OohPooPahDoo
Gold Member
I don't think his defence as stated will stand. A gun that isn't there is not a threat.
Yeah - but he says he thought he saw one - and they probably looked thuggish - so he should get off. No crime here. Move on.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't think his defence as stated will stand. A gun that isn't there is not a threat.
The Florida "stand your ground" law applies ANYWHERE - there is no duty to flee, whatsoever. That's the point of the law. In most other states, when you are not in your own home, you have a first duty to flee from a potential deadly conflict, with deadly force only being allowed when fleeing is not a reasonable option.You lose. Again.I'll bet the usual rw's line up to say that loud music is a capital offense and that the killer was right to kill the kid.
Go back to school, learn to read and comprehend. Break the chains of yer' Liberal Conditioning.
He thought he saw a weapon. All he has to do is articulate that on the stand and he won't be charged.
He's already charged and jailed. After unloadiing 8 bullets into the SUV, Michael Dunn DROVE AWAY.
He has already shot off his mouth about the teens possibly being 'gang members'.
A gas station parking area is not where you Stand Your Ground. Don't like loud music? Drive away.
You don't completely unload your gun at kids, then drive away, then whine about the kind of kids you THOUGHT they were.
Michael Dunn is toast.
Regards from Rosie
A caller to a talk show said that one of the kids pointed a shotgun at the shooter. The police found no weapon in the van. Apparently that was the shooter's defense. A piss poor one.
Shooting of Florida teen is no Trayvon Martin case, attorney says - CNN.com
Michael Dunn, Florida Man, Invokes 'Stand Your Ground' Law After Shooting Black TeenDunn told authorities that he had asked the teens to turn down the blaring music from their vehicle adjacent to his, as he waited for his girlfriend to return to the car.
Michael Dunn, 45, was denied bond earlier this week on the murder charge.
He heard threats from the teens, Dunn told police, he felt threatened and thought he saw a gun in the teens' car. He grabbed his gun and fired at least eight shots, authorities said.
Seventeen-year-old Jordan Davis, among the teens, was killed. There were no guns found inside the teens' car, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said.
I'll bet the usual rw's line up to say that loud music is a capital offense and that the killer was right to kill the kid.His lawyer said that her client acted "responsibly and in self defense."
They'll be lining up to blame the victim, that's for sure. Any kind of prior offenses they have on their record - even if its just pot - will be plenty enough to justify their murder in the mind of the racists righties.
The Florida "stand your ground" law applies ANYWHERE - there is no duty to flee, whatsoever. That's the point of the law. In most other states, when you are not in your own home, you have a first duty to flee from a potential deadly conflict, with deadly force only being allowed when fleeing is not a reasonable option.You lose. Again.
Go back to school, learn to read and comprehend. Break the chains of yer' Liberal Conditioning.
He thought he saw a weapon. All he has to do is articulate that on the stand and he won't be charged.
He's already charged and jailed. After unloadiing 8 bullets into the SUV, Michael Dunn DROVE AWAY.
He has already shot off his mouth about the teens possibly being 'gang members'.
A gas station parking area is not where you Stand Your Ground. Don't like loud music? Drive away.
You don't completely unload your gun at kids, then drive away, then whine about the kind of kids you THOUGHT they were.
Michael Dunn is toast.
Regards from Rosie
The Florida "stand your ground" law applies ANYWHERE - there is no duty to flee, whatsoever. That's the point of the law. In most other states, when you are not in your own home, you have a first duty to flee from a potential deadly conflict, with deadly force only being allowed when fleeing is not a reasonable option.You lose. Again.
Go back to school, learn to read and comprehend. Break the chains of yer' Liberal Conditioning.
He thought he saw a weapon. All he has to do is articulate that on the stand and he won't be charged.
He's already charged and jailed. After unloadiing 8 bullets into the SUV, Michael Dunn DROVE AWAY.
He has already shot off his mouth about the teens possibly being 'gang members'.
A gas station parking area is not where you Stand Your Ground. Don't like loud music? Drive away.
You don't completely unload your gun at kids, then drive away, then whine about the kind of kids you THOUGHT they were.
Michael Dunn is toast.
Regards from Rosie
A gun that isn't there is not a threat.
I thought the same thing but according the rw's, we're both wrong.
Absolutely. You cannot open fire and then say that you thought you saw a gun.
So what you all are saying is if a mistake is made and there's no weapon the person should be charged with murder.
The Florida "stand your ground" law applies ANYWHERE - there is no duty to flee, whatsoever. That's the point of the law. In most other states, when you are not in your own home, you have a first duty to flee from a potential deadly conflict, with deadly force only being allowed when fleeing is not a reasonable option.You lose. Again.
Go back to school, learn to read and comprehend. Break the chains of yer' Liberal Conditioning.
He thought he saw a weapon. All he has to do is articulate that on the stand and he won't be charged.
He's already charged and jailed. After unloadiing 8 bullets into the SUV, Michael Dunn DROVE AWAY.
He has already shot off his mouth about the teens possibly being 'gang members'.
A gas station parking area is not where you Stand Your Ground. Don't like loud music? Drive away.
You don't completely unload your gun at kids, then drive away, then whine about the kind of kids you THOUGHT they were.
Michael Dunn is toast.
Regards from Rosie
"How can you support a law that leads to this?"
I wouldn't. What makes you think it did?
A caller to a talk show said that one of the kids pointed a shotgun at the shooter. The police found no weapon in the van. Apparently that was the shooter's defense. A piss poor one.
I was in a van once when we got pulled over by a cop because he thought he saw a gun. It turns out he saw an oar. Was that cop wrong to pull us over?
"How can you support a law that leads to this?"
I wouldn't. What makes you think it did?
The guy thought he was being threatened and opened fire. This will probably happen a lot because of this law.
The Florida "stand your ground" law applies ANYWHERE - there is no duty to flee, whatsoever. That's the point of the law. In most other states, when you are not in your own home, you have a first duty to flee from a potential deadly conflict, with deadly force only being allowed when fleeing is not a reasonable option.He's already charged and jailed. After unloadiing 8 bullets into the SUV, Michael Dunn DROVE AWAY.
He has already shot off his mouth about the teens possibly being 'gang members'.
A gas station parking area is not where you Stand Your Ground. Don't like loud music? Drive away.
You don't completely unload your gun at kids, then drive away, then whine about the kind of kids you THOUGHT they were.
Michael Dunn is toast.
Regards from Rosie
Actually, in most other states you do not have a duty to flee. In fact, California actually has more lenient self defense laws than Florida. In California George Martin probably would not even have been charged.
Odd, you normally consider me one of the "rw's".
And this incident doesn't actually have anything to do with the "Stand your ground" law which I support.
The guy's lawyer is using "stand your ground" as his defense.
Lawyers always raise every possible issue in defense of their client. Personally, I don't think it applies here, and I see no reason for the judge to even consider it. I don't know enough about Florida law to actually state whether it is actually necessary to hold a hearing simply because someone raises the issue, so I won't say anything about that specifically.
I do think the guy has a claim to self defense, and that the lack of a gun being found does not negate self defense automatically. I think he will have a very hard time actually proving it, but I think he has the right to raise the issue.
The only thing I see in the story that the lawyer said is that this is nothing like the Trayvon Martin case.
The Florida "stand your ground" law applies ANYWHERE - there is no duty to flee, whatsoever. That's the point of the law. In most other states, when you are not in your own home, you have a first duty to flee from a potential deadly conflict, with deadly force only being allowed when fleeing is not a reasonable option.
Actually, in most other states you do not have a duty to flee. In fact, California actually has more lenient self defense laws than Florida. In California George Martin probably would not even have been charged.
California is not "most other states." Stand your ground is what it implies, and what set it apart from other laws, to wit: in most other states you DO have a duty to remove yourself from a situation that looks like it is escalating, if you are able to do so.
The whole law started out innocently enough, as a way to prevent domestic violence victims who managed to successfully defend themselves from being prosecuted for allowing themselves to be cornered. My late ex-husband threw a dining room table at me. The police wouldn't arrest him because I had the presence of mind to duck.
Go figure.
That said, it has become a tool for the defense in murder cases.
Go figure.
The guy's lawyer is using "stand your ground" as his defense.
Lawyers always raise every possible issue in defense of their client. Personally, I don't think it applies here, and I see no reason for the judge to even consider it. I don't know enough about Florida law to actually state whether it is actually necessary to hold a hearing simply because someone raises the issue, so I won't say anything about that specifically.
I do think the guy has a claim to self defense, and that the lack of a gun being found does not negate self defense automatically. I think he will have a very hard time actually proving it, but I think he has the right to raise the issue.
The only thing I see in the story that the lawyer said is that this is nothing like the Trayvon Martin case.
If not for that law, that issue wouldn't an available defense.
The lawyer is still using the same law to defend the client, and until someone uses the defense in a domestic violence case, it will not be applied for the reason it was crafted. Maybe it has...that wouldn't make national news though, would it?
I'll wait for more facts before making a judgement.
It could be he honestly thought he saw a gun and fired in self defense, or he could be a guy who got into a yelling match that escalated until he fired 8 shots into a car of unarmed teens.
I agree, we need more information, but eight shots is an awful lot. That doesn't sound like self defense to me; that sounds like rage.
Lawyers always raise every possible issue in defense of their client. Personally, I don't think it applies here, and I see no reason for the judge to even consider it. I don't know enough about Florida law to actually state whether it is actually necessary to hold a hearing simply because someone raises the issue, so I won't say anything about that specifically.
I do think the guy has a claim to self defense, and that the lack of a gun being found does not negate self defense automatically. I think he will have a very hard time actually proving it, but I think he has the right to raise the issue.
The only thing I see in the story that the lawyer said is that this is nothing like the Trayvon Martin case.
If not for that law, that issue wouldn't an available defense.
The lawyer is still using the same law to defend the client, and until someone uses the defense in a domestic violence case, it will not be applied for the reason it was crafted. Maybe it has...that wouldn't make national news though, would it?
I posted a case about a woman who raised the stand your ground defense when she shot her husband who had a history of abuse, and a restraining order that prevented him from entering her apartment. Even though it was in Florida, and after the stand your ground law was passed, the judge refused to let he raise it at trial. She was found guilty, and I object to that. I want that judge fired, and her to be walking free.
If that means letting idiots like this raise the issue even when it isn't warranted, it is a small price to pay.
You lose. Again.I'll bet the usual rw's line up to say that loud music is a capital offense and that the killer was right to kill the kid.
Go back to school, learn to read and comprehend. Break the chains of yer' Liberal Conditioning.
He thought he saw a weapon. All he has to do is articulate that on the stand and he won't be charged.
"...and what set it apart from other laws, to wit: in most other states you DO have a duty to remove yourself from a situation that looks like it is escalating, if you are able to do so."
What other states? This statement was challenged when you made it before. How about some evidence or support.
Many states have enacted stand your ground laws that remove the duty to retreat before using force in self-defense. The following is a list of states with stand your ground laws on the books. This list is limited to those states whose legislatures have gone through the process of enacting laws that specifically affirm an individuals right to stand their ground when defending themselves against a threat. Other states may have adopted a stand your ground doctrine through judicial interpretation of their self-defense laws, but those states are not included in this list.