How NOT to do it...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
32,372
Reaction score
30,943
Location
(outside) Charleston, SC
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.
 
Register to hide this ad
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.
 
Missouri is a Constitutional carry state. Now how do you feel about it . . . ?
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.
 
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.

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. ;)
 
CROSSING INTO INFRINGEMENT???

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.

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

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top