Sep 232017
 

A deli worker was attacked, someone came across the counter and slashed at him with a knife. He fought back with a  knife of his own, and the other guy got the worse of it. So, what happened? Did the city of New York throw the deli worker a ticker tape parade? Give him the keys to the city? A commendation for improving the streets and the gene pool? Nope:

Harlem deli worker charged with murder after fatally stabbing man who tried to attack him behind counter

Left unexplained in the article is why a guy who, according to the description given in the article, was simply defending himself has now been charged with murder.

 Posted by at 6:04 pm
  • Siergen

    I’m guessing that the dead attacker had a darker pigmentation than the deli worker, so by definition the deli worker is the guilty party.

  • B-Sabre

    This is probably the key to why they are charging him:

    He ran from behind the counter to confront the two men, surveillance video shows.

    By coming from behind the counter at the two men, he was taking the offensive against the two men, and “prevented” them from fleeing. If he had stayed behind the counter, he would have had an iron-clad defensive claim.

  • Kopis

    Another example of the corrupt justice system. If you want to actually do something about it, other than moan & complain, start by doing your own reading and research.

    Two starting points:

    http://freedomoutpost.com/understanding-your-most-fundamental-rights-part-i/

    http://voidjudgments.net/

  • Unsubscriber

    Everybody has rights, the alleged criminal as well. Better to let the courts work it out than to rely on the flawed judgement of a law enforcement officer.

    • Scottlowther

      Everyone has rights… including the right of self defense. You try to kill someone, tht someone has the right to use deadly force to make you stop.

      • Unsubscriber

        In America perhaps. In other places, the amount of force you use to protect yourself must be proportionate to the threat that you face. It is still better to allow the courts to sort out the rights from the wrongs. It prevents the abuse of power by law enforcement officers and it actually shows that a person is guilty or innocent of any crime they have been charged with.

        • Scottlowther

          > the amount of force you use to protect yourself must be proportionate to the threat that you face.

          So if a giant thug is using his considerable upper body strength to beat a scrawny little old man to death with a length or rebar or even his own fists, then the target should not use more force than that? Well, gee, I guess it’s a good thing that the force required to simply pull a trigger is far *less* than is being employed by the actual criminal in the scenario.

          > It is still better to allow the courts to sort out the rights from the wrongs.

          Are you suggesting that if you could stop a murder in progress by simply shooting the clear bad guy, you’d wait for the *courts* to do it instead? Or you’d let the murder happen and then let the courts punish the guy, because that’s the morally superior alternative to shooting the bad guy?

          • Unsubscriber

            No. I often think discussing civilised laws with Americans is pointless because you intentionally think of the most ridiculous situations possible to try and prove you are smarter than me.

            If you, or a person is threatened, you should respond with the appropriate level of force. If a person uses a knife, you are allowed to respond to prevent them from using that knife to hurt you or someone else. If a person uses a gun, you are allowed to respond to prevent from using that gun to hurt you or someone else. If you kill the perpetrator, you are charged with either murder or manslaughter and must face the courts to determine if your actions (and level of force) were justified or not. We do not rely upon law enforcement officers to make that decision – they are not trained to do so and don’t understand the often subtle nuances which are exposed in a court case. Law enforcement officers have biases, can be swayed in their judgement by circumstances or even money, courts at least in theory, cannot.

          • Scottlowther

            > If you, or a person is threatened, you should respond with the appropriate level of force.

            If the threat is reasonably assessed to be that of death or grievous bodily harm, the appropriate level of force to respond with includes a gun shot.

            > If you kill the perpetrator, you are charged with either murder or manslaughter

            Not in civilized societies. If the investigation shows that you killed in self defense, or in the defense of another, no charges are appropriate.

          • Unsubscriber

            > If the threat is reasonably assessed to be that of death or grievous
            bodily harm, the appropriate level of force to respond with includes a
            gun shot.

            Yes, it could include a gun shot but if they court decides that the use of a gun is inappropriate, then that is how the law should be interpreted. If you are in a jurisdiction where guns are not allowed, what do you think should happen to you when you produce your illegal gun and use it?

            > Not in civilized societies. If the investigation shows that you killed in
            self defense, or in the defense of another, no charges are appropriate.

            The rest of the world does not live in the Wild West nor accept a Wild West mentality. You kill someone, you get charged with either manslaughter (at the very least) or more likely murder. The courts will then decide your guilt or innocence. The law enforce officers will only investigate the occurrence and then present their evidence to the court, which will then make a decision on the basis of the evidence plus the arguments put forward by defence and prosecution lawyers.

            You appear to have real difficulty accepting that out there in the rest of the world, they do things differently because they have a different history to the US’s experience.

          • Scottlowther

            > If you are in a jurisdiction where guns are not allowed, what do you
            think should happen to you when you produce your illegal gun and use it?

            For self defense? “Jury nullification.” Followed by a lawsuit against the jurisdiction to get the law changed, followed by running out of office and employment all the politicians and bureaucrats who held that a citizen should be unarmed and helpless in the face of criminals.

            > The rest of the world does not live in the Wild West nor accept a Wild West mentality.

            That’s nice, since the “Wild west” is a myth. You might as well say that the rest of the world doesn’t live in a “court of Camelot” mentality.

            You accuse me of having difficulty accepting the rest of the world is different, while you have a fictional view of the US?

          • Unsubscriber

            > For self defense? “Jury nullification.” Followed by a lawsuit against

            the jurisdiction to get the law changed, followed by running out of
            office and employment all the politicians and bureaucrats who held that a citizen should be unarmed and helpless in the face of criminals.

            When the criminals don’t have guns, the system works. Criminals are handed harsher sentences when committed crimes when using a weapon. Therefore, they tried and avoid the use of weapons where possible.

            You describing America? Funny, I’ve never heard of a politician there failing to be elected because they don’t like firearms.

            > That’s nice, since the “Wild west” is a myth. You might as well say that the rest of the world doesn’t live in a “court of Camelot” mentality.

            > You accuse me of having difficulty accepting the rest of the world is different, while you have a fictional view of the US?

            You appear to be suffering from the illusion that the US is the centre of the universe. The rest of the world see it as very much the periphery, because as I’ve described it, a “Wild West” mentality to it’s attitudes and it’s laws. Whether the “Wild West” was an illusion is immaterial to that. Americans appear to believe it was real…

          • Scottlowther

            > When the criminals don’t have guns

            If the civilians are also disarmed, then you have just handed the advantage to the criminals.

            > You appear to be suffering from the illusion that the US is the centre of the universe.

            You appear to be suffering from the illusion that on this blog the US *isn’t* the center of the universe. Don;t like it? Start your own blog that’s centered on your own dismal corner of the universe.

            > The rest of the world see it as very much the periphery,

            And yet here you are, obsessing over it. Apparently the US is the center of *your* universe as well.

  • Herp McDerp

    There’s more recent information:

    Pals of victim Ramone Colon disputed accounts that the 46-year-old homeless man was a serial shoplifter at the A&S Candy Grocery on W. 145th St. near Lenox Ave., where cops say he swung a knife at worker Ahmed Hafeed as they quarreled about 9 a.m. Friday.

    “He would never do stuff like that,” said an acquaintance who would only identify himself as Jonathan.

    But Colon was on disability and had schizophrenia, which caused him to act erratically, friends said.

    “Sometimes he’d talk crazy things but when you really got to know him, he’s a nice person,” Jonathan said. [ … ]

    Colon had been arrested 28 times, mostly for assault, police sources said.

    Arrgghh.

    Apparently Hafeed’s mistake was to pursue Colon:

    Surveillance video shows Hafeed, 22, jumping back from Colon, who took a swipe at him with a knife, before grabbing his own knife and charging after the older man and stabbing him repeatedly in the midsection.

    As the clash spilled out into the street, Colon broke free and ran off, the knife still sticking out of his gut. Horrified witnesses said he ran into a nearby Dunkin’ Donuts, yanked the knife out of his stomach, and asked someone to call 911. He died at Harlem Hospital.

    From the original news story:

    Ahmad Hafeed’s 30-year-old uncle, Habeeb Hafeed, was shot and killed outside his grocery in Richmond, Va., in August 2016 — something that must have been on his mind when he was attacked, his cousin said.

    Given that, I think Hafeed should simply insist “I was in fear for my life!” I think he truly was.