View Full Version : Another stupid SOB kills a kid
Suwannee Tim
11-27-12, 07:01
In Jacksonville this weekend a middle aged white guy killed a black kid following an argument over loud music.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-11-26/story/brevard-suspect-pleads-not-guilty-slaying-wolfson-student
This would not have happened if Mr. Dunn had followed Suwannee Tim's Three Simple Rules for Concealed Carry:
1) Avoid trouble.
2) Flee trouble.
3) Don't cause trouble.
Littlelebowski
11-27-12, 07:03
In Jacksonville this weekend a middle aged white guy killed a black kid following an argument over loud music.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-11-26/story/brevard-suspect-pleads-not-guilty-slaying-wolfson-student
This would not have happened if Mr. Dunn had followed Suwannee Tim's Three Simple Rules for Concealed Carry:
1) Avoid trouble.
2) Flee trouble.
3) Don't cause trouble.
Absolutely agreed. Sad.
I'm still waiting for some more details on this one. It appears from the article that both parties were still in their vehicles when the shooting occurred. If true, this makes a self-defense plea very unlikely to succeed. Things might be different if Davis approached Dunn's vehicle or produced a weapon.
montanadave
11-27-12, 07:31
A 45-year-old man gets into a shouting match with a carload of high-schoolers and decides to empty a mag into their car? And drive home without reporting it to the law?
Please tell me this guy was drunk. Not as an excuse but perhaps as a partial explanation. Unless there is evidence someone in the kid's vehicle had a weapon or these kids were piling out the doors, there's no justification for this.
Prepare for "Trayvon Martin Part Deux."
Condolences to the slain teen's family. This was so completely avoidable. What a waste.
A 45-year-old man gets into a shouting match with a carload of high-schoolers and decides to empty a mag into their car? And drive home without reporting it to the law?
Please tell me this guy was drunk. Not as an excuse but perhaps as a partial explanation. Unless there is evidence someone in the kid's vehicle had a weapon or these kids were piling out the doors, there's no justification for this.
Prepare for "Trayvon Martin Part Deux."
Condolences to the slain teen's family. This was so completely avoidable. What a waste.
The 2 stories don't seem to be similar at all, except for the part where a black kid got shot and killed.
Littlelebowski
11-27-12, 07:35
A 45-year-old man gets into a shouting match with a carload of high-schoolers and decides to empty a mag into their car? And drive home without reporting it to the law?
Please tell me this guy was drunk. Not as an excuse but perhaps as a partial explanation. Unless there is evidence someone in the kid's vehicle had a weapon or these kids were piling out the doors, there's no justification for this.
Prepare for "Trayvon Martin Part Deux."
Condolences to the slain teen's family. This was so completely avoidable. What a waste.
Particularly when the guy was in a vehicle. How hard was it to drive away?
montanadave
11-27-12, 07:43
The 2 stories don't seem to be similar at all, except for the part where a black kid got shot and killed.
And you think that won't be enough?
If the media decide to run with this, it'll be "Katy, bar the door."
Sometimes you need to blow off a little steam, Boys.
Case Dismissed! :p
montanadave
11-27-12, 10:24
From a separate news account (http://www.wptv.com/dpp/news/state/jordan-davis-michael-dunn-loud-music-shooting-case-florida-teen-dead-after-loud-music-complaint):
Dunn's attorney, Robin Lemonidis, told CNN Monday that Dunn told police that he reacted after having seen a gun barrel in the window of the teens' car and after hearing a profanity-laced string of threats against him and his girlfriend while the teens motioned they were opening the door.
Lemonidis said that was when Dunn reached for his gun and opened fire on the vehicle. She added that, "When all the evidence has been flushed out, I believe that it will be extremely clear that Mr. Dunn acted as any responsible firearm-owner would have under the same circumstances."
Eight or nine shots were fired at the teens' car, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office statement added.
There were no guns found inside the teens' car, the statement said.
Lemonidis said her client and his girlfriend left the scene after the shooting, fearing that they had encountered gang members and that more would follow.
The couple went to a local hotel for the night, and saw the news the next morning that Davis had died. They returned to Dunn's home in Brevard County, where local police arrested him Saturday on an out-of-county warrant.
Based on the attorney's remarks, it certainly appears Dunn is going to invoke Florida's "stand your ground" law as a defense. Should he do so, it will be interesting to watch the response from 2A advocacy organizations. I'm sure they are waiting to see if additional evidence (such as surveillance video, additional eyewitness accounts, etc.) can collaborate Dunn's version of events.
Then they will be faced with making what appears to be (based on the limited preliminary info) a very tough decision as to whether to back this guy up or throw him under the bus.
Regardless, it's all "sound and fury, signifying nothing" unless the national media decides to take the ball and run with it. Which is not to discount or minimize the personal tragedy for those involved. Just an acknowledgment of how these events impact the broader public and the national debate regarding gun rights/gun control.
since you were there are you going to be a witness ?
also could have been the punk pulled up next to him with his truck booming ! guy asked if he could please turn it down and the guy said F YOU ! I am going to pop your a$$ white boy !!! (gun or not that might do it)
if the shooter was at a gas station and he was in the lane to get gas car in front car in back no where to go ?
I dont know could have gone that way as much as yours ?
if it goes the way of trayvon sadly another dumb but innocent person will be in trouble
how was it avoidable ? again since you were a witness ? tell us please !!
or you talking out the okole again ?
could have been the guy was a idiot as well !! and just did not like loud music
I think I will not worry till facts come out and not what the media tells me
A 45-year-old man gets into a shouting match with a carload of high-schoolers and decides to empty a mag into their car? And drive home without reporting it to the law?
Please tell me this guy was drunk. Not as an excuse but perhaps as a partial explanation. Unless there is evidence someone in the kid's vehicle had a weapon or these kids were piling out the doors, there's no justification for this.
Prepare for "Trayvon Martin Part Deux."
Condolences to the slain teen's family. This was so completely avoidable. What a waste.
Exactly... When the Trayvon case broke... I fell trap to the media's VERSION of the events.
When the facts came out the good/Bad on the shoot wasn't so clear.
Particularly when the guy was in a vehicle. How hard was it to drive away?
I watch people around here all the time get pinned in at gas stations and not leave themselves enough room to get out ?
would not be uncommon
Littlelebowski
11-27-12, 10:48
Yet they drove away. Firing 8 or 9 rounds into a vehicle isn't knowing what you're aiming at.
There are over 300 million people in this country and each year a handful of people do stupid shit with firearms and it gets blown out of proportion and the left calls for more firearm controls. Statistically the numbers are very low, but as Eric Holder said they "never let a crisis go to waste."
Let's compare this incident from this summer:
http://lakewood-oh.patch.com/articles/lakewoo-man-dies-after-dancin-in-the-street-crash
A Lakewood man was killed July 29 after a car crashed through the “Dancin’ in the Street” fair in Cleveland, at the Lakewood border.
Mitch Andelmo, an Avon Lake native, died last night, according to MetroHealth Medical Center. His cause of death was not released.
Andelmo was at the event, one of Cleveland's largest LGBT fundraisers run by the AIDS Taskforce of Greater Cleveland, on Sunday night. NewsNet5.com said a man with three prior drunk driving convictions drove through a street barricade and into the crowd on Clifton Boulevard at approximately 7 p.m. between West 116th and West 117th avenues.
I am sure that no one was out lobbying for a ban on alcohol, cars or homosexual street dances.
Again, in a country of 300 million things like this will happen and the media will sensationalize it (especially if there is an opportunity to scream racism).
I can't say that firing while creating distance.. be it on feet or in a vehicle is a per se violation of the law. I mean... we're trained to move and shoot....
But the circumstances surrounding the incident in total are a little "iffy".
montanadave
11-27-12, 11:49
since you were there are you going to be a witness ?
also could have been the punk pulled up next to him with his truck booming ! guy asked if he could please turn it down and the guy said F YOU ! I am going to pop your a$$ white boy !!! (gun or not that might do it)
if the shooter was at a gas station and he was in the lane to get gas car in front car in back no where to go ?
I dont know could have gone that way as much as yours ?
if it goes the way of trayvon sadly another dumb but innocent person will be in trouble
how was it avoidable ? again since you were a witness ? tell us please !!
or you talking out the okole again ?
could have been the guy was a idiot as well !! and just did not like loud music
I think I will not worry till facts come out and not what the media tells me
Please don't put words in my mouth.
And just to clarify your position, are you suggesting that a person in an adjacent vehicle yelling, "**** you! I oughta cap your white ass" (or words to that effect) is sufficient justification to draw a weapon and begin firing indiscriminately from inside your vehicle into the adjacent vehicle full of passengers. In your eyes, such a scenario would absolve this guy of guilt? Not to mention just driving on back to the motel and failing to report to the police THAT YOU HAD JUST SHOT A CARLOAD OF PEOPLE AT THE LOCAL QUICKIE-MART!
Yeah, sorry, I can't get onboard with that.
Additional information will certainly come to light and I may well change my position, but based on just these preliminary statements I don't see anything that justifies Dunn's actions under these circumstances.
Well the bottomline is if that evil man didnt have a pistol, this wouldnt have happened.....
You know that is whats coming...
Well the bottomline is if that evil man didnt have a pistol, this wouldnt have happened.....
You know that is whats coming...
AND... he might be a TEA PARTY MEMBER! :eek:
(conversely... Jujarious Jenkins Jones or whatever the ****'s name is will be lauded by the media for his work and research in the cure for cancer)
The 1st reports by the media are worse than a private's 1st reports of battle, always wrong. And the media is looking for sensationalism...
Rampant speculation is the terrain of fools.
I can envision a 1/2 dozen sound and unsound reasons for using deadly force in or in proximity to vehicles. But I wasn't there so... will leave the sorting out to people who; get paid to do that &/or have a local interest.
It's be great if general discussion was that, a place for threads that don't quit fit in anywhere else. Not a digital 2d version of "the view".
Well the bottomline is if that evil WHITE, TEA PARTY MEMBER didnt have a pistol, this wouldnt have happened.....
You know that is whats coming...
Fixed it for you. And you know the two biggest race baiters in the country will be all over this. :rolleyes:
Voodoo_Man
11-27-12, 14:13
As typical for these types of incidents, I will wait for the legal process to unfold and the evidence to be presented before making any sort of opinion.
Facts, not speculation.
In Jacksonville this weekend a middle aged white guy killed a black kid following an argument over loud music.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-11-26/story/brevard-suspect-pleads-not-guilty-slaying-wolfson-student
This would not have happened if Mr. Dunn had followed Suwannee Tim's Three Simple Rules for Concealed Carry:
1) Take Shit.
2) Eat Shit.
3) Know Your Place Whitey.
Fixed your list.
This also would not have happened if Davis had just turned down his ****ing music. If "I" happened to be so thoughtless that what I was doing was bothering others unreasonably I'd APOLOGIZE and STOP DOING IT. If I instead start a confrontation then I become the aggressor just as Davis did (if allegations are true).
The real problems I see are:
1. Randomly (apparently) firing into a vehicle full of several people rather than shooting a specific "identified" threat.
2. Going back to the hotel rather than find a safe place and call 911 to report the attack.
Going by what we know this one looks really "iffy" and strikes me as "music rage" (new term I just made up) with an improvised "I felt threatened" defense.
Maybe Davis was a genuine aggressor, maybe he wasn't. Maybe next time people will just turn their shit down.
Suwannee Tim
11-27-12, 15:47
Let me ask a question: How many of you would ask a group of teens in a gas station parking lot to turn down the music? If you did what result would you expect?
My answers: No, I would not ask teens to turn down the music. I would just grin and bear it and make haste to leave. If I did ask I would expect them to respond with contempt at best to and at worst it could be a lot worse, like it is now. What is a man thinking when he initiates a confrontation that he cannot win?
Yet they drove away. Firing 8 or 9 rounds into a vehicle isn't knowing what you're aiming at.
edited to say !
most likely we will find out the facts soon enough then we can decide
and this
1. Randomly (apparently) firing into a vehicle full of several people rather than shooting a specific "identified" threat.
2. Going back to the hotel rather than find a safe place and call 911 to report the attack.
Going by what we know this one looks really "iffy" and strikes me as "music rage" (new term I just made up) with an improvised "I felt threatened" defense.
Maybe Davis was a genuine aggressor, maybe he wasn't. Maybe next time people will just turn their shit down.
Some of the responses here are quite disturbing and I am glad that you don't live in my neighborhood.
Let me ask a question: How many of you would ask a group of teens in a gas station parking lot to turn down the music? If you did what result would you expect?
My answers: No, I would not ask teens to turn down the music. I would just grin and bear it and make haste to leave. If I did ask I would expect them to respond with contempt at best to and at worst it could be a lot worse, like it is now. What is a man thinking when he initiates a confrontation that he cannot win?
my answer:
I tend to ignore stupidity and all confrontation if it can be ignored
so a loud stereo would not make me mad if anything might kinda laugh and think I was that young once ?
never has bugged me and I see/hear them a lot around here :)
BUT
I dont think we should live in a society that people cant have respect for others and one has to live in fear if the talk I dont need to live in fear of that !!!
at the same time you dont shoot someone over a loud stereo !!! thats just as stupid IMHO
also you should be smart enough to know when to just turn around and not say anything !
nothing anyone could say to me would bug me ? words just dont get under my skin at all !!!!
but we do not really know what happened yet ?
did they have a confrontation down the road ? did the kids pull up or did he pull up ?
if these guys drove up to where he was parked getting gas ? that could change things ?
if he drove up that could change things ?
but this guy was stupid for driving home ! we dont know anything else
Let me ask a question: How many of you would ask a group of teens in a gas station parking lot to turn down the music? If you did what result would you expect?
My answers: No, I would not ask teens to turn down the music. I would just grin and bear it and make haste to leave. If I did ask I would expect them to respond with contempt at best to and at worst it could be a lot worse, like it is now. What is a man thinking when he initiates a confrontation that he cannot win?
I do it all the time. When I was a teen people told me to turn my shit down. Guess what? I turned it down and learned to be considerate.
And there is your problem. It is asking for consideration, it is NOT initiating a confrontation.
Anyone who turns something like being "asked not to annoy everyone around you" into a confrontation is the ACTUAL problem.
I do it all the time. When I was a teen people told me to turn my shit down. Guess what? I turned it down and learned to be considerate.
And there is your problem. It is asking for consideration, it is NOT initiating a confrontation.
Anyone who turns something like being "asked not to annoy everyone around you" into a confrontation is the ACTUAL problem.
ditto
when I was a teen and had a loud stereo I knew when it was OK to be loud and when it was not :) and never got asked ?
pull into a parking lot gas station turn it down !
montanadave
11-27-12, 21:01
The story just went up on HuffPost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/loud-music-leads-to-murder_n_2200708.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices
ETA: Also generating some comments over on Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/27/1165148/-More-ground-being-stood-in-Florida
Gentlemen, start your engines.
My Z71 Tahoe has a premium Bose Sound System. Whenever I'm confronted with an inconsiderate motorist, I just roll down the window, crank up the volume, and turn the channel to conservative talk radio :cool:. That'll teach 'em.
The story just went up on HuffPost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/loud-music-leads-to-murder_n_2200708.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices
ETA: Also generating some comments over on Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/27/1165148/-More-ground-being-stood-in-Florida
Gentlemen, start your engines.
Yeah two radical left blogs/sites that change stories ! Sorry huffpo and kos are not real news blogs !
Soros funded agenda media yes !
And while they post stories they have doctored or changed things before or as they call it editing ! Or slant it with a angle way to often or make the title about race !
The story just went up on HuffPost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/loud-music-leads-to-murder_n_2200708.html?utm_hp_ref=black-voices
ETA: Also generating some comments over on Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/27/1165148/-More-ground-being-stood-in-Florida
Gentlemen, start your engines.
And I guarantee you that if the shooter was an older black male we wouldn't hear a peep about it.
montanadave
11-27-12, 22:48
Honu, my posting of these links was not intended as an endorsement of the editorial positions or policies of either website. I've already stated my initial impressions of this shooting based on the currently available information. My interest at this point is focused on how this story evolves if it begins to garner some national media attention in the wake of the Martin-Zimmerman case.
And, Steyr, I suspect you are correct. And you probably have more experience than most in how the media plays these stories in your neck of the woods.
And, Steyr, I suspect you are correct. And you probably have more experience than most in how the media plays these stories in your neck of the woods.
Ain't just my neck of the woods.
If the Duke Lacrosse players were black and the allegations came from a white stripper we'd have never heard about it.
If an black volunteer security guard shot Trayvon Martin it would have never gone beyond local news.
Almost nobody has heard of the Carr brothers but if they were white and the victims were black everyone would still know about it with the same recall as Rodney King.
If OJ was just a college level football player when the murders happened it would have only made the news for about a month and few people would still remember.
There is a very distinct racial bias in the media and what makes the news and stays in the news.
If you take a given National News story and only change the variable of race you can see a very distinctive pattern.
Moose-Knuckle
11-28-12, 03:58
Another stupid SOB kills a kid
Well for this guy's sake I sure as shit hope your not on his jury since you've already found him guilty.
I will reserve my judgment as the facts surface. I was one of the first ones here who cried foul over the bias media’s hack job on the Trayvon Martin incident.
Suwannee Tim
11-28-12, 04:12
Well for this guy's sake I sure as shit hope your not on his jury since you've already found him guilty......
I found him guilty of extravagant stupidity. Do you disagree?
Suwannee Tim
11-28-12, 04:16
Ain't just my neck of the woods.
If the Duke Lacrosse players were black and the allegations came from a white stripper we'd have never heard about it.
If an black volunteer security guard shot Trayvon Martin it would have never gone beyond local news.
Almost nobody has heard of the Carr brothers but if they were white and the victims were black everyone would still know about it with the same recall as Rodney King.
If OJ was just a college level football player when the murders happened it would have only made the news for about a month and few people would still remember.
There is a very distinct racial bias in the media and what makes the news and stays in the news.
If you take a given National News story and only change the variable of race you can see a very distinctive pattern.
Of course there is racial bias in the news but this incident would be news regardless of the race of the parties involved. When a 17 year old kid is killed in an argument over a loud stereo it is news. It might not be news if the 17 year old did the killing because 17 year olds have the perfect excuse for being stupid. The 45 year old Dunn has no such excuse.
Suwannee Tim
11-28-12, 06:07
I heard on the radio local news (WOKV) this morning Dunn's lawyer say that he was not actually shooting at an individual but shooting into the car. If a jury hears that then this guy is gone, gone, gone. Cars don't point guns at you, people do.
Bottom line is, play stupid games expect stupid prizes.
That applies to both parties. I for one dont think loud music is worth being shot at, or shooting someone. But then again I consider myself a SANE non-jellyfish human being.
Some of the responses here are quite disturbing and I am glad that you don't live in my neighborhood.
Don't let Gunz fool you jokers... When he's in town, we regularly go to bad parts of town in the evenings and look for carloads of unsavories to poke sticks at... :cool:
Littlelebowski
11-28-12, 07:33
Some of the responses here are quite disturbing and I am glad that you don't live in my neighborhood.
This.
Moose-Knuckle
11-28-12, 15:04
I found him guilty of extravagant stupidity. Do you disagree?
Last I checked stupidity wasn't a crime.
I don't have all the facts and it would appear you have formulated your opinion on this incident solely based on what you are getting from the media.
As for this case, time will tell. If this was a "good shoot" or not really doesn't matter after the media sensationalizes the story and Jesse, Al, and the gang stir the pot.
I'm going to wait until NBC edits some 911 calls before I start rioting. :p
Moose-Knuckle
11-28-12, 15:40
I'm going to wait until NBC edits some 911 calls before I start rioting. :p
Yeah I need to go dust off the old torch and pitch fork. :dirol:
Suwannee Tim
11-28-12, 16:49
Last I checked stupidity wasn't a crime.........
That's what I found him guilty of Mr. Knuckle, stupidity. I haven't found him guilty of murder and I probably won't because I probably won't be on the jury. You are the only person I have heard so far speculate that this might be a "good shoot". I don't see this one as controversial. Looks pretty clear cut to me.
BTW, today he was charged with second degree murder and attempted murder.
Moose-Knuckle
11-28-12, 17:12
That's what I found him guilty of Mr. Knuckle, stupidity. I haven't found him guilty of murder and I probably won't because I probably won't be on the jury. You are the only person I have heard so far speculate that this might be a "good shoot". I don't see this one as controversial. Looks pretty clear cut to me.
BTW, today he was charged with second degree murder and attempted murder.
Once all the evidence is released and if he is convicted by a jury of his peers based upon the facts brought fourth then I'll be the first to say good ridance to this guy. I'm not defending anyone here.
What I took issue with was how dismissive your thread title is. In a single line you paint him as a stupid SOB and state how he is a "kid killer". Sorry, but I don't consider 17 year old males who run around society in groups threating anyone who simply asks if they could turn down the gangsta rap they are polluting the air with "kids". Thankfully in my home state 17 year olds are considered adults.
Suwannee Tim
11-28-12, 17:49
........What I took issue with was how dismissive your thread title is.....
I had second thoughts about the title. I was pretty pissed when I started the thread. All the information I have seen so far corroborates the title so I'll stick with it. In Florida 17 year olds are juvies. This kid was not a bad kid. That's the crying shame of it, that and Dunn ruining his life.
Moose-Knuckle
11-28-12, 18:14
I had second thoughts about the title.
No harm no foul friend. :cool:
This kid was not a bad kid. That's the crying shame of it, that and Dunn ruining his life.
I don't know if the person killed was a good person or not, but it sounds like someone had to act hard in front of his boys and threaten the guy who asked them to turn their shit down. In polite society this situation would have never transpired as people would have consideration for their fellow man and out of that respect not force their personal music choice upon others.
This kid was not a bad kid. That's the crying shame of it, that and Dunn ruining his life.
So why was there a shooting in your mind? Do you think Dunn just shoots at everyone who plays loud music?
The guy was 45 years old without any prior incidents (if he had felonies he wouldn't have a carry permit). Conversely Davis managed to get shot by the age of 17. This is not proof the shooting was justified, but it does show a pattern.
If Davis had simply turned down his offensively loud music when asked, he would still be eating Thanksgiving leftovers.
I just don't buy the scenario where a middle age guy with no priors who is attending his sons wedding decides there and then he is going to shoot somebody for playing loud music.
I think this is gonna be another Trayvon Martin where they try and make the Davis out to be an innocent victim who was "just enjoying some tunes" and was shot without reason by an "evil white man."
I strongly expect it will turn out that Davis became very aggressive and turned a simple "can you turn it down" into a confrontation. Then it will be a matter of if that escalation was justification for a shooting or not. Regardless of that detail, it will be further complicated by the fact that the shooter didn't call and report the incident immediately (which to me suggests he intended to say nothing and try and walk away with it). He may not have known for a fact that he shot somebody, but he did know for a fact that he fired rounds at a vehicle.
And as with similar cases, what "may" have been a "good shoot" is going to be muddied and complicated by a bunch of incredibly stupid decisions and statements made after the fact and by the injection of race issues and other biases.
I think a good rule of thumb is, if you aren't 100% certain that you will be calling 911 immediately after an incident to report it, you probably aren't in a 100% certain "good shoot" situation. I can't fathom anyone being in a situation where they truly believe they need to shoot somebody, but don't think they need to report it. But apparently complete idiots are not in short supply.
Suwannee Tim
11-28-12, 20:55
I think Dunn was drunk. I think they bugged out so he could turn himself in sober. I don't know that, just speculation on my part. It always looks bad to kill someone when you are drunk. I knew a guy named Jody, biker guy, killed a man in an altercation, Jody was drunk. He died in prison about ten years after the killing. One of my co-workers knows the Davis family from church, says they are all good people.
I heard on the radio, Dunn's lawyer say he was not shooting at an individual, rather, shooting into the car. Kind of blows the "they had a gun" theory. Cars don't brandish guns.
Dunn needs to get a better lawyer before she hurts him any more.
[QUOTE=Moose-Knuckle;1454061....... In polite society this situation would have never transpired as people would have consideration for their fellow man and out of that respect not force their personal music choice upon others.[/QUOTE]
We ain't in a polite society. We are in a let it all hang out society.
montanadave
11-28-12, 21:08
I think Dunn was drunk.
I suspect the same. And I'm guessing the police are talking to every person at that wedding reception Dunn had just left to try to get a handle on how much he had to drink before leaving.
Moose-Knuckle
11-28-12, 21:24
We ain't in a polite society. We are in a let it all hang out society.
Brother you ain't kid'n.
When two tards cross paths this is usually the end result. This is why my own personal philosophy consists of being gray man and to not draw attention to myself all the while being ever vigilant of situational awareness.
Suwannee Tim
11-29-12, 15:59
.......When two tards cross paths this is usually the end result. This is why my own personal philosophy consists of being gray man and to not draw attention to myself all the while being ever vigilant of situational awareness.
As my Pastor would say "Amen and amen." Non-threatening but not weak, glance their way, if you make eye contact give them a nod and a slight smile. I've done it a thousand times. In the newspaper I read about a certain sub-culture that will shoot at the drop of a hat. Two or three times a week some idiot kills some other idiot over something idiotic. They will kill you or me just as casually as they kill a rival drug dealer. When dealing with a stranger you never know if they are reasonable or insane, paranoid, looking to make a reputation or just reflexively resorting to violence. I don't know how many times I have seen some young woman with a two year old, dragging them through the store, 2yo gets cranky and they whoop his little ass right on the spot. They learn violence almost from infancy. Deadly force ain't a last resort for some of these folks, it is the method of choice.
I think Dunn was drunk.....
Maybe drunk, maybe showing off for the GF, maybe both.
Suwannee Tim
12-03-12, 17:52
Never mind.
Doesnt matter if it was a "good" kid or a "bad" kid. Wrong is wrong, no matter how you slice it.
Taking another persons life is reserved as a last resort in preserving your life or another innocent persons life. Neither seems to be the case in this situation.
Hope the shooter gets what he deserves.
Doesnt matter if it was a "good" kid or a "bad" kid. Wrong is wrong, no matter how you slice it.
Taking another persons life is reserved as a last resort in preserving your life or another innocent persons life. Neither seems to be the case in this situation.
Actually you are correct, it will come down to if he actually believed he was being threatened and forced to defend himself.
Hope the shooter gets what he deserves.
So do I. If it is a good shoot I hope he walks, if it wasn't a good shoot I hope he gets prosecuted.
Moose-Knuckle
12-04-12, 02:19
Actually you are correct, it will come down to if he actually believed he was being threatened and forced to defend himself.
So do I. If it is a good shoot I hope he walks, if it wasn't a good shoot I hope he gets prosecuted.
Agreed, great post.
montanadave
12-04-12, 05:31
Dunn has to be able to convince a judge there was some reasonable and substantive reason for him to "believe" his life was threatened. People "believe" all kinds of fantastical bullshit with little or no evidence to support those beliefs.
If a person can legitimately invoke Florida's "stand your ground" law and be granted immunity from all criminal and civil prosecution based solely on their state of mind and perception of a threat without requiring proof that another reasonable/rational individual under the same circumstances would have made a similar threat assessment, the law is untenable and needs revision.
Dunn has to be able to convince a judge there was some reasonable and substantive reason for him to "believe" his life was threatened. People "believe" all kinds of fantastical bullshit with little or no evidence to support those beliefs.
If a person can legitimately invoke Florida's "stand your ground" law and be granted immunity from all criminal and civil prosecution based solely on their state of mind and perception of a threat without requiring proof that another reasonable/rational individual under the same circumstances would have made a similar threat assessment, the law is untenable and needs revision.
the prosecution have to prove his life was not threatened !!! remember the old innocent till proven guilty !
he just has to present his side and defend it compared to the prosecutors side
the burden is on the prosecutor not the other way around !
and to say you want people to be judged on what another person in the same circumstances would have acted like is stupid beyond belief !!!
the only way your idiot statement would work if its put in reverse remember your INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY !!!!! in this country
so in this case !
what would most people have done in this situation ! turn down the radio and not argue with the person who asked you to turn it down ! so the kid did not act like a normal person and therefore deserved what he got
you can never recreate those circumstances and state of mind has everything to do with it !
montanadave
12-04-12, 15:59
Let me get this straight, Honu.
In your world, all a guy has to do is say "I felt threatened" and this entirely subjective feeling is sufficient justification to shoot and kill another human being?
"Yeah, officer, my spidey-senses, they was a tingling, so I blew that sumbitch away."
And I'm the one talking out my ass? :no:
I don't think you understand the law or how it is implemented.
the prosecution have to prove his life was not threatened !!! remember the old innocent till proven guilty !
he just has to present his side and defend it compared to the prosecutors side
the burden is on the prosecutor not the other way around !
and to say you want people to be judged on what another person in the same circumstances would have acted like is stupid beyond belief !!!
the only way your idiot statement would work if its put in reverse remember your INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY !!!!! in this country
so in this case !
what would most people have done in this situation ! turn down the radio and not argue with the person who asked you to turn it down ! so the kid did not act like a normal person and therefore deserved what he got
you can never recreate those circumstances and state of mind has everything to do with it !
You misunderstand the law. Self defense is a defense to murder or manslaughter. If the DA / prosecutor decides to go after the shooter, it's probably quite trivial to prove he shot a guy; he probably admitted it. It is then up to the guy to prove that a "reasonable person" would have felt threatened (which is state specific in terms of how threatened and other details) in his situation.
Let me get this straight, Honu.
In your world, all a guy has to do is say "I felt threatened" and this entirely subjective feeling is sufficient justification to shoot and kill another human being?
"Yeah, officer, my spidey-senses, they was a tingling, so I blew that sumbitch away."
And I'm the one talking out my ass? :no:
I don't think you understand the law or how it is implemented.
Don't move to FL.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?app_mode=display_statute&url=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
Let me get this straight, Honu.
In your world, all a guy has to do is say "I felt threatened" and this entirely subjective feeling is sufficient justification to shoot and kill another human being?
"Yeah, officer, my spidey-senses, they was a tingling, so I blew that sumbitch away."
And I'm the one talking out my ass? :no:
I don't think you understand the law or how it is implemented.
dont try to put words in my mouth or change what I said !
talking to my brother who is a prosecutor its amazing how many cases get thrown out or cant hold up even though tons of evidence was against the person doing the crime !!!!
look at the OJ trial or many other cases !!!
also how many get thrown out cause the prosecution cant convince beyond a reasonable doubt !
each case is taken on its own value not some homogenized average value of what some people might do ! like you want !
he is not guilty at this point he is charged with something but not guilty !
you said
Dunn has to be able to convince a judge there was some reasonable and substantive reason for him to "believe" his life was threatened.
not really the prosecutor has to prove he is guilty and acted without any reason ! if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did ! then he better be able to prove he acted in self defense !
if the prosecutor came in and said we have nothing ! what do you think will happen ?
but the prosecution does seem to have a lot in this case
sadly this case is not good for the shooters side at all when we look at all the things he did wrong just like the guy with the kids in his basement
the law has to prove you are guilty !!! most of the time its pretty cut and dry and the facts against this guy will most likely find him guilty
Alaskapopo
12-04-12, 17:21
In Jacksonville this weekend a middle aged white guy killed a black kid following an argument over loud music.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-11-26/story/brevard-suspect-pleads-not-guilty-slaying-wolfson-student
This would not have happened if Mr. Dunn had followed Suwannee Tim's Three Simple Rules for Concealed Carry:
1) Avoid trouble.
2) Flee trouble.
3) Don't cause trouble.
What the hell another idiot.
This is almost like a South Park episode. Look its coming right for us bang bang bang.
Except in this case its I feel threatened bang bang bang...
While this may not be popular here but I think this is a good example of why people should have to get some basic legal and firearms training before carrying a gun.
Pat
And just to reverse the race variable with regard to FL "stand your ground" laws.
Hygens Labidou, who is black, was driving in Deerfield Beach in 2007 when two white men jumped out of their pickup, pounded on his truck and yelled racial slurs. Labidou, still inside his car, fired his gun, striking both men and killing 28-year-old Edward Borowsky.
His attackers were UNARMED and he was not charged with a crime.
In Pompano Beach in 2010, Patrick Lavoie, a white man, jumped out of his girlfriend's car and accused Cleveland Murdock, a black man, of tailgating. When Lavoie, who had a cigarette lighter in his hand, tried to reach through Murdock's passenger window, Murdock fatally shot him.
Patrick Lavoie was UNARMED (unless you call a cigarette lighter a weapon) and Cleveland Murdock was not charged with a crime.
In both these cases the shooter who killed unarmed men "reasonably believed" they were at risk of "imminent death or great bodily harm."
Basically in FL the same rules that would apply to an intruder "in your home" now apply anywhere to any attacker so long as you are not engaged in criminal activity yourself.
This is why in FL you can't just "threaten people." They have no duty to retreat and if you escalate the situation enough and there is a "reasonable risk" of you being able to cause death or great bodily harm, they can use deadly force to prevent it.
And for the record I'm good (as was FL law enforcement) with both of the above scenarios regardless of how you change the race of the parties involved.
What the hell another idiot.
This is almost like a South Park episode. Look its coming right for us bang bang bang.
Except in this case its I feel threatened bang bang bang...
While this may not be popular here but I think this is a good example of why people should have to get some basic legal and firearms training before carrying a gun.
Pat
Don't move to FL.
Alaskapopo
12-04-12, 17:25
dont try to put words in my mouth or change what I said !
talking to my brother who is a prosecutor its amazing how many cases get thrown out or cant hold up even though tons of evidence was against the person doing the crime !!!!
look at the OJ trial or many other cases !!!
also how many get thrown out cause the prosecution cant convince beyond a reasonable doubt !
each case is taken on its own value not some homogenized average value of what some people might do ! like you want !
he is not guilty at this point he is charged with something but not guilty !
you said
Dunn has to be able to convince a judge there was some reasonable and substantive reason for him to "believe" his life was threatened.
not really the prosecutor has to prove he is guilty and acted without any reason ! if they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did ! then he better be able to prove he acted in self defense !
if the prosecutor came in and said we have nothing ! what do you think will happen ?
but the prosecution does seem to have a lot in this case
sadly this case is not good for the shooters side at all when we look at all the things he did wrong just like the guy with the kids in his basement
the law has to prove you are guilty !!! most of the time its pretty cut and dry and the facts against this guy will most likely find him guilty
With all due respect you don't know much about the legal system. Koshinn is correct. The standard is a "Reasonable Person" . That is a legal term with a definition below.
The reasonable person (historically reasonable man) is one of many tools for explaining the law to a jury.[1] The "reasonable person" is an emergent concept of common law.[2] While there is (loose) consensus in black letter law, there is no universally accepted, technical definition. As a legal fiction,[2] the "reasonable person" is not an average person or a typical person. Instead, the "reasonable person" is a composite of a relevant community's judgment as to how a typical member of said community should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm (through action or inaction) to the public.[3]
The standard also holds that each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances.[4][5] While the specific circumstances of each case will require varying kinds of conduct and degrees of care, the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself.[6][7]
The "reasonable person" construct can be found applied in many areas of the law. The standard performs a crucial role in determining negligence in both criminal law—that is, criminal negligence—and tort law.
The standard also has a presence in contract law, though its use there is substantially different.[8] It is used to determine contractual intent, or if a breach of the standard of care has occurred, provided a duty of care can be proven. The intent of a party can be determined by examining the understanding of a reasonable person, after consideration is given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices the parties have established between themselves, usages and any subsequent conduct of the parties.[9]
The standard does not exist independently of other circumstances within a case that could affect an individual's judgment.
END
You can't just say you felt threatened and shoot away. The jury gets to compare and contrast your conduct with what they believe a reasonable person would do in the same situation based on the legal defination.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-04-12, 17:26
Don't move to FL.
I don't make it a habit of threatening people. But the way your law is set up it needs to change or there will eventually be a backlash against concealed carry holders and laws will get changed.
Pat
You can't just say you felt threatened and shoot away. The jury gets to compare and contrast your conduct with what they believe a reasonable person would do in the same situation based on the legal defination.
Pat
Doesn't work that way in FL. In most cases the person isn't even charged and there is no jury. See the above two examples.
Doesn't work that way in FL. In most cases the person isn't even charged and there is no jury. See the above two examples.
The state can decide to save money and time and just drop charges instead of going through the dog and pony show. But they can go through the legal process and make the guy prove self defense.
I don't make it a habit of threatening people. But the way your law is set up it needs to change or there will eventually be a backlash against concealed carry holders and laws will get changed.
Pat
I disagree. I don't think the law needs to be changed, I think people who threaten others in public need to change.
And with all due respect, the reason we have our conceal carry and stand your ground laws is as a result of a backlash against people who don't know how to not threaten others in public.
One of the above incidents actually happened less than a mile from my home. There were more than a few people in my neighborhood who didn't understand prior to that day that you CANNOT get out of your car and start banging on another persons car simply because you don't approve of their driving.
But most of them know that now.
I honestly don't think you and many others truly appreciate certain environments. The amount of "stand your ground" shootings that have occurred in this state since the law was passed would probably make your head spin. I suspect the only one anyone outside of FL is aware of is the Trayvon Martin shooting because NOBODY has heard of Hygens Labidou or Cleveland Murdock.
I should point out that unlike Zimmerman, Labidou and Murdock weren't even actually touched by their attackers before they used deadly force. Of course their cases never made national news, there was no outcry for Patrick Lavoie who was killed because he was armed only with a lighter rather than Skittles.
These cases are so common they barely even make local news anymore. FL, especially south FL can be an extremely violent place and we have (or used to have) a disproportionate number of violent criminals and the public simply got fed up with it. The number of people who carry down here would probably astound you. It has become an environment where you expect the person you are dealing with to be armed. Many people who carry aren't even what we'd call gun people.
The attempt at a backlash, which was spearheaded by the Brady Bunch and their northeastern visitors contingent has come and gone and nobody was interested. Trayvon Martin was their "OJ case" and it went nowhere because it was learned that Trayvon more than satisfied the conditions for the use of deadly force. The only thing actually surprising about that case is that Zimmerman was actually arrested.
Fl has a far different set of rules when it comes to defending yourself. They are probably the most liberal "defensive" laws in the entire country.
Really the only problem with FL gun laws is they have made carrying weapons so prevalent that occasionally somebody fumbles one in a bathroom while pulling down their pants or some elderly person absent mindedly misplaces a firearm in a public place or forgets about it when they go through airport security.
But I have personal knowledge of more than a few LEOs (including a Federal female agent who left a handgun on the counter in a public bathroom) who have done similar things with their duty firearms so it's hard to be too critical.
Moose-Knuckle
12-04-12, 17:46
I’m going to invest in a white flag manufacturing company, if the projected data from the GD sub-forum is correct I stand to make millions.
The state can decide to save money and time and just drop charges instead of going through the dog and pony show. But they can go through the legal process and make the guy prove self defense.
Actually it's not a matter of proving self defense (innocent until proven guilty) so much as it is a matter of accepting that the case meets the criteria for justifiable self defense under FL law.
Obviously it isn't as simple as saying "He was coming right at me" and being on your way.
I’m going to invest in a white flag manufacturing company, if the projected data from the GD sub-forum is correct I stand to make millions.
Can I get one with the word "Pickles" printed on it?
:laugh:
Alaskapopo
12-04-12, 17:56
Actually it's not a matter of proving self defense (innocent until proven guilty) so much as it is a matter of accepting that the case meets the criteria for justifiable self defense under FL law.
Obviously it isn't as simple as saying "He was coming right at me" and being on your way.
I have not read the Florida law but there is such a thing as an affirmative defense. In laws like these the police may arrest you and you will be charged and its up to you to prove in trial that your actions met the affirmative defense requirments per that particular statute.
Pat
montanadave
12-04-12, 18:00
Don't move to FL.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?app_mode=display_statute&url=0700-0799/0776/0776.html
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
The law says "reasonably believes."
Which is what I said.
Somewhere, somebody is going to make a determination as to whether the actions taken by Dunn were "reasonable."
By using the reasonable person standard, the courts instead use an objective tool and avoid such subjective evaluations. The result is a standard that allows the law to behave in a uniform, foreseeable, and neutral manner when attempting to determine liability.
you would be judged dif than the idiot who shot these kids !
since you are a LEO you would be held to a higher standard of actions !!! which if anything makes LEO walk on a much thinner line that non LEO types
Factors external to the defendant are always relevant. Additionally, so is the context within which each action is made. It is within these circumstances that the determinations and actions of the defendant are to be judged.There are myriad factors that could provide inputs into how a person acts: individual perceptions, knowledge, the weather, etc. The standard of care required for each set of circumstances will vary, yet the level of care due is always what is reasonable for that set of circumstances.[32]
While community customs may be relied upon to indicate what kind of action is expected in light of given circumstances, such customary requirements are not themselves conclusive of what a reasonable person would do.[14][33]
It is precisely for this wide-ranging variety of possible facts that the reasonable person standard is so broad (and often confusing and difficult to apply). However, a few general areas of relevant circumstances rise above the others.
like the other thread where you seem to think everyone is OK with murder ! I am sure you will twist it that way here !
so let me be clear not what I think at all !!
and this guy was a idiot ! and from what we know should be found guilty !
when you said !
You can't just say you felt threatened and shoot away. The jury gets to compare and contrast your conduct with what they believe a reasonable person would do in the same situation based on the legal defination.
then how come this guy did it ?
and what about the Horn case in texas
yes a jury does get to use this as a baseline but its not what solely determines the outcome ! and we are still innocent till proven guilty not the other way around !
and when you arrest someone it does not make them guilty !
yes they could be found guilty but that is not your determination that is up to a judge and or jury etc.
With all due respect you don't know much about the legal system. Koshinn is correct. The standard is a "Reasonable Person" . That is a legal term with a definition below.
The reasonable person (historically reasonable man) is one of many tools for explaining the law to a jury.[1] The "reasonable person" is an emergent concept of common law.[2] While there is (loose) consensus in black letter law, there is no universally accepted, technical definition. As a legal fiction,[2] the "reasonable person" is not an average person or a typical person. Instead, the "reasonable person" is a composite of a relevant community's judgment as to how a typical member of said community should behave in situations that might pose a threat of harm (through action or inaction) to the public.[3]
The standard also holds that each person owes a duty to behave as a reasonable person would under the same or similar circumstances.[4][5] While the specific circumstances of each case will require varying kinds of conduct and degrees of care, the reasonable person standard undergoes no variation itself.[6][7]
The "reasonable person" construct can be found applied in many areas of the law. The standard performs a crucial role in determining negligence in both criminal law—that is, criminal negligence—and tort law.
The standard also has a presence in contract law, though its use there is substantially different.[8] It is used to determine contractual intent, or if a breach of the standard of care has occurred, provided a duty of care can be proven. The intent of a party can be determined by examining the understanding of a reasonable person, after consideration is given to all relevant circumstances of the case including the negotiations, any practices the parties have established between themselves, usages and any subsequent conduct of the parties.[9]
The standard does not exist independently of other circumstances within a case that could affect an individual's judgment.
END
You can't just say you felt threatened and shoot away. The jury gets to compare and contrast your conduct with what they believe a reasonable person would do in the same situation based on the legal defination.
Pat
I have not read the Florida law but there is such a thing as an affirmative defense. In laws like these the police may arrest you and you will be charged and its up to you to prove in trial that your actions met the affirmative defense requirments per that particular statute.
Pat
In both of the cases above neither man was arrested or charged.
The law says "reasonably believes."
Which is what I said.
Somewhere, somebody is going to make a determination as to whether the actions taken by Dunn were "reasonable."
Your post seemed to suggest you felt something more than "reasonable belief" would be necessary. I do suspect that the criteria in FL would be different from what you imagine.
Alaskapopo
12-04-12, 18:34
In both of the cases above neither man was arrested or charged.
Its not that rare for a suspect not to be arrested or charged right away so the police can build the case before the right to a speedy trial runs out. Rather their arrested or not depends on rather their a flight risk and a danger to the community. On serious cases the DA will often ask that we don't arrest the suspect until a later date.
Pat
Alaskapopo
12-04-12, 18:41
By using the reasonable person standard, the courts instead use an objective tool and avoid such subjective evaluations. The result is a standard that allows the law to behave in a uniform, foreseeable, and neutral manner when attempting to determine liability.
you would be judged dif than the idiot who shot these kids !
since you are a LEO you would be held to a higher standard of actions !!! which if anything makes LEO walk on a much thinner line that non LEO types
There is a reasonable police officer standard for judging a police officers actions while in the line of duty and yes its a higher standard.
Factors external to the defendant are always relevant. Additionally, so is the context within which each action is made. It is within these circumstances that the determinations and actions of the defendant are to be judged.There are myriad factors that could provide inputs into how a person acts: individual perceptions, knowledge, the weather, etc. The standard of care required for each set of circumstances will vary, yet the level of care due is always what is reasonable for that set of circumstances.[32]
While community customs may be relied upon to indicate what kind of action is expected in light of given circumstances, such customary requirements are not themselves conclusive of what a reasonable person would do.[14][33]
It is precisely for this wide-ranging variety of possible facts that the reasonable person standard is so broad (and often confusing and difficult to apply). However, a few general areas of relevant circumstances rise above the others.
like the other thread where you seem to think everyone is OK with murder ! I am sure you will twist it that way here !
so let me be clear not what I think at all !!
and this guy was a idiot ! and from what we know should be found guilty !
when you said !
You can't just say you felt threatened and shoot away. The jury gets to compare and contrast your conduct with what they believe a reasonable person would do in the same situation based on the legal defination.
then how come this guy did it ?
Just because the suspect shot does not mean his actions were legal or right.
and what about the Horn case in texas
yes a jury does get to use this as a baseline but its not what solely determines the outcome ! and we are still innocent till proven guilty not the other way around !
Innocent until proven guilty yes. However the reasonable person standard is what is going to be used in large part to determine your guilt.
and when you arrest someone it does not make them guilty !
yes they could be found guilty but that is not your determination that is up to a judge and or jury etc.
I would suggest you take a basic concealed carry course that covers the laws of your local area. ASAP.
You also need to consider the civil ramifications. The standard of proof in a civil wrongful death law suit is just proponderance of the evidence a far lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.
montanadave
12-04-12, 18:53
In both the cases you cited, Steyr, the person who ended up getting shot had exited their vehicle and approached the shooter's vehicle while making verbal threats. They both committed an overt physical act in a threatening manner.
I've yet to hear any evidence suggesting the teen shot in the Dunn case got out of their vehicle and approached Dunn's car. There has yet to be any suggestion of any overt physical act on the part of any of the young people in the vehicle Dunn shot into.
Moose-Knuckle
12-04-12, 21:15
Can I get one with the word "Pickles" printed on it?
:laugh:
Gottcha down for one in the pre-order group buy. It'll be about two weeks . . .
I would suggest you take a basic concealed carry course that covers the laws of your local area. ASAP.
You also need to consider the civil ramifications. The standard of proof in a civil wrongful death law suit is just proponderance of the evidence a far lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt.
civil case is different ! I never even mentioned civil stuff ! and am quite aware of it :)
this is about a guy in FL and you in Alaska and you trying to say I am wrong somehow ?
as far as you saying to me
Just because the suspect shot does not mean his actions were legal or right.
I agree %100 I would never do that but people do !!!
fact is we dont know why he did it ? only he does and it will come out in trial and he will be judged so legal has yet to be determined in this case ?
were his actions right ? not by my standards or by yours or most here ?
obviously he thought he was in his rights to do so and did now he will have to pay the price and be judged for his actions which is how the system works !
bottom line to me
IMHO I think he was not in his rights and will get his punishment !
and you saying
Innocent until proven guilty yes. However the reasonable person standard is what is going to be used in large part to determine your guilt.
to what I said
yes a jury does get to use this as a baseline but its not what solely determines the outcome ! and we are still innocent till proven guilty not the other way around !
UMMM not sure why I have to brush up on my CCW ?
I pretty much said the same thing ! you use the reasonable person as a baseline but other things also determine ?
you are just kinda saying what I said ?
you said large part ? I say its more a baseline
and I go back to the Horn case and that Pharmacist case !
both by your methods would be found guilty but only one was !
especially the Horn case !
I don't know if you're really excited about all this, honu, but your overuse of exclamation points and lack of capitalization sure makes this seem like the most exciting thing around!!
I don't know if you're really excited about all this, honu, but your overuse of exclamation points and lack of capitalization sure makes this seem like the most exciting thing around!!
OK whatever ? little boy ! try to stir the pot :) hahahahah
I am curious what you mean by this though ?
are you saying that is the definition ? or just yours ? or self defense is only applicable when someone is trying to kill you ?
You misunderstand the law. Self defense is a defense to murder or manslaughter.
OK whatever ? little boy ! try to stir the pot :) hahahahah
I am curious what you mean by this though ?
are you saying that is the definition ? or just yours ? or self defense is only applicable when someone is trying to kill you ?
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=70019
That is the definition that matters in this case.
Doesn't work that way in FL. In most cases the person isn't even charged and there is no jury. See the above two examples.
Or in TN. Very similar - almost identical, actually - self-defense laws. We're a castle-doctrine state. Heck, an officer teaching a state driving class I attended went out of his way to address road rage. In TN, a car is viewed as an extension of your home and you can "stand your ground" in it. If someone comes up aggressively and so much as even beats on the window, they're "bought and payed for" to quote him.
In both the cases you cited, Steyr, the person who ended up getting shot had exited their vehicle and approached the shooter's vehicle while making verbal threats. They both committed an overt physical act in a threatening manner.
I've yet to hear any evidence suggesting the teen shot in the Dunn case got out of their vehicle and approached Dunn's car. There has yet to be any suggestion of any overt physical act on the part of any of the young people in the vehicle Dunn shot into.
But isn't that how the game is played? One simply argues over and around the original issue with examples that are not pertinent, and fantasy scenarios that never happened. Before you know it, it's the fault of the unarmed guy who played his music too loud and was killed inside of his car.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=70019
That is the definition that matters in this case.
that does not answer what I was asking
I am curious what you mean by this though
are you saying that is the definition ? or just yours ? or self defense is only applicable when someone is trying to kill you ?
You misunderstand the law. Self defense is a defense to murder or manslaughter.
Alaskapopo
12-04-12, 23:25
civil case is different ! I never even mentioned civil stuff ! and am quite aware of it :)
this is about a guy in FL and you in Alaska and you trying to say I am wrong somehow ?
as far as you saying to me
Just because the suspect shot does not mean his actions were legal or right.
I agree %100 I would never do that but people do !!!
fact is we dont know why he did it ? only he does and it will come out in trial and he will be judged so legal has yet to be determined in this case ?
were his actions right ? not by my standards or by yours or most here ?
obviously he thought he was in his rights to do so and did now he will have to pay the price and be judged for his actions which is how the system works !
bottom line to me
IMHO I think he was not in his rights and will get his punishment !
and you saying
Innocent until proven guilty yes. However the reasonable person standard is what is going to be used in large part to determine your guilt.
to what I said
yes a jury does get to use this as a baseline but its not what solely determines the outcome ! and we are still innocent till proven guilty not the other way around !
UMMM not sure why I have to brush up on my CCW ?
I pretty much said the same thing ! you use the reasonable person as a baseline but other things also determine ?
you are just kinda saying what I said ?
you said large part ? I say its more a baseline
and I go back to the Horn case and that Pharmacist case !
both by your methods would be found guilty but only one was !
especially the Horn case !
The prosicution only needs to prove his actions were not what a reasonable person would do.
Pat
Its not that rare for a suspect not to be arrested or charged right away so the police can build the case before the right to a speedy trial runs out. Rather their arrested or not depends on rather their a flight risk and a danger to the community. On serious cases the DA will often ask that we don't arrest the suspect until a later date.
Pat
Neither man was ever arrested or charged.
In both the cases you cited, Steyr, the person who ended up getting shot had exited their vehicle and approached the shooter's vehicle while making verbal threats. They both committed an overt physical act in a threatening manner.
I've yet to hear any evidence suggesting the teen shot in the Dunn case got out of their vehicle and approached Dunn's car. There has yet to be any suggestion of any overt physical act on the part of any of the young people in the vehicle Dunn shot into.
And it will come down to IF Davis truly threatened Dunn from his vehicle or not.
montanadave
12-04-12, 23:44
And it will come down to IF Davis truly threatened Dunn from his vehicle or not.
Would you consider a verbal threat, shouted from inside a vehicle, sufficient to justify firing into another vehicle?
As in a purely speculative exchange such as:
Dunn--"Hey! How about you turn that shit down?"
Davis--"Hey! How's about I kick your ass?"
Would you consider a verbal threat, shouted from inside a vehicle, sufficient to justify firing into another vehicle?
As in a purely speculative exchange such as:
Dunn--"Hey! How about you turn that shit down?"
Davis--"Hey! How's about I kick your ass?"
I was thinking more along the lines of "miming" a handgun the way a lot of bangers are so fond of doing.
And for clarification I mean "acting like you are drawing a weapon from under your coat or from your waistband", I don't mean pointing a finger and going "pew, pew."
The entire thing hinges on Dunn claiming he saw a weapon.
"Dunn told police that he reacted after having seen a gun barrel in the window of the teens' car and after hearing a profanity-laced string of threats against him."
montanadave
12-05-12, 00:10
And that's where the law starts coming apart for me. If someone can be granted immunity from criminal and civil prosecution solely on a statement claiming "I thought I saw ..." what's to keep anyone from just cutting loose.
Now if credible evidence is presented that Davis or one of the other passengers in that vehicle stuck something out the window or pointed an object at Dunn intended to resemble a firearm while threatening to shoot him, I'll be the first one to acknowledge his right to defend himself.
But "I thought I saw" doesn't cut it. It might be good enough to convince a jury to opt for manslaughter rather than second-degree murder. But no way the guy gets a walk in my book.
I realize the law in Florida, as it currently stands, may allow for such an outcome. I just don't agree with it.
And that's where the law starts coming apart for me. If someone can be granted immunity from criminal and civil prosecution solely on a statement claiming "I thought I saw ..." what's to keep anyone from just cutting loose.
Now if credible evidence is presented that Davis or one of the other passengers in that vehicle stuck something out the window or pointed an object at Dunn intended to resemble a firearm while threatening to shoot him, I'll be the first one to acknowledge his right to defend himself.
But "I thought I saw" doesn't cut it. It might be good enough to convince a jury to opt for manslaughter rather than second-degree murder. But no way the guy gets a walk in my book.
I realize the law in Florida, as it currently stands, may allow for such an outcome. I just don't agree with it.
Well just as people are CONVICTED because somebody "reasonably believed" something, there are cases where people are NOT CONVICTED because somebody "reasonably believed" something. Lots and lots of people in jail on little more than a witness "reasonably believed" they saw them do it. And we know sometimes they get the wrong guy.
If you want a world with guarantees that nobody is going to lie and nobody innocent goes to jail, well sorry.
Let's assume for a minute that a pretty young college chick with a gun in her car was being harassed by some "bad people" types at a gas station and she HONESTLY "believed" one of them was in the process of pointing a gun at her and she fired her gun to defend herself. Let's assume they drove away and she called 911 and reported it and the car full of "bad people" was eventually pulled over and no weapon was recovered and their story was "she shot at them for no reason." Of course they could be lying and tossed the gun but that is their story.
Should she go to jail because "I thought I saw" isn't enough for you? Perhaps if they weren't acting in a hostile manner she'd have no reason to even keep and eye on them much less be concerned about them pointing what she thought was a gun at her.
And because bad guys lie and other guys make up stories after the fact it's hard to tell who is full of shit. And for that reason maybe it's best if you just don't **** with people and when somebody tells you your music is too ****ing loud maybe just turn it down.
Eurodriver
02-10-14, 14:56
Prosecution has rested. He's cooked.
http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/2/10/michael_dunn_trial.html
montanadave
02-10-14, 15:20
I didn't know the prosecution had charged Dunn with first degree murder. That might be a stretch. And we've yet to hear from the defense. I doubt the guy is just gonna roll over and stick his arm out for a needle.
Haven't read anything yet to make me change my assessment of this case. Dunn blew whatever chance he had at defending his actions when he decided to drive back to his motel, pack up, head home and skip notifying the authorities.
thopkins22
02-10-14, 15:33
The most damning piece of evidence is driving home, not calling 911, generally acting like it was no big deal.... This is the thing that makes it hard for me to ever have considered him as being anything other than irresponsible and guilty.
But, I am surprised that nobody considered the possibility that an uninjured member of the hearing damaged posse might have disposed of the guns that were in the car before the authorities arrived on the scene. Maybe that's only something that Iraqis, Somalians, and Afghanis mastered...but I doubt it.
Suwannee Tim
02-10-14, 16:38
I didn't know the prosecution had charged Dunn with first degree murder. That might be a stretch..........
And it might be Angela Corey which might be the same thing.
The most damning statement I have heard came from Dunn's former attorney who said that Dunn "fired into the vehicle". The vehicle clearly did not point a gun at Dunn.
montanadave
02-11-14, 10:07
Dunn testifying now (watching on CNN).
Not thrilled with Dunn's attorney emphasizing Dunn's weapon was in the glove box in condition 3, insinuating that a weapon carried or stored in condition 1 is somehow reckless or indicative of someone itching for a confrontation.
Dunn held up well during his testimony and cross-examination. Certainly didn't come off as a blood-thirsty, race-killer. I'm certainly not an attorney, but first-degree murder seems out of reach. Guess we'll know what the jury has to say soon enough.
Eurodriver
02-14-14, 08:51
Jury has been deliberating for 3 days. I wonder if they will be hung.
Jury has been deliberating for 3 days. I wonder if they will be hung.
I seem to recall from our GZ/TM discussions that FL allows lesser charges to be considered by the jury. So, he may have been charged with M1, but the jury could return with M2 or some variation of manslaughter.
Personally, this seem like BS since it incentivizes the DA to over charge.
Personally, this seem like BS since it incentivizes the DA to over charge.
No shit. PICK A CHARGE. don't sling a bunch of shit on the wall and wait to see what sticks.
Moose-Knuckle
02-14-14, 16:14
Hmmm lets see Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman, etc. It would appear that the FL AG has no idea WTF she is doing.
Suwannee Tim
02-14-14, 19:29
The AG does not prosecute cases in Florida. This is the local State Attorney, Angela Corey of State vs. Zimmerman fame.
Moose-Knuckle
02-14-14, 20:26
The AG does not prosecute cases in Florida. This is the local State Attorney, Angela Corey of State vs. Zimmerman fame.
I stand corrected. I guess it's just a FL thing to go after someone for the highest degree even if the evidence is not there.
Suwannee Tim
02-15-14, 08:56
...... I guess it's just a FL thing to go after someone for the highest degree even if the evidence is not there.
No, it's an Angela Corey thing.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/michael-dunn-jury-to-begin-day-4-of-deliberations/-/475880/24499490/-/va41j/-/index.html
http://m.firstcoastnews.com/TopStories/article?a=5286193&f=2040
I wonder if they'll re-try the murder 1 charge.
Eurodriver
02-15-14, 20:55
I wonder if they'll re-try the murder 1 charge.
Without a doubt.
What kind of sentencing is he looking at?
ETA Angela Corey has stated she will re try him for murder. Each of the 3 convictions for attempted murder is a minimum 20 year sentence. Shooting into the vehicle nets him another 10+ years. He's 47. Already going away for 70 years.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/15/justice/florida-loud-music-trial/index.html?c=homepage-t
Corey is quoted as saying she will re-try him for Murder 1... Is she really that stupid? How on earth is anyone going to consider his actions pre-meditated?
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statuTes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.04.html
Don Robison
02-15-14, 21:19
Is she really that stupid?
Yes...........
Suwannee Tim
02-18-14, 17:04
It don't get much stupider than this. (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/man-fatal-prank-shooting-i-only-meant-scare-teens-n33031)
Moose-Knuckle
02-18-14, 18:51
It don't get much stupider than this. (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/man-fatal-prank-shooting-i-only-meant-scare-teens-n33031)
And yet there is still NOTHING in the MSM about Patrick Lavoie (white male) who was unarmed and shot by Cleveland Murdock (black male) in FL much less an arrest and trial . . . *crickets chirping*
Suwannee Tim
02-18-14, 19:48
Black males killing people is not news Moose.
montanadave
02-18-14, 20:00
And yet there is still NOTHING in the MSM about Patrick Lavoie (white male) who was unarmed and shot by Cleveland Murdock (black male) in FL much less an arrest and trial . . . *crickets chirping*
How is the Lavoie/Murdock case similar?
And, if you support the "stand your ground" laws, I don't see why you'd have a problem with a grand jury refusing to indict Murdock. If the races were reversed, would you push for an indictment or feel an injustice had been done?
And yet there is still NOTHING in the MSM about Patrick Lavoie (white male) who was unarmed and shot by Cleveland Murdock (black male) in FL much less an arrest and trial . . . *crickets chirping*
And just to reverse the race variable with regard to FL "stand your ground" laws.
Hygens Labidou, who is black, was driving in Deerfield Beach in 2007 when two white men jumped out of their pickup, pounded on his truck and yelled racial slurs. Labidou, still inside his car, fired his gun, striking both men and killing 28-year-old Edward Borowsky.
His attackers were UNARMED and he was not charged with a crime.
In Pompano Beach in 2010, Patrick Lavoie, a white man, jumped out of his girlfriend's car and accused Cleveland Murdock, a black man, of tailgating. When Lavoie, who had a cigarette lighter in his hand, tried to reach through Murdock's passenger window, Murdock fatally shot him.
Patrick Lavoie was UNARMED (unless you call a cigarette lighter a weapon) and Cleveland Murdock was not charged with a crime.
In both these cases the shooter who killed unarmed men "reasonably believed" they were at risk of "imminent death or great bodily harm."
Basically in FL the same rules that would apply to an intruder "in your home" now apply anywhere to any attacker so long as you are not engaged in criminal activity yourself.
This is why in FL you can't just "threaten people." They have no duty to retreat and if you escalate the situation enough and there is a "reasonable risk" of you being able to cause death or great bodily harm, they can use deadly force to prevent it.
And for the record I'm good (as was FL law enforcement) with both of the above scenarios regardless of how you change the race of the parties involved.
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_89
Suwannee Tim
02-18-14, 20:17
I didn't know the facts about Patrick Lavoie. I don't know if I agree with the killing but he was certainly provoked. Same with Murdock. I once knew a white man who murdered a man in a dispute over a minor traffic accident, murdered the man right in front of his wife and kids. Jodie was his name and he died in prison. This is why I avoid altercations. Humans are dangerously unpredictable. I especially avoid altercations when I think someone is deliberately trying to provoke me. This is something Michael Dunn learned too late.
Moose-Knuckle
02-18-14, 21:20
How is the Lavoie/Murdock case similar?
Well lets see, unarmed people getting shot by armed people for starters.
And, if you support the "stand your ground" laws, I don't see why you'd have a problem with a grand jury refusing to indict Murdock. If the races were reversed, would you push for an indictment or feel an injustice had been done?
Why was Murdock road raging? Why was he tailgating the vic and his GF? Why did he open fire on an unarmed man who simply got of his car to see what the hell was going on? Why didn't Murdock keep on driving after the car HE WAS FOLLOWING pulled over. Why didn't Murdock simply call 911 if he felt in danger, you know . . . like these to older white men should have?
Moose-Knuckle
02-18-14, 21:22
http://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/cases/case_89
Yup, local FL news outlets had a blerp on it. These other cases have made MSM headlines.
Moose-Knuckle
02-18-14, 21:23
I didn't know the facts about Patrick Lavoie. I don't know if I agree with the killing but he was certainly provoked. Same with Murdock. I once knew a white man who murdered a man in a dispute over a minor traffic accident, murdered the man right in front of his wife and kids. Jodie was his name and he died in prison. This is why I avoid altercations. Humans are dangerously unpredictable. I especially avoid altercations when I think someone is deliberately trying to provoke me. This is something Michael Dunn learned too late.
This is sage advice and I adhere to the same logic.
Suwannee Tim
04-08-14, 04:06
http://members.jacksonville.com/news/crime/2014-04-07/story/dad-charged-accidental-shooting-death-his-10-year-old-daughter#cxrecs_s
This guy didn't actually pull the trigger but he might as well have.
10 YO asks 15 YO if she can handle the shotgun. He says yes, let me unload it and in the process kills her. Shotgun and other guns are owned by 30 YO convicted felon dad who is now facing charges and probably won't even be able to attend the burial of his daughter. Three lives ruined.
This guy didn't actually pull the trigger but he might as well have.
That guy owned firearms when he was distinctly aware of his inability to do so, an incredibly stupid decision. I can't say that I am shocked that he was also dumb enough to keep them loaded and in an area where children could access them, as his level of intelligence is clear. It's a damn shame that his lack of common sense and poor decisions have ended one life and probably scarred another forever. No clue how it's all related to the original thread, but I may have missed something.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.