Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[QueBert]

No. The point I am making is that a weapon does not need to be in possession of the kids for Dunn to lawfully use lethal force to defend himself.

So even without a shogun he did the right thing here? Damn people should never leave the house if the way you thought was how everyone thought.

 

[HumblePie]

So even without a shogun he did the right thing here? Damn people should never leave the house if the way you thought was how everyone thought.

No. Never said that. You really like strawmen arguments it seems.

Here's a scenario for what allows someone, in most states, to use justified lethal force in self defense. This is what I was taught in classes.

The scenario setup is as follow. My neighbor and I are involved in a heated argument across the fence in our respective backyards. The neighbor gets so mad he says he is going to kill me. Making a threat alone doesn't constitute enough for a reasonable person to allow for self defense. Even if he had a knife in his hand at the time he said it. Now if he says that and presents an opportunity to make good on his threat, like trying to climb the fence, then I can legally use self defense. It's that presenting of opportunity to make the threat credible.

This goes back to the argument with Davis and Dunn. If Davis makes a threat to cause bodily harm or death against Dunn, that in itself does not give Dunn legal authority to use lethal force in self defense. If Davis presents a weapon, like a firearm, which is capable of immediately carrying out that threat or attempts to leave the vehicle to make the carrying out of that threat to Dunn imminent, then Dunn has legal authority to use lethal force in self defense.

That is how the laws are written. In this scenario, Dunn is going to have to prove that Davis was making threats. There is evidence o'plenty of that. The sticky part is what follows. He has to prove that Davis or his friends were presenting an imminent opportunity to make their threat credible.

That is for the first part of the shooting. The part where Dunn got out of his car and continued to fire once the threat was stopped and speeding away. That is going to nail him period. In self defense if you use a gun for defense you shoot to STOP the threat. Not make sure the threat is dead. There is a difference. There is no problem with shooting the firearm multiple times. But to stop firing, reposition, and to fire again on a fleeing vehicle... Yah he's going to be in jail for that part. Deservedly so too.

However, that is just reckless discharge of a firearm and not murder for that. Still a stiff penalty, but not as stiff. The point of contention for topic of Dunn and Davis is if Dunn was legally justified to use lethal force in the first place. We have evidence of Davis threatening him. We don't have evidence, at this point for the public, if that was a credible threat or not.

 

[spidey07]

The disparity of force of 4 to 1 makes the threat credible and imminent. Plenty of precedence for this.

 

[Theb]

Are you guys starting to hedge on the shotgun?

 

[spidey07]

Are you guys starting to hedge on the shotgun?

No, just explaining self defense laws to people that think a weapon must be present to use deadly force. It doesn't at all, verbal threats are enough provided the threat is credible and imminent.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The disparity of force of 4 to 1 makes the threat credible and imminent. Plenty of precedence for this.

Oh here we go, I missed the 4:1 requirement in my post!

If there are 4 people that are clearly undesirable, then removing them from the system is an entirely justifiable action. People like that commit crimes that justify killing all the time, which tells me that they've given up their right to be "murdered persons" and thus these criminal non-persons may be removed whenever a proper community member comes across them. Even if they didn't commit the crime of scaring a white guy, they are sure to have done so in the past.

Heck, with what rap music says, i'm fairly sure just playing it along with three of your buddies is a death threat against white people; that means he had a reasonable feeling that his life was in danger, and the law allows him to defend himself.

 

[soundforbjt]

No. Never said that. You really like strawmen arguments it seems.

Here's a scenario for what allows someone, in most states, to use justified lethal force in self defense. This is what I was taught in classes.

The scenario setup is as follow. My neighbor and I are involved in a heated argument across the fence in our respective backyards. The neighbor gets so mad he says he is going to kill me. Making a threat alone doesn't constitute enough for a reasonable person to allow for self defense. Even if he had a knife in his hand at the time he said it. Now if he says that and presents an opportunity to make good on his threat, like trying to climb the fence, then I can legally use self defense. It's that presenting of opportunity to make the threat credible.

This goes back to the argument with Davis and Dunn. If Davis makes a threat to cause bodily harm or death against Dunn, that in itself does not give Dunn legal authority to use lethal force in self defense. If Davis presents a weapon, like a firearm, which is capable of immediately carrying out that threat or attempts to leave the vehicle to make the carrying out of that threat to Dunn imminent, then Dunn has legal authority to use lethal force in self defense.

That is how the laws are written. In this scenario, Dunn is going to have to prove that Davis was making threats. There is evidence o'plenty of that. The sticky part is what follows. He has to prove that Davis or his friends were presenting an imminent opportunity to make their threat credible.

That is for the first part of the shooting. The part where Dunn got out of his car and continued to fire once the threat was stopped and speeding away. That is going to nail him period. In self defense if you use a gun for defense you shoot to STOP the threat. Not make sure the threat is dead. There is a difference. There is no problem with shooting the firearm multiple times. But to stop firing, reposition, and to fire again on a fleeing vehicle... Yah he's going to be in jail for that part. Deservedly so too.

However, that is just reckless discharge of a firearm and not murder for that. Still a stiff penalty, but not as stiff. The point of contention for topic of Dunn and Davis is if Dunn was legally justified to use lethal force in the first place. We have evidence of Davis threatening him. We don't have evidence, at this point for the public, if that was a credible threat or not.

I believe that may be attempted murder and not just reckless discharge of a firearm, he wasn't firing into the sky, he fired into the SUV, ballistics prove that.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I'm reading Aristotle's Rhetoric (2:8) and came across something that I think explains why we get zero pity for this senseless murder from one side; and zero pity for the scared white boy with a gun from the other.

*In order to feel pity, we must be capable of supposing that some evil may happen to us or some friend of ours. It is therefore not felt by those who imagine themselves immensely fortunate - their feeling is rather presumptuous insolence, for when they think they possess all the good things of life, it is clear that the impossibility of evil befalling them will be included*

If we, or our, friends are not readily identifiable in either side of the situation; we entirely lack pity. If we feel ourselves blessed-Gods incapable of suffering some part of the situation, we, again, lack pity.

Some here clearly only identify with a particular culture and skin color; thus flavoring who they have pity for and their natural stance on the issue.

 

[HumblePie]

I believe that may be attempted murder and not just reckless discharge of a firearm, he wasn't firing into the sky, he fired into the SUV, ballistics prove that.

That was just listing the minimum charge I would think. I have no idea what would be charged and stuck to him for that action. He is guilty in my personal opinion, based upon the current evidence I have seen, of reckless discharge of a firearm when he did that second volley of shots. That's at a minimum as I said and based on the evidence I have seen.

 

[HumblePie]

I'm reading Aristotle's Rhetoric (2:8) and came across something that I think explains why we get zero pity for this senseless murder from one side; and zero pity for the scared white boy with a gun from the other.

*In order to feel pity, we must be capable of supposing that some evil may happen to us or some friend of ours. It is therefore not felt by those who imagine themselves immensely fortunate - their feeling is rather presumptuous insolence, for when they think they possess all the good things of life, it is clear that the impossibility of evil befalling them will be included*

If we, or our, friends are not readily identifiable in either side of the situation; we entirely lack pity. If we feel ourselves blessed-Gods incapable of suffering some part of the situation, we, again, lack pity.

Some here clearly only identify with a particular culture and skin color; thus flavoring who they have pity for and their natural stance on the issue.

Pity has nothing to do with it. We are discussing the application of the law. If you were asking if I feel for the death of anyone then that is completely different topic. It's a shame when anyone loses their life, especially over something this stupid. Jordan Davis, from everything I've read, looked to have been a great kid and it's a shame he died. It's a tragedy he died and the whole scenario even occurred.

But I also have the logical side of my brain that goes.. this happens all the time. Good people die every day to tragic events that shouldn't have happened. It sucks, but I'm not shedding a tear every time I hear about it. I would never stop crying if I did nor would anyone else.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Pity has nothing to do with it. We are discussing the application of the law. If you were asking if I feel for the death of anyone then that is completely different topic. It's a shame when anyone loses their life, especially over something this stupid. Jordan Davis, from everything I've read, looked to have been a great kid and it's a shame he died. It's a tragedy he died and the whole scenario even occurred.

But I also have the logical side of my brain that goes.. this happens all the time. Good people die every day to tragic events that shouldn't have happened. It sucks, but I'm not shedding a tear every time I hear about it. I would never stop crying if I did nor would anyone else.

You may notice that this is not the level of care for the individuals involved that others here have; thus you provide a sort of openness to moderate a position others here also do not have. You'll also likely notice that the rational/logical bits of people's brain tend to go into full-gear justifying how they feel; not that people come up with how they feel based on what is rational/logical.

We all just 'think' that we think rationally; in fact some nintyish percent of the time we're just defending how we feel and our own character.

 

[They Live]

We have evidence of Davis threatening him.

There's evidence of Davis verbally threatening to harm Dunn's life besides Dunn's account?

 

[QueBert]

So how exactly are verbal threats provable? If you make me fear for my life with words and I kill you. How do I prove it? If there's no burden or proof anyone could kill anyone and say "but but but they threatened me and I was scared for my life"

This might fly in a fucked up backwards state like Texas or Florida, but in a sensible state there's no way in hell this is going to fly.

Shit someone could come up and threaten you without you doing anything, then kill you and say you threatened me. How could that be disproved? Again, this makes murder far too simple. In a case like this there's no fucking way, even in a shithole like FLA where the burden of proof will be on the state to prove Dunn's not lying, Dunn will go in Prison here unless something beyond bizarre happens.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

So how exactly are verbal threats provable? If you make me fear for my life with words and I kill you. How do I prove it? If there's no burden or proof anyone could kill anyone and say "but but but they threatened me and I was scared for my life"

This might fly in a fucked up backwards state like Texas or Florida, but in a sensible state there's no way in hell this is going to fly.

Shit someone could come up and threaten you without you doing anything, then kill you and say you threatened me. How could that be disproved? Again, this makes murder far too simple. In a case like this there's no fucking way, even in a shithole like FLA where the burden of proof will be on the state to prove Dunn's not lying, Dunn will go in Prison here unless something beyond bizarre happens.

Isn't rap music and a conviction among the 'thug crew' of possession of stolen property enough?!


I mean they are undesirables. (well most, one not so much any more)

 

[Dari]

Are you guys starting to hedge on the shotgun?

Looks that way. Ahhhh, to be a racist is to always be a victim. Fucking pathetic pieces of shits. Go back to Stormfront, assholes. No one wants your silly arguments to justify your brazen racism. You're an embarrassment to what it means to be American. You really are.

 

[mugs]

That is how the laws are written. In this scenario, Dunn is going to have to prove that Davis was making threats. There is evidence o'plenty of that. The sticky part is what follows. He has to prove that Davis or his friends were presenting an imminent opportunity to make their threat credible.

He may also have a problem with what he said in response to the victims. He was reported to have said something like "you're not going to talk to me like that;" he claims he said something like "are you talking to me?" The former would make it harder to believe that he feared for his life; the latter is hard to believe since he had already initiated the "conversation" with them. Who else would they be talking to?

 

[BUTCH1]

Looks that way. Ahhhh, to be a racist is to always be a victim. Fucking pathetic pieces of shits. Go back to Stormfront, assholes. No one wants your silly arguments to justify your brazen racism. You're an embarrassment to what it means to be American. You really are.

Well said, completely unnecessary that a teen is dead because one enraged dickwad could not take 5 minutes of loud crappy music..

 

[QueBert]

Isn't rap music and a conviction among the 'thug crew' of possession of stolen property enough?!


I mean they are undesirables. (well most, one not so much any more)

I did factor the rap music in, but forgot about the violent conviction for stealing some radio speakers. I'm betting Dunn automatically knew just by the rap music they were in posession of stolen property.

He's a REAL 'MERICAN HERO!

 

[HumblePie]

He may also have a problem with what he said in response to the victims. He was reported to have said something like "you're not going to talk to me like that;" he claims he said something like "are you talking to me?" The former would make it harder to believe that he feared for his life; the latter is hard to believe since he had already initiated the "conversation" with them. Who else would they be talking to?

Dunn said in his interview he made that statement when Davis started to yell at him from the Durango. Dunn said he originally was talking to the front passenger seat teen. He said he politely asked the front passenger seat person to turn down the music. He said the teen complied and Dunn rolled up the window. That is when he says Davis told his front to turn the music back up and Davis started yelling at him through his closed window. He said that it took him a moment to realize that Davis was yelling at him because he wasn't talking to the teens in the car after he rolled up the window.

 

[HomerJS]

Well said, completely unnecessary that a teen is dead because one enraged dickwad could not take 5 minutes of loud crappy music..

Pretty much sums up the entire case which many here choose to ignore. Then again why not continue to conjure more unsubstantiated theories in attempt to exhonorate Dunn?

 

[soundforbjt]

Dunn is done, unless the imaginary shotgun somehow miraculously appears.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I did factor the rap music in, but forgot about the violent conviction for stealing some radio speakers. I'm betting Dunn automatically knew just by the rap music they were in posession of stolen property.

He's a REAL 'MERICAN HERO!

Yea!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyFB99YNWoc&t=0m4s

 

[QueBert]

The disparity of force of 4 to 1 makes the threat credible and imminent. Plenty of precedence for this.

Nope, 1 + gun > 4, 1 person with a gun is vastly more of a credible threat then even a room full of unarmed people.

 

[TerryMathews]

Nope, 1 + gun > 4, 1 person with a gun is vastly more of a credible threat then even a room full of unarmed people.

In Florida, one person with a gun is no threat under the law unless they are performing an unlawful act with it.

Unlawful to include brandishing.

 

[mugs]

Dunn said in his interview he made that statement when Davis started to yell at him from the Durango. Dunn said he originally was talking to the front passenger seat teen. He said he politely asked the front passenger seat person to turn down the music. He said the teen complied and Dunn rolled up the window. That is when he says Davis told his front to turn the music back up and Davis started yelling at him through his closed window. He said that it took him a moment to realize that Davis was yelling at him because he wasn't talking to the teens in the car after he rolled up the window.

What he actually said is going to matter, but I think you're reaching if you believe he was unsure that he was being yelled at by someone in the Durango.

Normally I think the jury would believe the white "businessman" over the black teens, but Dunn hurt his credibility with his actions after the incident. He also says he saw a shotgun that turned out to be imaginary. Maybe he imagined questioning Jordan Davis instead of threatening him?