Posted on 08/17/2019 8:13:56 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes
A jury found a grocery clerk guilty of killing a 17-year-old boy who ran out of the store with a beer he didn't pay for in Memphis, Tennessee, in a case that had sparked protests, authorities said.
Anwar Ghazali was convicted of second-degree murder after a four-day trial, Shelby County District Attorney General Amy Weirich said Friday.
"This defendant took it upon himself to be the judge and jury and the executioner over a $2 beer," prosecutor Lora Fowler said, according to CNN affiliate WMC.
The shooting happened in March 2018, after Dorian Harris walked out of the Top Stop Shop with a beer without paying, Weirich said.
Security video of the incident played in court shows that Ghazali, while behind the counter dealing with another customer, pulled out a handgun and pointed it at Harris. He then ran outside to follow the teen and fired several times.
Afterward, he returned to the store and told a witness, "I think I shot him." He did not call the police, and neither did any other customer inside the store, WMC reported.
Harris was shot at least three times and was left to bleed out, Fowler said. His body was found two days later in a yard near the store with gunshots in the back of his thigh, Weirich said.
Ghazali's defense attorney, Blake Ballin, told CNN in an email that Ghazali maintains he acted recklessly that night but his intention was never to harm Harris.
He said they were pleased that the jury rejected the prosecution's argument that this was a calculated and premeditated murder motivated by the theft of a beer. That would have come with a potential life sentence.
Ghazali is expected to be sentenced on September 23.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
Maybe that’s an Aryan name
This strikes me as an exact parallel to the Michael Brown death-—this is exactly the narrative Brown’s defenders put forth as what happened to Brown in Ferguson, with the difference that the shopkeeper took the law “into his own hands”, rather that the Law itself “taking the law into ITS own hands”.
If you earned that money, the time it took to earn it was stolen from you. HE stole your time which you will never be able to replace, not the money which was the wages of the trade you made.
There was no reason to kill the guy, except if it got you your money back.
Say if you worked a lifetime and everything you ever had earned and saved was being taken from you. You are dead broke, and cannot earn another dollar because your health is bad, this is literally an early death, or the ability to live a life to its natural conclusion. Is not that worth defending with deadly force?
Removing personal responsibility from the minds of any young male is going to make him a predator and drastically raise the odds that he will get himself killed doing something that he should not have been doing.
For example the Affluensa kid and untold number of high school and college athletes that have been charged with rape after years of coaches running interference for them and getting them out of ever escalating personal troubles.
It’s only a misdemeanor in CA. You don’t kill someone for that.
There was a guy on the radio (Seattle) that referred to it as “life energy”. Usually when complaining about taxes, but the idea is the same. It took your life energy to earn that money.
In the state of felony one can use deadly force to prevent a felony. A beer won’t cut it, but by law, something worth $1,000(?) would justify it. Although that is how the law is worded, a prosecutor can still try and convict you.
There was a case a few years ago where a guy was keeping an eye on his neighbor’s house. Some guy was hauling stuff out of the house into his truck. After a warning, and a call to the cops, the guy shot the thief in the butt as he was walking to his truck with a TV.
The guy didn’t get in any trouble, but the prosecutor said something like “If he had killed the thief, he would have been charged.”
He may have been charged, but obviously the “shooting” (of an arrow) was legal. Not sure why the outcome of the shooting would have made a difference. Then you get to the idea that he should have just shot the TV out of the thief’s hand.
“Nothing vexes me so much as a thief above ground.”
- Orrin Porter Rockwell
No, but you might shoot one who was making a mess of the ribeyes in your fridge
You are not alone. Athough stealing beer is not a felony, has anybody done any research into the area? is it a high crime area? was the kid a gang member? did this happen a number of times at this store? did the kids parents ever bring the kid back to the store to apologise? The store owner didnt just land here from another planet, the kid didnt just show up either. Every action comes from some other action. the kid chose poorly and the store owner did too. but Im sure the cops would have taken the stolen beer report next tuesday between 1 and 5 p.m.
I think the Old Testament was forgiving of pursuers so long as they had not lost sight of the criminal and/or the sun had not set with him still running loose [as it lessens the risk of an innocent being confused for the perp] but it became a matter for the law if the thief or evildoer eluded pursuers by getting out of sight or making it to sunset. But that doesn’t mean it was OK to murder him if he was too slow to escape and no threat. You could only justify what force was needed to get your property back.
It is one thing to shoot someone while they are on your property but quite another to chase him off your property, leaving your other beers unguarded, and risk a stray bullet hitting a bystander. Hard to justify shooting anyone in the back over a beer, though if the guy had committed a rape or armed robbery I would say good riddance. Impossible to justify not calling 9/11 in any case.
“Unless the perp poses a threat of great bodily harm to the shooter or others...”
If a local racial culture makes a mass habit of running off with your property, it can cause you to cease being able to feed your family. That would be bodily harm.
Not that this would go over well in court, but it none the less morally justifies shooting them.
Turning the other cheek makes you easy pickings.
I didn’t think that Muslims were allowed to sell alcoholic beverages.
“grocery clerk guilty of killing a 17-year-old boy who ran out of the store with a beer he didn’t pay for”
Too bad for the punk kid and a good thing it wasn’t a cop that shot him.
Technically, it is the State who is responsible for the life of its citizenry. Partly why LEO’s are authorized to carry arms, to defend human life. It is why the State prosecutes the criminal case against the defendant.
Second degree murder, not manslaughter. Intent to inflict serious bodily harm at the time of the incident.
The major debate possibly was if the store clerk was being found guilty of homicide or manslaughter, intentional or unintentional. It might also be the accusation of the clerk for performing the role of LEO and court without proper authority. (Contempt of Court, though proceedings were not yet underway???)
The gun had been purchased for self-defense or murder upon provocation?
He shot him several times in the back of the thigh? With a handgun. Reads like he had been running away when he was shot.
Citizen’s arrest gone bad?
Perhaps the Top Stop Shop in Memphis does not have store detectives.
I am sure this one beer was not the first thing stolen by this thug from the store. I have no sympathy.
JoMa
That name is as American as apple pie, and baseball. /sarc
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.