A very inspiring story.

He's much more "christian" than most Christians.

Now THAT'S how you convert someone to your faith. I still think all religion is bs, but if this man's display of empathy in the name of Islam will be repeated by the would-be thief for the same reasons, good for them.

As for the overplaying of the benevolent store-owner's religion as a factor, I cannot help but be reminded of M&B's "Good Samaritan" sketch:

Question, why do the cops still care? It is obvious the store owner doesn't want to press charges.

I'm not sure whether this was a question as to the legal mechanics of why the criminal is still pursued or if it was a rhetorical one as to why society should care to pursue him. I'll try and answer the first one and hope it helps someone. This is in general as applies to legal theory, my command of US criminal law is scant to say the least.

Certain crimes in certain jurisdictions might need an express wish of the victim to be pursued, in other cases police and prosecutors will simply ignore a crime if the victim does not want the investigation to proceed on practical grounds (the victim might be the chief witness etc.). But that is not always the case or even necessarily the rule.

The main reason why police and prosecutors would continue to pursue a case is likely because some more serious crimes are considered to be of interest to the state itself (as safeguarding public order, upholding the laws of the state and all that), thus it is not only up to the victim to decide what extent an investigation is pursued; police and prosecutors might determine of their own accord that a case should be pursued (the reasons why this might also be practically necessary can be seen in, for example, domestic abuse cases where children or spouses might deny or not want to press charges regardless of the severity or obviousness of the crimes against them, it also helps to discourage threats and the social and mental burden on criminal victims). So his wish to press charges might not matter in this case, depending on the law of the state in question.

There is also (in some jurisdictions) the choice of private prosecution, where the victim (or someone of similar status) can compel courts into criminal proceedings against someone even if the prosecutors have decided not to pursue the case. This is done to safeguard the possibility of justice in the individual case and as a check to prosecutorial power.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Question, why do the cops still care? It is obvious the store owner doesn't want to press charges.

@Lithic Interesting, I guess at heart, I have a slight problem with prosecutions with the victim being "society". I find the idea of justice being between people, with perhaps minor exceptions. That case of child abuse, where the victim is unable to press charges on their own it makes sense, but in adult on adult crimes, seems to make less sense. In my way of thinking, it would also make laws like drug laws unable to be enforced, because there would be no person to take up charges. Just surface thinking atm, haven't really fleshed out the idea. They had something like what I am talking about in "the moon is a harsh mistress", where by any trial that happened had to be fronted by your own cash. Now, I don't supposed that exactly, but that for a trial to happen, there has to be an interested party that isn't the state.

*humanitarian

Adding video to channels (Humanitarian) - requested by dingens.

English common law (and therefore law in the British Commonwealth and the US) originally was of the sort you describe; the victim petitioned his local magistrate for justice to be done and if a victim did not seek justice there was no action by those with legal jurisdiction

Over time, a larger bureaucracy developed and positions were created to enforce the local 'peace' on behalf of the local power (who could be anyone from a town magistrate to the king).

Eventually the jurisdiction of the king's court was universal and so criminal acts were considered 'breaking the king's peace' (which is different from the modern legal meaning of that phrase) and were dealt with by the courts.

To this day, criminal acts are considered offences against the whole community so the victim's feelings have no control over their prosecution.

In all 50 states a crime is against the state and can be tried by the local justice system, but the system routinely chooses not to pursue charges for various reasons. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@Lithic Interesting, I guess at heart, I have a slight problem with prosecutions with the victim being "society". I find the idea of justice being between people, with perhaps minor exceptions. That case of child abuse, where the victim is unable to press charges on their own it makes sense, but in adult on adult crimes, seems to make less sense. In my way of thinking, it would also make laws like drug laws unable to be enforced, because there would be no person to take up charges. Just surface thinking atm, haven't really fleshed out the idea. They had something like what I am talking about in "the moon is a harsh mistress", where by any trial that happened had to be fronted by your own cash. Now, I don't supposed that exactly, but that for a trial to happen, there has to be an interested party that isn't the state.

@Skeeve An interesting legal tradition. Seems to take justice out of the hands of those affected and place it squarely in the realm of bureaucrats. It is easy to see how it came to be that over time. I just don't know that what it has become is more desirable.

Well we already have people scaring others into not testifying and getting away with crimes. So imagine if a person had to come forward to even get the matter looked into?

Plus if they would only look into it if someone brought it up.... be a good reason to kill the person you're "wronging" to keep that possible list short.

Although I do agree that the victims wishes should be considered, especially in crimes where no violence occurred.

Uh, *Islam channel seems appropriate

Adding video to channels (Islam) - requested by Krupo.

Nice.

Unfortunately THIS

>> ^sme4r:

Unfortunately THIS

Yeah but I was half expecting the article to be about some redneck racists seeking belated vengeance for 9/11 or something, after they this guy on the news or something. If he had to go, i'm glad it was a more natural cause. It does suck though, I hope they met again before he died.>> ^hpqp:


>> ^sme4r:
Unfortunately THIS