Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumMichael Dunn, Florida Man, Invokes 'Stand Your Ground' Law After Shooting Black Teen
Michael Dunn, a 45-year-old Florida resident is invoking the controversial law after a recent confrontation turned fatal, The Orlando Sentinel reports.
According to authorities, 17-year-old Jordan Russell Davis, a black teenager, and several other friends were confronted by Dunn, a white man, who pulled alongside the teens' SUV in the parking lot of a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station. Dunn asked them to turn their music down, and after an exchange of words, he fired between 8 and 9 shots at the vehicle, several of which hit Davis, causing his death.
Dunn was arrested on Saturday and charged with murder and attempted murder, his lawyer said that her client acted "responsibly and in self defense."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/loud-music-leads-to-murder_n_2200708.html
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)Punks with guns and laws enabling them to be punks. Lock enough of these murdering fuckers up and the idiotic laws won't matter.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)whites can pretty much shoot blacks with impunity down here. That's the real purpose of Stand Your Ground.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Remember: Obama. Twice.
Oh, minor detail: The shooter is going to trial for murder. SYG seems to be working.
If you have an argument, make it.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)17 of the 27 representatives elected to serve in the 113th congress are Republicans. 1 Democratic senator, 1 Republican senator. The Governor and most of the state legislature is Republican. 26 Republican State Senators v 14 Democratic State Senators. 76 Republicans in the State House of Representatives vs 44 Democrats. But that's beside the point isn't it?
One major detail: As Dunn has not yet been indicted, it's premature to claim he will be standing trial for anything. SYG is the defense his attorney will offer up. If acquitted, then SYG does indeed work...making it that much easier for white people to kill unarmed black people.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Dunn drove off instead of calling the cops on himself. That would put his likelihood of acquittal to zero. I remember reading an article by Massad Ayoob some years ago saying that juries don't believe self defense claims if the shooter runs, even if the evidence is in the defendant's favor.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)indicted and convicted. However there is no such thing as a "zero likelihood" of anything. His defense attorney is going to paint a picture of a middle-aged man facing off against a car load of teenagers. He is going to claim that Dunn pulled out his gun when one, or more, of those teens looked like they were going to get out of the car. Then he is going to say that in the face of those numbers he fled after firing his gun. We will have another circus here in FL with a bunch of gun-toting bigots insisting Dunn was just protecting himself.
I think the biggest problem with SYG is that too many people think it gives them the right to be confrontational. That was Zimmerman's problem and it looks like Dunn suffers from the same delusion. Every right carries with it a responsibility. If you shoot someone, you damn well should be forced to prove it was necessary.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)Primary finding has to be that it was self defense. That the shooter was in reasonable fear of GBI or death. It is not an easy burden and the burden is on the shooter. Effectively you admit that you shot the other person, but doing was legal and not illegal due to the circumstances.
I support SYG since it stops the 2nd guessing. If it was legitimate self defense the law should stop there.
To me a bad shooting is shooting that should have been avoided. This is clearly one of them. Zimmerman is another. Even those found legal are sometimes IMO bad shootings.
There are also valid shootings. My late wife double tapped an home invader who had a gun on me. I agreed with that one, though the DC PD was not particularly pleased.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Zimmerman would have walked away free as a bird. The police department initially cleared him of all responsibility without an investigation. So the law is not perfect, and needs some fine tuning, at the least.
Was it even an issue as the person your wife shot was in your home? We've had the castle law in FL for a long time, we didn't need a law that makes vigilantes out of morons.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)and SYG was irrelevant (Zimmerman's could not have retreated according to the story he apparently told)
FL's SYG did not change the requirements for the legitimate use of defensive deadly force. While no law is perfect, I don't see a compelling reason to change.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(but not "traditional" self-defense defenses) becauseSYG shifts the burden of proof from the shooter to the prosecutor. IOW, the shooter only has to assert that he/she felt threatened and the prosecutor then has to prove that there was no reasonable threat. This can usually be accomplished with the presence of eye-witnesses; but in the incidence(s) where there are only two people, the shooter and the dead guy, only one story gets told.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)While there are variances between the states which allow it, SYG is about the duty to retreat and nothing about the burden of proof or other aspects of self defense.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"at trial."
The judge weighs the facts. If the judge agrees the defendant has shown stand your ground immunity applies by a preponderance of evidence, the charges are dismissed. The defendant can't be prosecuted.
If the judge finds the defendant hasn't met his burden, (including if the disputed evidence is so equal on both sides the judge can't decide one way or the other) the case goes to trial to be decided by the jury. At trial, the defendant can still argue both self-defense and stand your ground immunity -- he only has to establish some evidence of his theory, which can be just his own testimony, that he acted in self-defense.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/stand-your-ground-is-not-defense-but.html
So yes ... at a hearing, the shooter must present some evidence of feeling threatened; but this generally presents as his/her one sided word that he/she felt threatened by the actions of the dead guy, because the dead guy can't testify.
But this is particularly troublesome for prosecutors because once the shooter survives the hearing, at trial, all the shooter has to say is, "I felt threatened."
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)The police still should investigate his story and report whether the physical evidence supports or contradicts the shooters story. If it doesn't self defense can and should be rejected.
Not even FL has changed that standard
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)It is, i believe, a form of early hearing.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and your knowledge of the case are based on questionable blog rants.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)SYG does not remove the requirments of self-defense. You still have to show that the other person was posing a deadly threat to you. All SYG does is remove the requirement to retreat.
By not calling the cops immediately after the shooting he screwed up. An aquittal will be a very difficult challenge for his attorney.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)You could, of course, quote the law, then explain how it covers Mr. Dunn in the situation he created.
We'll wait....
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)and a jury verdict.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Not true. With an assertion of SYG, unlike traditional Self-defense assertions, there is the presumption that the shooter felt a threat ... there is no "showing" required.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...to hold up.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but then, all presumptions are rebutable. Problem is, the best rebuttal evidence is generally unavailable, because he/she is dead.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Fortunately there are multiple witnesses. I hope the system gets it right.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)There are state to state variances in both, but Castle Doctrine gives the shooter the presumption of reasonable fear, though it still can be attacked by the state. It is only applicable in ones residence, though the borders of residence vary considerably. SYG in no state gives the shooter the presumption of reasonable fear.
Some pundits and posters here on DU intentionally conflate the two to muddy the waters.
Castle Doctrine:
- In effect only in the residence
- Presumption of reasonable fear (rebuttable)
- No duty to retreat
Stand Your Ground
- Outside of residence
- No duty to retreat
- Shooter has to prove reasonable fear (Classic self defense)
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)You did bring up and still contend that the law was to enable white people to shoot black people with more "ease." I haven't heard much more than your opinion that this is the case.
We'll wait for the final outcome of any legal proceedings. But putting up a SYG defense is what any attorney will float as a trial balloon (they used to call it "self defense" . And speaking of "premature" matters, do you agree with the HuffPo characterization of this incident as "murder?" Since there there have been no indictments?
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)The FL SYG law is so broadly written it is little more than a license to kill. The SYG Law in Texas is much better because it recognizes the rights of both the shooter and the victim.
As to whether it was murder...that's for a grand jury to decide. Tell me this, would you take on a carload of teenagers all by yourself
over something as silly as loud music? How did Dunn know those kids weren't armed? Did he expect to be able to take out all of them? In my opinion Dunn is too loosely wrapped, and certainly too stupid, to be carrying a weapon of any kind.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)But very little in the way of data to show where abuses have occurred. Frankly, I would like to see these, and not some flippant from an AP reporter (discussing the Zimmerman case) that SYG abuses (in her examples, drug deals gone bad) happen "all the time."
If they are happening "all the time," then there should be some coherent data floating around out there.
I'm not going to try this case, but in answer to your question, and based on what has been reported, he should be brought to trial on some kind of homicide charge. I'm betting he will.
Dunn may very well be too loosely wrapped, but you can say that about ANYONE who murders or commits suicide (in Austin, TX for 2011, the number one weapon-of-choice of murders was a "knife or sharp-edged instrument" . In any event, psychological conditions that make one unsuitable for weapons possession must be done through due process; the Fifth amendment.
Frankly, SYG laws are less of an abuse than, in many areas, the "duty to retreat" used as a standard to thwart self-defense pleas. It's not perfect, but I don't want a system whereby some 65-yr-old dude, upon being attacked by a gang of young toughs, has to prove he could have hobbled off more quickly, yelled more loudly, called for help, or did some other hat & cane routine to Suwannee River lest he plea down to some lesser man-slaughter charge.
In the end, I think there will be little to come of SYG in terms of social policy, although I hope it will thwart (or discourage in the first place) thugs from attacking others. I am not convinced of this, however.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)of a SYG law that makes sense.
***It's not perfect, but I don't want a system whereby some 65-yr-old dude, upon being attacked by a gang of young toughs, has to prove he could have hobbled off more quickly, yelled more loudly, called for help, or did some other hat & cane routine to Suwannee River lest he plea down to some lesser man-slaughter charge.***
But wouldn't you want a law that protected you from that same 65-year-old, cranky and perhaps suffering from early dementia, who thinks he has a right to shoot you because he is standing his ground? And all you wanted was to ask him for directions? The coin always has two sides, the FL law is very one-sided.... I would hope that anyone who shot and killed you would have to answer for it and be able to show that it was justified. Otherwise, like Trayvon Martin, the police can accept the old man's story without ever knowing anything more. Unlike Texas, the FL law does not mandate an investigation.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there was an investigation in the Martin case, and was still under investigation when the PR uproar began. Simply saying you were "standing your ground" does not stop investigations, although it is a common misconception and has actually been claimed by someone making a false confession. (That actually happened in Tampa last summer. The confessor turned herself in days after the murder, claiming she was "standing her ground", the investigation showed she not only didn't kill the guy, she was not even in the county on that day.)
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)***(2)?A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.***
May does not equal must and the Sanford investigation was cursory at best until the PR uproar began.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)such as the wounds on the back of his head and face. Zimmerman was cuffed and taken in for questioning. They DA felt there was not probable cause.
Half of what the media said, including NBC falsifying the call to the cops, is questionable. I never take media accounts at face value, especially if it can be sensationalized.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Zimmerman had been told by the police dispatcher not to follow Martin or get out of his car. The police made the determination that the Martin kid had no right to defend himself against a stalker. Does that really make sense to you?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Zimmerman was out of his car and following on foot and said he lost sight of Martin among some houses. That is in the tape. When the police dispatcher said "we don't need you do that" he stopped moving. You can tell by the background noise. Zimmerman's claim is that Martin double backed and attacked him while he was walking back to his car.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)well have to see how the jury interprets it won't we?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Not all 65-yr-olds are suffering from dimentia (or from... I forgot. What was I saying?).
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Yes, I think we would all be better off. I'll be 65 myself in February...I think it's February...
My son went to college at UCF, just a bit down the road from Sanford (where the Martin kid lost his life). He said that all of his frat brothers and friends knew to stay out of Sanford... It had a reputation for being less than hospitable.... This from a white kid and his mostly white frat brothers.
I'm glad we are able to conclude on a friendly note.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)the late 1850s. Old Crackers. We had a reunion this Thanksgiving at Hillsborough State Park. My Mom and her 2 sisters accounted for well over 280 yrs. No real dimentia, but a stroke or two.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Dementia is so sad to watch develop. My mom passed away at the age of 88. By that time she was living in several alternate realities.
Sometimes she thought she was the owner of a Bed 'n Breakfast when in reality it was the Assisted Living facility in which she lived. Other times she thought she was an agent for the CIA. Her older brother lived until the ripe old age of 97 and had all his faculties right up until he died peacefully in his sleep, in his own bed in his own condo.
So you are Florida born and bred.... I'm one of those "damned Yankees" as explained to me by a Virginian ... a Yankee is one who comes for a visit and goes home, a "damned Yankee is one who comes and stays.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)is that despite the ultimate price you pay, you get no choice as to how you go out. I guess I don't mind living in an alternate reality (when you are older, many folks who are young already see you that way). But I would miss a clear recollection of my own carefully distorted memories.
My Dad was a damned Yankee. He joined my Mom in Florida after the War after, turning down a lucrative securities job in NYC (a "start up" in today's lingo), and took a $1,900/yr. job teaching English in a small highschool (with the "benefits" of coaching the sports teams). He came from New York, but never looked back.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)was certainly different back then. The War arranged for some different pairings didn't it? My father was from Keokuk, Iowa... discharged from the Army Air Corp in Brooklyn, NY...met my mom, married her 2 weeks later and there they settled. Like your father, he never looked back either.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Shortly after I settled down in Florida (late 40s), he and my Mom came for a visit. She complained some about no church or civic activities, or places to shop. He didn't say anything until we took him to the train station for his departure. He told me: If I had come down here to visit when I was younger, I never would have gone back (to Connecticut).
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)right? I became so confused for a moment...haven't we had this conversation before?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)I'm so glad we met...we definitely have a shared sense of humor!
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)How so? Please cite the law, and explain what you think allows what you claim.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)***(2)?A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.***
The Trayvon Martin case gained notoriety because although the lead investigator believed there was probably cause to arrest Zimmerman, he was overruled and Zimmerman wasn't arrested until weeks after the shooting. The use of the word "may" when talking about investigations absolves the local police from any responsibility to conduct a thorough investigation. The Sanford police department was way too willing to accept Zimmerman's version of the case and no serious investigation was launched until the name Trayvon Martin became known nationwide.
Sanford is a typical small town...not known for its hospitality to outsiders. People think of FL as Miami, Naples or Palm Beach but most of the state is still very southern, racist, uneducated and intolerant.
Any law that says it's all right to shoot first and maybe we'll ask questions later is a lousy law. The Texas SYG Law mandates a thorough
investigation of every SYG shooting. That's a good law.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)the kind of TV shows that would give someone from Idaho or Montana an accent someplace between Palin's faux folksy and stereotyped southern. As someone from that part of the country, Palin doing that annoyed and offended the shit out of me. But I digress.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/24/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Orlando
There are racists in the south, many are not. Some researchers believe support for Jim Crow among whites was more of a case of pluralistic ignorance than racism. Racism exists in the north as well. The only difference was that it didn't have the cover of law in the north.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralistic_ignorance
investigation of every SYG shooting. That's a good law.
If I may add one more thing race. If the jury is made up of all white racists, are they going to let a brown guy off?
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)since 1987.
My son went to college at UCF, a few miles down the road from Sanford. He and his frat brothers knew to stay out of Sanford.
This is the gun control forum isn't it?
I never claimed that racism is found only in the south...however, it is much more accepted. Until I moved to Florida I never had to worry about the types of jokes my children would here from the parents of their friends. It was a shock to me to find that people were telling jokes to children that demeaned African Americans, gays, and Jews.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)in St Pete or Citrus County. Not that there are not pockets, like Old Homosassa, but is mostly Queens/Long Island south.
My theory is that when racists move here, they feel they can be more open about it because they think it is more accepted. One thing I have noticed, rural southerners tend to be more sexist than the mountain west ( Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico). For example, I had an uncle who was an great cook or all of my nieces killed their first deer when they were about ten. That freaks the rednecks out for some reason. But then this is the place that has hunting regulations that allow baiting and using dogs for deer, or why Wyoming game wardens can patrol larger areas of wilderness lightly or unarmed (that used to amaze as a kid. Been stopped on a dirt road ten miles from pavement and thirty miles from the nearest house by an unarmed guy in red shirt and jeans knowing that we had guns), while the ones in Florida look like city cops. That actually shocked me. It made me wonder if there were that many meth labs or are poachers more violent here.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Where extreme wealth lives cheek by jowl with extreme poverty. I agree with your theory...it is that acceptability factor that makes it different. Roughly 33% of Florida is 'native' Floridian and if you scratch that surface you'll find all varieties of bigotry. Then, as you say, formerly closeted bigots move here and find they can vocalize sentiments better left unsaid.
Years ago my daughter used to date a young man from Idaho, one of the things I liked most about him was that lack of sexism of which you speak. He had nothing but disdain for the Florida version of "hunting". His father owned over 100 guns...I always found that fascinating.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)my wife dragged me here, she is from St Pete.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)a culture shock! I'm from the northeast....Born in Brooklyn, NY, lived in PA and VA for a few years each then NJ for 16 years before moving to Florida and it was a culture shock to me. I imagine that you must have felt as if you had left the planet.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)nor does it say what you claim in your last paragraph.
Got it.
I think you need to work on your legal interpretations.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)What's your beef?
safeinOhio
(32,736 posts)Hope Mr. Dunn spends the rest of his life in general population, at the least.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)"Without warning or provocation, Davis jumped out of his car and attacked Dunn with fists flying..." or something similar means Dunn is going inside for a long time...
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Their music was too loud in a parking lot. I don't know about you, but I would have just drove away, or called the police for disturbing the peace. There is NO justification here. He wasn't protecting himself, he confronted the boys about their music. He should have let them be, or called the police.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)We're now completely afraid to ask anybody to turn down their music? We should call the police to be our message intermediaries?
I don't claim to know the full facts in the case. However, I do know that there is nothing inherently wrong with asking somebody to turn down their music. It's not a "confrontation", and the fact that you're using such language means you're subconciously turning the guy into the aggressor and thus the guilty party here.
Could it have been confrontational? Yeah, it COULD have...
"Hey, assholes, turn down that shit you call music!" is confrontational.
"Hey, would you mind lowering your stereo?" is not confrontational.
I don't know which happened... it could have been either. But your terminology indicates you're assuming the former, not the latter. I assume it's because you've already decided the guy fits your preconceived notion of what a white guy who keeps a gun in his car is.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)If the response to your request makes you mad enough to start shooting, there's a problem...
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...maybe the problem is the responder.
I don't know how this transpired. It can, literally, go either way.
What there a shotgun? I don't know.
Was the history of the men in the car such that it's likely that they would have a shotgun? That, after the shooting, they would ditch the shotgun to protect themselves?
I don't know.
Was the history of the guy with the handgun such that he was likely to open up without provocation? Was he likely to be so fearful that he would over-react and shoot at unarmed men?
I don't know.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Personally, I don't know how you ditch a shotgun at a gas station with witnesses (and presumably security cameras) in the few minutes it takes before the EMTs and cops arrive...And if there WAS a shotgun, why wasn't it used in justified retaliation once Dunn fired his shots?
I'm just playing around, because we both know his "shotgun" excuse is pure bullshit--and don't think the cops didn't search the Durango long and hard for weapons and drugs...If you haven't already, you can get more backstory from the Florida Times-Union and Jacksonville's ABC affiliate...
And I'm curious; since someone brought it up in another thread but I didn't get an answer: What possible answer to "Turn the music down" would make someone mad or scared enough to kill?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)It would seem to take collaboration by the people at the gas station. Which is not out of the question, but we're starting to reach here. If the three were part of a gang, and the people there were scared of the gang... yadda yadda yadda.
It's probably bullshit. Or it was a water gun or a Nerf gun or a roll of wrapping paper or something.
I don't know of a single answer to "turn the music down" that would result in gunfire (unless the "answer" was somebody drawing a weapon) but I can imagine the conversation taking a downward spiral that would eventually result in things getting very ugly. "Fuck you" would probably be involved, and it would go downhill from there.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Did you even consider that this may have happened:
"Could you please turn down the music?"
"F*ck you, @sshole. I'm gonna bust you in the face, Motherf**ker." Followed by an agressive action.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)his attorney said he saw a shotgun on the backseat and got scared...A shotgun that for some reason Jacksonville PD failed to find in their search of the truck...
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)You acused him of pulling up, getting mad and starting to shoot.
Let's see what comes out at trial.
At present it doesn't look good for Dunn.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Dun did the former, as opposed to the latter ... especially since the charging report and Dun's attorney said Dun TOLD the guys in the car to turn the radio down, as opposed to reporting that Dun ASKED the guys in the car to turn the radio down?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)However, over reacting because somebody was telling you your music was too loud isn't such a good idea either.
If Dunn was really overboard in how he started the discussion, (confrontation) then he's at fault. But sarcasm or exasperation is not over board.
We need more information.
The issue is compounded by the apparent fact that either side could have just stepped on the gas and driven away.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)the problem was pulling out a gun, firing it and killing someone. the kids might have been assholes about the music, but being pissed about loud music is not a good reason for drawing a weapon and shooting.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)The question is "where the kids asshole enough to get physically threatening?"
I doubt it, but it's not impossible.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)it took his girl to buy the stuff and get out...You know, like a fucking rational, common-sense adult...
Or if it was that unbearable, move his car to the other end of the parking lot...There are a thousand different ways he could have handled this that wouldn't have involved gunfire...Which is why I think he was looking to start shit from the very beginning...
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)If some black teens are playing the music way loud and a white guy asks them to turn it down he will get a hostile response. That is just a cultural reality. Unless you are ready to deal with hostility, it is better to ignore it. It is only just a few minutes, and a potentially violent situation is avoided.
I have a Concealed Hangun License and routinely carry all the time, except at work. I attempt to anticipate possible hostile situations and avoid them. The potential for a bad outcome is too severe to do otherwise. I don't like putting up with loud music of a style that I hate, but it is a lot better than getting into a confrontation that can lead to a shooting.
Dunn was tactically wrong in saying something, although not legally wrong.
sarisataka
(18,833 posts)Nearly daily there is someone I would like to colorfully suggest they turn down their music. Like you I carry everywhere so the cost/benefit of quiet vs sparking a confrontation means I keep to myself.
Was there a shotgun? taser? handgrenade? group of angry teens threatening to get out and beat his white ass?
I don't know-- I'll wait for the evidence. But much like Z, this guy would not want me on his jury because there better be some really damn good A-1 unimpeachable evidence that he was in immediate danger
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...i.e. encountering unexpected loud sound that I don't want to subject myself to. The last time I used them was when it turned out to be Karaoke night at a bar I went to.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)yeswehavenobananas
(10 posts)As an adult, I do it all the time. I ask for a reasonable thing: please turn down your headphones or stereo, or please put on headphones when looking at your computer in a public space. We HAVE to do this as a society. We cannot bother the police for a simple request like this. They have bigger fish to fry! And it sends the message that no one is allowed to ask something of someone else and that is a dirty lie.
What we are seeing right now is a small segment of the population without proper training on how to behave. In the 'hood there is a learned helplessness about being assertive and asking for reasonable things like this. So people get away with loud music and loitering on corners and even sometimes on porches which do not belong to them! However, when they are mingling with people outside the community, they come against resistance and if they have never had many boundaries in life, they can become incensed at someone having the audacity to ask them to modify their behavior. I think that is what happened in this case.
It's too bad that some people are so fear-based that they feel the need to carry a gun. I am sure Mr. Dunn wishes this had never happened.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Nice subtle racial stereotyping, though...
pipoman
(16,038 posts)if it happened as the article is written, SYG defense will not apply. Everyone charged with a crime has a right to a defense, it doesn't mean that their defense will prevail. SYG is still better than the previous policy of charging anyone who defends themselves regardless the circumstances. There are some very specific criterion which must be met for a SYG defense to prevail.
safeinOhio
(32,736 posts)thought it applied to him and this instance. Too late for the young man. Now the courts will spend lots of money and time listening to his lawyer trying to show how SYG applies in this case. Looks like the law is not specific enough if an educated big shot can't understand it.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)or any other circumstance when someone violates the law? It isn't. Every time someone is charged with a crime they develop a defense. It is the job of the judicial system to determine if the law was violated. 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse' isn't just a cliche. Further, the court is there for this purpose, and it will either allow this defense or it won't..again, no different than any other alleged criminal act.
Callisto32
(2,997 posts)An interesting saying, but not nearly so applicable today. I could be wrong, but according to my law school eduation, that saying was in place when the laws were pretty much limited to the common laws. Don't steal, attack, damage, murder, kidnap ,et ceterea. The laws were so basic that coming to court and saying "I didn't know it was illegal to steal" wouldn't be a defense, as knowing to not steal was presumed to be so basic, that nobody could plead ignorance and expect it to be okay.
It doesn't work so well now that there are thousands upon thousands upon ten thousands of pages of statutes and regulations that no living human could never read, let alone remember and follow.
Just my thoughts (they used to be someone else's but they are mine now, aren't words great) on that old saying.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)may not be a defense, but lack of criminal intent, making it impossible to prosecute, could be the result of ignorance of the law? That is the only thing near an ignorance of the law defense I have ever heard...while I have worked within the legal community, I am no lawyer..
Callisto32
(2,997 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)We don't know that. He may have just been in a blind rage, or out looking for a black person to shoot for all we know.
The person who brought SYG into the discussion is his lawyer. I agree with pipoman's assessment - If the facts are as presented in the article, that defense will fail.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)The primary hurdle is establishing bonafide self defense. If it is not there, its murder or manslaughter. It is an affirmative defense with the burden on the shooter.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)You have a right to carry a gun, you also have a responsibility to use that gun responsibly. SYG is an abomination. If you shoot someone, you had better be able to prove you had good cause.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)It does not remove any of the requirements of self-defense. You still have to prove that the other guy had means, opportunity, and intent. Without those SYG fails. SYG merely means that you don't have to retreat from a place that you have a legal right to be.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)weeks of demonstrations to have George Zimmerman arrested. If you would prefer to shoot someone to retreating...I think we have little common ground and no basis for a discussion.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Unless you have a cite?
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)let him go because of SYG. Also, his lawyer was going to ask for a SYG hearing...
usnews.nbcnews.com/_.../13201091-zimmerman-attor...
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)And, IIRC, it was the local prosecutor who didn't want to file charges. The police detectives wanted to investigate further, but were ordered not to by the D.A.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Avoidance is far better than shooting someone. But I don't want an overzealous, politically motivated, prosecutor trying to hang me because I can't run fast enough. Yes, there have been such cases. There was one case in which such a prosecutor tried to convict a guy because he didn't abandon his wife and kids but stayed and defended them. (The jury rejected that argument) SYG stops such prosecutors.
Z wasn't prosecuted because of SYG, although that was the statement. The initital investigation supported Z's story. He did have injuries on the back of his head where he claimed that M was beating his head against the pavement. So the cops believed Z.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)I absolutely believe in the right to defend yourself, your family, your friends and even total strangers if the circumstances warrant. I also believe that any time someone is shot there must be an investigation. The police changed their story after weeks of public outcry. There was no "initial investigation" That was the problem, they simply accepted Zimmerman's word that Martin was beating him and ignored the rest of it. They knew damned well Zimmerman had been told not to follow the Martin kid and not to get out of his truck. I think SYG laws give some people the idea that they can be confrontational...sadly these are the very people who shouldn't own guns in the first place. Tell me, would you start harassing a carload of teenagers because you didn't like their loud music? I would tend to doubt it as you seem to be a reasonable person. WTF was Dunn thinking when he got into it with them? Those kids weren't armed, but what if they had been? One against how many?
Here's how I would change the SYG Law here in FL: The shooter is always taken into custody and an investigation opened immediately.
If offered as a defense, a SYG hearing takes place in a very timely fashion, within 3 days. I would venture to say that anyone who hadn't gone looking for trouble would be cleared of any wrongdoing very quickly. If the case reaches a prosecutor it is only because it failed the smell test of SYG.
While you have a right to own a gun, the Martin kid had a right to defend himself from a stalker...and make no mistake that is exactly what Zimmerman was, a stalker armed with a deadly weapon.
Here's another way to look at SYG. I am a silver-haired old lady and all I have to do is come across you while we are both alone, say in a parking garage, shout help a few times then shoot you dead...without fear of prosecution.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Criminology is a well studied field. It is well known that almost all murderers are habitual violent criminals. The person who murders as their first major crime is so rare that it is almost unknown. It does happen, but rarely.
I do agree that FL law needs some redoing. We have SYG here in TX, but ALL shootings, even those that are obviously jutifiable, must go before a grand jury before they are dropped. It seems to work well here.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)some vengeful psychotic could...that was my point.
See, we have had a meeting of the minds. So, in your opinion, would I be justified in writing to my state representative asking him to take a look at the Texas SYG Law which works well and makes more sense than the FL law? Is that the only difference? I admit it is certainly a significant one.
rbixby
(1,140 posts)NT
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)and sometimes by a jury, depending on state law.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Absolutely, and if you (or more precisely, the guy in the OP) didn't use it responsibly, he will be convicted of a crime. simple. As stated there is criterion in place to determine validity of a SYG defense.
SYG is designed to keep people who are lawfully going about their business when attacked from having to mortgage their house, spend their kids college fund or freedom to defend themselves from criminal charges and/or civil litigation...as opposed to being victimized first by the criminal and next by the courts.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)I don't think he has a hope in hell of SYG saving him. It's called "Stand Your Ground" not "Pick A Fight And Shoot Somebody Because You Think Their Taste In Music Sucks".
The defense may be using it in the hopes the prosecution will allow him to plead guilty to a lesser charge rather than trying to convict. Both sides do that a lot.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Berserker
(3,419 posts)to me to be a very one sided article. It does not go into much detail except that a person pulled up to a car at a gas station and not liking the music he started shooting. I think there is more to the story.
This is why I think there is more to this...
During a telephone interview with ABC 12, Dunns daughter Rebecca defended her father, saying he did not intend to kill anyone and was responding to a threat.
trouble.smith
(374 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)and I'm still waiting for the slightest sliver of corroboration for that "felt threatened" excuse...
they can interview his daughter all they fucking want; but she wasn't there...
EDIT: Here's a "balanced" link:
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/284221/483/Daughter-of-suspect-Hes-a-good-person
and
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/article/284374/483/Mother-of-Jordan-Davis-Calling-his-death-a-hate-crime-would-not-honor-him
Berserker
(3,419 posts)about how the article was written as one sided. If indeed he did what was said he should rot in prison.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Those who carry to bolster their courage are the problem. This guy was not carrying for SD, but for support when confronting things he found offensive. He was looking for a fight.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...unless you have a gun? Why should asking somebody to turn down their music be an act of either courage or foolishness?
Of course, the opposite might have happened as well. The guy nicely asks the three men to turn down their music and they decide they don't like his attitude or his skin color and attack and kill him.
And your assumption is a bit preposterous. You're putting forth the supposition that this man, a father and middle-aged, makes it a habit to seek out confrontation so he can use his gun, and this time he got "lucky".
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)I assume most will know what movie that came from.
Seriously...
There will be much more to come on this. More data will come out, both sides will have a chance to make their case. Right now it looks like a bad shoot without the mitigation that Zimmerman is claiming.
Self Defense is a higher hurdle than many realize.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Asking someone to lower the volume is not foolish. Carrying the gun is foolish. Using the gun is beyond foolish.
It would make no difference to me whether they were black, white or purple polka dotted. Did I mention race or color?
My assumption is logical, not preposterous. Prisons are full of middle-aged fathers.
This fool learned a hard lesson. I doubt he'll be "asking" his new roomies to turn down their radios.
Remember the first rule? Avoid confrontation. He was in a vehicle. He pulled up next to them. Instead of finding a quieter place to park, he decides to take charge and change the world. I doubt he would have made such a decision without his precious pistol and the notion that he was licensed to kill under Florida's SYG law. How many more have to die before these simpletons get the message?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)or a bad attitude. he should have and could have just walked away.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)It's not certain, but it's probable. He'll likely get tossed in jail.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)claiming to be afraid of black males has gotten a lot of people acquitted.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)It's not related to a particular aspect of self-defense law... it's the system itself.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Attorney for suspect in teen's death says client saw shotgun, shot in self-defense
The attorney for Michael David Dunn, charged in the shooting death of Jordan Russell Davis, has a dramatically different story to tell about what happened Friday night at the Gate store on Southside Boulevard.
Robin Lemonidis of Melbourne said Tuesday night that someone in the red sport-utility vehicle that was next to her clients car pulled a shotgun on him and that he fired in self defense.
He acted the way any responsible firearms owner would act in a similar situation because a shotgun was aimed at him, she said.
Jacksonville police said no weapon was found in the car.
How hard did they look, Lemonidis said. Have they done an entire search?
Lemonidis, who will be in Jacksonville Wednesday when her client makes his first appearance in a Jacksonville courtroom, said Dunn is devastated that anyone was harmed in this instance.
http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-11-28/story/attorney-suspect-teens-death-says-client-saw-shotgun-shot-self-defense
Not only is he a rage shooter, he also needs an eyecheck
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Please explain your previous statement regarding the sequence of events that fateful night."
Schoonover also said that there were words exchanged between the two, and Dunn claims to have felt threatened before opening fire.
Okay ... I understand; different attorneys, the first one to comment, Schoonover, knows nothing about SYG, while the second one, Lemonidis, does.
But it is a rule of investigation ... an initial statement is more credible than a more detailed (and self-serving) statement, when the second statement is offered after a period of reflection and/or by another party.
WinniSkipper
(363 posts)but there is a chance there were security cameras that may have recorded some or all of the incident
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Unless some evidence comes forth that can show that he was assaulted or otherwise could reasonably feel in danger, it seems unlikely that he will be able to make a case of self-defense.
He ran away from the scene and did not call the police.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)You cannot see *something* that is not being an active threat, shoot in reaction to it, and claim self defense. That is not a reasonable.
Post event behavior is technically irrelevant to the self defense aspects of the event, but it sure does lead to questions.
safeinOhio
(32,736 posts)Turns self in next day.
Coming from a wedding reception and stops for wife to run in and get some more wine.
In other words, drunk as a skunk, calls cops when sober. Why ignore the obvious?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)>In other words, drunk as a skunk, calls cops when sober. Why ignore the obvious?
Yup. No self-defense is going to play here.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)In all likelyhood, just as with the Zimmerman case, this will drag out for quite some time. I'm not sure how business is for the suspect, but if he has a few pennies to rub together, I'm sure that his defense team will drag this out. All the while digging up as much dirt as they can on Davis. Most likely not going to trial until at least 12 months from now.
However as it stands, he was arrested, charged with both murder and attempted murder and is being held without bail.
It would be nice to read an article of facts without the journalists guiding the story to their point of view by poisoning the well. MSM has a good habit of doing that (especially Fox), so you are left waiting until John Stewart can set the story straight. Sad but true.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I say this as an unwilling transplant from NY. Yes, I know there are many wonderful LIBERAL people here, but unfortunately, the idiots rule the majority of the time in this state.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,908 posts)a boy and a girl (cousins), who were apparently burglarizing his house. This is a disturbing, controversial case: The guy confessed that he heard someone breaking in, so he got a rifle and a handgun and waited in the basement until he could see the boy's lower body coming down the stairs, then he shot him; when the kid fell down the stairs he shot him in the face and dragged his body into his workshop. When he heard the girl coming down the stairs he shot her, too. She fell down the stairs, and he was about to shoot her again but his rifle jammed, which, he says, caused the girl to laugh at him (which seems doubtful, somehow). He told the sheriff, "If you're trying to shoot someone and they laugh at you, you go again," so he used the revolver to fire "more shots than I needed." He then dragged her body into his workshop, and noticed she was still alive, so he fired "a good clean finishing shot" into her head. He left their bodies in his basement for 24 hours before calling the police.
Minnesota does not have a "stand your ground law," though even if it did I doubt it would apply. You can shoot someone who breaks into your home if you reasonably fear for your life or safety or that or that of someone else. This guy just lay in wait and shot the burglars, who were unarmed, then shot the girl in the head when he saw she was still alive. He is being charged with murder. There's no racial issue here - everybody involved is/was white.
http://www.startribune.com/local/180853761.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Yes, you can "lie in wait" for the burglar. That is the anti-self-defense crowd's term for "retreating to a safe room and covering the door". Most home defense experts advise against searching for the burglar and confronting him, but instead advise retreating to a safe room and training the gun on the door while you call 911. If the burglar enters the safe room, then you shoot, otherwise you leave him alone. But when someone actually does retreat to a safe room, it suddenly gets called, "lying in wait".
In this case the resident did many evil things. Even states without CD would allow the shots as they come down the stairs as they are now entering his safe room from which he can't retreat. But CD doesn't cover the rest of the stuff he did. The finishing shots would be murder.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,908 posts)There's also no evidence he had retreated to a "safe room" - from the news reports it sounds more like he just went to the basement to get his guns and had intended to shoot the burglars regardless. The evidence will be developed as this matter goes to trial, but it seems pretty obvious that no matter how you interpret the law he committed murder. He basically confessed that he intended to kill the burglars.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)who is no longer a threat is murder, just ask this guy.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/life-sentence-oklahoma-pharmacist-sparks-debate/story?id=13719078#.ULbguZtA6lo
I'm as pro RKBA and CD as they come, but a summary execution is murder, be it your house or a battlefield.
Each state's castle doctrine is different, and I don't know about his state. I do know Florida and Wyoming. Without the execution, being legal in Florida is debatable. In Wyoming, he would not be protected because the kids did not pose a threat to any human life.
Either way, "finishing off" the girl is murder everywhere.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)What you and I would call a double or triple tap. Single "shooting" consisting of multiple rounds discharged in rapid succession.
None of that applies here...a coup de grace is never legal.
sarisataka
(18,833 posts)we do not have castle doctrine per se.
Chapter 753, Article 1, Statute 609.065
"The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized [...] except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode."
The initials shots would be justified as burglary would be the felony committed. Like other self defense situations, once the act is stopped force is no longer authorized. While it appears these kids may have been on a holiday burglary spree, the accused could not have know that nor is it relevant to their actions in his home. His follow up shots and comments afterwards should make this a slam dunk murder conviction.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 29, 2012, 08:04 PM - Edit history (2)
DU has found him guilty in a Cyber Trial. Therefore he will stand on the platform, and the rope of JUSTICE placed about his neck.
Who here is willing to pull the lever?
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)aikoaiko
(34,185 posts)I have no reason to doubt the arrest was a good arrest, but a trial will bring out all the evidence.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Hard time even
classof56
(5,376 posts)A beautiful young man, a good kid by all reports, with a bright future ahead of him, one who it appears did nothing to provoke an attack, is dead because a man with a gun decided to open fire on a carload of teenagers who didn't turn down their music. The shooter then drives off, seemingly totally without concern about the harm he'd just done, and has to be tracked down by police. Then he cries SYG, backed up by his attorney, and apparently feels no remorse about blowing away a young man who now has no future and whose family is devastated by this senseless act. I call the shooter a craven coward and can only hope there will be consequences for his actions, but have a feeling he'll more likely be given hero status by those who conclude he was justified.
Me? As the grandmother of a 15-year-old grandson, a good kid with a bright future, as well as a caring, compassionate human being, I feel absolutely sickened by this event. Not to mention, on the verge of tears. What a sad, sad day for all of us.
jpak
(41,760 posts)yup