Turtleread, that is blatantly false. We did not disclose anyone's identity to anyone--and we couldn't know your identity from the email you used. As Todd has already explained to you in email, all anyone, including Tom, had to do was Google "turtleread" to make a guess as to your identity. If you wish to be more anonymous with your posts, then you might be more careful what you on the Interwebs. These days, most people know how to search.

As for the user agreement, you might note that continually complaining about the moderation on this privately owned website rather than sticking to the topic is also a violation. If you want to complain about the way we run our business or our site, I suggest you sent Todd yet another email.

That's priceless. Sometimes this is too easy. Smh.

So true, SusanM. Unfortunately, people with archaic ideas too often dominate what comes out of Mississippi. We must balance it out with reason. Thank you for wading in. And no problem on getting the name wrong. That's not nearly as bad as those who don't understand the basic American principles that (a) we don't execute people without a trial and (b) we don't execute them for breaking car windows. Oh, and (c), we actually investigate accusations before we declare someone a criminal (or definitively not).

Never mind "innocent until proved guilty"; we certainly don't adhere to the back-ass notion of "executed before proved guilty." That's Taliban-level or Nazi-level thinking, or non-thinking. Sure, we've always had plenty of those attitudes in Mississippi, but that doesn't mean we accept them, don't respond to them or—certainly—allow them to dominate the way we run our criminal-justice system.

Many, many Mississippians understand these things. Many who don't seem to be the ones with the most time on their hands to post the same thing over and over and over again. Don't let them shut you up. It's our state, too.

This defense of the Castle Doctrine and the killing of Quardious Thomas is running as a letter to the editor this week:

I have just read R.L. Nave’s article, “Killing Quardious Thomas: A Castle Doctrine Case Study” (jfp.ms/quardious) in the Dec. 11-17, 2013, issue. I do sympathize for Tonya Greenwood in the loss of her son. I do not agree with her remark, “They made the law so easy—and just like that it’s justified. (Quardious) never had
a chance.”
Yes, Ms. Greenwood’s son had a chance. He had the chance to stay at home that morning and not go out breaking into vehicles that did not belong to him. He had the chance to wake up and decide to do something constructive with his life. Instead, he saw the chance to vandalize automobiles for the reason, I am assuming, of stealing valuables to sell or exchange for drugs.
As a recent victim of a home burglary, I cannot explain to you what was taken from me that evening, in addition to the possessions that I worked so hard for. No locks on the door can take away the feeling of insecurity or the violation I feel knowing someone was in the house and went through my personal belongings. After being out and returning home, I still experience apprehension and fear before opening the door to enter, afraid that someone has illegally entered my home again. Had I been at home when the low-life broke in, I would have used deadly force to protect myself and my belongings. Before anyone asks, “Is it worth taking a human life over possessions?” let me respond by saying, I am not going to sit or stand there waiting to see if the intruder just leaves or if they are going to physically harm me. Criminals should be asking the question, “Is it worth my life to break in and steal what is not mine?” 
To Ms. Greenwood I say, I don’t see the Castle Doctrine as a law that makes it easy for anyone. Had I been at home and used deadly force to protect myself and my possessions, I cannot conceive of how I would be feeling now at the taking of someone’s life. To me the “easy” part would have been for Ms. Greenwood’s son to live according to God’s commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Steal.” 
Honest, hard-working people are getting fed up with people taking from them. Ms. Greenwood’s son broke into vehicles, but it is my understanding that a vehicle is considered an extension of your home. How long would it be before her son graduated to breaking into homes? What if he broke into a vehicle and/or home and stole a legally owned and registered firearm and then used it himself to kill someone. Don’t say it couldn’t happen. I bet Ms. Greenwood would have never thought her son would be vandalizing and entering other people’s vehicles.
I, myself, am thankful for the Castle Doctrine law. I feel confident in saying that all law-abiding citizens do. Criminals, however, do take issue with it, I’m sure.

Patty Saliba
Brandon, Miss.

Tom, see Tyler's earlier stories. The mayor says he made a deal, but the chamber says nothing has changed since Lumumba took office.

Tutleread, that's really easy to answer, Turtleread. I absolutely would not have gone outside with a gun and unloaded it into someone trying to break into my car. That is absurd to suggest.

As for what he did that night, we don't really know. There has not been a thorough investigation that the public is aware of -- and this is the point.

We get that you think it was fine so no need to keep restating it. That's a pretty absolute viewpoint as well.

Also, there is a long way between excusing any crime (which I don't) to justifying blowing away an unarmed person (allegedly) trying to commit a property crime. So please don't make the dumb assumption that someone is justifying any bad behavior by saying that the response was cruel and unusual. That is extraordinary binary thinking and just make the person making such an assumption look like, well, you know.

Personally, I find the suggestion that any car (or other inanimate object) is worth more than any life revulsive. And this in such a Christian state. SMH.

"Thou shalt not kill unless someone tries to take your sweet SUV."

Pilgrim, we understand what you're saying. I know many of these comments are painful to read, and I apologize. But in this case, Todd and I believe that people need to see the kinds of attitudes that still exist in the community. These comments function, probably better than most anything we could report, as a warning of the kind of fire we're lighting with these liberal gun laws that encourage vigilante violence. Some people are clearly salivating to shoot a "thug," and the public needs to know this.

Feel free to flag specific comments for positive removal, however. We are busy over here and may miss some that should go, regardless. This story is definitely bringing out the ugly.

js, you're clear that, without an investigation, we cannot know for sure what Quardious was doing, right? Y'all use about every logical fallacy in the book to defend this killing.

And all the "leftie" sniping is precious, considering that there is nothing partisan about the American ideal of "innocent until proved guilty." Y'all sound like you'd love some Taliban firing squads in these parts. Fire first; don't ask questions later.

Meantime, these kinds of posts are actually trampling over some pretty serious conservative ideals about trusting government and the police too much. As I've said already, it's interesting to see so much sudden love for JPD and the Hinds criminal-justice system. Or is that just when it means that the death of a young black man isn't taken as seriously as car break-ins?

Consistency, gentlemen. It would make you more credible.

BTW, I say above that I have no idea if a grand jury would "convict" Williams; I should have said "indict." Apologies.