Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[spidey07]

In case anyone missed it, I did just say that the Zimmerman verdict was correct *according to Florida law.*
I strongly caution people in other states from trying the same.

Z mans classic self defense would be justified in some 30+ states if not all. He was unable to retreat from a vicious violent attack and as such could defend himself. In fact his classic self defense would be justified in all 50 states.

 

[Vic]

You won't. I know my states laws and have too much to lose.

You're applying your states laws to free states.

Less emotion. More logic.

It's weird. I pulled up my state's self defense laws and ORS 161.209 reads more or less identically to your 'free states' relevant statutes.

 

[Vic]

Z mans classic self defense would be justified in some 30+ states if not all. He was unable to retreat from a vicious violent attack and as such could defend himself. In fact his classic self defense would be justified in all 50 states.

Uh no.. He initiated the altercation with the threat of deadly force. Zimmerman was carrying a gun, and Martin didn't walk up to him, now did he?

If you have so much to lose, John, you should be more careful about the legal advice you give.

Anyway, the cases are not analogous. Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked and tried to withdraw. No one touched Dunn.

Your emotion level is getting a little high there, don't you think?

 

[Daverino]

You are a liar and a racist and a sociopath. And you're out of your element, so just stop.

He's just a sociopath.

He's OK with white 43 year old fathers being senselessly killed in the name of 'gun rights' as well.

 

[mugs]

Person A: "Logic, evidence, law."
Person B: "Emotion!"
Person A: "Logic, evidence, law."
Person B: "You're a racist!"
Person A: "Logic, evidence, law."
Person B: "I know you're just getting off on this because a black kid is dead and I will eventually see you on the news! You're a sociopath!"
Person A: "Logic, evidence, law."
Person B: "Everyone on these boards knows you to be a racist who jacks off to the thought of killing black kids every night! How do they know this? Because I and others have screamed at you like this in tons of previous threads, that means you have a record of it!"

Yeah, ok. It's apparent that I'm about the only person here who actually read the discovery documents, because the cross-burning crew keeps repeating the same shit that has been proven false over again. And when you've been referring to the victims as the "felon thug crew" since the beginning of the thread, you should not be surprised when people call you out for your obvious racism. And I started calling you (collectively) sociopaths when it became apparent that you no longer believed Dunn, but were rooting for acquittal anyway (when you stopped arguing that the facts were in his favor and started arguing about how his lawyer would be able to manipulate the jury to get him off).

 

[Geosurface]

Yeah, ok. It's apparent that I'm about the only person here who actually read the discovery documents, because the cross-burning crew keeps repeating the same shit that has been proven false over again. And when you've been referring to the victims as the "felon thug crew" since the beginning of the thread, you should not be surprised when people call you out for your obvious racism. And I started calling you (collectively) sociopaths when it became apparent that you no longer believed Dunn, but were rooting for acquittal anyway (when you stopped arguing that the facts were in his favor and started arguing about how his lawyer would be able to manipulate the jury to get him off).

So when someone who agrees with you frames this or any other case in a simplistic way, or misremembers a detail and summarizes it slightly incorrectly, or uses colorful, slightly humorous and simplistic ways to refer to the parties involved... even if they have a racial element... you look the other way.

When someone does it who disagrees with you, they're a cross-burning, sociopathic, racist Nazi Klansman who is probably building a gas chamber in their backyard.

That about right?

If you're wondering what I'm talking about re: your side. There are plenty of people who like to point out that the shooter is white, call him "Dunn-goofed", insinuate his manhood is in question, mock white males and their guns substituting for their dicks and how there's this white male culture of being terrified of blacks etc, and when they refer to things about the case they get little details wrong or misremember things plenty often too... and they frame things in extremely simplistic ways too. These people even sometimes like to express their fondest wish that the guy will be raped in prison, etc. None of this phases you of course, or motivates you to call them sociopaths or anything of the sort.

You're able to understand that they get caught up in the argument and give in to the temptation to refer to a fact without double checking it or to frame things in a simplistic, humorous, black-and-white fashion, and them doing so doesn't cause you to call their humanity into question. Maybe you should think about extending that same understanding to the other side and quit being such a douche.

 

[mugs]

So when someone who agrees with you frames this or any other case in a simplistic way, or misremembers a detail and summarizes it slightly incorrectly, or uses colorful, slightly humorous and simplistic ways to refer to the parties involved... even if they have a racial element... you look the other way.

To whom are you referring?

When someone does it who disagrees with you, they're a cross-burning, sociopathic, racist Nazi Klansman who is probably building a gas chamber in their backyard.

That about right?

I don't actually think you're all cross-burning Nazi Klansmen; accurate descriptions don't matter here, right (felon thug crew)?

I have little doubt that SpatiallyUnaware and Spidey are racists and sociopaths. Not sure about you, I don't remember much of what you've said.

If you're wondering what I'm talking about re: your side. There are plenty of people who like to point out that the shooter is white, call him "Dunn-goofed", insinuate his manhood is in question, mock white males and their guns substituting for their dicks and how there's this white male culture of being terrified of blacks etc, and when they refer to things about the case they get little details wrong or misremember things plenty often too... and they frame things in extremely simplistic ways too. These people even sometimes like to express their fondest wish that the guy will be raped in prison, etc. None of this phases you of course, or motivates you to call them sociopaths or anything of the sort.

I started the Dunn-goofed thing after the felon thug crew moniker was popularized, and after it became apparent how inept a criminal Dunn is. Other than that I haven't noticed most of what you're talking about. I think classy was in here earlier being his usual racist self, but I got tired of calling him out for his racism years ago. Some people have messed up details, and I've corrected them when I see it, but I haven't seen any of them continue to repeat the same lies for months after repeatedly being corrected.

You're able to understand that they get caught up in the argument and give in to the temptation to refer to a fact without double checking it or to frame things in a simplistic, humorous, black-and-white fashion, and them doing so doesn't cause you to call their humanity into question. Maybe you should think about extending that same understanding to the other side and quit being such a douche.

Deliberate mistakes are not mistakes.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So when someone who agrees with you frames this or any other case in a simplistic way, or misremembers a detail and summarizes it slightly incorrectly, or uses colorful, slightly humorous and simplistic ways to refer to the parties involved... even if they have a racial element... you look the other way.

When someone does it who disagrees with you, they're a cross-burning, sociopathic, racist Nazi Klansman who is probably building a gas chamber in their backyard.

That about right?

If you're wondering what I'm talking about re: your side. There are plenty of people who like to point out that the shooter is white, call him "Dunn-goofed", insinuate his manhood is in question, mock white males and their guns substituting for their dicks and how there's this white male culture of being terrified of blacks etc, and when they refer to things about the case they get little details wrong or misremember things plenty often too... and they frame things in extremely simplistic ways too. These people even sometimes like to express their fondest wish that the guy will be raped in prison, etc. None of this phases you of course, or motivates you to call them sociopaths or anything of the sort.

You're able to understand that they get caught up in the argument and give in to the temptation to refer to a fact without double checking it or to frame things in a simplistic, humorous, black-and-white fashion, and them doing so doesn't cause you to call their humanity into question. Maybe you should think about extending that same understanding to the other side and quit being such a douche.

Figured out that Holocaust thing yet?

 

[Vic]

Yeah, ok. It's apparent that I'm about the only person here who actually read the discovery documents, because the cross-burning crew keeps repeating the same shit that has been proven false over again. And when you've been referring to the victims as the "felon thug crew" since the beginning of the thread, you should not be surprised when people call you out for your obvious racism. And I started calling you (collectively) sociopaths when it became apparent that you no longer believed Dunn, but were rooting for acquittal anyway (when you stopped arguing that the facts were in his favor and started arguing about how his lawyer would be able to manipulate the jury to get him off).

I am a bit disturbed by how some of the posters here seem to so readily self-identify with Dunn.
I'm a proponent of gun rights, carry, and self defense but I also maintain that one should never want to have to exercise those rights. The last thing I ever want is to be placed in the position where I have to take another person's life in order to save my own or a loved one. Not a happy thing, guys.

 

[Vic]

Figured out that Holocaust thing yet?

I gotta give it up, you called it. I wasn't convinced yesterday (although I did think he protested a bit too much), but then his first post in this thread today was flat out textbook.

 

[Geosurface]

I gotta give it up, you called it. I wasn't convinced yesterday (although I did think he protested a bit too much), but then his first post in this thread today was flat out textbook.

Here's my first post from today: Link

It is a post in which I share my observation about how Davis' best friend answered the question of whether Davis had threatened Dunn, compared to how he answered whether the other 3 occupants did.

Don't be vague.

What was this "flat out textbook" of?
What do I "protest too much" about?

Sounds to me like more of the strangely common bullshit around these forums of "you don't agree with me, so there's some sinister plot behind your posts where you're trying to obscure your true motives and beliefs!!!"

Wtf is wrong with you people, honestly? What sort of people think like this, and think like this *constantly*?

When I read people here who disagree with me, I assume they're expressing their honest feelings, misguided as they may be, and expressing them in the way that comes naturally to them.

Why do some of you need there to be dark plots and schemes? At least you're not as bad as Umbrella who, on top of that shit, also insists on claiming everyone he doesn't like is an alt account.

Maybe by "protest too much" you mean I type a lot. That's certainly true. I am not good at being concise, never have been. I'm also a major over-thinker, and much more elaborate and detailed paths to both thinking a thought, and explaining a thought than most people I know. This sometimes irritates people, I get a lot of "get to the point." To interpret this as some sort of smoke screen or attempt to misrepresent my true beliefs or intent, though, is fucking retarded.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I gotta give it up, you called it. I wasn't convinced yesterday (although I did think he protested a bit too much), but then his first post in this thread today was flat out textbook.

I've only been here several months but it goes waaaaay beyond that post.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Here's my first post from today: Link

It is a post in which I share my observation about how Davis' best friend answered the question of whether Davis had threatened Dunn, compared to how he answered whether the other 3 occupants did.

Don't be vague.

What was this "flat out textbook" of?
What do I "protest too much" about?

Sounds to me like more of the strangely common bullshit around these forums of "you don't agree with me, so there's some sinister plot behind your posts where you're trying to obscure your true motives and beliefs!!!"

Wtf is wrong with you people, honestly? What sort of people think like this, and think like this *constantly*?

When I read people here who disagree with me, I assume they're expressing their honest feelings, misguided as they may be, and expressing them in the way that comes naturally to them.

Why do some of you need there to be dark plots and schemes? At least you're not as bad as Umbrella who, on top of that shit, also insists on claiming everyone he doesn't like is an alt account.

Maybe by "protest too much" you mean I type a lot. That's certainly true. I am not good at being concise, never have been. I'm also a major over-thinker, and much more elaborate and detailed paths to both thinking a thought, and explaining a thought than most people I know. This sometimes irritates people, I get a lot of "get to the point." To interpret this as some sort of smoke screen or attempt to deceive my true beliefs or intent, though, is fucking retarded.

Seriously, have you figured out that Holocaust thing yet?

 

[mugs]

I am a bit disturbed by how some of the posters here seem to so readily self-identify with Dunn.
I'm a proponent of gun rights, carry, and self defense but I also maintain that one should never want to have to exercise those rights. The last thing I ever want is to be placed in the position where I have to take another person's life in order to save my own or a loved one. Not a happy thing, guys.

Yeah, I'm a gun owner and would probably have a concealed carry permit if my state allowed it, and I think it's stupid for any gun rights advocate to defend Dunn (and probably the movie theater guy too, unless it turns out he was in fear of more than just popcorn). People like Dunn make gun owners look bad. Defending him makes gun rights advocates look bad. I think Zimmerman was completely within his rights to do what he did, but he acted irresponsibly. I agreed with his acquittal, but I would not hold him up as a posterboy for responsible gun owners.

Spidey and some other people here get downright gleeful when someone is shot in alleged self-defense, and that is not a normal human reaction. I think he's all talk though, I don't expect we'll ever be hearing about him on the news.

 

[Geosurface]

People like Dunn make gun owners look bad. Defending him makes gun rights advocates look bad.

If you could somehow know for a fact that Jordan Davis did actually threaten to kill Michael Dunn, and the door of the SUV started to open, would you still feel exactly the same way about Dunn's actions?

 

[mugs]

If you could somehow know for a fact that Jordan Davis did actually threaten to kill Michael Dunn, and the door of the SUV started to open, would you still feel exactly the same way about Dunn's actions?

If he did that, and he tried to break into Dunn's car, I would feel that Dunn was justified. But I would still think that Dunn should have acted differently (just like I feel that Jordan Davis should have acted differently - but at least his actions didn't cause a death). Some people see this kind of situation as an opportunity to exercise their right to use deadly force, but I but I don't see deadly force as necessary to end this conflict so I don't think it should have been used.

 

[Geosurface]

If he did that, and he tried to break into Dunn's car, I would feel that Dunn was justified. But I would still think that Dunn should have acted differently (just like I feel that Jordan Davis should have acted differently - but at least his actions didn't cause a death). Some people see this kind of situation as an opportunity to exercise their right to use deadly force, but I but I don't see deadly force as necessary to end this conflict so I don't think it should have been used.

I suppose there may be some people out there who have a gun and are just itching for an excuse to blow someone away. In fact, I know there are because there have been some stories in the news which really, really gave that impression about the shooter. Off hand I recall one where a guy sort of sadistically killed two teens (a male and female) who'd broken into his house, and the other story that comes to mind was that old guy Spooner who shot a 13 year old black kid he suspected of stealing one of his guns, when the kid posed no immediate threat. EDIT: Oh and that movie theater texter shooter guy is a great example too. That was absurd.

Whether Dunn falls into this category, I cannot say. I certainly don't get that vibe from him in his police interviews. That's not conclusive, of course.

One thing that seems undeniable at this point is that if Davis had kept his mouth shut, and not insisted that Tevin Thompson turn the music back up, and had not screamed "fuck that n----r! turn that shit back up!" - he would be alive today. The question is, did he just give Dunn a flimsy excuse to do what he was itching to do? Or did he legitimately put Dunn in fear for his life?

No amount of backtalk, cursing, disrespect, etc can justify whipping out a gun and filling a truck full of kids with bullets.

But if Davis really did say what Dunn claims: "I'm gonna kill you bitch, this is going down right now." and started to open the door of the car as he said it, then although it would remain a very unfortunate shooting, I don't think he should go to jail for it.

Based on the first two days of testimony, there is stuff which makes me think Dunn's story may be true. Davis' best friend admitting Davis started to open the door at one point, hesitating a lot longer when he was asked if Davis threatened Dunn as compared to his immediate and confident answers about whether he and the other two did... and the three of them admitting that Jordan, and Jordan alone, got extremely agitated about the request, a request which the others admit was made politely. They also seem to admit that they really didn't hear Dunn curse or act aggressively. All I've seen was one of them say that Dunn had said "are you talking to me?" and that he seemed upset when he asked it. Most of them also admit that the music was so loud they could not hear everything Davis said to Dunn.

Because of all this, I'm not sure how we can be confident enough that Davis didn't threaten Dunn's life, to feel particularly good about him going to prison for decades. If other people are tapping into some source of certainty that isn't available to me about whether that happened or not, maybe they can direct me to it. Because as it stands, I honestly have no idea if Davis threatened Dunn. It does seem consistent with Davis absolutely flipping out though. Flipping out which is acknowledged by the other occupants, and consistent with "fuck this n----r!" too, which is acknowledged by the other two occupants at that time.

If all Davis did was bluster and curse, there's no justification in that to shoot him, of course. Particularly when you run the risk of hitting other occupants in the truck.

I wish this was as clear cut as Zimmerman/Travyon. There were injuries, screams, a good eyewitness to the beating, etc. That was an easy call to make. This one is not. But our system is supposed to err on the side of innocence, right? So, if it were up to me solely, knowing what I know, I'd let him off.

 

[Pens1566]

I have little doubt that SpatiallyUnaware and Spidey are racists and sociopaths. Not sure about you, I don't remember much of what you've said.

All 3 have been vacationed for blatant racist posts. It's not that "unknown".

 

[Daverino]

The conclusion that Spidey, Spatial and GeoSurface go in with is not that Dunn (or Zimmerman or Reeves) are innocent. The conclusion they go in with is that all self-defense shooting are justified. They have reached this conclusion because of a combination of racism, paranoia or sociopathy. But that's besides the point.

Because they go in with the 'all self-defense shootings are justified' conclusion, what you see here is them working backwards from that conclusion to their premises about the case. They NEED to find a set of premises, whether true or untrue, reasonable or unreasonable that supports their conclusion. So that is how they conclude that Martin attacked Zimmerman unprovoked, that Davis is a gang-banger thug and that Oulson was a 'young buck' that got off on threatening old people. Their conclusion is so important that they are willing to throw away any fact that contradicts them.

On the issue of self-defense, they have the intellectual honesty of young-earth creationists. Facts are irrelevant if they don't support their conclusion.

 

[Geosurface]

The conclusion they go in with is that all self-defense shooting are justified.

<snipped psychobabble bullshit>

Actually you're wrong. I didn't find any of the following "self-defense" shootings justified:

- Spooner the old white dude who shot the 13 year old black kid
- Dooley the old black guy who shot the young father after brandishing his gun in a threatening way, in front of the guy's daughter - because the guy stood up for some skateboarders and told Dooley to relax.
- The old white retired cop who shot the texter in the movie theater.
- The lady who shot the guy she'd just had a fender bender with in the gas station parking lot because he merely walked up to her car and may have knocked on her window
- Ted Wafer the white guy who shot the black 19 year old girl who showed up at his door at 4am. I did some devil's advocate argument for him a little bit, but my overarching conclusion and opinion about it was always that what he'd done was unacceptable. You cannot just blow someone away because they're banging on your door.
- The mentally handicapped guy shot at the Taco Bell drive thru where the shooter lied about him having a baseball bat

And I recall others which I don't remember the details of at the moment.

Importantly, you apparently need to be reminded that I have not definitively said that Dunn was justified in this case. I've done devil's advocate argument on his behalf, and pointed out the evidence which tends to lean toward his claims, but even as recently as a post I made a couple back I said I thought he was probably lying about the shotgun. I just think there's a pretty solid possibility that Jordan Davis did threaten to kill him (though Davis probably didn't mean it literally if he did say that)

Which doesn't establish whether his reaction was justified. It may have been legal, but that doesn't mean I'm cool with it.

I have repeatedly said over and over that I honestly don't know whether Dunn is guilty or innocent. I've also acknowledged how stupid it was for him not to call cops.

Really the only self-defense shooting I've forcefully defended was Zimmerman. That was because it was a very clear cut case, and no reasonable person who is informed of the facts can disagree that he was justified.

 

[Thebobo]

We have a 911 witness who has definitively stated that the felon thug crew was trying to stash something.

You might not like that fact, that fact might not agree with your bias, but it has already been stated and accepted in the courtroom and will be presented to the jury.

Links to alleged facts?

 

[WackyDan]

Uh no.. He initiated the altercation with the threat of deadly force. Zimmerman was carrying a gun, and Martin didn't walk up to him, now did he?

Did you even watch the trial? What you stated above is a flat out lie. He never initiated the altercation nor did he present/brandish his weapon prior to it.

In fact, using classic self defense as an argument in court would have loss the case for Zimmerman if he had initiated the confrontation.

I suggest you bone up on the Zimmerman trial and self defense statutes before you go around propagating what you watch on Nancy Grace.

 

[Geosurface]

Links to alleged facts?

There was a witness who saw the lads around their truck in the adjacent parking lot they drove off to, saw the driver and front seat passenger get out and open the two rear doors, lean in, etc. This is consistent with checking on the mortally wounded Jordan Davis. It could also be consistent with grabbing drugs, weapons, etc that the driver who was out past his curfew and thus violating his probation/parole or whatever, could get in very deep shit if they were found.

So actually even if they were ditching things it doesn't necessarily mean they were weapons. Could've been a bag of weed. Or it could've been a long knife or handgun which Jordan Davis never used to threaten Dunn, but just happened to be there and the driver knew would be a problem for him if they were found.

Then again, they could have ditched a weapon Jordan used to threaten Dunn with. We'll never know.

The caller had said "I don't know if they were stashing something or what" (very close paraphrase and possibly verbatim) - which could be consistent with him just assuming that people who'd just driven off from a shootout might have something to stash. Or it could mean that at that time, his honest impression of the scene was that it looked like they were stashing something. That could be an impression you got even without seeing an item in anyone's hand. Conveyed by body language and furtive glances, etc.

On the witness stand yesterday that witness seemed inclined to downplay that possibility, but of course what he said in the moment that night is what matters. Unfortunately it doesn't conclusively tell us jack. It does, however, give the defense attorney and Dunn one of their few rays of hope.

 

[WackyDan]

You cannot just blow someone away because they're banging on your door.

Not in many states. Here in NC if they are attempting forced entry via that door or window you can fire at them through the barrier. The old "shoot them and drag them inside" does not apply with our self defense statute here.

Would it be worth the scrutiny? No. Would it be worth not cleaning up the mess? Yes.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

There was a witness who saw the lads around their truck in the adjacent parking lot they drove off to, saw the driver and front seat passenger get out and open the two rear doors, lean in, etc. This is consistent with checking on the mortally wounded Jordan Davis. It could also be consistent with grabbing drugs, weapons, etc that the driver who was out past his curfew and thus violating his probation/parole or whatever, could get in very deep shit if they were found.

So actually even if they were ditching things it doesn't necessarily mean they were weapons. Could've been a bag of weed. Or it could've been a long knife or handgun which Jordan Davis never used to threaten Dunn, but just happened to be there and the driver knew would be a problem for him if they were found.

Then again, they could have ditched a weapon Jordan used to threaten Dunn with. We'll never know.

The caller had said "I don't know if they were stashing something or what" (very close paraphrase and possibly verbatim) - which could be consistent with him just assuming that people who'd just driven off from a shootout might have something to stash. Or it could mean that at that time, his honest impression of the scene was that it looked like they were stashing something. That could be an impression you got even without seeing an item in anyone's hand. Conveyed by body language and furtive glances, etc.

On the witness stand yesterday that witness seemed inclined to downplay that possibility, but of course what he said in the moment that night is what matters. Unfortunately it doesn't conclusively tell us jack. It does, however, give the defense attorney and Dunn one of their few rays of hope.

Pretty sure none of that means a witness said "definitively" that they "were stashing" anything which is what is repeatedly asserted.

Thus the repeated challenges on the statement.