SAW FLORIDA OFF OF THE CONTINENTAL U.S. NOW

WELCOME BACK, SETTLEDOWN

11/28/2012 8:38:25 AM

i don't have any issue with a dude shooting someone blaring loud shit

i think it all the time in my mind when someone is being douchey like that

11/28/2012 8:49:20 AM

100%

Over

Reaction

11/28/2012 8:51:44 AM

BigMan187

11/28/2012 8:52:28 AM

11/28/2012 8:56:00 AM

Quote :

"i don't have any issue with a dude shooting someone blaring loud shit i think it all the time in my mind when someone is being douchey like that"

Especially at the goddamn gas station, turn that shit off.

11/28/2012 9:38:28 AM

You can't shoot people simply because they annoy you with their music, ok?!

Anyway, what's more important here, is that the shooter said he felt threatened . And said he thought he saw a gun that didn't exist.

[Edited on November 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM. Reason : hh]

11/28/2012 11:12:05 AM

Quote :

"You can't shoot people simply because they annoy you with their music, ok?!"

Yet somehow this still happened.

11/28/2012 12:26:41 PM

Dude says that he saw a shotgun in the car, and that's why he opened fire.




One might speculate that having a gun on you makes you more paranoid, makes you think that others are armed as well, and makes you think that others are out to get you.

[Edited on December 2, 2012 at 1:01 PM. Reason : dddsa]

12/2/2012 1:01:12 PM

^ one might be confusing correlation with causality. In other words, the paranoid-types (like, the irrational, dysfunctional types that go beyond a healthy wariness) are more likely to be armed all the time, but being armed isn't a sign of a problem, per se.

At any rate, so the fuck what if there was a shotgun in the car? I've had guns in my car and the stereo turned up plenty of times without being up to anything nefarious. I mean, there may be more to the story than we've heard so far, but I'm having a really hard time imagining this one unfolding in a way that I could find acceptable. This is totally different from the Zimmerman/Martin situation. I take some issue with Zimmerman, but I don't think he committed a crime. Zimmerman had every right to follow and watch Martin; Martin had every right to be irritated at Zimmerman doing so; in the end, Martin got hands when he shouldn't have. He would have been totally justified in confronting Zimmerman; nobody finds fault with either of them for there being an altercation, but Martin turning it physical and threatening got himself unfortunately, distastefully, but justifiably killed.

I don't think that's what happened here. I don't think it was necessarily a "hate crime" or whatever (not that a distinction should exist anyway, in my mind). It sounds like these kids were being douchey, but that's not a crime or worth killing them over; it sounds like this dude exercised a terrible lack of judgment and unjustifiably opened fire, and if that's the case, he should pay the price.

The "stand your ground" law is a fine concept that we should stand by. It should not apply here based on what we know now. If it does, by some technicality where we're forced to apply it to uphold the rule of law, then the law should be adjusted.

12/2/2012 1:50:17 PM

I feel like we've been around this carousel too many times, for a statement like this:

Quote :

"...in the end, Martin got hands when he shouldn't have. He would have been totally justified in confronting Zimmerman; nobody finds fault with either of them for there being an altercation, but Martin turning it physical and threatening got himself unfortunately, distastefully, but justifiably killed."

to still be anything more than a speculation-filled daydream. What exactly, from what you have read or heard, of that night leads you to actually believe Martin was the instigator, the one that introduced threats into the situation, the one that initiated physical contact, or did anything other than defend himself?
That statement in itself seems to infer a lot about that night that I don't think anyone knows.


I do think that this situation is a bit different from the Traybon Martin case though. At the very least, the murderer wasn't free for 40 some odd days before even being arrested.

12/2/2012 3:06:44 PM

Trial starts today.

2/3/2014 8:09:17 AM

Guilty on 4 of 5 counts. The jury wasn't able to decide on murder

2/15/2014 10:31:25 PM

Quote :

"The "stand your ground" law is a fine concept that we should stand by. "

BUT SPEED LIMITS ARE NAZI GERMANY AMIRITE AND THE GUBBERTMENT SHOULD STAY OUTA MA LYFE

be more transparent - christ you really are the prototypical libertarian farce

and how the fuck do you find a guy guilty of trying to murder three people but can't make up your mind of actually killing the 4th guy

[Edited on February 15, 2014 at 10:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2014 10:49:47 PM

What in the fuck are you blabbering about?

2/15/2014 11:07:33 PM

if he was bumping some Drake or something, he deserved it

but if it was some dope shit, the guy Dunn or whoever should fry

2/15/2014 11:12:44 PM

i know you're stupid, but I also know you're smart enough to know just what the fuck I am talking about

2/15/2014 11:14:41 PM

Ok. Yeah...I'm stupid.

Go get your face fucked.

2/15/2014 11:20:31 PM

go get yourself passed over because you're incapable of self-control - oh wait, that already happened

[Edited on February 16, 2014 at 8:15 AM. Reason : .]

2/16/2014 8:09:10 AM

I'm not passed over.

2/16/2014 9:00:18 AM

Ugh, because this makes Florida sound great...

...if you're a racist

2/16/2014 9:43:00 AM

fuck florida

serial

2/16/2014 4:03:05 PM

Someone help me out, I'm getting conflicting accounts:

Some have told me that the jury was hung on the 1st degree count because some juror felt the shooting could be justified under stand your ground. The only reason he was convicted of the other counts was because he continued to fire into the car even after it was pulling away (the shooter couldn't show that they felt an imminent threat from a car driving away from him)

Then others have said that 1st degree murder requires premeditation and that if they re-trialed the guy for 2nd degree murder he would be convicted.

Thoughts?

2/17/2014 8:33:44 AM

Quote :

"The "stand your ground" law is a fine concept that we should stand by. It should not apply here based on what we know now. If it does, by some technicality where we're forced to apply it to uphold the rule of law, then the law should be adjusted."

It does in a way, because it changed the law to you only have to "feel" threatened to use deadly force.

However, in this case, based on what's been released, it doesn't apply, but I'm guessing some members of the jury are too dumb to see this.

1) the guy shot at the car as it was driving away, despite no gun fire ever being returned
2) the guy's fiancées testimony was at odds with his own
3) the guy never called the cops, and didn't mention shooting any black kids to anyone, the cops tracked him down 2 days later


If these 3 things don't spell out obvious murder, I don't know what does.

This does show the SYSTEMIC side of systemic racism though. No individual person in this situation needs to do something racist for racism to play a role here, this is what frustrates minorities. Statistically, when the tables are turned, the black defendant is more likely going to get the worse conviction.

[Edited on February 17, 2014 at 9:48 AM. Reason : ]

2/17/2014 9:47:08 AM

I still don't get how people can claim SYG is not relevant, or otherwise has not been applied to this case, and that of G. Zimmerman.

True, the defense opted not to attempt to prevent this case from going to a jury trial by using SYG. But after this goes to trial, SYG still plays a role because it is still part of Florida's defense law, as well as jury instructions. More broadly, this concept is in the mind of the person who chooses to open fire because he feels threatened.

[Edited on February 17, 2014 at 10:00 AM. Reason : jdhc]

2/17/2014 9:59:19 AM

Quote :

"More broadly, this concept is in the mind of the person who chooses to open fire because he feels threatened. "

True, it's lowering the bar for every aspect of the system. From the person, when they're committing the crime, to the DA when prosecuting, to the jury when deciding.

The bar for shooting someone under SYG is really, really low.

The laws are bad because rather than creating a substrate where people should act with reason and rationality, it gives an excuse to be unreasonable.

2/17/2014 3:16:55 PM

id take an army guy over a navy guy any day of the week

2/17/2014 4:38:05 PM

I haven't followed this case in detail. It seems to me that it was somewhat of an overcharge, though. I suspect that if they'd charged him with 2nd degree murder, or conservatively, manslaughter, they would have gotten it.

Break/

Stand your ground is fine, I think. Why should you have duty to retreat if you're attacked?

There are some legal issues (overcharging for sure; maybe some others), but I don't see there being a widespread problem regarding lack of duty to retreat. In the Zimmerman case, it was not a factor; he hAd no ability to retreat. In this case, it was not a factor in anything other than the murder 1 charge, and I'm of convinced that the problem there wasn't just a lack of depraved premeditation.

[Edited on February 17, 2014 at 11:47 PM. Reason : sure, we can't just accept unreasonable, tenuous feelings of being threatened, but that's not SYG]

2/17/2014 11:38:45 PM

has this been discussed yet? http://politicalblindspot.com/another-man-in-florida-stood-his-ground-chasing-and-killing-youth-in-hoodie/

2/18/2014 12:23:17 AM

Quote :

"Stand your ground is fine, I think. Why should you have duty to retreat if you're attacked? "

It's not the duty to retreat that's problematic, it's the low bar of "feeling threatened."

^^ 2nd degree doesn't accommodate that he sat for 2 days on this hoping it would go away. That's not a reasonable person who was threatened and who then just snapped, that's someone who is a degenerate and should be put away for a long time.

[Edited on February 18, 2014 at 12:53 AM. Reason : ]

2/18/2014 12:51:41 AM

unfortunately, simply being a degenerate doesn't enter into whether a murder is 1st or 2nd degree. The general difference is premeditation, right? Thus, "he sat around for two days afterwards" doesn't really matter in the legal context.

2/18/2014 12:58:47 AM

The guy seems like he has other issues, which to me makes 1st degree possible, but 2nd would seem pretty straight forward (you'd hope) based on what's known.

2/18/2014 1:02:08 AM

^^^^
Looks like the victim was actually armed, but considering it SEEMS like he was chased, then gunned down, that is not as clear-cut a case to me.

2/18/2014 1:03:45 AM

Quote :

"There are some legal issues (overcharging for sure; maybe some others), but I don't see there being a widespread problem regarding lack of duty to retreat."

We don't know why the jury was nog able to come to a decision on the murder 1 charge. What we do know is that the jury also had the option to convict on murder 2 or manslaughter in this case, but still did not. Another way of saying that is even if overcharged with murder 1, the jury could still have held Dunn accountable in the death of Jordan Davis if they thought he did something wrong.

That sounds a bit crazy to me, and cant think of any good reason for that.

[Edited on February 18, 2014 at 1:15 PM. Reason : jj]

2/18/2014 1:12:44 PM

^yea, understanding what constitutes 1st degree murder in Florida is crucial to understanding what jurors might have been thinking, which is crucial to understanding how SYG may have played a role in the case. I actually didn't realize they had the opportunity to convict on a lesser charge.

After my post above I did some quick googling of murder law in Florida. It seems like there is a really low bar for showing premeditation. Any person with sense knows shooting into a car could possibly kill someone and some have suggested that is enough to fulfill the premeditation requirements. I'm also wondering if it could be considered "felony murder." That is the guy killed someone in the act of committing a different felony. In this case the guy committed attempted murder, so the 1st degree murder could be tagged on that (in this case no premeditation is needed)

Can't some TWW legal scholar clear this up for us?

If you accept the 1st degree charge was justified, then the only reason the jury could have been hung on 1st degree murder is because the jury was taking Into account that Dunn "felt threatened" and "thought he saw something."

If you still can't grasp why some people aren't big fans of SYG this is a pretty good example IMO. The murderer started the confrontation, escalated it to violence, but wasn't convicted of murder because of the way he felt and what he thought he saw. The only reason the other charges stuck was because he kept shooting after the "threat" was fleeing.

[Edited on February 18, 2014 at 1:53 PM. Reason : Z]

2/18/2014 1:51:51 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/us/arkansas-prank-death/

Quote :

"Adrian Broadway was shot in the head and died early Saturday morning. She was with a group of teenagers who had gone to a house to do a "retaliation" prank on another teen who'd done a prank on them on Halloween, according to the Little Rock Police Department. The teenagers told police they had thrown toilet paper, eggs and mayonnaise on a car parked there. As they were leaving, a man came out of the house and opened fire."

2/18/2014 6:06:43 PM

Quote :

"Any person with sense knows shooting into a car could possibly kill someone and some have suggested that is enough to fulfill the premeditation requirements."

That's different than premeditation. 2nd degree murder generally requires a "depraved mind" with no regard for human life, easily provable here, I'd think; 1st requires premeditation, as in, some kind of planning or rational consideration of the act beforehand. Simply knowing that an action is likely to harm or kill someone and intentionally doing it anyway is generally what sets the bar between involuntary and voluntary manslaughter. Obviously it's going to depend on the jurisdiction, but anyone suggesting that is enough for premeditation likely doesn't know what they are talking about.


I'm with EMCE, though. I don't know how you don't return a verdict of 2nd degree or involuntary manslaughter here, especially if you convict him of attempted murder.

2/18/2014 8:53:04 PM

^^ if only that guy was smart enough to claim he saw a weapon... he seems pretty screwed.

2/18/2014 8:54:47 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/19/justice/florida-loud-music-case/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Quote :

"The revelations from the juror come after prosecutors released recordings of nine phone calls Dunn made while he awaited trial in a Florida jail. Some of the conversations were mundane, while others revealed a man who calls himself the victim and the victor. "Like, I'm the f***ing victim here," Dunn said. "I was the one who was victimized." "I mean, I don't know how else to put it," Dunn continued. "They attacked me. I'm the victim. I'm the victor, but I was the victim too." Other comments by Dunn highlighted his negative perception of the teens. "When the police said that these guys didn't have a record I was like, you know, I wonder if they're just flying under the radar," he told his fiancee, Rhonda Rouer. "Because they were bad.""

2/19/2014 3:15:14 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/02/19/the-daily-show-segment-on-jordan-davis-rings-devastatingly-true/

I think Florida is in a time warp. Not sure how else to explain it.

2/19/2014 8:44:55 PM