• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

Page 179 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
spidey07 said:
Dunn was not convicted of shooting Davis and killing him, the prosecution could not prove Davis wasn't a clear, credible and imminent threat vs. evidence he was.

You realize that, right? According to law he was well within his rights to fire in self defense, that much is certain. There is case law that sets the precedent of verbal threats alone and the capability to carry them imminently = justified deadly force.

This is all covered in detail in CCDW classes sanctioned by the state and local sheriff.
Click to expand...

Regardless Spidey he will be going to jail for 60+ years
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Again regardless Spidey, he will be in jail for 60+ years.
Click to expand...

But not for killing Davis and not for the shots he fired at him in clear self defense.

Get that yet? If he would have not fired those other 3 shots he'd be in the clear. If a weapon was recovered those those would also be justified.

Remember that if you decide to threaten somebody, you may get justifiably dead.

Like talking to 12 year olds on this shit. Learn the lesson here, don't do what Davis did or you'll get lawfully dead.
 
spidey07 said:
But not for killing Davis and not for the shots he fired at him in clear self defense.

Get that yet? If he would have not fired those other 3 shots he'd be in the clear. If a weapon was recovered those those would also be justified.

Remember that if you decide to threaten somebody, you may get justifiably dead.

Like talking to 12 year olds on this shit. Learn the lesson here, don't do what Davis did or you'll get lawfully dead.
Click to expand...

Again Spidey he will be re-tried and then will be going to jail forever.
 
Thebobo said:
Again Spidey he will be re-tried and then will be going to jail forever.
Click to expand...

And again, he was not convicted in killing Davis.

He will not be convicted. If you watched the trial you'd know this. If you understood self defense laws, you'd know this.

but you don't, you won't and remain willfully fucking stupid.

HE WAS NOT CONVICTED FOR KILLING THE THUG!
 
TerryMathews said:
So you feel that Florida's pre-SYG laws were flawed? In what way?

No one disputes that both men could've made wiser decisions that night. I don't think Z expected Martin to assault him when he approached. That's not how reasonable people behave.

We have a pretty good idea based on the physical evidence and the ballistic evidence that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot, and that Martin struck Zimmerman prior to being shot. What piece of the altercation do you think we dont know about that would make those facts not relevant?
Click to expand...

It's still not clear who started the altercation, just who ended it. If, for example, Zimmerman had grabbed Martin by the arm at the beginning of the confrontation then Martin would have been justified in defending himself. But we'll never know.

And that's where I believe self-defense laws are flawed. I have no problem with self-defense, or even self-defense with deadly force. But I have a problem with self-defense with lethal force when the only other witness is dead. It's a Catch-22. In order to allow justice via self-defense you open up a massive loophole for the gravest of injustices. That bothers me. And you cannot legally force the shooter to offer up evidence or statements that would indict him without running afoul with the Fifth Amendment.

What bothers me further is the Zimmerman had no reasonable expectation to NEED to defend himself. He was in his car, safe, and armed. If Zimmerman had no intention of confronting Martin, he had no need to take the gun from the car with him. Now, legally, of course, nothing stopped Zimmerman from leaving his car or confronting Martin. But Zimmerman failed utterly to do the responsible thing and Martin was killed because of it.

There are many other scenarios where one can act technically legally but tremendously irresponsibly although few have as dire an outcome as self-defense with deadly force. That drives me to the conclusion that responsibility should be a prerequisite for gun ownership, especially if you are going to carry. But the pendulum is swinging the other way, as we seek to reduce the responsibility requirements for gun handling. Putting deadly force in the the hands of people progressively less capable or wise to use it (or more specifically, NOT to use it) is bothersome to me. And I'm fully aware that the 2nd Amendment, as currently interpreted, means that is not going to change in my lifetime.

But do not misunderstand that with self defense laws as they stand now, some innocent people will die so that other innocent people can protect themselves. It is not a cost free equation on either side, and the cost will always be innocent people's lives. It is up to all of us to decide which dead-yet-innocent population we're more comfortable with.
 
Daverino said:
It's still not clear who started the altercation, just who ended it. If, for example, Zimmerman had grabbed Martin by the arm at the beginning of the confrontation then Martin would have been justified in defending himself. But we'll never know.

And that's where I believe self-defense laws are flawed. I have no problem with self-defense, or even self-defense with deadly force. But I have a problem with self-defense with lethal force when the only other witness is dead. It's a Catch-22. In order to allow justice via self-defense you open up a massive loophole for the gravest of injustices. That bothers me. And you cannot legally force the shooter to offer up evidence or statements that would indict him without running afoul with the Fifth Amendment.

What bothers me further is the Zimmerman had no reasonable expectation to NEED to defend himself. He was in his car, safe, and armed. If Zimmerman had no intention of confronting Martin, he had no need to take the gun from the car with him. Now, legally, of course, nothing stopped Zimmerman from leaving his car or confronting Martin. But Zimmerman failed utterly to do the responsible thing and Martin was killed because of it.

There are many other scenarios where one can act technically legally but tremendously irresponsibly although few have as dire an outcome as self-defense with deadly force. That drives me to the conclusion that responsibility should be a prerequisite for gun ownership, especially if you are going to carry. But the pendulum is swinging the other way, as we seek to reduce the responsibility requirements for gun handling. Putting deadly force in the the hands of people progressively less capable or wise to use it (or more specifically, NOT to use it) is bothersome to me. And I'm fully aware that the 2nd Amendment, as currently interpreted, means that is not going to change in my lifetime.

But do not misunderstand that with self defense laws as they stand now, some innocent people will die so that other innocent people can protect themselves. It is not a cost free equation on either side, and the cost will always be innocent people's lives. It is up to all of us to decide which dead-yet-innocent population we're more comfortable with.
Click to expand...
All of your points are valid, but "it is what it is".

I am a proponent of police having vest cams 100% of the time while on the job (unless going poopy). Perhaps in the future there can be tiny microphones that gun owners can put on their guns, unobtrusive, and when the gun is fired the thing starts saving the previous several minutes. This would support the defense of people claiming self-defense (if it was legit).
 
spidey07 said:
But not for killing Davis and not for the shots he fired at him in clear self defense.

Get that yet? If he would have not fired those other 3 shots he'd be in the clear. If a weapon was recovered those those would also be justified.

Remember that if you decide to threaten somebody, you may get justifiably dead.

Like talking to 12 year olds on this shit. Learn the lesson here, don't do what Davis did or you'll get lawfully dead.
Click to expand...

Regardless Spidey he will be going to jail for 60+ years.
 
spidey07 said:
But not for killing the "teen".
Click to expand...

I'm sure that brings him lots of comfort. Think about the sentence Spidey That would be like going to jail in 1954 and being released today (assuming he can live that long). Think about that for a moment, think of all that has happened, think of never going camping or a 4th of July party or having a birthday or even driving a car since 1954.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
I'm sure that brings him lots of comfort. Think about the sentence Spidey That would be like going to jail in 1954 and being released today (assuming he can live that long). Think about that for a moment, think of all that has happened, think of never going camping or a 4th of July party or having a birthday or even driving a car since 1954.
Click to expand...

Think about Davis being 6 feet under.

Lawfully. Justifiably.

We have JUSTICE.
 
rudeguy said:
His killing was ruled justified?
Click to expand...

He was not convicted of any crime in killing Davis. As such until a jury finds him guilty he is innocent and therefore his use of force is justified.

Innocent until proven guilty.

You're not a 12 year old, don't act like one.
 
spidey07 said:
Don't know if you're paying attention, but for now he is innocent of the crime of davis homocide.

You know that, right?
Click to expand...

For now. There is a retrial coming.
He wasn't acquitted, nor was the charge dismissed as a matter of law, so anyone who does what he did to Davis can still expect to be charged with murder and possibly convicted. So don't get too trigger happy just yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top