Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[himkhan]

Don't act like a racist, blood thirsty pig. I give you a pass because I think you are a good guy but you have gone off the deep end. Ignorant racist murdering fucks are giving responsible gun owners like me a bad name. And people like you that get on soap boxes praising them for cleaning the streets are worse than them because you don't have the balls to pull a trigger yourself. You'd much rather some shlub do it and go to jail instead of you. After all...You get your kicks either way.

You need to get your head right. Either that or never own or touch a gun again. I don't need to be in the same group as people like you.

Good post. I can respect a gun owner such as yourslef. The person quoted on other hand :whiste:

Is there a good reason why he ignores this post of yours? I think it makes to much sense and he is ashamed to reply. 😕

 

[rudeguy]

Good post. I can respect a gun owner such as yourslef. The person quoted on other hand :whiste:

Is there a good reason why he ignores this post of yours? I think it makes to much sense and he is ashamed to reply. 😕

I always considered Spidey a friend on here. We have known each other for a very long time, bullshitted, picked on each other, you know how it is. But he crossed the line and I couldn't keep ignoring it.

My guess is he is building up steam to let loose a tirade on me. Or he could actually be thinking about what I said. I like Spidey. He really is a good person. But his posts lately don't reflect that.

 

[spidey07]

I always considered Spidey a friend on here. We have known each other for a very long time, bullshitted, picked on each other, you know how it is. But he crossed the line and I couldn't keep ignoring it.

My guess is he is building up steam to let loose a tirade on me. Or he could actually be thinking about what I said. I like Spidey. He really is a good person. But his posts lately don't reflect that.

I'm just a very strong self defense supporter and will always side for that unless something is shown to negate self defense.

In this case there wasn't anything proven to counter self defense.

There was ample opportunity with the 3 witnesses in the car to say "no, there were no threats made. He was not trying to open the door". They did not. They didn't want to commit perjury.

 

[HomerJS]

Juror in 'Loud Music' Trial Wanted Murder Conviction

Pains me to see the media call it "loud music trial" when it's not likely that he just shot and killed them due to that. The music lead to a confrontation which then turned deadly. When the media drops those distinctions their narrative becomes clear.

Valerie believes that Dunn could have rolled up his window, put his car in reverse, or simply ignored the loud music blaring from the other car. Despite the disagreement over whether shooting Davis was justified, all the jurors agreed that Dunn escalated the situation by then shooting at the others inside the car, she said.

I've been saying from the very beginning. Reasonable people would have done this and the other group should not be allowed to carry guns.

Where is the emphasis on "reasonable person" I thought that was supposed to be the standard in the law?

 

[spidey07]

I've been saying from the very beginning. Reasonable people would have done this and the other group should not be allowed to carry guns.

Where is the emphasis on "reasonable person" I thought that was supposed to be the standard in the law?

There is no duty to retreat.

The reasonable person standard applies to if a reasonable person would believe they were in danger of great bodily harm or death at the moment deadly force was used. Verbal threats of death and then acting to carry out those threats meets the reasonable person standard as any reasonable person would believe the assailant was an imminent, capable and credible threat.

If somebody says they are going to kill you, a reasonable person believes they mean it.

 

[werepossum]

When the black man killed that veteran over the argument about the basketball court, his wife said the law is written so that it is a license to kill. For me Dunn stated he saw a weapon, that was his basis for shooting. Without a weapon being found, the testimony of his GF, I just don't see how self defense is justified. At this point, you can start an argument in Florida, shoot and kill someone as long as you say I was in fear of my life. It is a license to commit lawful murder.

Agreed. Anyone can claim to have seen a weapon. There should at least be reasonable evidence that there was a weapon.

I'm just a very strong self defense supporter and will always side for that unless something is shown to negate self defense.

In this case there wasn't anything proven to counter self defense.

There was ample opportunity with the 3 witnesses in the car to say "no, there were no threats made. He was not trying to open the door". They did not. They didn't want to commit perjury.

Have to admit in my younger days I've made that claim in the heat of the moment, immediately followed by an attack. Nobody ever died, nor was that my honest intent. (I'll ignore here that it was usually followed by me getting my ass kicked since I suspect that part is unique to me - or at least to little guys with big mouths in general. Whomever famously said "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" unfortunately left out "and punch, and kick . . .")

 

[Thebobo]

Eff, get a room or lock the thread...6 vs 1/2 dozen is stupid even for P&N.

Yea but its stupid fun!

 

[rudeguy]

Yea but its stupid fun!

its a cat right?

 

[TheSiege]

Within the first hour of deliberations, juror #4, identified only as Valerie, said there was no chance of a murder conviction because two jurors thought Dunn was justified in his actions. However, Valerie, who is white, said race was not a factor in the Dunn verdict and never came up in the jury discussions.

So 10 out of the 12 wanted the murder conviction. Hmmm 404 Racism not found Spidey. The overwhelming majority wanted him convicted.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/02/19/juror-michael-dunn-trial-murder/5605009/

 

[TheSiege]

There is no duty to retreat.

The reasonable person standard applies to if a reasonable person would believe they were in danger of great bodily harm or death at the moment deadly force was used. Verbal threats of death and then acting to carry out those threats meets the reasonable person standard as any reasonable person would believe the assailant was an imminent, capable and credible threat.

If somebody says they are going to kill you, a reasonable person believes they mean it.

So if someone says to me, "I'm going to kill you" I am allowed to shoot him dead right there?

 

[spidey07]

So if someone says to me, "I'm going to kill you" I am allowed to shoot him dead right there?

If they have the means to do so and the threat is imminent then yes.

This is all covered in ccdw classes.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So if someone says to me, "I'm going to kill you" I am allowed to shoot him dead right there?

Did you not see the rest of the statement?

Verbal threats of death and then acting to carry out those threats meets the reasonable person standard as any reasonable person would believe the assailant was an imminent, capable and credible threat.

I would not advise making death threats and making any move towards the person as if you were going to carry out the threat in any state specially those with with SYG provisions.

 

[TheSiege]

Did you not see the rest of the statement?



I would not advise making death threats and making any move towards the person as if you were going to carry out the threat in any state specially those with with SYG provisions.

Well if I shoot them dead I can just say that they were coming towards me, or that I thought they were. Reasonable doubt right there

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Well if I shoot them dead I can just say that they were coming towards me, or that I thought they were. Reasonable doubt right there

That may very well be true provided there were no witnesses. Be sure not to speak with the police until you have an attorney present.

 

[rudeguy]

Anyone know what gun this guy used?

 

[HomerJS]

I'm just a very strong self defense supporter and will always side for that unless something is shown to negate self defense.

In this case there wasn't anything proven to counter self defense.

There was ample opportunity with the 3 witnesses in the car to say "no, there were no threats made. He was not trying to open the door". They did not. They didn't want to commit perjury.

You mean like no gun found and gf testifying Dunn never mentioned a gun?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Anyone know what gun this guy used?

Looks like a Taurus 92

 

[spidey07]

You mean like no gun found and gf testifying Dunn never mentioned a gun?

I mean the unrefuted evidence that Davis made threats to Mr. Dunn's life and acted to carry out those threats by attempting to open the door or actually opening the door.

Those known facts are what made Mr. Dunn's shooting justified.

A weapon is not necessary to be justified in deadly force.

 

[WHAMPOM]

GEEEZZZZE! Nine to three vote for guilty! Makes Dunn 3/4 guilty of murder one and 1/4 considered innocent. Know what they say better ten guilty go free then one innocent be convicted. Like that happens a lot! LOL!! Let's see if the next trial comes out guilty 100%

 

[theeedude]

I mean the unrefuted evidence that Davis made threats to Mr. Dunn's life and acted to carry out those threats by attempting to open the door or actually opening the door.

Those known facts are what made Mr. Dunn's shooting justified.

A weapon is not necessary to be justified in deadly force.

Good to know, so if someone shoots you in a car park, as long as they say they heard you threaten them, we'll let bygones be bygones.

 

[spidey07]

Good to know, so if someone shoots you in a car park, as long as they say they heard you threaten them, we'll let bygones be bygones.

No, that would be illegal/murder. Because I would not be a credible, capable nor imminent threat.

 

[HumblePie]

Looks like a Taurus 92

Yep. I got that one, but the all blued model. Picked it up on a black Friday sales a bit back at Academy for $300. Not sure I would carry the chrome one in my car though if I had one. Range guns only I can see being chrome. Anything that might be used for a defensive purpose I'll leave blued only.

 

[HomerJS]

I mean the unrefuted evidence that Davis made threats to Mr. Dunn's life and acted to carry out those threats by attempting to open the door or actually opening the door.

Those known facts are what made Mr. Dunn's shooting justified.

A weapon is not necessary to be justified in deadly force.

None of the other witnesses testified Davis threatened to kill Dunn.

In this case if a weapon is primary to testimony and that is refuted from multiple sources that testimony is not credible. Therefore witness (Dunn) is not credible.

 

[Daverino]

Good to know, so if someone shoots you in a car park, as long as they say they heard you threaten them, we'll let bygones be bygones.

Spidey's version of self-defense:

It's coming right at us!

 

[theeedude]

No, that would be illegal/murder. Because I would not be a credible, capable nor imminent threat.

Sure you would. If the killer says they heard you say you'd kill them, you are fair game. Not like you would be around to say otherwise anyways. So it would be his word against no one's, and he has the benefit of the doubt.