a case like this last year in which the reactionary dad was not charged?"
ReplyDeleteYes, though in that case, the girl was a minor and when dad came in the room the girl said she didn't know him.
"He reportedly found the teen in bed with his daughter and confronted him. His daughter apparently told him she did not know the boy.
The father said he told the teen not to move, but reportedly saw the teen reach for something, at which point police say the father opened fire. The teen did not have a gun. His daughter later confessed that she snuck her boyfriend, 17, into the house, the report said.
"We don't know if the father knew him or not,” Sgt. Ben Bell with the Harris County Sheriff's Department, told the station. The family had just moved into the neighborhood."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/14/charges-unlikely-for-houston-dad-accused-shooting-daughters-boyfriend/
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be any mention as to why this rises to the level of preferring charges.
"She originally told police that Carrion had come into the apartment from the bedroom window, the sources said. But she later told detectives that she had known Carrion for about a month."
That's right, in the other case the trigger happy dad used the old "he made a threatening move" explanation. I guess in Philly that shit doesn't fly.
DeleteWe don't really know. Perhaps it's the fact that this daughter was an adult. Will be interesting to see what the jury says.
DeleteAn unarmed guy cowering in a corner, and he shot him. He should be charged.
Delete"An unarmed guy cowering in a corner"
Delete"When Jordan called 911, operators heard him tell Carrion not to move before a single gunshot was fired. Jordan claims that Carrion lunged towards him and left him with no choice but to fire a shot to his head, ultimately killing him. Jordan has now been charged with manslaughter."
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/dad-who-shot-and-killed-his-daughters-boyfriend-charged-manslaughter
He has been charged Anon. Now it will be for a jury to decide. I personally would be quite happy for cowering to occur until the police arrive in such a situation. However, if someone tries to attack you in that situation, you're quite justified in shooting.
Interesting that he called 911 before he ended up shooting him. Considering its fairly common knowledge that the calls are recorded and there was another witness in the room it seem like his mindset was on the intruder scenario as opposed to the pissed at the boyfriend one.
Regardless of whether he thought the man was an intruder or a boyfriend, shooting an unarmed man and then claiming he lunged and that that constituted a lethal threat is bullshit. I suspect the crouching man simply got up to leave before the cops arrived and was shot for disobedience.
DeleteOr better yet, after placing the call, while holding the man at gunpoint the homeowner became aware of what was really going on and in a furious moment of outrage, you know, an old black ram was tupping his white ewe, he executed him.
DeleteRight, another CLAIM that he lunged at him. That's the old Zimmerman excuse. Of course no witnesses around to contradict that and of course dead men tell no tales. We never heard Martins side of what happened, nor will we ever hear this dead guys version of what happened. You seem to automatically believe the guy that just killed someone, typical for a gun loon.
Delete"Right, another CLAIM that he lunged at him. That's the old Zimmerman excuse. Of course no witnesses around to contradict that and of course dead men tell no tales."
DeleteYou bet Anon, except for the physical and eyewitness evidence that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman, they are exactly the same. Except there was a witness at each event.
The shooting went to a Grand Jury which doesn't seem to have indicted the father. The shooting in Philadelphia has resulted in charges and a jury will decide. And of course, the acquittal of Zimmerman is old news.
There was no witness to the start of the Martin/Zimmerman fight, but thanks for proving again what a liar you are.
Delete"There was no witness to the start of the Martin/Zimmerman fight, but thanks for proving again what a liar you are. "
DeleteAnon, just as you seem to dislike elections that go against your political interests, such as the recall elections in Colorado, you also seek to discount times when our justice system doesn't go the way you think it should also.
The father in the shooting in Texas was not indicted by a Grand Jury, George Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury of his peers. And now in the case of this shooting in Philadelphia will also go to a trial.
You really are getting dishonestly slimy lately, probably because you lose every argument with your dishonest, lying tactics.
DeleteI never said I dislike elections that don't go my way. I have said many times, I don't swallow your lies that one election in a State represents the majority stance of all Americans. A lie you use all the time.
You dodged the issue, again, no surprise. There were no eye witnesses to who, or what started the fight between Martin and Zimmerman. The fact that Zimmerman got off doesn't prove Marting started a fight with Zimmerman, which is what you gun loons say all the time, you are just lying. I suppose to give Zimmerman some dishonest justification for shooting Martin. Next lies SS....
"There were no eye witnesses to who, or what started the fight between Martin and Zimmerman."
DeleteWe actually do have a pretty good idea as to what started the fight. Martin got pissed that some "cracker" (his words) was following him.
Due process works.
Another lie by SS, big surprise.
DeleteZimmerman was told not to follow him, but he did. If he had not (as he was told not to) a fight never would have happened, so Zimmerman is responsible.
By the way, your "good idea" is not fact. But that doesn't stop you from saying it is, like a true dishonest liar.
"Zimmerman was told not to follow him, but he did."
DeleteActually, when told he didn't need to follow him, he said ok and started returning to his vehicle, making arrangements for police to call him when they arrived.
You are really going to stick with that dishonest reply? Zimmerman did follow him when told not to, or there would have been no confrontation. Keep those lies coming SS.....
Delete"You are really going to stick with that dishonest reply?"
DeleteI know its a radical thought for you to hold on to Anon. But in this country, you have to be proven guilty. He was acquitted. Nuff said.
As I said that doesn't prove Martin started any fight, that's what you claim and as usual you are wrong. Correct, after you have been proven wrong this is nothing else to be said.
DeleteDo gun loon killers check anything before they just shoot?
ReplyDelete