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: 2344
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 # 23.
#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?
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral.
I agree.. Vic claimed that States have the constitutional power to do so, but that the scotus can declare that power unconstitutional. I asked if he saw the logical flaw in that reasoning.. Here's part of his reply.. "The judge of the law is me: I decide what I consider to be moral and immoral."
"The judge of the law is me: I decide what I consider to be moral and immoral." Yes, that is indeed PART OF the reply. In this I am honest. You do EXACTLY the same thing, you're just perhaps not self-aware enough to realize that you do it, or perhaps not honest enough to admit it. We ALL are the final arbiters of the rightness or wrongness of everything, as far as we are concerned. Our opinions in these regards are crudely aggregated by our votes. Nobody is CONSTRAINED in his voting pattern to accept the logic or morality of anybody else. People vote their own opinions, and for their own reasons. The aggregate results of opinions, not philosophy or reason or absolute morality, determine the outcomes, which then go on to determine what the law will be.
You're free to decide what you consider to be moral and immoral, but the people write the laws under which we all agree to live.
That's right. I don't make the law. I do judge the law's morality. "The" people usually don't write the laws under which we live (whether we agree to them or not). A select group of people write the laws, which are then imposed on everybody else by force. Frequently the lawmakers exempt themselves from the law.
Yes. We live in a representative republic, not a democracy. Thank God. Are you saying you don't like the current system and would prefer to change it? To what? YOU write all the laws?
Well sure. If I had my 'druthers we'd be an absolute monarchy and I'd be the King. Since that's not happening our system of government is reasonably ok (with the exception of the legal system). The worst aspect of it, from my perspective, is the lack of respect for life (clearest in the case of abortion). Our legal system, though, is absolutely the worst in developed world. It's a casino, and a crooked one at that. That's why American lawyers make so much more money than lawyers anywhere else. Our legal system is really like a casino: there are VIP tables, tables for ordinary folks, cheap slots, mob bouncers, etc. If I were innocent of a crime, I'd rather be in the French system, where it is extremely unlikely that I'd be charged in the first place. But if I were guilty, I'd definitely want to be tried by the US system, where the pedigree of the lawyers and the status of the defendant largely determine the outcome. Our legal system stinks to high heaven, but it serves the interests of those who have structured it the way it is very, very well, so I don't expect it to be changing. All I can do is grouse at it, and I do, even while making an exceptionally good living from it.
There are no replies to Comment # 23. End Trace Mode for Comment # 23.
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
#15. To: tpaine (#8)
So Vic, which is it? -- Do you agree that Texas has the power to legalize murder?
#16. To: sneakypete (#15)
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral.
#18. To: tpaine (#16)
Here's part of his reply..
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
"The judge of the law is me: I decide what I consider to be moral and immoral."
#20. To: misterwhite (#19)
(Edited)
You're free to decide what you consider to be moral and immoral, but the people write the laws under which we all agree to live.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)
A select group of people write the laws, which are then imposed on everybody else by force.
#23. To: misterwhite (#21)
Are you saying you don't like the current system and would prefer to change it? To what? YOU write all the laws?
Replies to Comment # 23.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]