Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[spidey07]

Do you live in Florida and are a CCW holder and have studied the self defense laws?

You can't just say "hey this guy might beat me up...BANG!" That is what you're saying and it is 100% factually incorrect.

I am saying you cannot be the first attacker and then claim self defense. You weren't defending, you were attacking.

If someone is threatening you with a weapon...the confrontation was initiated already. You are in defense mode now. Maybe we're arguing the same thing and just using different wording.

I'm extremely versed in self defense laws, especially Florida and Kentucky. You can absolutely be the first attacker (initial aggressor) and then claim self defense. Here is the statute. Many other states are similar. The duty to retreat applies if you are initial aggressor, if you cannot retreat deadly force is justified even if you are initial aggressor. If you are not initial aggressor then of course you have no duty to retreat.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I'm extremely versed in self defense laws, especially Florida and Kentucky. You can absolutely be the first attacker (initial aggressor) and then claim self defense. Here is the statute. Many other states are similar. The duty to retreat applies if you are initial aggressor, if you cannot retreat deadly force is justified even if you are initial aggressor. If you are not initial aggressor then of course you have no duty to retreat.

That totally isn't the situation I've described. If someone is coming at you, you are already in defense mode. Period.

What I have been saying, and you ignore or don't want to comprehend is you can't bitch slap, sucker punch, or jump someone and start a fight and then turn around and say you were defending against him. You weren't. If there was no threat and you made a fight happen by throwing the first punch so to speak, you aren't covered just because you can't fight.

Again if someone brings weapons into it, or smashes your head in the street that is different. I said that before. Just losing the fight and pulling a gun...no. I think you'll find that if you are armed and start a fight then lose said fight but pull your gun and fire, most of the time you will be looked upon unfavorably by the law. Initial reports label you as the aggressor etc. All bad

 

[BD231]

So if someone threatens to hit me with a car I could beat them without recourse?

 

[cmdrdredd]

So if someone threatens to hit me with a car I could beat them without recourse?

Threats don't hold much weight. There has to be intent as well.

 

[spidey07]

That totally isn't the situation I've described. If someone is coming at you, you are already in defense mode. Period.

What I have been saying, and you ignore or don't want to comprehend is you can't bitch slap, sucker punch, or jump someone and start a fight and then turn around and say you were defending against him. You weren't. If there was no threat and you made a fight happen by throwing the first punch so to speak, you aren't covered just because you can't fight.

Again if someone brings weapons into it, or smashes your head in the street that is different. I said that before. Just losing the fight and pulling a gun...no. I think you'll find that if you are armed and start a fight then lose said fight but pull your gun and fire, most of the time you will be looked upon unfavorably by the law. Initial reports label you as the aggressor etc. All bad

I already posted the statute that says, by state law, you can use deadly force in self defense if you are the initial aggressor and the first one to use force of any kind. Although specific criteria need to be met before the use of deadly force including your duty to retreat. It is only when you can't retreat is deadly force justified. You are not required to sit there and get beaten without defending yourself. Even if you are the aggressor.

I know this goes against CCDW training and it's a BAD idea. But it is legal.

 

[spidey07]

So if someone threatens to hit me with a car I could beat them without recourse?

Provided the threat is real, credible and imminent (meaning they have the means to carry it out) then absolutely. Kinda hard to beat them for that to happen.

But shoot them as they are in the vehicle threatening you? Sure...happens all the time. A car is a deadly weapon.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Provided the threat is real, credible and imminent (meaning they have the means to carry it out) then absolutely. Kinda hard to beat them for that to happen.

But shoot them as they are in the vehicle threatening you? Sure...happens all the time. A car is a deadly weapon.

Legality aside:

When is it immoral to shoot someone in self-defense?

 

[spidey07]

Legality aside:

When is it immoral to shoot someone in self-defense?

When there is not a clear and imminent threat of forcible felony (includes sexual assault, robbery, etc), trespassing, property theft, arson or kidnapping.

If one believes they must protect oneself, others from harm or property then it is moral and just. This is the same legally.

His name was Roderick Scott. A black man who shot an unarmed white teenager who never laid a finger on him. It was clearly self defense and he was found not guilty.

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

Scott says he acted in self defense when he confronted Cervini and two others saying they were stealing from neighbors cars. He told them he had a gun and ordered them to freeze and wait for police.

Scott says he shot Cervini twice when the victim charged toward him yelling he was going to get Scott.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Trespassing?

Surely this needs to be criminal trespassing associated with a sense that some greater crime is afoot?

Or is it moral to kill someone for walking on to your property to retrieve a ball?

In what order is someone more likely to get shot when retrieving the following balls: Golf Ball, Soccer Ball, Basket Ball.


I'd wager we both know I just posted the order in which someone is likely to be shot for 'tress passing;' Which proves the racism inherent in a system that allows for such a kill.

 

[spidey07]

Trespassing?

Surely this needs to be criminal trespassing associated with a sense that some greater crime is afoot?

Or is it moral to kill someone for walking on to your property to retrieve a ball?

In what order is someone more likely to get shot when retrieving the following balls: Golf Ball, Soccer Ball, Basket Ball.


I'd wager we both know I just posted the order in which someone is likely to be shot for 'tress passing;' Which proves the racism inherent in a system that allows for such a kill.

The answer is real fucking simple. Don't want to get shot? Don't trespass. This is codified into my state's use of force laws. So when somebody says "get off my lawn" you would be wise to unass off their lawn and property right quick.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Don't want to get shot? Don't trespass.

I'm asking you about morality.

Is it moral to murder someone for retrieving a ball from your property, when you know full-well that person isn't likely to undertake any other 'crime'?

In what order is someone more likely to get shot when retrieving the following balls: Golf Ball, Soccer Ball, Basket Ball?

Do you acknowledge the racism inherent in the answer to this?

 

[soundforbjt]

Michael Dunn denied bail for second time...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...enied-bond-again-in-fatal-loud-music-dispute/

 

[mugs]

Michael Dunn denied bail for second time...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...enied-bond-again-in-fatal-loud-music-dispute/

Dunn's attorney, Cory Strolla, told the site he saw few similarities between his client's case and the Trayvon Martin case. However, he told the site that State Attorney Angela Corey - who is prosecuting the case and was also the special prosecutor on the Zimmerman case -may come down hard on his client in light of Zimmerman's acquittal.

"I think they're going to do their best to not lose this case because I think politically and publicly she's already taken, I guess, a backlash from the community for it," Strolla said.

You know you're in a bad spot when your attorney is making excuses for losing the case before it even starts.

 

[soundforbjt]

You know you're in a bad spot when your attorney is making excuses for losing the case before it even starts.

LOL, where's spatial to explain why he was denied again.

Judge Russell Healey, the third judge to be assigned to the case, also denied a motion to rule Dunn indigent, meaning he will have to pay for his legal defense, the site reports.

Guess he'll have to set up a site for donations like ZMan did. Wonder if anyone will donate???

 

[TerryMathews]

LOL, where's spatial to explain why he was denied again.



Guess he'll have to set up a site for donations like ZMan did. Wonder if anyone will donate???

This isn't the Zimmerman case. There's far less of an indication that he is being railroaded, and on top of that he didn't do the things that innocent people do like call the police.

My guess is no one but the fringe would donate.

 

[soundforbjt]

http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-dunn-shot-and-killed-jordan-davis-2013-8

The 'Next Trayvon Martin Case' Could Turn Out Very Differently

 

[TerryMathews]

http://www.businessinsider.com/michael-dunn-shot-and-killed-jordan-davis-2013-8

Of course it will turn out differently. These no evidence these black men assaulted Dunn, unlike Martin and Zimmerman.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

LOL, where's spatial to explain why he was denied again.



Guess he'll have to set up a site for donations like ZMan did. Wonder if anyone will donate???

????


This is COMPLETELY different from the trayvon case. But, if dunn getting prosecuted gets you all to stop shrieking about perceived injustices then great......

 

[HomerJS]

If case is COMPLETELY different what is EXACTLY the same is assumption of guilt of the young black teen by the usual cast of characters here.

 

[TerryMathews]

If case is COMPLETELY different what is EXACTLY the same is assumption of guilt of the young black teen by the usual cast of characters here.

I fail to see what the reaction of outside observers has to do with the facts of the case.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

If case is COMPLETELY different what is EXACTLY the same is assumption of guilt of the young black teen by the usual cast of characters here.

I love how you throw around "assumption of guilt" when the only person that's happening to is Dunn.


I still stand by my earlier statements - if it's determined that the felon thug crew made ANY calls other than to 911 before deciding to return to the scene of the crime then the defense will rip apart the entire 'shotgun story'.


I've yet to hear any reasonable explanation for leaving the scene, then slowly circling a parking lot, then stopping, a witness observe them doing something outside the car, then quickly returned to the scene.


I also am curious why the police report hasn't been released. My bet - that the crew conveniently failed to mention their little side trip before the po po showed up. Again, IF that's the case then Dunn will go free to write his own book.

 

[BUTCH1]

I love how you throw around "assumption of guilt" when the only person that's happening to is Dunn.


I still stand by my earlier statements - if it's determined that the felon thug crew made ANY calls other than to 911 before deciding to return to the scene of the crime then the defense will rip apart the entire 'shotgun story'.


I've yet to hear any reasonable explanation for leaving the scene, then slowly circling a parking lot, then stopping, a witness observe them doing something outside the car, then quickly returned to the scene.


I also am curious why the police report hasn't been released. My bet - that the crew conveniently failed to mention their little side trip before the po po showed up. Again, IF that's the case then Dunn will go free to write his own book.

They fled the scene because Dunn was still shooting at the car, that sounds like a "reasonable explanation" to me. Meanwhile the "mystery shotgun" has never appeared, the vehicle never left the sight of wittiness's at the scene and your thinking a phone call (probably to a parent) like, "we've just been shot at by a lunatic" is going to magically clear Dunn of the charges against him?, his lawyer is going to convince anyone they had a shotgun?. Keep dreaming, there's a reason he's been denied bail for a SECOND time, he's already proven his character by killing someone in a fit of middle-aged-rage, then fleeing the scene of a murder and not calling police, sorry, whack-job Dunn is going down faster than a Tijuana crack-whore, deal with it...

 

[TerryMathews]

I love how you throw around "assumption of guilt" when the only person that's happening to is Dunn.


I still stand by my earlier statements - if it's determined that the felon thug crew made ANY calls other than to 911 before deciding to return to the scene of the crime then the defense will rip apart the entire 'shotgun story'.


I've yet to hear any reasonable explanation for leaving the scene, then slowly circling a parking lot, then stopping, a witness observe them doing something outside the car, then quickly returned to the scene.


I also am curious why the police report hasn't been released. My bet - that the crew conveniently failed to mention their little side trip before the po po showed up. Again, IF that's the case then Dunn will go free to write his own book.

The largest piece of evidence against him is that he didn't call police. If he truly feared for his life at that moment, he should've reported their crime in making him fear for his life.

Maybe with an attorney, but not calling will be used against him as a sign of guilt and it's totally legal.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

They fled the scene because Dunn was still shooting at the car, that sounds like a "reasonable explanation" to me. Meanwhile the "mystery shotgun" has never appeared, the vehicle never left the sight of wittiness's at the scene and your thinking a phone call (probably to a parent) like, "we've just been shot at by a lunatic" is going to magically clear Dunn of the charges against him?, his lawyer is going to convince anyone they had a shotgun?. Keep dreaming, there's a reason he's been denied bail for a SECOND time, he's already proven his character by killing someone in a fit of middle-aged-rage, then fleeing the scene of a murder and not calling police, sorry, whack-job Dunn is going down faster than a Tijuana crack-whore, deal with it...

And just like trayvon, you pick ONE single detail and want to harp on that. My beef isn't specifically with them leaving the scene. It's the entire sequence of events...

Leaving the scene, going to the hospital while calling 911? Makes sense.

Leaving the scene, going next door, calling 911 and wait for cops because shooter could come back? Makes sense.


Leaving the scene, SLOWLY circling the parking lot, getting out of the vehicle (per the eyewitness), RETURNING to the gas station, then not telling the cops they left??? Yeah.... I'll go ahead and preorder Dunn's book in that case.

 

[Capt Caveman]

And just like trayvon, you pick ONE single detail and want to harp on that. My beef isn't specifically with them leaving the scene. It's the entire sequence of events...

Leaving the scene, going to the hospital while calling 911? Makes sense.

Leaving the scene, going next door, calling 911 and wait for cops because shooter could come back? Makes sense.


Leaving the scene, SLOWLY circling the parking lot, getting out of the vehicle (per the eyewitness), RETURNING to the gas station, then not telling the cops they left??? Yeah.... I'll go ahead and preorder Dunn's book in that case.

Dumbass, the police and everyone knows they left the scene, somebody with the last name of Dunn was shooting at them. A police officer and witnesses saw them leave and come back.

But let's not question anything that Dunn did, fleeing the scene, not contacting the police then going home without contacting his attorney or calling the police. Yes, the guilty go back to the scene of the crime and the innocent flee not telling anyone anything.