Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[bshole]

Well I don't want to inundate them with calls but did you call a second time and ask to speak with the range master?

Yes I did. The range master wasn't there but I spoke with several different people. Every one of them said 4 15 yrders and 2 25 yders. Think about it Geo. Who the hell shoots a handgun at 50 yd targets? It is patently ridiculous as anybody who actually does shoot handguns (like me) knows. I doubt this guy has ever shot a handgun. I don't understand why he keeps digging deeper with his lies. I catch him out and he doubles down.... it is almost pathological.

 

[Geosurface]

Yes I did. The range master wasn't there but I spoke with several different people. Every one of them said 4 15 yrders and 2 25 yders. Think about Geo. Who the hell shoots a handgun at 50 yd targets? It is patently ridiculous as anybody who actually does shoot handguns (like me) knows. I doubt this guy has ever shot a handgun. I don't understand why he keeps digging deeper with his lies. I catch him out and he doubles down.... it is almost pathological.

To be honest I know almost nothing about guns. Only time I've fired them was when the Navy required me to.

I don't know what normal range distances are.

 

[HumblePie]

Yes I did. The range master wasn't there but I spoke with several different people. Every one of them said 4 15 yrders and 2 25 yders. Think about Geo. Who the hell shoots a handgun at 50 yd targets? It is patently ridiculous as anybody who actually does shoot handguns (like me) knows. I doubt this guy has ever shot a handgun. I don't understand why he keeps digging deeper with his lies. I catch him out and he doubles down.... it is almost pathological.

The lines go out that far. The backstop is farther. You can push the target all the way to the cloth backstop. I've shown you the pics from facebook. So some people have wrong info that work there? Argue with the pictures.

Also I tend to shoot here too..

http://www.brackenrange.com/service.htm

They have 50 and 100 yard rifle ranges. I also shot often on the rifle range with my handgun because the handgun range is really full most of the time. If you don't get there right when they open then the wait line could be hours long for the pistol range. The rifle range was always open. Especially the 50 yard side. Most people with the rifle range are sighting their scopes at 100 yard and don't care for the 50 yard targets as much. Last time I was shooting my pistol at the 50 yard targets I had an idiot with his .50 DE in the lane next to me. Since Bracken doesn't let you shoot that caliber on the pistol range. Which most ranges do not let you do around here. So saying that people shooting a pistol on a 50 yard range doesn't happen is effing stupid on your part.

Want to try calling them up too to make they have a 50 yard range?

 

[Daverino]

Now I'm actually curious whether Humble's Bass Shop has a 50 yard range or not. . .

Don't care about whether the second range has one. Just whether Humble's original claim is true.

Now the ironic thing is that if Humble were kept to the same burden of proof that he's keeping Jordan to in this case, bshole would be justified in shooting him at this point.

bshole: good shoot.

 

[mugs]

And if the jury does that they would not be following the law. His testimony is evidence that must be used by the jury unless it can be shown that it is not as factual as it should be. Not to say the jury won't do that, but it's going to be hammered into them not to weigh the evidence based upon feelings that they can't articulate. They have to be able to state why they are disregarding Dunn's testimonial evidence.

WHAT?! The jurors are absolutely entitled to choose which portions of his testimony (if any) they believe is credible.

Remember, like the Zimmerman case, the prosecution has the hurdle of presenting evidence that overcomes self defense. And like the Zimmerman case, if the prosecution can not present that evidence, then Dunn will walk free.

Right now, with what has been presented, the prosecution has not met that burden of proof. At least not for murder. Now if they go after Dunn and his additional shots on the SUV once it began fleeing then they might nail him for attempted murder, reckless endangerment, and other miscellaneous charges.

The prosecution does not have to present any evidence to refute anything that Dunn claims. Self-defense is an affirmative defense (yes, it really is spidey). The defense has to present evidence to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors as to whether Dunn acted in self defense. It is a low standard, the defense won't meet it if the jury doesn't believe Dunn.

You and spidey seem to think that a self-defense claim is accepted at face value unless it is explicitly refuted by the prosecution, and that is not the case.

 

[HumblePie]

Now I'm actually curious whether Humble's Bass Shop has a 50 yard range or not. . .

Don't care about whether the second range has one. Just whether Humble's original claim is true.

Now the ironic thing is that if Humble were kept to the same burden of proof that he's keeping Jordan to in this case, bshole would be justified in shooting him at this point.

bshole: good shoot.

Original claim was that I could shoot at 50 yards a quarter space if I take the time with my p238.

I also said that Bass pro shop, one of the places I shoot at, of which I named another, has lanes 5-6 longer than the other 4. The distances were told to me by Lee when I asked how far the backstop on the lanes were. Which if you look at the photo I posted a link to previously, is where the cloth hangs down. At those ranges you can control where the target is at since it's on an automated wire. The blue markers on the wall mark the CHL shooting distances.

http://www.krtraining.com/KRTraining/TexasCHL/CHLtest.html

As shown in that.

You shoot at 3, 7, and 15 yards. The picture shows the blue markers for lanes 1-4 at those distances. As you can see from the picture, the cloth backstop is a good 10 yards beyond the 15 yard marker. The markers are NOT on lanes 5-6 when I was last there.

As I said, when I spoke originally with workers in the place, they all said the max lane was 25 yards. When you go there, you'll see that isn't so.

 

[HumblePie]

WHAT?! The jurors are absolutely entitled to choose which portions of his testimony (if any) they believe is credible.



The prosecution does not have to present any evidence to refute anything that Dunn claims. Self-defense is an affirmative defense (yes, it really is spidey). The defense has to present evidence to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors as to whether Dunn acted in self defense. It is a low standard, the defense won't meet it if the jury doesn't believe Dunn.

You and spidey seem to think that a self-defense claim is accepted at face value unless it is explicitly refuted by the prosecution, and that is not the case.

Mugs,

No and no.

The defense can not disregard evidence that is presented in court unless they can articulate why they are disregarding it. Usually just stating that the other side presented enough evidence to counter the other sides evidence is enough. Otherwise, it would be a form of jury nullification if the jury based their decisions on their feelings and not the law and evidence.

As for affirmative defense. No. Dunn just has to claim his shooting was self defense. Then do nothing. He need to present one shred of evidence that the shooting was self defense. It is up to the prosecution to present evidence that it was not self defense FIRST before presenting evidence it was something else like murder or manslaughter. If they can't overcome that burden of proof to disprove self defense, then nothing else matters. That is EXACTLY what happened in Zimmerman's case. The prosecution had no evidence that disproved self defense.

 

[Daverino]

Original claim was that I could shoot at 50 yards a quarter space if I take the time with my p238.

I also said that Bass pro shop, one of the places I shoot at, of which I named another, has lanes 5-6 longer than the other 4. The distances were told to me by Lee when I asked how far the backstop on the lanes were. Which if you look at the photo I posted a link to previously, is where the cloth hangs down. At those ranges you can control where the target is at since it's on an automated wire. The blue markers on the wall mark the CHL shooting distances.

http://www.krtraining.com/KRTraining/TexasCHL/CHLtest.html

As shown in that.

You shoot at 3, 7, and 15 yards. The picture shows the blue markers for lanes 1-4 at those distances. As you can see from the picture, the cloth backstop is a good 10 yards beyond the 15 yard marker. The markers are NOT on lanes 5-6 when I was last there.

As I said, when I spoke originally with workers in the place, they all said the max lane was 25 yards. When you go there, you'll see that isn't so.

Doesn't matter. What Bshole stated MAY be true. But what I've learned from reading your posts here is that something that MAY be true is absofuckinglutely true. Therefore Bshole is correct and he gets to shoot you.

 

[HumblePie]

Doesn't matter. What Bshole stated MAY be true. But what I've learned from reading your posts here is that something that MAY be true is absofuckinglutely true. Therefore Bshole is correct and he gets to shoot you.

WTF? Wow, you are stupid now at this point. Calling it out as I see it. I said that Davis may have attempted to exit the vehicle. Dunn claimed the door had started opening. The other teens all state that Davis was jiggling with the door handle and that he couldn't open it because of the child lock being on. As Geo pointed out in a recent post, the police determined that the child lock was not on.

So there is enough evidence with the testimony from the teens in the car that Davis was attempting to exit the vehicle. Dunn claims he had cracked the door open when he started firing. In none of the testimonies did any party state that Davis had exited. What I stated before was a true statement that you failed to understand by your bad reading comprehension or trollish nature or both. By attempting to open the door, Davis presents a credible threat of being able to carry out his threat of violence.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

No different than the trayvon apologists claiming that zimmerman should've let him beat his face in some more... That he want beat enough to warrant shooting him.......

 

[mugs]

Mugs,

No and no.

The defense can not disregard evidence that is presented in court unless they can articulate why they are disregarding it. Usually just stating that the other side presented enough evidence to counter the other sides evidence is enough. Otherwise, it would be a form of jury nullification if the jury based their decisions on their feelings and not the law and evidence.

I assume you mean the jury, and yeah, they absolutely can disregard testimony that they do not find credible.

Here's two non-Florida sources:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part2/2.4-2.htm
http://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Credibility.pdf

I didn't waste my time finding a Florida-specific source, because this is a really basic thing that is true everywhere. And really you're arguing with me and agreeing with me at the same time. The jury's choice to not believe Dunn, if that is their choice, would be based on the rest of the evidence that has been or will be presented at the trial. E.g. if they decide that the victims couldn't have disposed of the imaginary shotgun, and they decide that Jordan Davis probably didn't threaten Dunn or get out of the SUV, because the argument was witnessed by other people who didn't see Davis get out and didn't hear him threaten Dunn (but did hear Dunn say "you can't talk to me like that").

The jury won't just arbitrarily decide to ignore Dunn's testimony, but it is very possible that they won't believe he is telling the truth. And his testimony is the only evidence of self-defense, so if they don't believe it Dunn will not have created reasonable doubt as to whether he acted in self-defense.

As for affirmative defense. No. Dunn just has to claim his shooting was self defense. Then do nothing. He need to present one shred of evidence that the shooting was self defense. It is up to the prosecution to present evidence that it was not self defense FIRST before presenting evidence it was something else like murder or manslaughter. If they can't overcome that burden of proof to disprove self defense, then nothing else matters. That is EXACTLY what happened in Zimmerman's case. The prosecution had no evidence that disproved self defense.

This would be much easier if you would refrain from lying.

http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/...burden-of-proof-on-the-issue-of-self-defense/

Like I said, if Dunn can't provide evidence (e.g. credible testimony) that he acted in self-defense, then the state doesn't have anything with regard to self-defense. Dunn only needs to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury, which is a low standard to meet, but his claim of self-defense is not accepted at face value like you are saying.

 

[spidey07]

Reading the Zimmerman jury instructions it is not an affirmative defense, the defense must not prove or provide anything regarding self defense. The state must disprove self defense beyond reasonable doubt. The state must prove beyond reasonable doubt the homocide was not justified homocide.

If the jury has any reasonable doubt the killing was justified, they must render not-guilty.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ons-for-the-jury-in-trial-of-george-zimmerman

 

[Geosurface]

I remain uncertain of Dunn's guilt or innocence, but I've been leaning more and more toward him being essentially innocent, but possibly overreacting in how he unloaded on the fleeing vehicle (I'm not sure exactly what I think of that because the suppressing fire and adrenaline heat of the moment arguments do hold some water for me.)

Though as I said, if I could know for a fact that the third party disinterested witness heard "You're not gonna talk to me like that!" vs. tainted memory of actually having heard what Dunn says he said "Are you talking about me?" - then I would become very convinced of his guilt. Saying "You're not going to talk to me like that!" and then unloading would be pretty damned conclusive. Guilty as sin.

But setting that all aside, it would be a sweet treat to see Dunn walk if for no other reason than the jaws hanging open and the raging which would ensue. Hell, it'd be worth it just to see the look on Angela Corey's face.

I wouldn't wish him to get off even with those incentives if I didn't think there was a strong chance he was innocent though.

 

[HumblePie]

I assume you mean the jury, and yeah, they absolutely can disregard testimony that they do not find credible.

Here's two non-Florida sources:
http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part2/2.4-2.htm
http://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-General/CJI2d.Credibility.pdf

I didn't waste my time finding a Florida-specific source, because this is a really basic thing that is true everywhere. And really you're arguing with me and agreeing with me at the same time. The jury's choice to not believe Dunn, if that is their choice, would be based on the rest of the evidence that has been or will be presented at the trial. E.g. if they decide that the victims couldn't have disposed of the imaginary shotgun, and they decide that Jordan Davis probably didn't threaten Dunn or get out of the SUV, because the argument was witnessed by other people who didn't see Davis get out and didn't hear him threaten Dunn (but did hear Dunn say "you can't talk to me like that").

The jury won't just arbitrarily decide to ignore Dunn's testimony, but it is very possible that they won't believe he is telling the truth. And his testimony is the only evidence of self-defense, so if they don't believe it Dunn will not have created reasonable doubt as to whether he acted in self-defense.




This would be much easier if you would refrain from lying.

http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/...burden-of-proof-on-the-issue-of-self-defense/

Like I said, if Dunn can't provide evidence (e.g. credible testimony) that he acted in self-defense, then the state doesn't have anything with regard to self-defense. Dunn only needs to create reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury, which is a low standard to meet, but his claim of self-defense is not accepted at face value like you are saying.

Mugs, I did not say that can't disregard if they don't find it credible. But they must articulate WHY they find it not credible if asked. It cannot be based off mere emotions either. That is why there is a list of what they can take into consideration when looking at testimonial evidence in attempting to give proper weight. Saying something like, I just don't like the guy, or I don't believe anyone should shoot anyone for any reason and thus anything he says I can't believe would be examples of JURY NULLIFICATION.

As for your second point. Linking a bad ohio blog of someone that doesn't know what they were talking about in reference to a Florida self defense case doesn't prove your side of the argument here. Spidey linked what was read to the Jury in the Zimmerman case. They were instructed to determine if the prosecution had met the burden of proof to disprove self defense before they could consider if the prosecution met the burden of proof for any crime.

Self defense in Florida is not the same as affirmative defenses else where. When the defense claims self defense, they are admitting the the person committed the homicide or physical act of using force to harm another. They admit to the act, but under the circumstances that the act is legally justified. After that, the defense needs to make no presentation of evidence proving self defense in a court of law. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove self defense.

Any evidence the defense presents for their case for self defense then also has to be disproved by the prosecution.

 

[Daverino]

WTF? Wow, you are stupid now at this point. Calling it out as I see it. I said that Davis may have attempted to exit the vehicle. Dunn claimed the door had started opening. The other teens all state that Davis was jiggling with the door handle and that he couldn't open it because of the child lock being on. As Geo pointed out in a recent post, the police determined that the child lock was not on.

So there is enough evidence with the testimony from the teens in the car that Davis was attempting to exit the vehicle. Dunn claims he had cracked the door open when he started firing. In none of the testimonies did any party state that Davis had existed. This what I stated before was true. By attempting to open the door, Davis presents a credible threat of being able to carry out his threat of violence.

Heh, nope, you said the same stupid thing again. Repeat it one more time so I can tell you it's stupid again. The only person that exited their car, from all the eyewitnesses, was Dunn.

When Dunn opened fire, the driver of the SUV took off. Jordan was dead at this point, being killed almost immediately. If Jordan had opened the door it would have still been opened as they drove away. The driver of the Durango backed out of the spot, so momentum would have opened an ajar door, not closed it. He probably would have fallen out if he was shot while exiting, but instead fell to the left onto the lap of the other boy in the SUV.

If Dunn fired 'as the door was being cracked open' then Dunn had already retrieved his pistol from his glove compartment, loaded it and aimed it. If that is true then 'opening the door' was not the threat that made him retrieve his gun, load it and aim it.

The defense claims both that the boys 'stashed something' after fleeing the scene and yet had a tripod and a pocket knife, both which could have been used to threaten Dunn. If Jordan had threatened Dunn with the tripod or the knife, why didn't they stash them?

And for all of you tactically minded out there, the driver did the absolute correct thing. He got off the X. Whenever you are attacked in ambush you move. The attacker as oriented on the spot where you are and you want to break their OODA loop as quickly as possible. You are not in that place by accident and your adversary has every advantage when you stay in that place.

 

[Daverino]

But setting that all aside, it would be a sweet treat to see Dunn walk if for no other reason than the jaws hanging open and the raging which would ensue. Hell, it'd be worth it just to see the look on Angela Corey's face.

What a fucking asshole you are. You're OK with justice to a murdered 17 year old being denied if only it makes Angela Corey feel bad? Are you living in hypothetical world where this didn't actually happen and a kid didn't actually get killed?

That's about as fucked up as wanting 43 year-old fathers to get murdered to make a point about texting in theaters.

What other political points would you like to 17-year-olds to die to make?

Seriously, shame on you.

 

[Geosurface]

What a fucking asshole you are. You're OK with justice to a murdered 17 year old being denied if only it makes Angela Corey feel bad?

I wouldn't wish him to get off even with those incentives if I didn't think there was a strong chance he was innocent though.

:whiste:

 

[mugs]

Mugs, I did not say that can't disregard if they don't find it credible. But they must articulate WHY they find it not credible if asked. It cannot be based off mere emotions either. That is why there is a list of what they can take into consideration when looking at testimonial evidence in attempting to give proper weight. Saying something like, I just don't like the guy, or I don't believe anyone should shoot anyone for any reason and thus anything he says I can't believe would be examples of JURY NULLIFICATION.

As for your second point. Linking a bad ohio blog of someone that doesn't know what they were talking about in reference to a Florida self defense case doesn't prove your side of the argument here. Spidey linked what was read to the Jury in the Zimmerman case. They were instructed to determine if the prosecution had met the burden of proof to disprove self defense before they could consider if the prosecution met the burden of proof for any crime.

Self defense in Florida is not the same as affirmative defenses else where. When the defense claims self defense, they are admitting the the person committed the homicide or physical act of using force to harm another. They admit to the act, but under the circumstances that the act is legally justified. After that, the defense needs to make no presentation of evidence proving self defense in a court of law. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove self defense.

Any evidence the defense presents for their case for self defense then also has to be disproved by the prosecution.

I think I trust the law school professor who wrote that more than I trust you to understand the law in Florida.

 

[Geosurface]

The only person that exited their car, from all the eyewitnesses, was Dunn.

Think it's safe to say more eyes were on those two parking spots and Dunn in particular once shots were ringing out, as opposed to earlier when there was just an argument mostly masked to bystanders by the loud ass music?

I'm not aware of any witnesses who have said "I was watching the two vehicles closely for a minute or so leading up to the shots, and I can tell you with certainty that the door on the Durango never even began to open."

If Jordan had opened the door it would have still been opened as they drove away. The driver of the Durango backed out of the spot, so momentum would have opened an ajar door, not closed it. He probably would have fallen out if he was shot while exiting, but instead fell to the left onto the lap of the other boy in the SUV.

You're ignoring another obvious possibility: Davis starts to open the door, possibly to attack Dunn, or possibly just to scare him - and then he sees Dunn get the pistol out of his glove compartment, so he quickly pulls his leg back into the truck, and closes the door.

Recall that his best friend and the forensics say that he was the only person in the Durango who did not manage to duck before the bullets started entering the vehicle. Despite the fact that he would have had the absolute best view of what Dunn was doing and seen the gun as early as anyone could. And he was the one the gun was pointed expressly at. If anyone was going to duck, it was him. So why was he the only one who didn't? Could it be because when Dunn was getting the gun out of the glove compartment, Davis had to use up those precious moments just RETURNING to his original position, instead of ducking like the other 3 did? His friend said he tried to pull him down when the bullets started coming. Why was he still up there, exposed, and needing to be pulled down? Was it because he had been in the middle of an ongoing attempt to either intimidate or attack Dunn, which he had not yet broken off at the time the bullets started flying?

Seems likely that if Dunn had come up with his pistol and seen Davis duck and cry out in fear, he might not have started firing. The fact that he did start firing might indicate that Davis still presented himself in such a way as to seem threatening at that time.

The defense claims both that the boys 'stashed something' after fleeing the scene and yet had a tripod and a pocket knife, both which could have been used to threaten Dunn. If Jordan had threatened Dunn with the tripod or the knife, why didn't they stash them?

The pocket knife was in Davis' pocket and they likely either didn't know it was there, or forgot about it being there in the heat of everything. The tripod they would not be likely to think was incriminating in any way. If Davis had pulled it out from under the seat (Dunn says he leaned down and brought something stick shaped up) they might have seen it was now laying on the floor instead of its usual spot under the seat, and may have realized it would be wise to return it to that spot. *Shrug*

It is a damned shame there was no external video surveillance trained on those parking spots. It's also a shame they didn't dust the tripod for Davis' finger prints and test it for any blood - which might have proven it wasn't under the seat at the time he was shot.

 

[Exophase]

I really can't get past this whole idea of Davis deliberately using a tripod to look intimidating. Hard to think someone felt during a heated dispute "oh hey here's a tripod, I bet that could look sort of like a gun in the right angle, I'm going to scare this guy with it." Is that a thing people actually do? Use tripods to look like guns? Do you guys think that's why the tripod was there in the first place?

 

[Catriona]

Recall that his best friend and the forensics say that he was the only person in the Durango who did not manage to duck before the bullets started entering the vehicle.

It's tough to duck when the first rounds kill you.

 

[Vic]

No different than the trayvon apologists claiming that zimmerman should've let him beat his face in some more... That he want beat enough to warrant shooting him.......

Except that no one was attacking Dunn when he opened fire.

I didn't see this mentioned here, but the state ME just testified earlier today that, based on the trajectories of the bullet wounds, Davis was turned to his left - away from Dunn - at the time he was shot.
So the whole lunging for the door theory just imploded in the face of the evidence.

 

[Catriona]

I really can't get past this whole idea of Davis deliberately using a tripod to look intimidating. Hard to think someone felt during a heated dispute "oh hey here's a tripod, I bet that could look sort of like a gun in the right angle, I'm going to scare this guy with it." Is that a thing people actually do? Use tripods to look like guns? Do you guys think that's why the tripod was there in the first place?

I think if someone wanted to fake having a gun, a water pistol would appear more threatening than a camera tripod.

 

[Catriona]

Except that no one was attacking Dunn when he opened fire.

I didn't see this mentioned here, but the state ME just testified earlier today that, based on the trajectories of the bullet wounds, Davis was turned to his left - away from Dunn - at the time he was shot.
So the whole lunging for the door just imploded in the face of the evidence.

Good to know. I didn't hear today's testimony. That means the whole child lock issue is moot, too.

 

[Victorian Gray]

There there, it will be alright. I'll make the bad men who have different opinions than you go away. Don't worry your little head about it. Pay them no mind, they are just racist meanies.

Ever get answers for your 'questions about the Holocaust'?