Another "stand your ground" murder

[9thIDdoc]

I don't think his defence as stated will stand. A gun that isn't there is not a threat.

I thought the same thing but according the rw's, we're both wrong.

But hey, I also didn't know that ice tea and skittles were weapons.

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 Professor]

I don't think his defence as stated will stand. A gun that isn't there is not a threat.

It doesn't matter whether or not a gun was in the car, as long as Dunn thought there was. To use deadly force, Dunn would have to prove that he REASONABLY believed he was in danger of death or serious bodily injury at the time he fired the shots. If he reasonably thought that one of the teens was armed and that he would be shot if he did not act when he did, then under the law he acted in self defense.

In self defense, what the defendant reasonably believed is even more important than the facts. For example, suppose that John and his friends planned on playing a prank on Tim. John was to approach Tim with a gun and threaten to kill him for messing with his girl. John acts as though he was angry to carry off the prank. However, unknown to John, Tim was lawfully armed and he pulled out his gun and fired into John's chest killing him. In fact, John never intended to shot Tim but under the law John's intent doesn't matter in the least. In fact, Tim was never in any danger but since he reasonably thought he was he was allowed to use deadly force in self defense. Even if John had used a toy gun Tim still had the right to shoot in self defense if he reasonably thought the gun to be real.

In the present case, if Dunn can prove someone in the car had threatened to kill him and he saw what he reasonable believed to be a gun in someone's hand, he might be able to claim self defense. However, under the law it is not enough for Dunn to merely say he thought he saw a gun. Rather, Dunn must prove that he reasonably thought he saw a gun. It is the function of the jury to determine whether or not to believe Dunn. If there was nothing in the car which reasonably resembled a gun, Dunn is done (pun intended).

The most troubling fact is that Dunn pulled the trigger 8 times. That makes it appear he wanted to kill as many people as he could, and that is inconsistent with a claim of self-defense. I am curious what the shot patterns will reveal.

I need a lot more information before I can predict what will happen. However, based upon the limited knowledge I have, I doubt that deadly force would be justified if Dunn is unable to prove he truly thought he saw a gun. Mere threats do not give rise to the use of deadly force. It is the threat coupled with the capacity to carry out that threat that justifies deadly force. I can't see how a car full of teenagers, even angry ones, justifies deadly force. Now, if after threatening to kill Dunn the teens got out of the car and approached him that is another story. However, as long as they are sitting in the car, they are not a present danger to anyone.

I seriously doubt that Dunn is going to get away with this. I strongly expect a plea deal of some kind. I also anticipate a wrongful death civil action.

Just my own humble opinion.

 

[Politico]

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.

He thought he saw a weapon. All he has to do is articulate that on the stand and he won't be charged.

If he's on the stand he's already been charged.

 

[Barb]

I don't think his defence as stated will stand. A gun that isn't there is not a threat.

It works for cops.

Sad, but so.

 

[Barb]

I don't think his defence as stated will stand. A gun that isn't there is not a threat.

I thought the same thing but according the rw's, we're both wrong.

But hey, I also didn't know that ice tea and skittles were weapons.

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.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I don't think his defence as stated will stand. A gun that isn't there is not a threat.

I thought the same thing but according the rw's, we're both wrong.

But hey, I also didn't know that ice tea and skittles were weapons.

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.

Dudley considers ANYONE who does not think like him a "rw".....that shows how "intelligent" he is.....or thinks he is....

 

[9thIDdoc]

I thought the same thing but according the rw's, we're both wrong.

But hey, I also didn't know that ice tea and skittles were weapons.

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.

Read again; that is the opinion of whoever wrote the article. "Self defence" is-or can be-used as a defence everywhere I know about including places that never heard of "stand your ground".

The simple presence by itself of a firearm does not constitute a lethal threat nor does it's absence preclude the posibility of (other forms) lethal threat.

 

[NoNukes]

I don't think his defence as stated will stand. A gun that isn't there is not a threat.

I thought the same thing but according the rw's, we're both wrong.

But hey, I also didn't know that ice tea and skittles were weapons.

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.

How can you support a law that leads to this? If it is self defense, it is self defense.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

But hey, I also didn't know that ice tea and skittles were weapons.

Who does?

 

[KissMy]

I don't think his defence as stated will stand. A gun that isn't there is not a threat.

I thought the same thing but according the rw's, we're both wrong.

But hey, I also didn't know that ice tea and skittles were weapons.

Why did you fail to mention the other item in Treyvon's possession?

 

[9thIDdoc]

"How can you support a law that leads to this?"

I wouldn't. What makes you think it did?

 

[Katzndogz]

The veneer of civilization is getting thinner all the time.

Teens are getting feral. Not all of them, but no one wants to take that chance. What happened is obvious. When the man told the kid to turn down the radio, the kid said something in response that caused the man to react with fear. Whatever happened, this man thought his life was in danger. Attacks by teens, individually and in packs, occur with far more frequency than a victim, or would be victim, fighting back.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The veneer of civilization is getting thinner all the time.

Teens are getting feral. Not all of them, but no one wants to take that chance. What happened is obvious. When the man told the kid to turn down the radio, the kid said something in response that caused the man to react with fear. Whatever happened, this man thought his life was in danger. Attacks by teens, individually and in packs, occur with far more frequency than a victim, or would be victim, fighting back.

And if that's all it was, then he had no right to shoot the kid.

 

[Katzndogz]

The veneer of civilization is getting thinner all the time.

Teens are getting feral. Not all of them, but no one wants to take that chance. What happened is obvious. When the man told the kid to turn down the radio, the kid said something in response that caused the man to react with fear. Whatever happened, this man thought his life was in danger. Attacks by teens, individually and in packs, occur with far more frequency than a victim, or would be victim, fighting back.

And if that's all it was, then he had no right to shoot the kid.

Of course he had no right to shoot the kid. I don't know what the kid said, or did, to put this man in the position of thinking that his life might be in danger. This is what happens when the people become this distrustful and threatened by one another. There have been so many unprovoked attacks by teens, sometimes just having fun that this man's reaction isn't surprising at all. Even if it was wrong, it shouldn't come as a surprise.

 

[Political Junky]

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought the same thing but according the rw's, we're both wrong.

But hey, I also didn't know that ice tea and skittles were weapons.

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.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Shooting of Florida teen is no Trayvon Martin case, attorney says - CNN.com

Dunn 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.

Michael Dunn, Florida Man, Invokes 'Stand Your Ground' Law After Shooting Black Teen

His lawyer said that her client acted "responsibly and in self defense."

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.

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.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

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.

Really? So all I should need to do to gun someone down is just to say later on that I thought I saw a weapon? Awesome!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I thought the same thing but according the rw's, we're both wrong.

But hey, I also didn't know that ice tea and skittles were weapons.

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.

How can you support a law that leads to this? If it is self defense, it is self defense.

Leads to what? All the stand your ground law does is allow a defendant to raise the issue of self defense before trial, and allows a person to argue that he did not have to run away before defending himself. That has exactly zero to do with what happened here.