Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[Vic]

Something I don't understand is why a few folks are playing up this Dunn case, when it's a horrible example of using one's gun rights, when an incredible victory for the 2nd amendment and self-defense just happened in Texas. http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines...eputy-No-Billed-by-Grand-Jury-243993261.html

 

[Daverino]

I still think this case has the possibility of ending in an acquittal or hung jury. Slim but possible.

If it does, it may be because the jurors confuse 'doubt' with 'reasonable doubt.' AKA the Chewbacca defense.

 

[Exophase]

Something I don't understand is why a few folks are playing up this Dunn case, when it's a horrible example of using one's gun rights, when an incredible victory for the 2nd amendment and self-defense just happened in Texas. http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/Man-Charged-With-Killing-Burleson-County-Deputy-No-Billed-by-Grand-Jury-243993261.html

There's a thread for that too, but I don't know if I'd characterize this as an incredible victory for the 2nd amendment and self-defense. Those would involve cases where the person was unquestionably putting someone in immediate danger, which doesn't really apply here. This case is just more clear-cut as justified.

Or maybe you mean it's a victory because the guy wasn't charged?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

He knows, he has been called out on that same lie dozens of time, but he's a sociopath and a racist and he just doesn't care.

No, they didn't. How many times are you going to tell that lie?

You guys are really ruining your credibility here.


We have a 911 witness who has definitively stated that the felon thug crew was trying to stash something.


You might not like that fact, that fact might not agree with your bias, but it has already been stated and accepted in the courtroom and will be presented to the jury.



Directly after this shooting, the felon thug crew was seen stashing something.

Maybe a gun, maybe drugs, no one seems to know. But a witness saw them up to no good AFTER they pointed a gun at an innocent man.



Dunn will walk. It's the only reasonable outcome. I know you modern progressives hate it.. but we have to prove guilt, not innocence.

 

[Vic]

You guys are really ruining your credibility here.


We have a 911 witness who has definitively stated that the felon thug crew was trying to stash something.


You might not like that fact, that fact might not agree with your bias, but it has already been stated and accepted in the courtroom and will be presented to the jury.



Directly after this shooting, the felon thug crew was seen stashing something.

Maybe a gun, maybe drugs, no one seems to know. But a witness saw them up to no good AFTER they pointed a gun at an innocent man.



Dunn will walk. It's the only reasonable outcome. I know you modern progressives hate it.. but we have to prove guilt, not innocence.

We're ruining our credibility here? Seriously? And you're trying to claim you're not biased while repeatedly calling the victims the 'felon thug crew'? Like that's the normal way to refer to unarmed shooting victims?

As to guilt, Dunn has already confessed to the shooting. The only question now is if his self-defense claim meets the reasonableness requirement. If they stashed something then that requirement is not met. He must present evidence that provides he had reason to believe that his use of deadly force was necessary "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

But hey, keep on lying, troll.

Florida self-defense statutes:
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 others 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. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm. 3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

[mugs]

You guys are really ruining your credibility here.


We have a 911 witness who has definitively stated that the felon thug crew was trying to stash something.


You might not like that fact, that fact might not agree with your bias, but it has already been stated and accepted in the courtroom and will be presented to the jury.



Directly after this shooting, the felon thug crew was seen stashing something.

Maybe a gun, maybe drugs, no one seems to know. But a witness saw them up to no good AFTER they pointed a gun at an innocent man.



Dunn will walk. It's the only reasonable outcome. I know you modern progressives hate it.. but we have to prove guilt, not innocence.

I don't know if they were trying to stash something in the car or look for something or what, but it looked like they got out, kind of brushed themselves off and then they got back in

You are a liar and a racist and a sociopath. And you're out of your element, so just stop.

 

[Vic]

Damn tapatalk. .

 

[Exophase]

This is what spidey is confused about:

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/akron-law...f-proof-on-the-issue-of-self-defense-1.297239

spidey seems to believe that once the defendant asserts facts that would indicate self-defense, they are presumed true unless the prosecution disproves them beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution doesn't have to prove anything about Dunn-goofed lies^H^H^H^H claims. If the jury doesn't believe Dunn-goofed's claims rise to the level of creating reasonable doubt as to whether or not he acted in self-defense, then they will convict. If the jury thinks Dunn-goofed is lying, his claim of self-defense will be dead in the water because no one else saw or heard any of thing things Dunn-goofed claims he saw or heard.

So - yes, self-defense is an affirmative defense in Florida. And yes, the defendant does have to prove his claims to the extent of creating reasonable doubt, which is a low standard but one that Dunn-goofed is going to have a hard time meeting.

Thanks. That's what I was looking for. It seemed clear to me that you couldn't claim self defense with zero reasonable evidence to establish it as legitimate. Not needing to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt doesn't mean that the opponent must prove your claims wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt to invalidate them. If this were the case a whole lot more murders in Florida would go without a conviction.

 

[spidey07]

We're ruining our credibility here? Seriously? And you're trying to claim you're not biased while repeatedly calling the victims the 'felon thug crew'? Like that's the normal way to refer to unarmed shooting victims?

As to guilt, Dunn has already confessed to the shooting. The only question now is if his self-defense claim meets the reasonableness requirement. If they stashed something then that requirement is not met. He must present evidence that provides he had reason to believe that his use of deadly force was necessary "to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

But hey, keep on lying, troll.

Florida self-defense statutes:
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 others 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. 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm. 3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Umm. His statement to police via attorney is evidence of self defense.

The state must prove it wasn't self defense.

 

[Vic]

Zimmerman met the requirement for self-defense because Martin beat the living shit of him.
And was in Florida. Many (if not most) states are reluctant to recognize self-defense claims from the instigator of the altercation.

 

[Vic]

Umm. His statement to police via attorney is evidence of self defense.

The state must prove it wasn't self defense.

In spidey world, you can run around shooting whoever you want and as long as you claim self-defense after the fact, it's all good in the hood!

The state has an easy job in this case. You quote me and you still don't read it.. " 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."
No gun. No pipe. No stick. The pocket knife was folded and in the victims pocket. Windows up. And don't forget the witness who claims that Dunn threatened Davis ( "Nope, you're not going to talk to me that way." ).

Spidey, you are the clueless enemy of our gun rights.

 

[Geosurface]

I'm catching up on today's trial footage and I just noticed something I found very interesting. I'll link it if anyone else wants to check for themselves.

I'm watching the testimony of Jordan Davis' best friend, Leeland Brunson, and John Guy is going through questioning him about everything that happened. Mr. Brunson (who is like 18 or 19) has a very specific pattern of how he answers "yes" or "no" and just so you don't think I was specifically trying to imagine this up, I wasn't even looking at the screen and was only giving the audio about half my attention, yet I still noticed this:

When John Guy asked Mr. Brunson questions which the answer (by everything we know) SHOULD be yes or no, he answers VERY quickly and even sounds eager to give the answer. When he asked him if the driver, Tommy Storns had threatened Dunn, he quickly and eagerly said "no" - yet the one answer in all of these which stuck out to me (again without even watching for it, it grabbed my ear from a state of half-attention) was how he answered John Guy's question of "Did you hear Jordan Davis threaten the driver of the other car?"

His "no" there sounded not only much less enthusiastic, but also less certain and came less quickly.

Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVaysbqToO8

Timestamp 13:25 to hear him asked if Tevin Thompson threatened Dunn.
Timestamp 13:35 to hear him asked if he himself threatened Dunn.
Timestamp 14:27 to hear him asked if Tommy Storns threatened Dunn.
Timestamp 12:05 to hear him asked if Jordan Davis ever threatened Dunn.

There's also a lot of other questions in the 12:30-13:00 zone or so where he is asked if Jordan Davis used his hand to make a gun shape or pointed anything out of the window, etc. He seems to answer all of those rapidly and with certainty too. Unfortunately one of the few times the camera wasn't on his face was during the question about Davis threatening... that is a shame because it would've been helpful to see his face too.

I just listened to these all again as I was gathering the timestamps, and the difference is pretty stark. Once again, his answers about the other 3 occupants threatening Dunn are all rapid and confident, there is a MUCH longer gap before he says "no" when asked about Davis, and he sounds less certain and even a little sad. I'd like to hear other peoples' opinions to know if you think I'm just crazy on this. I know this isn't definitive, but I'm leaning more and more toward the following conclusion:

Davis did threaten Dunn, but Dunn made up the gun to try to make his actions seem more justified.

I am by no means certain of that and I still think a gun or some kind of weapon may have been there, but I think that is a reasonable scenario. Whether you think him doing what he did in reaction to that threat was reasonable is another matter.

 

[spidey07]

Zimmerman met the requirement for self-defense because Martin beat the living shit of him.
And was in Florida. Many (if not most) states are reluctant to recognize self-defense claims from the instigator of the altercation.

Bullshit. Initial aggressor was never in question of blowing the skittle heart out.

That was classic self defense. You better learn up on self defense laws.

It truly amazes me that folks are so ignorant. Willfully so of self defense laws in most states of our country.

 

[Vic]

Bullshit. Initial aggressor was never in question of blowing the skittle heart out.

That was classic self defense. You better learn up on self defense laws.

It truly amazes me that folks are so ignorant. Willfully so of self defense laws in most states of our country.

I suspect that I'm going to see you on the news someday, spidey.

 

[spidey07]

In spidey world, you can run around shooting whoever you want and as long as you claim self-defense after the fact, it's all good in the hood!

The state has an easy job in this case. You quote me and you still don't read it.. " 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."
No gun. No pipe. No stick. The pocket knife was folded and in the victims pocket. Windows up. And don't forget the witness who claims that Dunn threatened Davis ( "Nope, you're not going to talk to me that way." ).

Spidey, you are the clueless enemy of our gun rights.

You live in a fucked up state. I know my states laws very well as they are similar to Florida. You remain ignorant after I've explained to you.

Keep on being ignorant.

No weapon is necessary to fire in self defense. Will you at least acknowledge that fact?

 

[spidey07]

I suspect that I'm going to see you on the news someday, spidey.

You won't. I know my states laws and have too much to lose.

You're applying your states laws to free states.

Less emotion. More logic.

 

[Geosurface]

Person A: "Logic, evidence, law."
Person B: "Emotion!"
Person A: "Logic, evidence, law."
Person B: "You're a racist!"
Person A: "Logic, evidence, law."
Person B: "I know you're just getting off on this because a black kid is dead and I will eventually see you on the news! You're a sociopath!"
Person A: "Logic, evidence, law."
Person B: "Everyone on these boards knows you to be a racist who jacks off to the thought of killing black kids every night! How do they know this? Because I and others have screamed at you like this in tons of previous threads, that means you have a record of it!"

 

[Vic]

You live in a fucked up state. I know my states laws very well as they are similar to Florida. You remain ignorant after I've explained to you.

Keep on being ignorant.

No weapon is necessary to fire in self defense. Will you at least acknowledge that fact?

I'd say you don't know the laws in your own state as KRS 503.060 states otherwise. In KY, if you initiate the altercation with the intention of causing death or serious injury, then you may not claim self-defense later regardless of the outcome.
Florida law (which I posted above) is different. It says that the initiator may later claim self-defense if their force is met in kind and they attempt to withdraw from the altercation. This is how Zimmerman got off.

Of course a weapon is not required for a self-defense claim in general, however, Dunn was in his car with the windows up. And Davis was in his car. So how is Dunn able to show that his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself if Davis didn't have a gun?

 

[spidey07]

I'd say you don't know the laws in your own state as KRS 503.060 states otherwise. In KY, if you initiate the altercation with the intention of causing death or serious injury, then you may not claim self-defense later regardless of the outcome.
Florida law (which I posted above) is different. It says that the initiator may later claim self-defense if their force is met in kind and they attempt to withdraw from the altercation. This is how Zimmerman got off.

Of course a weapon is not required for a self-defense claim in general, however, Dunn was in his car with the windows up. And Davis was in his car. So how is Dunn able to show that his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself if Davis didn't have a gun?

Prove Mr Dunn was the initial aggressor and as such then had a duty to retreat.

This isn't middle school where you can say "he started it"

You know nothing of the Zimmerman case as initial aggressor was never mentioned. It was classic self defense from a violent attack

 

[Vic]

You won't. I know my states laws and have too much to lose.

You're applying your states laws to free states.

Less emotion. More logic.

I'm citing law and statute here. While you are flinging insults and making bizarre claims. So you might want to take your own advice about emotion and logic.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Prove Mr Dunn was the initial aggressor and as such then had a duty to retreat.

This isn't middle school where you can say "he started it"

Evidence provided by the passengers in the SUV.

 

[Vic]

Prove Mr Dunn was the initial aggressor and as such then had a duty to retreat.

This isn't middle school where you can say "he started it"

You know nothing of the Zimmerman case as initial aggressor was never mentioned. It was classic self defense from a violent attack

I just gotta laugh at this one.

 

[cubby1223]

Anyone can go back to the Zimmerman thread and see that I felt the not-guilty verdict was just and the case should never have even been brought to court.

I even liked the guy who shot the other guy over movie theater texting (while agreeing he should and will spend the rest of his life in jail).

In this case it seems to me so far guilty is the right verdict, I'd percent it at 95% he is guilty and should be jailed.

But especially with the way spidey07 talks, if he is correct in his interpretation of the laws, then the laws need to be changed. The laws need to be flexible enough to allow people who are in serious life-threatening danger the ability to defend themselves, but not let people like spidey go around shooting anyone he claims is a threat.

 

[Vic]

In case anyone missed it, I did just say that the Zimmerman verdict was correct *according to Florida law.*
I strongly caution people in other states from trying the same.

 

[spidey07]

Evidence provided by the passengers in the SUV.

And that is what will fuck him. Words absent of threat are not aggressor.

Unless they are hopefully torn apart on the stand.