Now, an employee of a Virginia business is in jail for shooting one of three masked felons, who’d broken into the store where he is employed, “to steal cash and merchandise,” according to The Washington Examiner.
And with all of the news of so many criminals being released back onto the streets with “no bail,” Hamzeh Abushariah is still in jail because a George Soros-funded, leftist prosecutor opposed his $25,000 bond—which his boss, Jowan Zuber, was willing to post. This also despite reports Abushariah suffers from diabetes, a condition making him more susceptible to the coronavirus, for which so many leftist jurisdictions are presently releasing real criminals.
Zuber told Tucker Carlson on his Fox News TV show, “It’s very sad for America today as American citizens practice their Second Amendment to protect the store and their lives,” the owner said. “Do you know what the police officer told [Abushariah]? ‘Why didn’t you run out the back door?’”
This incident makes me uncomfortable for many reasons. First, in charging the man, sometimes people seem to forget the heat-of-the-moment, human responses while in such a situation. Abushariah, who is an employee and was sleeping on the premises at the time, observed three masked men break into the store and begin stealing money and merchandise. Outnumbered, and not knowing if the thieves were armed, he reacted by retrieving a firearm the owner had stored there to protect employees and the store.
It appears the prosecutor may have two issues to conscript and extrapolate for her purposes: the suspects turned out to be juveniles and Abushariah fired additional shots as the felons were fleeing. But, remember, we’re no longer dealing with the traditional Virginia we all knew and loved. Socialist-Democrats have invaded the state and taken over some of its state and local politics. In many places in America these days, thanks to benefactors like leftist billionaire George Soros, prosecutors are becoming better friends to criminals than even their defense attorneys.
But Abushariah could not know at the time the intruders were juveniles—not that it should make a difference. They were committing a serious felony. He couldn’t know that the masked men were boys or if they were armed—we still don’t know because two of them escaped. And waiting to find out if a criminal committing a felony is armed is not good for your health.
After shooting at the suspects, wounding one, Abushariah reportedly retreated to a back room. Then he apparently left the back room, went back into the main store, and fired at the suspects again as they were fleeing. There’s obviously more we need to know. When he fired, were those suspects charging him before they turned and ran out of the store?
Chronology often gets muddled in such incidents. Seems the benefit of the doubt should go to the victim. I also understand the feelings of violation and fear those cretins inflicted on Abushariah. The prosecutor should take those physiological and psychological stimuli into consideration.
The state filed charges against Abushariah for malicious wounding (which I would tend to disagree with because the first shots occurred during the initial stages of the crime) and reckless handling of a firearm (I’m not sure what’s reckless about shooting at three masked, possibly armed intruders who broke into a store in the middle of the night). Would you bet your life on waiting for one of them to shoot? Remember, there were three suspects and one victim.
Prosecutors also charged Abushariah for a “violation of a protective order.” The primary ways Abushariah could violate a protective order is by being someplace he was not supposed to be, by being near someone he was not supposed to be near, or by possessing a firearm. In this case, it appears the gun was not his and was already in the store for the owner’s and employee’s protection. Abushariah went to sleep with no intention of “possessing” a gun until the masked burglars broke in. The firearms possession appears in no way connected to the original court order.
A protective order, in Virginia, “is a legal order issued by a magistrate or judge to protect the health and safety of an abused person and his/her family or household members.” So, the respondent, Abushariah, would be “prohibited from possessing a firearm” while it is in effect. None of the reporting I’ve found explains any of the charges explicitly.
According to an article by Brian Doherty, at Reason.com, Abushariah is the respondent in a previously-issued protective order. Therefore, a violation of the order would occur with his “possession” of a firearm, a technicality, even though the gun incident had nothing to do with the petitioner (person who filed for the order).
Doherty expresses concern about Commonwealth Attorney Parisa Dehghani-Tafti (D)—the George Soros-funded leftist mentioned above. He wrote she “has previously been a promoter of maximum transparency in policing but so far has only issued a gnomic statement insisting that the police know things they can’t tell us yet that more clearly justify the arrest.”
Quite convenient, eh? In that statement, Dehghani-Tafti says “there is evidence we are not at liberty to share that support the charges.” Well, I sure hope it is convincing whenever she comes up with…oh, I mean, reveals what that evidence is.
Regardless, a man is still in jail whose life was interrupted by three masked criminals in the proverbial dead of the night. They broke into his place of employment, were stealing stuff, and the victim is being charged with crimes and not allowed bail. Still, I could be wrong; maybe the evidence will be convincing. We’ll just have to wait and see.
But something doesn’t feel right about this case in so many ways. And the current Virginia state and some local governments continue to build a reputation as a state where Democrats tolerate a blackface/KKK hood and robe-wearing governor, an alleged #metoo violating lieutenant governor, oppose law-abiding gun owners, and coddle violent criminals. It makes one wonder if the fact a gun was involved in the incident, used by the victim, was the sole determiner for the prosecutor’s harsh stance against Mr. Abushariah. Again, we shall have to wait and see.