Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[himkhan]

And then that same jury can listen to Dunn explain why he drove off, eat a pizza, went home, and never called the police after feeling his life was threatened by these people.

Good luck with all that.

I think he is ignoring your smart questions and is only replying to typical thug supports. His come backs sound like he is copying and pasting them from a script. I am not believing he has any sense or want of debating things and is just trolling here. I see him only post in posts that do with guns and people getting shot.

 

[himkhan]

The discovery documents show that he and his girlfriend attested that the gun had been in his glove compartment for years. I think it was at least like 15 years. So it would seem that 15 years of minor annoyances like bad drivers and loud music went by without triggering him to shoot anyone up. Food for thought.

Here is some more thought food. Did the discovery documents highlight or expose that he has ever been drinking before driving in the past when any such confrontaion occured? Was he not drinking before and in the act of attain more ethonol and drank more ethanol after the act? Maybe he has a drinking problem now that he didn't once have? Might he been suffering from false drinking bravado that night?

 

[TreVader]

Whether it was polite, mean, angry, filled with expletives is incidental. This guy, Dunn, came up to an unarmed teenager, shot him, and DROVE AWAY.


There is no excuse for shooting people and driving away without contacting authorities. Even in the racist bastion of Florida, this guy is gonna go to prison.

 

[WackyDan]

I don't like loud blaring music idiots either, but fuck this guy for murdering a kid.

Look... Let me say something horrible first and get it out of the way.

Let this be a lesson to all you assholes who think we want to hear your rattle trap vibrate like that at traffic lights, gas stations, or in our neighborhoods. There are better ways to call attention to yourselves that could speak to perhaps a talent you have or something... These fucks with the loud subwoofers are attention whores plain and simple. They are as bad as the shitheads with open pipes on their bikes. Maybe some of these "audiophiles" will learn to turn it down as well be civil if asked to thanks to this incident.

As for the shooter... What a fucking idiot... The fact that they went about their day demonstrates he knew he did something wrong or questionable. His story doesn't even mesh with what most state would consider just cause for use of deadly force...Considering he had to go into his glove compartment to get his weapon. If you have to do that in face of a threat, there was no credible threat. If it had been me and those punks had indeed held a weapon and made a threat... I would have been inside the station office reporting it and not taking the risk of time that getting my firearm out of the glove box would have presented.

I'm not entirely clear on CCW laws in FL, but here in NC, having a loaded firearm readily accessible and loaded is against the law unless you have a CCW. Having it in the glove box makes it a concealed weapon here.

 

[Brainonska511]

I don't think there's anything strange about someone asking another person to turn their music down without being armed. But I have a feeling this particular person wouldn't have done it without his gun.

 

[Exophase]

So wait, I missed this whole thing about having the gun in the glove compartment instead of on him. Is this something he/his attorney admits to?

The whole self defense thing doesn't add up to me.

1) Why would Jordan start getting out of the vehicle if he wanted to shoot him? If he was coming with a handheld weapon Munn could have driven away and Jordan wouldn't have been able to do anything. I don't think it'd be weird if he did get out of the car, but to get more in Munn's face in the middle of a heated argument.
2) If Munn thought Jordan had a shotgun why would he choose to lean over to the glove compartment and get his gun? If a guy with a shotgun saw him doing that he'd easily have the advantage in getting the first shot, and would be far more motivated to do so. Again, why not just leave? Yeah he could get shot at as he's leaving, but they'd be less likely to do so and less likely to hit him.

I can't believe that Munn did not, on some level, want to fire this gun. I'm sure Florida stand your ground laws validate this but meh.

 

[thraashman]

Thankfully some of us believe in "innocent until proven guilty" rather than "guilty because my soft modern progressive heart knows they're guilty"


I've made it very clear that I don't support dunn, I don't support his decisions nor think he is innocent on from a moral perspective.

But, we don't judge people on moral perspectives... We judge them on facts and evidence, and the results of a fair trial.



And based on the facts and evidence, I'm still predicting that dunn will walk. Particularly when the defense starts cornering the 3 remaining young bucks on what they were stashing and why.

One thing we know for sure, based on the trayvon trial, is that the DA is a goofball... And doesn't come across as particularly honest or straightforward. A florida jury will see right through this.

Some of us do believe in innocent until proven guilty, you sure as fuck aren't one of them seeing as you repeatedly call this group a "felon thug crew" despite 3 of them having zero criminal record. In addition how many crimes did you attribute to Trayvon despite him having exactly zero criminal convictions?

Yup, and that's all the defense has to convince the florida jury.. That a group of young men including 3 time felon caused him to fear for his life after he requested that they turn down their music.


Again, these 3 young men will be cross examined. They will be heavily question on what the witness saw them stash and why. This will happen in front of the jury.

Your repeated use of this lie is getting extremely annoying. You know for a fucking fact that no witness ever said they were seen stashing anything. The fact that you keep repeating this lie just shows that your bias is beyond reason. And that's because your bias is based in racism. [size=+4]Because you are a racist and a liar.[/size]

 

[TerryMathews]

In addition how many crimes did you attribute to Trayvon despite him having exactly zero criminal convictions?[/b][/size]

So, exactly what do you think Trayvon was accused of that he wasn't guilty of?

Remember, a chief of police was fired over a illegal diversion program that we factually know Trayvon was swept into.

 

[spidey07]

So wait, I missed this whole thing about having the gun in the glove compartment instead of on him. Is this something he/his attorney admits to?

The whole self defense thing doesn't add up to me.

1) Why would Jordan start getting out of the vehicle if he wanted to shoot him? If he was coming with a handheld weapon Munn could have driven away and Jordan wouldn't have been able to do anything. I don't think it'd be weird if he did get out of the car, but to get more in Munn's face in the middle of a heated argument.
2) If Munn thought Jordan had a shotgun why would he choose to lean over to the glove compartment and get his gun? If a guy with a shotgun saw him doing that he'd easily have the advantage in getting the first shot, and would be far more motivated to do so. Again, why not just leave? Yeah he could get shot at as he's leaving, but they'd be less likely to do so and less likely to hit him.

I can't believe that Munn did not, on some level, want to fire this gun. I'm sure Florida stand your ground laws validate this but meh.

You keep saying he could have just retreated.

There is no duty to retreat in most states including Florida. Plus he was in his occupied vehicle when threatened that means castle doctrine applies. One is automatically allowed to use force including deadly against a threat when in their occupied vehicle. You can imagine it lawfully the exact same as your home.

 

[blankslate]

Was it still a good shoot when Dunn was firing at the rear window of the SUV while they were driving off? I suppose you're going to argue now that it's self-defense to shoot someone in the back?

Actually in Florida a man did shoot someone in the back of the head and was cleared because of SYG.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133

• Two men fell into the water while fighting on a dock. When one started climbing out of the water, the other shot him in the back of the head, killing him. He was acquitted after arguing "stand your ground."

The message is clear to me, if you live in FL. you better be armed at all times.

Hey, at least there are 49 other states to live in though.



.....

 

[thraashman]

Actually in Florida a man did shoot someone in the back of the head and was cleared because of SYG.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133



The message is clear to me, if you live in FL. you better be armed.

Hey, at least there are 49 other states to live in though.



.....

And that my friends is why stand your ground is insane.

 

[hal2kilo]

Actually in Florida a man did shoot someone in the back of the head and was cleared because of SYG.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133



The message is clear to me, if you live in FL. you better be armed at all times.

Hey, at least there are 49 other states to live in though.



.....

Unfortunately thanks to ALEC spreading the SYG fertilizer through out the states legislatures number is way less than 49.

 

[Exophase]

You keep saying he could have just retreated.

There is no duty to retreat in most states including Florida. Plus he was in his occupied vehicle when threatened that means castle doctrine applies. One is automatically allowed to use force including deadly against a threat when in their occupied vehicle. You can imagine it lawfully the exact same as your home.

Of course I knew you'd respond this way, that's why I already mentioned it.

I'm sure Florida stand your ground laws validate this but meh.

See?

What he did was stupid and hostile. He chose the thing that was less safe for himself and less safe for his opponent, and this is still within the assumption that he had any legitimate reason to feel he was in danger in the first place.

This looks to be pretty much all you ever post about this. If the law says it's a good shoot then nothing else ever matters. It's really disturbing. Mentalities like this undermine the purpose of stand your ground laws and serve as an impetus to make people want to strike them down.

Your constant fallback of castle doctrine is even more insane. How can him being in his vehicle possibly be relevant here? The other person wasn't in his "castle" or attempting to enter it. I don't see how there could be a scenario where you're allowed a higher level of retaliation against someone not on your property regardless of whether or not you are inside yours.

 

[Vic]

You keep saying he could have just retreated.

There is no duty to retreat in most states including Florida. Plus he was in his occupied vehicle when threatened that means castle doctrine applies. One is automatically allowed to use force including deadly against a threat when in their occupied vehicle. You can imagine it lawfully the exact same as your home.

You keep ignoring that there is no evidence of any threat except for Dunn's own statements. Zip. Zero. None. NADA.
There is no shotgun. There is no lead pipe. There is no eyewitness.
Also, the victims were not inside his car or even outside theirs. By your logic, you could shoot at your neighbor inside his house while you are inside yours.
Hell, by your logic, you could gun down anyone you felt like, and then claim you felt threatened later.

 

[hal2kilo]

You keep ignoring that there is no evidence of any threat except for Dunn's own statements. Zip. Zero. None. NADA.
There is no shotgun. There is no lead pipe. There is no eyewitness.
Also, the victims were not inside his car or even outside theirs. By your logic, you could shoot at your neighbor inside his house while you are inside yours.
Hell, by your logic, you could gun down anyone you felt like, and then claim you felt threatened later.

Man, whats the point in owning a gun if you can't use it.

 

[thraashman]

You keep ignoring that there is no evidence of any threat except for Dunn's own statements. Zip. Zero. None. NADA.
There is no shotgun. There is no lead pipe. There is no eyewitness.
Also, the victims were not inside his car or even outside theirs. By your logic, you could shoot at your neighbor inside his house while you are inside yours.
Hell, by your logic, you could gun down anyone you felt like, and then claim you felt threatened later.

I'm pretty sure spidey shoots at trick-or-treaters who step on his lawn on Halloween and girl scouts who come up to his door selling cookies. Reasonable behavior is not his strong point.

 

[spidey07]

Actually in Florida a man did shoot someone in the back of the head and was cleared because of SYG.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...s-some-shocking-outcomes-depending-on/1233133



The message is clear to me, if you live in FL. you better be armed at all times.

Hey, at least there are 49 other states to live in though.




.....

Most other states have self defense and stand your grtund laws exactly the same or similar as FL. This has been explained specifically to you at least a dozen times yet you still spout your bullshit lies.

 

[spidey07]

You keep ignoring that there is no evidence of any threat except for Dunn's own statements. Zip. Zero. None. NADA.
There is no shotgun. There is no lead pipe. There is no eyewitness.
Also, the victims were not inside his car or even outside theirs. By your logic, you could shoot at your neighbor inside his house while you are inside yours.
Hell, by your logic, you could gun down anyone you felt like, and then claim you felt threatened later.

The threat has to meet the "reasonable person" standard.

Case law has set precident that disparity of force via outnumbered along with verbal threats meets that standard. There are other cases where the shooter isn't even arrested because he was verbally threatened along with disparity of force. It's not difficult to understand if you have any knowledge of self defense laws.

 

[mugs]

The threat has to meet the "reasonable person" standard.

Case law has set precident that disparity of force via outnumbered along with verbal threats meets that standard. There are other cases where the shooter isn't even arrested because he was verbally threatened along with disparity of force. It's not difficult to understand if you have any knowledge of self defense laws.

Who was outnumbered now? No one was arguing with Dunn-goofed other than Jordan Davis.

 

[Vic]

The threat has to meet the "reasonable person" standard.

Case law has set precident that disparity of force via outnumbered along with verbal threats meets that standard. There are other cases where the shooter isn't even arrested because he was verbally threatened along with disparity of force. It's not difficult to understand if you have any knowledge of self defense laws.

You are correct that, in order for a person in Dunn's position to claim self defense, there must have been a credible and reasonable threat to justify their actions.

Once again, there is no evidence of any threat whatsoever.

 

[Exophase]

At least spidey07 basically admits that there was no shotgun. Even the defense basically admits that at this point, bringing in that it could have been a pipe.. or a stick?

I don't see how disparity of force works when both parties are in their respective vehicles. And I doubt the jury would be sympathetic towards such a claim in this case.

 

[Thebobo]

Thankfully some of us believe in "innocent until proven guilty" rather than "guilty because my soft modern progressive heart knows they're guilty"


I've made it very clear that I don't support dunn, I don't support his decisions nor think he is innocent on from a moral perspective.

But, we don't judge people on moral perspectives... We judge them on facts and evidence, and the results of a fair trial.



And based on the facts and evidence, I'm still predicting that dunn will walk. Particularly when the defense starts cornering the 3 remaining young bucks on what they were stashing and why.

One thing we know for sure, based on the trayvon trial, is that the DA is a goofball... And doesn't come across as particularly honest or straightforward. A florida jury will see right through this.

How do you know they were stashing something?

 

[spidey07]

Who was outnumbered now? No one was arguing with Dunn-goofed other than Jordan Davis.

4-1. That meets disparity of force and represents a credible threat if there was verbal threatening.

Plus age difference has also been proven in previous cases to meet disparity of force requirements. No weapon is needed to shoot.

What you skittles are failing to understand is lawfully this meets the standards for self defense. Especially because Mr. Dunn was in his occupied vehicle when the threat was present and clearly credible.

 

[Exophase]

4-1. That meets disparity of force and represents a credible threat if there was verbal threatening.

Plus age difference has also been proven in previous cases to meet disparity of force requirements. No weapon is needed to shoot.

It doesn't matter if there are four of them, it doesn't matter if they're younger, if he is in his vehicle and they are outside of theirs he has the upper hand physically. Not them.

This argument is really grasping at straws. And it's funny how you use (albeit incorrectly) both the disparity in force AND the castle doctrine defenses even when they contradict each other...

 

[spidey07]

It doesn't matter if there are four of them, it doesn't matter if they're younger, if he is in his vehicle and they are outside of theirs he has the upper hand physically. Not them.

This argument is really grasping at straws.

Not according to self defense laws it doesn't. It's not an argument I'm making, it's fact and supported by many, many self defense shootings and taught in CCW classes.

Much younger and in better shape = disparity of force
Out numbered = disparity of force
Verbal threat with the means to carry it out via disparity of force means deadly force is authorized by law

That he was in his occupied vehicle when the credible threat was present is just icing on the cake via castle doctrine.