Considering the fact that Dunn’s fiancée said he complained about rap music, which he termed “thug music” your comment makes little sense and doesn’t inspire confidence in your knowledge of this case.
I was making an issue of the misspelling of Trayvon.
The USA Today article I read said that the jurors asked if self defense was justified in one instance, was it justified in all others. The judge responded that the issue was seperate for each charge. But I don’t understand how there are three attempted murder convictions but no murder conviction. If Dunn believed he was in danger, he believed he was in danger from all of the passengers.
Perhaps a lawyer type could explain .
Did the defense ever establish which of the occupants of the loud music car was holding the alleged shotgun? Hard to imagine convicting on the attempted murder charges but not the murder charge if it was never established just who was supposedly brandishing the weapon.
What I don’t get here is, suppose there had been a gun in the car - then so what? People apparently have a right to carry guns in public places. I’m not happy about that, but it is what it is.
But if the mere exercise of that right means some guy who starts an argument with you, and is also exercising that right, isn’t murdering you when he blows you away, then ISTM that we’ve got a problem here.
Are SYG and the right to carry compatible, or do they inherently lead to situations where people exercising their Second Amendment rights can kill other people doing the same because once you introduce an everyday altercation into things, everyone quite legitimately feels threatened because the other party has a gun and might use it?
I didn’t say the time of music had nothing to do with what happened. Dunn was clearly pissed about the type of music and is, in my opinion racist. I said the type of music doesn’t appeaalr to have affected the jury’s decision. 2 different things.
OTOH, skin color might’ve. If the shooter had been black, and everyone in the car had been white, it’s hard to imagine that the shooter wouldn’t have been on an express trip to a gurney.
This verdict actually quite concerning. Had there been but one young man in the car, with the same facts, this ass-hole might have beat the murder charge. The jury couldn’t decide that what happened with respect to that murder? Unbelievable. Is Florida a free fire zone now? You don’t like loud music, or black teenagers, all you need do is say you saw a shotgun in the car and murder them. I’m glad Florida is on the other side of the country. Please Og, keep it there after the big earthquake.
Yes, this is very troubling to me and it should be troubling to anyone who is for the 2nd Amendment.
If you found yourself being confronted with someone who’s wearing a t-shirt like this, wouldn’t you feel a little intimidated? I know I would be. I would be telling myself, “THIS GUY HAS A FUCKING GUN!” If I was packing heat, I might be tempted to reach for it, just to be on the safe side. But that action alone could then be used by the other guy to justify shooting me.
If I shoot him first and they don’t find a gun on him, what’s going to happen to me? Can I point to his menancing t-shirt as justification for my fear?
One day someone’s going to try to justify his “reasonable fear” by arguing that in a state where everyone’s presumed to be carrying concealed weapons, it makes perfect sense to shoot at the first sign of escalation. Knowing what we know now, it makes perfect sense for Jordan Davis to have shot Michael Dunn once he reached into his car. The only stop-gap I can think of is to require citizens to yell “STOP OR I’LL SHOOT” like police officers do. Otherwise, it really is the wild wild west.
The problem, from what I’ve seen, is overcharging, asking for a first degree murder conviction, which requires premeditation. If the prosecutor had charged and tried second degree murder a conviction would have been much more likely.
In Florida, second degree murder doesn’t require premeditation.
Adding: My personal opinion? I think Dunn was a racist scumbag who was just fine with exterminating some worthless thugs. Poor thing is “still in disbelief” according to news reports – why, oh why should a fine upstanding white man face any consequences for blowing away that kind of subhuman dreck?
I was under the impression that second degree murder was an option to go to if they wouldn’t convict on first degree.
But that aside … amongst the trolls on CNN message board, someone made a good point (maybe someone made it here too, but just in case, I’ll make it again). Four people in the car - three people lived, one person died - convictions on attempted murder for the live ones, but no conviction for murder for the dead one. What if the circumstances would have been precisely the same except for the number of people in the SUV. If were just that lone teenager ending up dead, according to this fucked up jury, Dunn would be sipping a rum and Coke and chowing down on a pizza right now.
Fucking Florida. I hope my parents stay safe down there - my dad can get lippy sometimes.
It was an option. According to the judge in the case, the jury believed that Dunn’s actions were justified, except for the final three shots as the SUV drove away. Mindblowing. Apparently, in Florida, all you need say is that you thought you saw a gun, and bam, it’s cool to start spraying bullets all over the place.
From a Reuters article:
The skin tone of the murdered boy may very well have and if really don’t understand what rap music versus country music have to do with this discussion then it’s rather pointless to continue this conversation.
Well, to be fair, we don’t know how many of the jury felt this way, because they didn’t vote “not guilty” but were deadlocked on the charge, so it could have been just one really stubborn and really stupid juror.
Was he black, teen-aged, and menacing you by being a black teenager? Were you in Florida? Then it appears the answer is yes.
And I am anxious to see how the pro-gun folks square this circle. I’m not even looking for a debate here; I genuinely want to know how this is supposed to work in Second Amendment Utopia where everyone can openly carry, many people routinely take advantage of that right, and SYG is universal as well.
I’m afraid you just opened the debate can.
No, because wearing a threatening t-shirt is not a threat of imminent harm. That’s what everyone claiming it’ll be like the Wild West is missing - one must feel a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to be allowed to use deadly force in self defence.
So shooting someone who’s pointing a shotgun at you would be allowed, shooting at a car driving away would not. Assuming the jury didn’t find it proven beyond reasonable doubt that there wasn’t a shotgun - and as the police didn’t bother to search for one that’s a reasonable assumption - the jury got it right. Same as in the Zimmerman case.
I doubt you’ll agree with this, as you’ve shown in previous threads you don’t give a fuck about the law or the right of ordinary people not to be attacked and beaten or shot, instead assuming falsely all white people are just out to kill niggers, and at the same time calling us the racists.
Dunn wasn’t an ordinary person who was about to be attacked, beaten or shot. There was no gun in that car, no matter how many bullshit “they must have dumped it” theories you’d like to float. No no … in your world, where you get to say “THE LAW! THE LAW!” some sterling moral lawful gun owner can shoot first and not give a shit later and that’s perfectly hunky-dory, because, gosh, no lawful gun owner would ever be so reckless with his weapon.
It’s like a broken fucking record with you.
Monstro, you may get your wish.
So what was Dunn’s excuse? He never testified a shotgun was pointed at him. He couldn’t even be sure it was a gun at all, he said it might have been a stick.