• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

Page 163 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jaskalas said:
You just demanded proof of a negative. To convict any murderer? They yell "It's coming right for me!" and get off scott free in your view. That is where we do not agree. I demand homicide be justifiable. To be reasonable.



No weapon. No movement to act on their vocal threats. We're not talking about two people standing in melee of each other. There are two seperate vehicles involved to physically seperate them. Your comparison is poorly chosen.



Proof that you did it must be beyond a reasonable doubt, but killing someone must also be reasonably justifiable. Unless they had gotten out of the vehicle, opened the door, or had a gun, this case does not pass that test.
Click to expand...

If there is reasonable doubt that it WAS self defense then not guilty is the only correct verdict. Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt it wasn't self defense.

I don't know how else to pound this home, innocent until proven guilty. The defense must not prove anything.
 
spidey07 said:
If he used certain words of threat to great bodily harm/death, had capable means to carry out that threat, and the threat was imminent.

Then yes, you can. However "I'll fuck you up" is not an imminent threat of GBH or death. "I'm going to kill you" however, is and justifies deadly force.

What's the lesson here? Don't threaten people, that is actually assault.
Click to expand...

Let's make this clear. You're arguing that vocal threats are justifiable homicide?
 
spidey07 said:
If there is reasonable doubt that it WAS self defense then not guilty is the only correct verdict. Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt it wasn't self defense.

I don't know how else to pound this home, innocent until proven guilty. The defense must not prove anything.
Click to expand...

Really, the Jury doesn't have to feel that the homicide was reasonably justified? Just the shooter's word on that?
 
spidey07 said:
If he used certain words of threat to great bodily harm/death, had capable means to carry out that threat, and the threat was imminent.

Then yes, you can. However "I'll fuck you up" is not an imminent threat of GBH or death. "I'm going to kill you" however, is and justifies deadly force.

What's the lesson here? Don't threaten people, that is actually assault.
Click to expand...

The other lesson is, avoid situations where you don't have witnesses, for the chance you will run into spidey07 and his threat-seeking, trigger-happy mentality towards life, because he doesn't have to prove there was an actual threat to legally kill people he doesn't like.
 
Jaskalas said:
Let's make this clear. You're arguing that vocal threats are justifiable homicide?
Click to expand...

Absofreakinglutely. Read my previous posts regarding this - the aspect of verbal threats to life are covered extensively in CCDW classes required by most states that allow concealed carry. This is not instructor specific, it part of the program by the state and typically has a sheriff or attorney present to cover the nuances.

Remember, the purpose of self defense is to PREVENT the imminent commission of a forcible felony, GBH or death, kidnapping, (in my state arson), sexual assault, robbery, etc.

If you say you're going to kill me, and have the means to do so, I assume you mean it and deadly force is justified.

I need not wait until you kill me before I can use deadly force. What good would that do?
 
Last edited:
Jaskalas said:
Really, the Jury doesn't have to feel that the homicide was reasonably justified? Just the shooter's word on that?
Click to expand...

The prosecution had ample witnesses to prove Davis wasn't a clear, capable and imminent threat. Hell, they had 3 others in the vehicle.

They did not do that. The 3 others in the car did not refute Dunn's testimony of the threat.

Think about it...WHY could they not refute that davis issued verbal threats of GBH or death and was attempting to carry those threats out?

Because HE WAS!
 
AznAnarchy99 said:
If that ends up being the case it makes you really think what people can justify as self defense nowadays.

Argument in a bar? I guess I can kill him cause he said he'd fuck me up.
Click to expand...

No state statute on use of deadly force even come close to reinforcing that. I suggest you go take ANY state's CCW course and get schooled on exactly when deadly force is justified.

This case doesn't change those statutes at all.

Can you claim self defense? Sure can. Doesn't mean it was, and if there isn't compelling evidence or witnesses to back your claim then you are going to prison. Self defense claims are made all the time, and you don't hear of them as they never make their way to even a grand jury for review because the use of force if even deadly was considered appropriate.
 
WackyDan said:
No state statute on use of deadly force even come close to reinforcing that. I suggest you go take ANY state's CCW course and get schooled on exactly when deadly force is justified.

This case doesn't change those statutes at all.

Can you claim self defense? Sure can. Doesn't mean it was, and if there isn't compelling evidence or witnesses to back your claim then you are going to prison. Self defense claims are made all the time, and you don't hear of them as they never make their way to even a grand jury for review because the use of force if even deadly was considered appropriate.
Click to expand...

And as such no arrest or charge is ever made. Good shoot, carry on sir.
 
WackyDan said:
Nope. Not at all. What it means is that his use of force did not meet the constructs of SYG or self defense. In which case justice will be served.
Click to expand...

This, since Davis had no weapon, didn't physically attack Dunn the "threat" came down to a smack-talking teen, nothing more. If it's found that it's OK in FL (or anywhere else) that a verbal threat alone is grounds for killing someone this country is going downhill fast. Imagine all the road-rage incidents that happen all over the country everyday, and if in any one of those a verbal threat is issued it's OK to shoot dead an unarmed man, sad indeed..
 
eskimospy said:
Yes. The real issue is if this did meet the standard for SYG. That would be the problematic part.
Click to expand...

There is no problem. You're viewing this as one event. It's really two:

-Shots fired into the car at the 3 o clock position (the ones that killed Davis).

-Shots fired into the car at the 12 o clock position as it's retreating.

One can be SYG and the other not be protected.
 
BUTCH1 said:
This, since Davis had no weapon, didn't physically attack Dunn the "threat" came down to a smack-talking teen, nothing more. If it's found that it's OK in FL (or anywhere else) that a verbal threat alone is grounds for killing someone this country is going downhill fast. Imagine all the road-rage incidents that happen all over the country everyday, and if in any one of those a verbal threat is issued it's OK to shoot dead an unarmed man, sad indeed..
Click to expand...

You have to remember that after Dunn claimed that Davis had a shotgun, the burden was on the prosecution to disprove that under Florida law. 4 days to search the scene made that effectively impossible.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
It appears the jury is deadlocked on the !st Degree Murder charge as well as all the lesser included charges.
Click to expand...

I think you mean, they have reached verdicts for four of the counts, but have failed to reach consensus on the murder one/manslaughter count. It is looking more and more likely there is going to be multiple guilty counts and then hung on the murder one/manslaughter count.
 
Last edited:
BUTCH1 said:
This, since Davis had no weapon, didn't physically attack Dunn the "threat" came down to a smack-talking teen, nothing more. If it's found that it's OK in FL (or anywhere else) that a verbal threat alone is grounds for killing someone this country is going downhill fast. Imagine all the road-rage incidents that happen all over the country everyday, and if in any one of those a verbal threat is issued it's OK to shoot dead an unarmed man, sad indeed..
Click to expand...

This is nothing special to Florida. It is not sad at all. It simply means don't threaten people unless you want them to take your threat seriously and shoot you. DO NOT THREATEN TO KILL SOMEBODY! That can get you dead, it is also a crime to do so.

Don't want to get shot? Don't threaten people.
 
spidey07 said:
Absofreakinglutely. Read my previous posts regarding this - the aspect of verbal threats to life are covered extensively in CCDW classes required by most states that allow concealed carry. This is not instructor specific, it part of the program by the state and typically has a sheriff or attorney present to cover the nuances.

Remember, the purpose of self defense is to PREVENT the imminent commission of a forcible felony, GBH or death, kidnapping, (in my state arson), sexual assault, robbery, etc.

If you say you're going to kill me, and have the means to do so, I assume you mean it and deadly force is justified.

I need not wait until you kill me before I can use deadly force. What good would that do?
Click to expand...

The important part of your post is "have the means to do so", how does Davis present that threat since he's unarmed and Dunn is packing?, this is a jury of morons, that's my only conclusion, if Davis produced a weapon or attempted to strike Dunn then different story..
 
Wreckem said:
I think you mean, they have reached verdicts for four of the counts, but have failed to reach consensus on the murder one/manslaughter count.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what that means as 2nd degree murder and manslaughter are lesser included charges for 1st degree murder,
 
BUTCH1 said:
The important part of your post is "have the means to do so", how does Davis present that threat since he's unarmed and Dunn is packing?, this is a jury of morons, that's my only conclusion, if Davis produced a weapon or attempted to strike Dunn then different story..
Click to expand...

Disparity of force/age/physical ability/a club via tripod.

You guys really need to get over the whole "unarmed" thing. It's not necessary for self defense at all.

If a woman shoots her abusive husband if he threatens her with his fist, he is "unarmed". Would you not agree that she is justified in her use of deadly force against the very real, very capable, very credible, very imminent threat?

If she did defend herself you would call her a hero. Why is this different in any way?
 
Wreckem said:
I think you mean, they have reached verdicts for four of the counts, but have failed to reach consensus on the murder one/manslaughter count.
Click to expand...

Hopefully if the murder one is deadlocked then him shooting at a vehicle attempting to leave will get him on the 4 attempted murder charges and he stays in jail, then the state can re-try him at a latter date.
 
Sounds like the 4 verdicts (missing the main one) are coming

Though CNN says "all counts" - might just be sloppy language on their part.
 
spidey07 said:
Disparity of force/age/physical ability/a club via tripod.

You guys really need to get over the whole "unarmed" thing. It's not necessary for self defense at all.

If a woman shoots her abusive husband if he threatens her with his fist, he is "unarmed". Would you not agree that she is justified in her use of deadly force against the very real, very capable, very credible, very imminent threat?

If she did defend herself you would call her a hero. Why is this different in any way?
Click to expand...

Because the dude probably had a life-long history of beating the crap out of women for one thing, another is Davis didn't get out of the vehicle and jump in Dunn's face screaming "I'm gonna kill you motherfucker!!", he was in the car the entire time.
 
Who would have a thought a law that essentially gives a free pass for shooting someone would turn out to be a bad idea.
You can shoot anyone you like, just claim they said something that you considered a threat. Oh, and make sure you shoot a minority, otherwise this will fall apart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top