United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Tennessee store clerk charged in death of teen believed to be shoplifting beer, report says
Source:
Fox News
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/0 ... plifting-beer-report-says.html
Published: Apr 2, 2018
Author: AP
Post Date: 2018-04-02 09:26:19 by misterwhite
Keywords: None
Views: 2343
Comments: 29
Police in Tennessee said Sunday that a convenience store clerk has been charged in the fatal shooting of a suspected shoplifter whose body was found near the store. The Commercial Appeal reports Memphis police charged 28-year-old Anwar Ghazali with first-degree murder. The shooting occurred on Thursday, but police said Ghazali never reported the incident. The 17-year-old's body was found beside a home near the store Saturday. Fox 13 Memphis identified the victim as Dorian Harris. Police spokesman Louis Brownlee said the teen was suspected of leaving the store without paying for a beer, and Ghazali followed him and allegedly shot him. "The victim/suspect stole a beer and goes out of the store,'' Brownlee told the paper. "The suspect tries to stop him. Shoots at him. Hits him once. He doesn't officially know that he hit him. Yesterday, a female comes home, sees a person lying next to the home. Calls police.” Ghazali was being held in the Shelby County Jail. It wasn't immediately known whether he has an attorney. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
#3. To: misterwhite (#0)
This is, simply put, the danger to the gun owner of having a gun. No matter how often hotheads and idiots scream about how the law ought to be, and no matter how many buffoons pound their chests and shout about how they're gonna do justice right, the FACT is that there are laws, and the law is that if you kill a man for shoplifting, you're a murderer. You're not a hero. You do not have the right to kill a man who does not threaten you for taking a piece of property. Idiots have huffed and puffed that they do for centuries, and then they've gone ahead and done it - shot somebody for stealing a bear, beaten somebody to death for running off with a purse. And then, all the way back to when time (or at least our laws) began in Jolly Old England, the killer has been hanged, caged, and otherwise treated like the murderer that he IS. Nobody gives a fuck if YOU think that YOU have the right to kill somebody to protect your property from being stolen. If you do it, you're a murderer, and the rest of us, through our legal system, are going to try you, jail you, and ruin your life just like any other murderer. Shooting somebody for stealing a beer does not make you a hero. It makes you a violent criminal, a murderer, and liable for the death penalty. You do not have the right to shoot shoplifters. If you think you do, you should not have a gun, because you're going to end up making your own law, and then the rest of us are going to crush out your life because you're a violent criminal. Period. There's nothing to discuss on this one. That's the way it is. That's the way it's been for six hundred years in the Common Law. It has not changed, it isn't changing, and it's never, ever going to change. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL in order to stop petty property crime. As this shopowner - and everybody who watches the case - is about to find out. An armed robber? Sure, you can kill HIM, because HE stuck a gun in your face. But somebody running away with a beer, or your wallet? Nope. This should perhaps be THE test for registering a gun. Q. You are a shopowner. You see a thug steal a beer and run out the door. You have a gun and you chase him. He won't stop. Do you have the right to shoot him? YES or NO. If you answer "Yes", your gun is confiscated and you can't register it. You cannot register your gun and have one until you understand that the answers is "No". Because that IS the answer, and that's ALWAYS BEEN the answer. And yes, I am writing this in the most in-your-face manner, specifically to provoke the vigilantes among you to lose your cool and make idiots of yourselves. If you can't answer "No" to shooting shoplifters, then your right to have a gun should be stripped from you - you may have the right to a gun, but you do NOT have the right to use that gun to shoot shoplifters - and if you won't ADMIT that, then you should not be allowed to exercise your right to have a gun. Sort of like a driver's license. If on your driving test you write that you have the right to run over pedestrians who flip you the bird, you aren't entitled to a drivers' license either.
In Texas you do: Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
Apparently so. Houston has four times the murder and violent crime rate of New York City, so it seems that Texans love their violence.
misterwhite --- In Texas you do: (quotes Texas law) Apparently so. --- Vic So Vic, which is it? -- Do you agree that Texas has the power to legalize murder?
Texas has the legal power, under our Constitution, to legalize shooting somebody in the back who is running away with a beer. It apparently has done so. I think this is clearly murder under God's law. I think that Texas law is terribly evil in this case, privileging petty property over human rights. Until the Supreme Court strikes down Texas law as unconstitutional, it appears that what I think is murder is legal in Texas. I think that stinks to high heaven. Do they have the legal POWER to do it? Sure. Already have.
I think this is clearly murder ----- Until the Supreme Court strikes down Texas law as unconstitutional, it appears that what I think is murder is legal in Texas. Do they have the legal POWER to do it? Sure. Already have. You're attempting to have it both ways. You claim that they have the constitutional power to do so, but that the scotus can declare that power unconstitutional. Do you see the logical flaw in that reasoning?
#11. To: tpaine (#10)
You claim that they have the constitutional power to do so, but that the scotus can declare that power unconstitutional. Do you see the logical flaw in that reasoning? I'm not attempting to have anything. I am stating what is, as I see it. As I see it, there is a hierarchy of various laws, and there's a judge of that law. The judge of the law is me: I decide what I consider to be moral and immoral. When you ask me my opinion, I am telling you what I personally think. If I had the power to impose my view on society and make it societal law, I would. I don't have the power, and therefore society is governed by a set of laws that I do not wholly agree with. So I look to those sets of laws imposed by powers greater than me. There's a complex of laws that is American law, which has at its apex the Constitution, and then works it way down through federal and state laws, court decisions, regulations, local statutes and ordinances. That is one set of law. A portion of that is what I am licensed to practice, and in which I earn my living. There is other power that is a source of law. There's God, who has a moral law. There's the Catholic Church, which has codified its understanding of the Law of God into what is called Canon Law. Now, the Catholic Church does not think that there is any difference between the moral law of God and the Canon Law, but I - the judge in my courthouse - do see some differences and divergences. I see far greater divergences between the Law of God and the US Constitutional/legal system. In my view, the Law of God, and the Canon Law, trumps the American law in terms of righteousness, but I recognize that, living in America as I do, that the American law trumps the Law of God and the Canon Law in terms of the visible power of its enforcers. Thus, while expect those who practice abortion and other murders with the sanction of the American state will ultimately be held accountable to the Law of God by God, I recognize that here in Connecticut, where I live, the American law rules the roost. I don't agree with quite a bit of American law. I obey it nevertheless, because the alternative is to be punished by the power of the state, and I do not desire to be punished by that power. The fact that I submit to law to which I am opposed does not mean in any way that I think it is right, just or true. When Jesus told the Jews to pay the Roman tax, he was not commenting on the morality of the tax. He was giving them good practical advice for the preservation of their lives. GIVEN the barbarism of the Romans, it made greater sense to pay their tax and get on with a moral life than to make the non-payment of a tax the hill on which to die. So, yes, CURRENTLY Texas has the constitutional power to have its crazy law, and it will have such power UNTIL the superior power of the Supreme Court decides that the Constitution prohibits Texas from having such a law, then that law will cease to be. Same with abortion or segregation or any other evil law. If the law exists and is enforced, then obviously it's real. If the Supreme Court lets it happen, its obviously constitutional, until the Supreme Court bars it or the States ratify a constitutional amendment that clearly outlaws it. That hasn't happened yet. So, the Texas law is The Law in Texas, the Constitution doesn't prevent that from being, and these are evil laws under Canon and Divine Law. I agree with the Canon and Divine law, but I recognize that the evil law is the law of the land, for now, because that is what the armed power of the state has established, and there's nothing I can do about it but mentally refuse to give my assent, and verbally oppose it if asked. That's not "having it both ways". It's a description of reality, both external and internal.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL in order to stop petty property crime.
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property ...
#7. To: misterwhite (#6)
(Edited)
In Texas you do:
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#7)
You do not have the right to kill a man who does not threaten you for taking a piece of property. --- Vic
#9. To: tpaine (#8)
So Vic, which is it? -- Do you agree that Texas has the power to legalize murder?
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
So Vic, which is it? -- Do you agree that Texas has the power to legalize murder? Texas has the legal power, under our Constitution, to legalize shooting somebody in the back who is running away with a beer. It apparently has done so.
Replies to Comment # 10. You're attempting to have it both ways.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]