Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[Vic]

I have no doubt that spidey, like any responsible CCW holder, knows his laws well enough to know flipping someone off is not any credible threat.


Even if you don't CCW you all NEED to read up on these laws. Many of you clearly have no idea what can get you killed. Most people in that camp seem awfully hotheaded. That's not a great combination.....

You and spidey just argued that the mere fact that Dunn was outnumbered represented a credible threat. How about you read your own posts eh?

 

[Exophase]

You and spidey just argued that the mere fact that Dunn was outnumbered represented a credible threat. How about you read your own posts eh?

Outnumbered and gave verbal threats.

Clearly your friend should have claimed that the guy in the other car said he'd kill him, since it probably would have been impossible for anyone to reasonably prove otherwise.

 

[spidey07]

You and spidey just argued that the mere fact that Dunn was outnumbered represented a credible threat. How about you read your own posts eh?

No, it represents disparity of force. If that disparity of force is met with verbal threats then that, per case law and precedent = reasonable fear of life or bodily harm for the victim Mr. Dunn.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

You and spidey just argued that the mere fact that Dunn was outnumbered represented a credible threat. How about you read your own posts eh?

False.


You need disparity of force AND a credible threat.

 

[Exophase]

False.


You need disparity of force AND a credible threat.

Or you just need to claim a threat was made in a way that's nearly impossibly to exhaustively disprove. Like the guy making a verbal threat that could only be heard by the shooter.

 

[Catriona]

Sweetheart, you need to understand that what you SHOULD do and what you HAVE to do are two totally different things.


You didn't answer me last time; were you a-ok with gucci mane unloading a magazine into some guy and not calling the police? They ended up finding that guy's body in a field somewhere..... And gucci walked.

Darlin, I don't know who or what gucci mane is, and, if I did, I'm not here to discuss it.

If you feel your life has been threatened to the point that you need to fire your gun in self defense, you don't drive away from the scene, go to a B&B, and order pizza.

 

[Pens1566]

A 911 witness was recorded saying it looked like they might be stashing something. A gun, he didn't know. It will be portrayed exactly the same as zimmermans "he's up to no good" comment...... Won't look great for the prosecution when this is all laid out to the florida jury.

LIAR

 

[Exophase]

I'm trying to find descriptions of affirmative defense requirements with respect to self defense (particularly as applicable in Florida) and all I can find suggests that, while it is not necessary for the defense to prove justification beyond any shadow of a doubt, they must supply some clear evidence.

Simply claiming that the deceased threatened you does not constitute as evidence.

This is in stark contrast to the defense having zero burden and the prosecution having the burden of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defense's claims are false.

 

[spidey07]

I'm trying to find descriptions of affirmative defense requirements with respect to self defense (particularly as applicable in Florida) and all I can find suggests that, while it is not necessary for the defense to prove justification beyond any shadow of a doubt, they must supply some clear evidence.

Simply claiming that the deceased threatened you does not constitute as evidence.

This is in stark contrast to the defense having zero burden and the prosecution having the burden of proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the defense's claims are false.

Self defense is not an affirmative defense in Florida or many other states.

 

[mugs]

LIAR

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.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

A 911 witness was recorded saying it looked like they might be stashing something.

LIAR

Wrong, that witness was on the stand today and confirmed that on the 911 call he stated it looked like the people were trying to stash something in the car. The man that made this statement also had a warrant cleared by the prosecution prior to his deposition with the defense team.

 

[Exophase]

Self defense is not an affirmative defense in Florida or many other states.

Okay, could you should me, in Florida law, where zero burden of evidence (not burden of proof, evidence) is necessary in upholding stand your ground then?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

https://twitter.com/LegInsurrection/loud-music-murder-trial

Andrew Branca, LOSD2 ‏@LawSelfDefense2 1h Strolla: You told 911 it looks like they were stashing something, correct? Correct. (we'll be back to this on re-direct, for sure).

Andrew Branca, LOSD2 ‏@LawSelfDefense2 1h Strolla: You had deposition scheduled with me? Yes. And Guy reached out to you, because you had outstanding warrant? Correct. #DunnTrial

Andrew Branca, LOSD2 ‏@LawSelfDefense2 1h Strolla: And Guy made that warrant go away. Yes. #DunnTrial


https://twitter.com/search?q=#DunnTrial&src=hash

 

[TerryMathews]

Okay, could you should me, in Florida law, where zero burden of evidence (not burden of proof, evidence) is necessary in upholding stand your ground then?

Self-defense != SYG

 

[Vic]

A 911 witness was recorded saying it looked like they might be stashing something. A gun, he didn't know. It will be portrayed exactly the same as zimmermans "he's up to no good" comment...... Won't look great for the prosecution when this is all laid out to the florida jury.

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

 

[Vic]

False.


You need disparity of force AND a credible threat.

I had already argued that there is no evidence of a credible threat.

 

[mugs]

Okay, could you should me, in Florida law, where zero burden of evidence (not burden of proof, evidence) is necessary in upholding stand your ground then?

This is what spidey is confused about:

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

Six years ago in Murray v. State, 937 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 4th Dist. 2006), the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Florida ruled that once a defendant in a criminal case has introduced proof that he acted in self-defense the jury is entitled to consider the defense, and the jury may not convict the defendant unless it finds beyond a reasonable that he did not act in self-defense. The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated:

But, with these additional facts, did he also incur a 'burden of proof' identical to the State's? That is, did he have to prove the additional facts for self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt? Or was he instead bound by some lesser standard-say, the greater weight of the evidence? Indeed, how about something even less onerous than that? Was he merely obligated to lay the additional facts before the jury, without any burden as to the strength of their probative value - other than they might be true? The answer is this. No, he did not have to prove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. He did not have to prove even that his additional facts were more likely true than not. The real nature of his burden concerning his defense of justification is that his evidence of additional facts need merely leave the jury with a reasonable doubt about whether he was justified in using deadly force. Hence, if he wanted his self-defense to be considered, it was necessary to present evidence that his justification might be true. It would then be up to the jury to decide whether his evidence produced a reasonable doubt about his claim of self-defense.

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.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

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

Guess you missed this testimony by one of the witnesses today.

Andrew Branca, LOSD2 ‏@LawSelfDefense2 1h Strolla: You told 911 it looks like they were stashing something, correct? Correct. (we'll be back to this on re-direct, for sure).

 

[mugs]

Wrong, that witness was on the stand today and confirmed that on the 911 call he stated it looked like the people were trying to stash something in the car. The man that made this statement also had a warrant cleared by the prosecution prior to his deposition with the defense team.

No, he said he couldn't see what they were doing because the door was blocking his view. He guessed that they might be trying to stash something because of the circumstances (fleeing from a shooting).

 

[Dr. Zaus]

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.

Thank God you've figured this out. Yes, that's the law, and spidey likes it: because it helps put black people "in their place". Black guy shoots white guy - illegal; white guy shoots black guy -reasonable fear of threat.

This is for all for a 'jury' of (likely) racists to decide, of course.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

No, he said he couldn't see what they were doing because the door was blocking his view. He guessed that they might be trying to stash something because of the circumstances (fleeing from a shooting).

Look at the exact words of his testimony today.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36046020&postcount=2793

 

[Vic]

Guess you missed this testimony by one of the witnesses today.

Andrew Branca, LOSD2

 

[mugs]

Look at the exact words of his testimony today.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=36046020&postcount=2793

I watched it, and I noticed he said that, and I thought the same thing that commentator did - that the prosecutor would need to clear that up on redirect, because Strolla misrepresented -accidentally I'm sure - what the witness said on the 911 call. The witness also said that he didn't see anyone take anything out of the car, and that he didn't see anything other than a cell phone in their hands, and that he thought they might be putting something into the car.

Did you actually watch that testimony and come away with the belief that the witness thought someone took something out of the car and "stashed" it outside of the car?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Did you actually watch that testimony and come away with the belief that the witness thought someone took something out of the car and "stashed" it outside of the car?

No. However, after they get back to the convenience store two of the occupants in the car time can't be accounted for by witnesses. It's very possible that they were positioning something that one of these two occupants disposed of after they returned to the store. I think the defense will be playing up the possibility with the fact the police didn't secure/search the area around the store for 4 days which would provide ample time to remove anything that was hidden or disposed of by trash collectors.

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

 

[Vic]

No. However, after they get back to the convenience store two of the occupants in the car time can't be accounted for by witnesses. It's very possible that they were positioning something that one of these two occupants disposed of after they returned to the store. I think the defense will be playing up the possibility with the fact the police didn't secure/search the area around the store for 4 days which would provide ample time to remove anything that was hidden or disposed of by trash collectors.

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

Maybe it's possible they were watching their buddy bleed out in the back seat? It doesn't happen right away, and it's never quiet and dignified like on TV shows.