Store clerk convicted of killing thief

[HisArpy]

She's right.

No, she isn't. Now, get off the lawn.

 

[suurfer]

and if it's important enough to call in about a minor traffic bump that may have bent a bumper of got a car a scratch, isn't a person's life more valuable than that? or, at the very least, AS valuable?

besides that, shooting a fleeing 17-year-old who stole some beer seems extreme.
is the clerk remorseful at all about his actions meaning a kid's lost their life?

Morality police has da feels!

 

[HisArpy]

No. But can you even admit the slightest, teensie, eensie, weensie, possibility that had police, and paramedics been called that the victim/thief might have lived to steal again another day?

Better that he died over a beer, anyone stealing beer is a fucking alcoholic with no future anyway.

Not under the known facts.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes, thieves are scum.

But the law is fairly clear that shooting is only justified in protection of life, and shooting a fleeing thief is not justifiable, even for a police officer; although a police officer would have known to follow up the wounded man and plant a firearm on his body in order to justify the shooting.

See the Michael Brown case: Store owner called police over theft of minor items, police caught up with suspect and finished him off, all perfectly legal.

Here's another look at your stupidity " see the Micheal Brown case " Police didn't catch up with Michael Brown to finish him off for a petty theft, which is what you're eluding to. Brown tried to grab the police officer's weapon and later charge the officer after being told to stand down. Brown wasn't killed because of petty theft. Cops are all bad to you aren't they. I guess you were out in the streets chanting "hands up don't shoot" Justify the shooting by planting a weapon, GOD! You're a fucking cumbag. I'm sorry my grammar offends you. You and nobbydownunder must be of the same brain, there is no possible way there could be that much stupidity on one planet!

 

[HisArpy]

1. Even if you put a bullet through someone?




2. This being an equally horrendous and bizarre case:
The most plausible scenario that I can come up with is this:

I suspect that the shooting was impulsive out of anger, and when he calmed down he realized that he'd overreacted.
He must have thought after that: "Oh shit! I just shot someone inn the legs".
Not that he cared about the kid, but for himself, of being held responsible. (if the kid went to ED to get the bullet out, and it was traced back at him).

So the first impulse would be to call Police to cover one's back, but then you think: "Wait a minute, what if they charge me for shooting him when he fled?"
So he'd decide to keep quiet, hoping that the kid would have the bullet taken out through some underground network. People who steal don't want to go through official channels.

There is no requirement that you, or anyone else, call the police for anything.

Do you think Gangbangers call 911 after a shooting?

 

[someoneyouknow]

if you shoot at someone, let alone a minor, and there's even a passing chance you may have hit them, shouldn't it be absolutely the thing to let the cops know? after all, even minor traffic bumps are supposed to be called in, aren't they? (i could be wrong, not sure about the laws here regarding that) and if it's important enough to call in about a minor traffic bump that may have bent a bumper of got a car a scratch, isn't a person's life more valuable than that? or, at the very least, AS valuable?

besides that, shooting a fleeing 17-year-old who stole some beer seems extreme. is the clerk remorseful at all about his actions meaning a kid's lost their life?

Why should the clerk, or anyone for that matter, care about a criminal? Obviously the criminal doesn't care about the store losing money which in turn means the clerk can't get a raise.

What about the criminal? Shouldn't they be remorseful for stealing someone's property and disrupting business? What if the criminal had a gun and threatened the clerk first? Shouldn't they be remorseful for scaring the clerk into thinking they may die over a $2 can of beer?

People keep focusing on the clerk and what he did, but apparently the criminal bears no responsibility for stealing the beer and setting things in motion.

 

[jaF0]

On the flip side of the issue:

UPDATE: South Fulton homeowner shoots, kills alleged intruder
Atlanta Journal-Constitution|53 minutes ago
A homeowner shot and killed a man he discovered inside his South Fulton home Friday morning, police said. The man woke up to the sound of glass breaking and his dog barking around 2:30 a.m. He grabbed his gun and walked toward the sounds to investigate, according to South Fulton police spokesman Lt. Derrick Rogers.

“As he approached the area, he encountered a subject in his home,” Rogers said from the scene. “Gunshots rang out between the homeowner and the subject. At this time, the subject is deceased on scene.”

 

[Aglaopheme]

Family members said Harris was no stranger to the store. He would often come and do odd jobs for the store owner.

"If he had said something, Dorian's life could've been saved. You don't shoot nobody Thursday and here it is Saturday and you ain't said nothing about it," Fitch said.
Ghazali admitted to the shooting on Saturday.
"They know us. You didn't have to do nothing but just say, 'Dorian [is] in here picking up something,' which that ain't him, I don't think. But if he did do it like children do, why you just didn't tell him he can't come to the store no more?" Fitch said.

https://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/37853331/mpd-store-clerk-shoots-kills-teen-for-stealing-beer/


The original article states that security videos were shown during the trial, and they can be seen here.

https://www.wmcactionnews5.com/2019...y-second-degree-murder-shooting-killing-teen/

 

[bigsly]

No surprise that the various and sundry BBs support Sharia Law.

Why did you use "various" and "sundry" when they basically mean the same thing?

 

[HisArpy]

On the flip side of the issue:

UPDATE: South Fulton homeowner shoots, kills alleged intruder
Atlanta Journal-Constitution|53 minutes ago
A homeowner shot and killed a man he discovered inside his South Fulton home Friday morning, police said. The man woke up to the sound of glass breaking and his dog barking around 2:30 a.m. He grabbed his gun and walked toward the sounds to investigate, according to South Fulton police spokesman Lt. Derrick Rogers.

“As he approached the area, he encountered a subject in his home,” Rogers said from the scene. “Gunshots rang out between the homeowner and the subject. At this time, the subject is deceased on scene.”

The "Castle Doctrine" is a law in both Georgia and Alabama that gives homeowners the right to defend themselves if an intruder enters the property of their home.

https://www.wtvm.com/story/16538804/how-the-castle-law-protects-you-from-intruders/

The legislature in Georgia has decided that the people have a right to defend themselves against intruders into their homes.

Georgia also has a "stand your ground" law so the homeowner doesn't have to retreat.

Nothing wrong with either of those things.

 

[BotanyBoy]

There is no editing in the post in question. Limb amputation for theft IS Sharia Law.

It's also several other kinds of law, so no, it's not.

 

[suurfer]

There is no requirement that you, or anyone else, call the police for anything.

Do you think Gangbangers call 911 after a shooting?

I was asking because I'm not familiar with the law.
But it seems like a strange one to me, that people aren't required by law to notify a shooting. Especially if they did it.

I also think that I'm getting intersecting law topics confused.
You see Court drama movies and those who didn't call Police after an obvious accidental shooting get heavier sentences.

 

[suurfer]

Physicians are required to report gunshot wounds,
yet you as a private citizen aren't required to do so?

Why is that?
Or is it a loophole in the Law?

 

[HisArpy]

I was asking because I'm not familiar with the law.
But it seems like a strange one to me, that people aren't required by law to notify a shooting. Especially if they did it.

I also think that I'm getting intersecting law topics confused.
You see Court drama movies and those who didn't call Police after an obvious accidental shooting get heavier sentences.

In the US, we have the 5th Amendment where we cannot be compelled to testify against ourselves.

OTOH, if you blurt something, it's fair game to be used against you.

So, let's say you shoot at someone who is running away.

That's unlawfully discharging a firearm, reckless endangerment of the public, assault, battery (attempted or actual depending on whether you hit your target or not), assault with a deadly weapon, assault with the intent to maim or kill, attempted manslaughter/actual manslaughter if the guy dies.

Given all of that potential liability, do you really want to rat on yourself?

Remember, there is no "I was just calling to let you guys know" defense.

Now, let's say you followed the guy after you shot him and attempted to render aid to save his life but he dies anyway.

That's potentially capital murder and maybe the death penalty because you stalked him and your actions could be implied to mean that you intended to hide him from help rather than giving actual aid. Certainly it's an enhancement for any manslaughter conviction.

You still want to rat on yourself?

Finally, let's say you were just a bystander and you ran after the guy because you noticed he was bleeding to death. If he dies AFTER you give first aid, you can be held civilly liable for failing to render sufficient or competent aid unless you're a licensed doctor (they are often legally immune under Good Samaritan laws).

Still want to dial 911?

 

[jaF0]

Couple of minutes of searching proves The Arped One wrong again ... as usual;

This is Missouri not Mississippi, but still ....

https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/missouri/mo-laws/missouri_laws_577-068

Multiple other search results also prove him wrong as there are a myriad of laws requiring reporting offenses or incidents nationwide under varied circumstances.

 

[icanhelp1]

I was asking because I'm not familiar with the law.
But it seems like a strange one to me, that people aren't required by law to notify a shooting. Especially if they did it.

I also think that I'm getting intersecting law topics confused.
You see Court drama movies and those who didn't call Police after an obvious accidental shooting get heavier sentences.

Not to notify police doesn't exonerate the shooter from a crime. The sentence seems justified in my humble opinion. There is a litany of charges against him, first one being attempted murder, the fact he was running away eliminating any threat to the clerc altogether.

 

[HisArpy]

Couple of minutes of searching proves The Arped One wrong again ... as usual;

This is Missouri not Mississippi, but still ....

https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/missouri/mo-laws/missouri_laws_577-068

Multiple other search results also prove him wrong as there are a myriad of laws requiring reporting offenses or incidents nationwide under varied circumstances.

Compelled speech is against the Rights guaranteed to citizens under both the 1st and 5th amendments of the US Constitution.

https://www.adflegal.org/detailspag...-of-compelled-speech-in-3-different-decisions

Examples of compelled speech not supported by law

Saluting the flag – West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
Requiring a newspaper to publish an advertisement – Miami Herald v. Tornillo (1974)
School attendance past the eighth grade – Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
Motto on license plate – Wooley v. Maynard (1977)[13]
Compelled self-incrimination by an individual – Fifth Amendment (1789)
School dress codes – Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
Certain disclosures by abortion clinics National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018)[14]
Provision of sonogram images and heartbeat audio to abortion patients.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compelled_speech

One can often find laws that appear on the surface to contradict the above, but those laws have either been struck down, or haven't been challenged yet. That doesn't make them "constitutional" or "lawful". Government compelled speech is illegal in this country.

 

[jaF0]

There is no requirement that you call the police for anything.

There is no requirement that you, or anyone else, call the police for anything.

Dumbledumb

Almost every armed robbery is about a "minor theft". Major thefts rarely involve guns.

And dumberer

Pickpocketing and shoplifting are minor thefts. Possession of a weapon makes it a major theft.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's also several other kinds of law, so no, it's not.

I'm going to give you a chance to save face and show us just ONE instance where chopping off a hand is a punishment in a legal system NOT based on Sharia Law.

I don't think you can.

Prove me wrong.

Just one.

 

[icanhelp1]

Dumbledumb



And dumberer

Pickpocketing and shoplifting are minor thefts. Possession of a weapon makes it a major theft.

I think you should read the 5th amendment again. The right to remain silent and self incrimination. If police arrest you you have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

 

[Conager]

I'm going to give you a chance to save face and show us just ONE instance where chopping off a hand is a punishment in a legal system NOT based on Sharia Law.

I don't think you can.

Prove me wrong.

Just one.

The practice of Arabs cutting off the hand of a thief predates Muhammad or the Quran. It dates to at least the era of Jahiliyya. It's only after the Muslim concept of the left hand being unclean was the right one the favored one.

Plenty of places in Africa that do not practice Islam also cut the hands off of thieves.

 

[suurfer]

In the US, we have the 5th Amendment where we cannot be compelled to testify against ourselves.
OTOH, if you blurt something, it's fair game to be used against you.

I think you should read the 5th amendment again. The right to remain silent and self incrimination. If police arrest you you have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

Yup, that's the difference from mandatory reporting in other situations.
Great law to protect the individual against a Police state or thought control state.

Now, let's say you followed the guy after you shot him and attempted to render aid to save his life but he dies anyway.
That's potentially capital murder and maybe the death penalty because you stalked him and your actions could be implied to mean that you intended to hide him from help rather than giving actual aid. Certainly it's an enhancement for any manslaughter conviction.

You still want to rat on yourself?

Finally, let's say you were just a bystander and you ran after the guy because you noticed he was bleeding to death. If he dies AFTER you give first aid, you can be held civilly liable for failing to render sufficient or competent aid unless you're a licensed doctor (they are often legally immune under Good Samaritan laws).

Still want to dial 911?

Geeze, no wonder those shocking viral videos that I saw about China, people walking past collapsed individuals, not trying to help. Because of similar laws, most likely .

 

[icanhelp1]

The practice of Arabs cutting off the hand of a thief predates Muhammad or the Quran. It dates to at least the era of Jahiliyya. It's only after the Muslim concept of the left hand being unclean was the right one the favored one.

Plenty of places in Africa that do not practice Islam also cut the hands off of thieves.

I think Freddy Flintstone cut off Barney Rubble's hand for stealing his brontosaurus burger in 2069 BC in the town of Bedrock.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yup, that's the difference from mandatory reporting in other situations.
Great law to protect the individual against a Police state or thought control state.




Geeze, no wonder those shocking viral videos that I saw about China, people walking past collapsed individuals, not trying to help. Because of similar laws, most likely .

If you committed a crime what would compel you to report it to the police. Even an innocent bystander doesn't have to report a crime to the police. It happens everyday in gang related crimes. It's called pleading the fifth.

 

[jaF0]

We seem to be getting caught up in stupid from the BBs as usual;.

If the storekeeper had chosen to call it in and get the victim medical help sooner, this might not even be a story for the BBs to blubber over.
Dude 1 might not be dead. Dude 2 might not have been charged, or at least not as heavily.