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: 2304
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
#1. To: All (#0)
Where are the protests over the death of this scumbag criminal? The store owner should be given a raise.
Not when the body is found by the store and not reported. Not in the store. Sounds like vigilante "justice". A crime. But he was black and apparently you Arabs don't like blacks.
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.
I don't always disagree with you vic. When you are right I will tell you. You're right. I will say sometimes if someone is stealing and they don't have a gun and you are threatened. You would have the right to kill the robber. Which i'm sure you agree with.
Of course. If some guy pulls a knife on you in an armed robbery situation, you can shoot him in self defense. Likewise, if some guy has a crowbar or a bat, you can shoot him. Even unarmed, some towering beast or a crowd of thugs threaten your life, you can shoot them. But some kid stealing a beer and running out, you can't draw your gun, shout "Stop!" at his retreating back, and then blow him away. That's murder. The gun is to protect life and limb. Insurance and tax deductions cover pilfered property. A woman can shoot a stronger unarmed man who's dragging her away for rape, but she can't blow away some jerk who pinches her ass.
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?
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.
---- 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. That's not "having it both ways". It's a description of reality, both external and internal. You're avoiding my point that you have a flaw in your (constitutional) logic. The Scotus, nor Texas alone, do not have the power to change or amend the constitution. -- And there is no place in the constitution that gives them that power. We agree that when the Supreme Court opines that the Constitution prohibits Texas from having such a law, and that the constitution always has had that power, --- then that law will cease to be, it will be null & void. Can you agree?
For shooting to death a shoplifter who had already left the store and was no danger to him? I don't think so. Prosecute and let a jury decide. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
In Texas you do: Then the law is wrong. You only have the right to kill when your life or the life of another is threatened. I freely admit that if you or anyone else were to purposely kill one of my pets just to be malicious,I would kill you graveyard dead and not apologize to anyone for doing it. If that means I would be prosecuted,so be it. IMNSHO,pets are family and dependent on my protection from human abuse just like children would be. I even have provisions in my will to provide for each of them when I die. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral. In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.
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."
We agree that when the Supreme Court opines that the Constitution prohibits Texas from having such a law, and that the constitution always has had that power, --- then that law will cease to be, it will be null & void. Can you agree? I can agree that, in form, the Supreme Court does not have the power to amend the Constitution. However, in substance, Supreme Court "interpretations" of the Constitution de facto amend it, insofar as the entire legal regime of the country alters to fit their decisions, and their new interpretations functionally achieve the same result as the cumbersome amendment process. So yes, I recognize that there is, legalistically speaking, a difference between a constitutional amendment and a Supreme Court decision regarding a constitutional matter, in substantial effect the difference is null. Whatever the Supreme Court decides is enforced AS the Constitution, by all of the agencies of the country. It is considered to BE the Constitution - or at any rate what the Constitution MEANS - by everybody wearing a badge or a uniform and carrying a gun - and that's all that matters. So, while the Constitution is not formally "amended" by a Supreme Court decision, nevertheless the way that the Constitution is APPLIED can do a 180 from the way it was applied to day before, thanks to the Rule of 5. It's harder to amend the Constitution than to get 5 justices in agreement, so getting the Constitution to be read to say what one wants it to say is much more easily accomplished by holding the White House and the Senate for a few years when there are a lot of old justices, than by going through the amendment process. This used to offend me, but that was when I thought law and civics class and morality must align. With time, I've come to disassociate law from morality, and come to see it for what it is: an exercise of power, not philosophy. In short: people want what they want, and when people come to power in whatever capacity, when they come into some old rule that stands in their way, they change it if they can, but if they can't change it, they just go around it by some other expedient. Obviously the original writer of the law did not intend for such an end run, but the original writer is not in power now, so nobody IN power is going to give greater authority to some absent person with a contrary view than he will give to himself. This is axiomatic. Judicial review became part and parcel of our constitutional system all the way back in the day of the Founders, with Marbury v. Madison. It pissed off the then-popular President Jefferson way back then too, but not enough for him to override the decision (it only affected, after all, a glorified postal clerk - Jefferson wasn't ready to have a Constitutional crisis right out of the box regarding a postal clerk.) Your view of the Constitution is very "Sola Scripturalist" - the Constitution is what's written - just that - and whatever is written is it, and what is not is not it, end of discussion. That's how you look at it: Sola Scriptura. But that isn't the case at all in reality. There is also a great body of Tradition that has grown with the Constitution, and the whole apparatus of government functions according to the interpretations of those Traditions - in which Supreme Court decisions stand forth very prominently - and not primarily on the written words themselves. Many lament this. That's a legitimate viewpoint. To go further and claim that the Tradition doesn't EXIST and has no REAL POWER is to engage in fantasy. It does, it has real power, and in fact we are governed by the Tradition of the Constitution, and not by the document itself. In our system, the document MEANS what the government SAYS it means. When the government disagrees internally over what it means, the Supreme Court has the final word. Everything within the document has been litigated already, so IN FACT the decisions of the Supreme Court ARE the governing Constitution, and the written Constitution itself is merely an historical artifact, the root from which the Traditional superstructure of law has grown. I know you hate this with every fiber of your being. It is nevertheless true, and it's almost certainly not going to change. I recognize this reality and focus my efforts pragmatically on trying to win within the structures that actually exist and can reasonably extend from it. And within that structure, putting a few more justices on the Supremes (and vetting them well and holding politicians accountable if they appoint weasels), is far more easily accomplished when you want to do something that the supermajority don't want, than trying - and certainly failing - to amend the Constitution through the usual process.
"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?
Yes, and we need more of it. I'm a believer in the Broken Windows Theory. The cops weren't going to follow up on this. Even if they did and caught the kid, nothing would happen. The parents don't care - he was shot on Thursday and they didn't discover the body until Saturday. F**k him. The store owner did us a favor by removing this budding criminal from the gene pool. If this is done more often we'll have fewer scumbag punks thinking they can get away with it.
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.
Kill all the criminals. Hmmmm. It's the Pol Pot approach to crime control.
Well, if the kid left the store without paying and a net automatically dropped down and captured him and he went to jail for a mandatory 30 days ... ok, I'd settle for that. Absent that, I say shoot the MF.
And within that structure, putting a few more justices on the Supremes (and vetting them well and holding politicians accountable if they appoint weasels), is far more easily accomplished when you want to do something that the supermajority don't want, than trying - and certainly failing - to amend the Constitution through the usual process You admit that: --- " In our system, the document MEANS what the government SAYS it means", which has been my complaint all along. I'd bet the system will be changed back (the Trump election is a start), one way or another. A supermajority democracy, ruled by the scotus - as you advocate, is simply unacceptable to our constitutional republic, and it's superminority citizens. Your faction will have to decide, will the change back be vio!ent?
I'd bet the system will be changed back (the Trump election is a start), one way or another. A supermajority democracy, ruled by the scotus - as you advocate, is simply unacceptable to our constitutional republic, and it's superminority citizens. Your faction will have to decide, will the change back be vio!ent? If by "the government" you mean the Supreme Court, yes, I would say "The written Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means." This statement of mine is descriptive, not a value judgment. That's the way it is, regardless of my personal preferences. So when you say that I ADVOCATE the way things are, you miss the mark. I don't advocate EITHER a "Sola Scripturalist Constitution" (exactly as written) OR the way things are. What I advocate is that on the key things, the law be the correct moral answer (per the law of God), and that the law, the Constitution, the culture, and everything else, be altered as swiftly as possible, to get to that right answer. But on many crucial things, the People don't WANT the morally correct answer: it's too limiting or too expensive for their tastes. And the People and the government both outnumber me, which doesn't mean they're right, but it does mean they're stronger. Something that would make these discussions easier would be for you to stop running to the solution of ascribing advocacy on my part to what are generally descriptive statements. I describe the way things are, not the way I would prefer them to be. A good lawyer needs to be pretty objective about the way things are, because he earns his keep not by being morally righteous, but by winning victories for his clients. The lawyer who goes about with his head in the clouds dreaming about how things OUGHT to be will not get very far dealing with the grimy and grubby realities of the powers that be and what they are rather predictably going to do with a given fact pattern. The authorities, the courts, etc., Americans in general, are pretty predictable in what they are going to do, and what they are going to say. As an advocate, then, it's a matter of presenting your case in a way that the trier of law sees your dance as more closely conforming to the dance steps of the law as it is (or rather, as the trier of law thinks it is), and that the trier of fact sees your facts as conforming more to the way s/he prefers the facts to be than the other side's facts. Law is a fan dance, with money, power, freedom and life itself as the prize for winning, and deprivation, submission, enslavement and death as the penalties for losing. SHOULD it be that? No. But it IS that, and it will stay that way, because very powerful people have interests that are served by it being the way it is. This is reality, not philosophy. Now, when you go on to say that you'd bet that the system would be "changed back", I'd take that bet with you. "Changed back" assumes that it was ever different. But all the way back to the Founders, just after 1800 with Marbury v. Madison, it has been this way: the Supreme Court has been the final arbiter. I personally don't think there is anything like the power on the side of "changing back" the law to before the age of Supreme Court precedent. I think most people agree with a great deal of the precedent. Even I agree with quite a bit of it. I don't think that most people will, faced with the wrong decisions at the margin, want to wipe everything out and go to a different principle of law. Instead, I expect people will continue to bicker about the things they don't like, but won't actually go into a revolutionary mode over those things they dislike and risk overturning the whole structure of everything else.
YOU wrote and admitted that: --- " In our system, the document MEANS what the government SAYS it means", --- which has been my complaint all along. In your response you wrote: ----- "If by "the government" you mean the Supreme Court, yes, I would say "The written Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means". I ---- "you mean"? ---- I didn't write that (or 'mean'that), you did. Freudian slip, whatever, I'm about done with yanking your chain. And I've really enjoyed our discussions. -- Thanks for responding so honestly.. You conclude ----- " I don't think that most people will, faced with the wrong decisions at the margin, want to wipe everything out and go to a different principle of law" --- -. I'd say that 'most people, the progressive/democrats', -- won't have that choice. -- I'd bet they go too far, and really try to change the Constitution by a Scotus fiat decision, --- and that opinion will try to ban our right to arms, --- they will then face a violent rebellion. Indeed: ----- "Law is a fan dance, with money, power, freedom and life itself as the prize for winning, and deprivation, submission, enslavement and death as the penalties for losing." Good quote...
They might. I guess we'll see.
#2. To: misterwhite (#1)
The store owner should be given a raise.
#3. To: misterwhite (#0)
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)
(Edited)
I will say sometimes if someone is stealing and they don't have a gun and you are threatened. You would have the right to kill the robber. Which i'm sure you agree with.
#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.
#11. To: tpaine (#10)
You're attempting to have it both ways.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
You claim that they (texas) 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?
#13. To: misterwhite (#1)
The store owner should be given a raise.
#14. To: misterwhite (#6)
You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO KILL in order to stop petty property crime.
#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.
#17. To: tpaine (#12)
The Scotus, nor Texas alone, do not have the power to change or amend the constitution. -- And there is no place in the constitution that gives them that power.
#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.
#22. To: A K A Stone (#2)
Sounds like vigilante "justice".
#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?
#24. To: misterwhite (#22)
F**k him. The store owner did us a favor by removing this budding criminal from the gene pool. If this is done more often we'll have fewer scumbag punks thinking they can get away with it.
#25. To: Vicomte13 (#24)
Kill all the criminals. Hmmmm.
#26. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
(Edited)
I know you hate this with every fiber of your being. It is nevertheless true, and it's almost certainly not going to change. I recognize this reality and focus my efforts pragmatically on trying to win within the structures that actually exist and can reasonably extend from it.
#27. To: tpaine (#26)
You admit that: --- " In our system, the document MEANS what the government SAYS it means", which has been my complaint all along.
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
#29. To: tpaine (#28)
I'd say that 'most people, the progressive/democrats', -- won't have that choice. -- I'd bet they go too far, and really try to change the Constitution by a Scotus fiat decision, --- and that opinion will try to ban our right to arms, --- they will then face a violent rebellion.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]