A gas station clerk named Taleb Rebhi Ali Jawher argued with a customer in the store. When the customer left, Jawher thought he had stolen a bag of candy. He pointed a gun at the customer, followed the guy out the door and shot him in the head. They customer didn't have a bag of candy. Jawher is charged with something, but it's not clear exactly what the charges are. I don't think he's going to be able to plead self defense, standing his ground or protection of property.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Nor should he be able to - if the guy is dead, then it is a capital murder charge

It is hard to understand what is going on in this world anymore.

People are stupid. This is not new.

St. Louis Gas Station Clerk Allegedly Fatally Shot Customer Over $1 Bag of Candy; Victim Didn’t Steal, Police Say | KTLA

Here are some more details. Happened north of me in the current Second Most Dangerous City in America. Sometimes the Lou is first . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

I just hope he didn't have a permit. We don't need that kind of publicity.

Missouri is a Constitutional carry state. Now how do you feel about it . . . ?

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

Like maybe the other guy should have had one as well...........

First degree murder sounds like the right charge. Even if the customer HAD stolen a bag of candy that is not justification for shooting him.

This store owner will likely spend the rest of his life in prison...as well he should.

We don't need people with that mentality walking around in the general public. We have too many of them as it is.

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

That illustrates my primary objection to Constitutional carry laws.

Yes, we have a right under the second amendment to be armed and yes that should and does extend to concealed carry. But we also have a responsibility to exercise that right in a manner that does not infringe or violate someone else's rights.

The problem is that way too many people want to have the right, but either don't want or don't comprehend the responsibility that goes with that right.

A day of training split evenly between safe handling of a firearm, and the laws pertaining to the use of deadly force in the particular state, followed by a couple hours spent qualifying with a handgun, where the instructor can verify both safe gun handling and a minimum level of proficiency isn't too much to expect and doesn't infringe on the right to carry.

Excessive permit fees, application processing delays, and excessive costs for the above training can be a barrier, but the training itself is not the problem.

Sure does.

__________________
K & N S&W revolvers

It seems the only thing the clerk may have missed was the understanding of the use of deadly force, and that's a maybe. He may have known and just disregarded. He seemed safe and proficient enough to be successful.

Hardly sufficient to place all that infringement on everybody because of a perceived problem of a few individuals.

Stupid and/or angry people often make bad decisions. That isn't new. Excrement occurs. Its a damn shame, but it's true.

No he should not! He should be executed if found guilty.
Tax payers should not have to support him the rest of his life!

__________________
CSM, U S Army(Ret) 1963-1990

"Its worse than Detroit..." (from the Dr. Klahn scene in Kentucky Fried Movie)

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

THANK YOU.....the CORRECT answer has now been posted.....

__________________
There's nowt so queer as folk

A voluntary/recommended/subsidized/free supplemental training program would be great. MANDATORY, not so much. It can be a fine line who is ALLOWED the right of self defense & who is not. The old & frail come to mind first.

The problem is that way too many people want to have the right, but either don't want or don't comprehend the responsibility that goes with that right

That is not the problem with the law nor the right. As with everything it is the fault of the person. Do we even know if the clerk pulled the gun from his person or under the counter.....Even in Don't Want you to Have a Gun, CAL. one can have a gun canceled on his body while on private property, such as a convenience store. The Constitutional carry aspect means nothing in this case

__________________
A Snider squibbed n the Jungle

Murder? Possibly. First degree murder? Does anyone posting here know what first degree murder is? [Hint: it varies slightly from state to state.]

IMO anyone convicted of first degree murder should have the death penalty imposed with only 90 days to appeal and then it's carried out. Empty out lots of prison space.

First degree murder is generally defined, these days, as any willful, premeditated, intentional murder with malice aforethought.

The key to first and second degree murder is the premeditation.

As my Criminal Law professor once explained it:

If you come home and find your spouse in bed with another person and pull your gun and shoot them both it is second degree murder. If you come home and find your spouse in bed with another person and run to your closet to get your gun and then you shoot them both it is first degree murder.

There will be variations in the definitions state to state but that is a sufficient way to look at it generally.

In the case at hand, had the store clerk pulled his gun in the heat of their argument and shot the victim it would be second degree murder. Allowing the victim to walk out and then chasing after him to shoot him makes it first degree murder.

I think it is that simple, barring definitional variations in different jurisdictions.

Plus it would have saved the City of Chicago all that money they had to pay out to the people wrongfully convicted of murder after Burge and Associates tortured them into confessing. A swift execution means no opportunity to talk to a someone about it after your genitals stop smoking.

When the facts are as clear as here, that shouldn't be an issue, but as to First Degree I'm still interested in seeing where the premeditated malice or commission of another felony is in all this.

__________________
I need ammo, not a ride.

Yep.. clerk thought to himself... I'm not going to let him get away with that. Premeditation.

Charge him with 2nd Degree murder at least. He will answer to God one day.

This is correct, but this......doesn't assure it.

Based on what I've seen, classes don't prevent stupidity. They don't even seem to slow it down.

The difference between 1st and 2nd is premeditation. In this case, it seems like the clerk said to himself, "I'm going to go get that candy back and I'm going to shoot him if he doesn't give it to me." That's premeditation.



I'm curious, what was the argument about?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Under those circumstances he should change his name to 'Mud'.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

...would be the ones that need it most.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Anywhere, I think, the guy would be justified to have a gun in his store. He was in fear for his life that the customer would come back in and choke him on the bag of candy.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

But do you think that is really going to happen? They'll make some deal where he gets 50 years but will be eligible for parole in 20.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Guns are not to be pulled because you are pissed off. Not even if you are EXTREMELY pissed off.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Because of the immediate situation, I don't think it was premeditated. More on the spur of the moment. That's the ONLY thing he's got going for him, though.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

Originally Posted by REM 3200 View Post

No he should not! He should be EXPORTED if found guilty.
Tax payers should not have to support him the rest of his life!



pharmer, I don't mind you quoting me but DO NOT change anything that I have said.
I did not say EXPORTED. I said executed.

__________________
CSM, U S Army(Ret) 1963-1990

One can always hope.

__________________
CSM, U S Army(Ret) 1963-1990

Take him 50 miles out to sea and drop him in the water. If he swims back, OK he can live. Otherwise, he's been punished and we don't have to spend any more money on him.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Muss, my concern was him giving permit holders a bad rap. I haven't formed an opinion about constitutional carry yet. That's another animal all together.

We're going to have to disagree on this.

Getting in an argument with someone and then shooting him in the back of the head when he leaves your store is more than just not understanding when deadly force is appropriate - the guy had serious issues.

And my point is that a day and half of training isn't an infringement on 2A rights.

You guys are quite possibly having the wrong discussion anyways, for this incident at least.

There is nothing I see anywhere saying the guy carried.

A small store owner or clerk keeping a gun under the counter or next to the cash register is a time-honored American tradition that I’m pretty sure hasn’t been affected much at all either way by any changes in respect to carry laws.

How is it not?

in·fringe - act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.

Forcing someone to go to a day and a half of mandatory training is indeed limiting their ability to buy or keep a gun. The mere act of forcing the training implies some standard they must meet to finish the class.

I completely understand what you're saying. We've all seen people who probably shouldn't have guns. Even so, I'll take dangerous liberty over safe oppression any day.

People don't really understand hunger until they've been deprived of food for a week. Neither do they understand oppression until they've lived in a state that ignores their rights on a regular basis.

Just because you don't mind going to a class doesn't mean it isn't an infringement.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

(It is, which makes it unconstitutional, but I don't think that was the point.)

I think the point is that you need to learn not to kill other human beings just because you are angry a long, long time before you are able to buy a gun, and a few hours of classroom instruction is not going to 'do the trick'. Besides which, if he had the gun under the counter, and was not carrying the weapon on his person it is immaterial anyway.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

(1) Do you really think that a class was going to fix that sort of crazy?

(2) Do you really think that any rule designed to "filter" this guy out from gun ownership would stop him if he was even slightly determined to acquire a firearm? To whit, if he doesn't care a lick about shooting a man in the head, do you think he would suddenly object to making a straw purchase?

(3) What precisely has this guy done in his past, that we know about, that would disqualify him from gun ownership?

These are core anti-gun control arguments. Licensing and class requirements only serve to disenfranchise citizens without access to disposable income and transportation. And for what? There's been no bloodbath in constitutional carry states as the naysayers predicted.

My 80 year old mother got her concealed carry permit in SD, where there is no training requirement. She called me to ask for a recommendation for a handgun. A S&W model 36 would serve just fine, but instead, I referred her to an instructor in the area for proper training - for both the gun handling, and the use of lethal force.

It's not that mom was opposed to training, she just didn't fully realize that there was more to it than just handgun selection. She qualifies as both old and frail, but proper training still isn't an undue burden. To suggest otherwise is creating a problem that just doesn't exist. To old and frail to get out for training is the same as too old and frail to get out an need a concealed carry permit. No one is restricting what people use in their homes - not even DC at this point.

It's easy to write events like this off as stupidity, rather than simple ignorance.

I agree with you that some folks are stupid and training just bounces off, but that's not a reason to say all training is useless as many people with normal intelligence who want to carry a gun are woefully ignorant of the law, and do/would benefit from training.

Case is point is a conversation over heard in a gun shop a couple months ago, where concealed carry permit holder #1 recounts that while paying for something in a convenience store, a man reached over his shoulder, grabbed the $20 bill in his hand and ran out the door. Concealed carry permit holder #2 asks why he didn't shoot the guy. #1 says "I didn't think about it". #2 states something to the effect that you should have, be sure to next time.

#1 was very fortunate not to have thought of it, given that:
1) defense of property is not a justification for lethal force in NC;
2) the thief showed no indications of being armed and posed not imminent threat; and
3) even if he had, he was in full retreat out the door before #1 could have drawn his weapon anyway.

Had he shot, we'd have another news article out there a lot like this one.

At this point in the conversation I interrupted and gave an impromptu lesson on the laws pertaining to deadly force and used the above incident as an example of when and why you cannot shoot, and discussed the differences that might have created first what a reasonable person might view as an imminent threat, and thus a justification to shoot that might be sufficient for a jury of your peers not to want to lock you up and throw away the key.

Neither of these guys were stupid, but they had been around a long time, and I suspect they either forgot the key points of their training or more likely their permits pre-dated a training requirement in that area.

We cannot prevent or fix stupid, however we can prevent or fix ignorance.

I went back to carrying a J frame. Either a 640 no dash or a 340 loaded with 38s. The little 38s are just too good at what they were designed to do to be ignored.

Only if he has a battleship anchor chained to his legs.

I don't know for sure but I think in some states 1st degree murder is only charged when you kill an LEO.
As far as the shooting is concerned, flat out murder. He was mad at the guy because of the argument and murdered him.
The shoplifting candy excuse is about as lame as it gets.
Intentionally shooting someone in back of the head is always going to be murder no matter if a crime was committed or not or what the crime was. The only situation that I can come up with that's defensible is grappling/wrestling with an armed bad guy, or bad guy wrestling your gun from you and and you have to take the first shot you can get, or you shoot and he puts his head where you were aiming.
Just re read the post, didn't say he was shot in the back of the head, none the less, Murder.

Believe you are thinking of Capital Murder.

I think we've covered it.
I also think we've deleted enough political discussion.

and a Reminder of what the rules say-

The following topics are restricted on this Board:
General NEWS links- very rarely. If you need every news story about every subject every day, hit one or all of the news boards.
Reasonable news links about our military, first responders, or guns might be acceptable.
News concerning political gun issues is acceptable in the 2nd Amendment forum.
This forum does not function as the Internet Newsboard Index.


and-
The following topics are BANNED on this Board:
Abortion
Religion
Racial issues
Gay rights/homosexuality
General LEO bashing
Political Discussion and Comment
Do NOT participate in discussion of banned topics.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett