Well...

Posted by: MacBozo

Well... - 02/15/14 04:32 PM

...at least he'll be put away for quite a while.

Michael Dunn convicted of attempted murder; jury can't decide on murder
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Well... - 02/15/14 06:25 PM

Have you seen the Republican response?

Originally Posted By: Andy Borowitz
TALLAHASSEE - Florida Gov. RIck Scott said tonight that the time had come for Floridians to do "some serious soul-searching about the problem of loud music that is plaguing our cities and suburbs." He said that he would urge legislators to consider "strict volume-control measures" that would prohibit car stereos from being played at a setting of 5 or louder. "It's time to stop the madness," he said.


It's Borowitz. But I wouldn't be surprised!
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Well... - 02/15/14 06:51 PM

The state prosecutor is going for a retrial on the primary charge.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Well... - 02/15/14 07:54 PM

Well partial justice, and as usual the GOP doesn't not see reality !!!
Guns don't kill people.... Loud music does! crazy crazy
Posted by: MrB

Re: Well... - 02/15/14 10:17 PM

I was thinking that we didn't know a lot of what happen there, because from what was written in the news it looked like a slam dunk. The jurors must have seen something in the security videos or the somewhat poor protection of the scene by the police in not scouring the bushes for the "said shotgun"

Dave
Posted by: steveg

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 02:26 AM

You thought wrong, Dave. There was no gun. The PD did not under-investigate anything. This is — as was the case in the Zimmerman trial — the prosecution's incompetence. Talk about making the same mistakes twice! Over-charging to placate the left and the gun control sector and under-prosecuting to pander to the right and the gun lobby.

First degree murder was never a slam dunk. Second degree would have been.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 04:00 AM

I'm sure I did. I haven't read up on aal they evidence or followed the trial as you have but was just commenting based on that I had heard that the police hadn't looked for the gun that he said he saw as well as the could have.

I hadn't read until just recently that the teens had also driven off from the scene. But in all trials unless we watch the trial we don't hear all the details.

But it does look as if was found guilty enough to put him away for a few years

Dave
Posted by: steveg

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 04:46 AM

[rant] Yes, he may spend the next 75 years in prison just based on the lesser charges (and at his age of 47, that may as well be a life sentence). But the principal of murder, 1st or 2nd degree or even attempted — and therefore true justice — was totally missed by the prosecution because there were issues they failed exploit: Intensely racist letters Dunn wrote from jail; his failure to call 911 immediately after the incident; his fiancee's contradictory testimony regarding the mention of a gun; the story told by the ballistic rods in the victims' car; if, as character witnesses allege, he was such a gentle sole, why does a software engineer need to carry loaded semi-auto handgun in his glove compartment?

What I know a/b criminal law would be lost on the head of a pin. But I do know something a/b trying a case, because when I pitch new creative to a client, that's exactly what I'm doing. If I knowingly try to sell a concept that a client will never buy, I deserve to lose the pitch. I look at the client's history, the market and consumers/end users in question, the competitive analysis, and my own success rate relative to the nature of the ideas I put forth. If it's obvious that a client will not embrace ideas of a "1st degree" intensity, I will attempt to execute what they're likely to favor in a way that meets my own standards of creative integrity.

The prosecution did not — again — take that approach. They knowingly tried to sell the unsellable under these circumstances. [/rant]
Posted by: DLC

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 05:58 AM

I think the haunting thing was the Testimony from his fiancé. You could tell she was visibly shaken between telling the truth and trying to defend her fiancé. Her fiancé is a cold-blooded murderer; she had a conscience. That's the "truth"!

Hope he's NOT eligible for parole for 25 years! That'd put him at 72! If he lives that long. smirk
Posted by: steveg

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 06:08 AM

Evidently, the state wants to retry the 1st degree murder charge. Are they that stupid? It failed twice, once with Zimmerman and now with Dunn? Try him on 2nd degree murder — and DO NOT let the same inept idiots inside the courtroom, or let Dunn do the 75 w/o parole.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 06:21 AM

I'll take " slammer #2" for 75! Saves us the trouble !!! grin

That's what I call a "Dunn" deal ! whistle

Posted by: steveg

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 06:37 AM

Every time one of these SYG-ers beats a capitol murder charge, it emboldens the NRA leadership and pro-gun groups, who in turn bring that much more pressure to bear on lawmakers. It just sucks.

This will sound terribly goulish and sensationalist, but the only way to make a real impact on those who would reject common sense for public safety is to make the raw images of shooting victims available to the public — or at least force legislators to look at them. Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I have to think that the sight of children torn to shreds by bullets would force these deniers to confront the reality of violence and its consequences, and change their collective POV.

I know that the dignity of victims and the privacy of their families is so very important, but sometime you have to fight radical ideas with radical measures — distasteful as they may be.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 07:08 AM

They are waiting to see if the judge imposes the maximum sentences first. I agree, though that they should have gone for 2nd degree murder in the first place.

They/we should amend the SYG law to exclude those who initiate the confrontation from invoking it. If you start the confrontation, then you are not standing your ground. You become the aggressor.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 07:18 AM

They/we should amend repeal the SYG law. I see no gray areas with this concept. One should have to prove that deadly force as a self-defense measure was the ONLY option available — as is the case in non-SYG states. This Charles Bronson/Death Wish mentality has got to stop!
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 08:29 AM

I was going for what might actually work here in Floriduh. A total repeal just isn't going to happen.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 08:55 AM

If Crist wins and a few red districts get flipped…?
Posted by: DLC

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 09:21 AM

Originally Posted By: MacBozo
They are waiting to see if the judge imposes the maximum sentences first. I agree, though that they should have gone for 2nd degree murder in the first place.

They/we should amend the SYG law to exclude those who initiate the confrontation from invoking it. If you start the confrontation, then you are not standing your ground. You become the aggressor.

In the case of Travon- how would you know? 1 witness living! Dunn is different; but the whole Fi-ng law is stupid! No STG unless in your home or business- period!
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 10:23 AM

While I agree the SYG laws are terrible, didn't the article state that SYG wasn't used as the defense in this case? It was simply "my client thought he was defending himself," which can be used as a defense in any state, SYG law or no …

At any rate, wether or not they should have tried for Murder 2 will be a moot point if this guy gets max sentences on the attempted murder 2 convictions -- as you say, it'll effectively be the rest of his life in prison ...
Posted by: steveg

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 11:44 AM

This absolutely was SYG. It was part of the jury instructions.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 11:47 AM

I wasn't aware that Dunn used the stand your ground defense . If so not sure getting out of his car would qualify.

Also the Zimmerman case is kept being referenced. They are nothing in common except the victims being black teens.

Dave
Posted by: MrB

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 11:49 AM

Originally Posted By: steveg
They/we should amend repeal the SYG law. I see no gray areas with this concept. One should have to prove that deadly force as a self-defense measure was the ONLY option available — as is the case in non-SYG states. This Charles Bronson/Death Wish mentality has got to stop!


I disagree. I feel the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty not that the defendant to prove his innocence.

Dave
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 12:58 PM

The problem, MrB is that guilt or innocence is in relation to the law that's on the books. If the law that's on the books is SYG, then it's in relation to that stupidity that guilt or innocence is to be determined. I don't know how the law is interpreted, but here's the relevant section:

Originally Posted By: FL SYG Law
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.


The key point of distinction between this law and self-defense laws in general is the "no duty to retreat." That clause invites confrontations that end in death. The matter of interpretation, no doubt, comes in on the "reasonably believes" clause. Before my two dogs died, I used to walk them at night, usually around 10 or so. It's dark. It's quiet. It's a neighborhood where, if I were minded to be antsy, I could "reasonably believe" that almost anyone I encountered had mens rea (got that one from watching Legally Blonde smile ).

Or the corner bar, which has never had a fight break out, but surely such things happen. Is the guy in a bar fight justified in "reasonably believing" that the guy who's hitting him should be shot? Sounds like the answer is yes--he has no obligation to retreat, and if standing his ground endangers him then blow away the other dude.

Dude is the right word here, I think.
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 03:18 PM

Originally Posted By: MrB
Originally Posted By: steveg
They/we should amend repeal the SYG law. I see no gray areas with this concept. One should have to prove that deadly force as a self-defense measure was the ONLY option available — as is the case in non-SYG states. This Charles Bronson/Death Wish mentality has got to stop!


I disagree. I feel the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty not that the defendant to prove his innocence.

Dave


Well, in this case, the defendant is definitely guilty of shooting someone -- that's not in dispute. The question is wether that shooting was justified under law. In such a situation, I think the onus does shift more to the defense to demonstrate why an otherwise-illegal act is justified.

The problem with SYG laws is that they lower the benchmarks for such justification from "I did everything I could not to use deadly force, there was just no other way out" to simply "I felt threatened." As long as the defendant meets that incredibly low standard, such laws go on to almost completely absolve the shooter from any responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Which I think we would all agree is not a very good idea.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Well... - 02/16/14 11:13 PM

In the Dunn shooting, I believe the problem arose in that the judge did not explain the definitions adequately. In any case this was a case of self defense which is not stand your ground. The jury should have been able to determine whether it was. But of course, there have been many cases that have been resulted in hung juries before the existence of the Stand your ground statutes. I believe that this statue is being blamed for the indecision of juries which have a tendency to seek the easy wau out which might well be a hung jurie

My opinion.

From what I've read in the media , Dunn got out of his vehicle to shoot the teens. From my classes that wouldn't fit the costa gory anyway

Dave
Posted by: steveg

Re: Well... - 02/17/14 02:51 AM

Fight or flight. SYG favors the former with a very low evidence bar. In states with sane laws, the latter is required unless there are no other options.

Illustration: My apartment in NYC was a 4th flr loft with one entry and no direct access to a fire escape or any other means of egress. One wall of windows 4 stories above the sidewalk on W23 St. If an armed intruder got into my place and was blocking me from getting out the door, and my only other means of escape was a 4-story dive to the pavement below, I would, under NY State law, be justified in using deadly force (if I had a weapon). But if I had any other reasonable way out of that apartment, I would be required to get my ass out of there.

SYG is shoot first, make excuses later.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Well... - 02/17/14 05:27 AM

Originally Posted By: MrB
Dunn got out of his vehicle to shoot the teens


At that point, he was no longer a victim (or potential victim). He was the aggressor.

If the teens had then shot him, would they have gotten off? Probably not.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Well... - 02/17/14 05:29 AM

And, both Dunn and Zimmerman initiated the confrontations. So, weren't Martin and those teens standing their ground?
Posted by: steveg

Re: Well... - 02/17/14 05:45 AM

Also telling.
Posted by: DLC

Re: Well... - 02/17/14 08:45 AM

Hell Dave.. most of his testimony sounded like the was "reading from the Law"... the same terms and phrases - word by word ... not your average conversational English !! NO coincidence... he was prepped. mad
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Well... - 02/17/14 03:30 PM

An interesting debate on the PBS Newshour just now, on exactly what "self-defense" means. It's a subjective response, as both lawyers on the Newshour agreed. The white lawyer left it at that the black lawyer pointed out the obvious, that there mere presence of a black kid is for many people legitimate grounds for a subjective sense of being threatened. That perspective leads to a very complicated question, don't you think?

PS: The "you" there is not you, David--I mean "y'all."
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Well... - 02/17/14 04:02 PM


Yet another obvious factor
is the presence (real or imagined)
of a second weapon...
...IOW...
the perceived notion of "feelling protected"
becomes an open invitation to a Shoot-Out.

and by doing such we not only turn back the clocks
but also turn our back on a century of refining the
law in order to give every citizen equal protection
under those laws.


___________YE-HAW, MoFo
Welcome BACK to The Exciting Days of Yester-Year.


Posted by: DLC

Re: Well... - 02/17/14 07:20 PM

This Michael Dunn



was far more entertaining and smarter than this michael Dumb!!


I knew his name rang a bell....

To you Dr Loveless... where ever you are !! smile

Posted by: MrB

Re: Well... - 02/18/14 10:57 AM

Martin was on Zimmerman hitting him. That is when the self defense came in.

In the Dunn situation, Dunn did the aggression when he assaulted the car. Up to that there was no physical threat from the teens as what I've heard. So there is no connection between the cases except race.

If one just uses race, then all of us white guys are predators on black guys. Is that what it is. Are you and I racists killers in the closet

Dave
Posted by: steveg

Re: Well... - 02/18/14 11:27 AM

Quote:
Martin was on Zimmerman hitting him.
You know this for a fact? You've interviewed eye witnesses or have video?
Posted by: MrB

Re: Well... - 02/18/14 06:07 PM

This is what the witnesses have said, and this corresponds with the injuries to Zimmermans face.

Dave
Posted by: yoyo52

Re: Well... - 02/18/14 07:07 PM

Methinks Martin was just standing his ground. The outcome proves that Mr. Room man had evil intent, after all.
Posted by: steveg

Re: Well... - 02/19/14 03:38 AM

Well sure, if you read rags like The Blaze, they'll publish "witness accounts" that will elevate Zimmerman to role model stature.

The facts are that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation. Zimmerman got out of his car and — against the instructions from the PD dispatcher — followed Martin through the complex. And if Martin decided to stand his ground and knock this vigilante wannabe on his ass, he deserved to be shot?

With all die respect, Dave, if you think Zimmerman was justified in shooting, I worry a/b you having a gun.
Posted by: MacBozo

Re: Well... - 02/19/14 06:51 AM

Zimmerman initiated the direct contact and confrontation after being told not to approach Martin. Zimmerman was the aggressor.
Posted by: MrB

Re: Well... - 02/19/14 07:20 PM

Well, Zimmerman was thought not to have initiated the confrontation as he was the one upon whom the physical contact was first put upon.

As for you worrying about me having a gun, I can tell you I'm probably the safest person one could be around. I certainly don't have or exhibit the hate that comes from others that profess.

Dave
Posted by: six_of_one

Re: Well... - 02/19/14 08:11 PM

Originally Posted By: MrB
Well, Zimmerman was thought not to have initiated the confrontation as he was the one upon whom the physical contact was first put upon.

In the case of Dunn, he was (apparently) never physically confronted. He thought he saw a shotgun. One that was even by his own admission never fired*. It may have never existed. The STYG law affords him the benefit of the doubt because of what he perceived, not of what actually may have been the case. Which is, of course, an issue.

I wrote a lot more here, but in writing the footnote below, I realized that it was really the issue:

*Although, let me clear: if I truly thought someone had pointed a shotgun at me, I probably would have taken whatever actions I thought would have stopped what I believed was going to happen, including shooting them first. BUT (and this is important!), I would also have been willing to accept the consequences if I had been wrong. The problem with SYG laws is that even though you truly thought you are endangered, if you are wrong your are legally entirely without responsibility.

It simply leads to vigilantism without consequences ...
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Well... - 02/20/14 08:04 AM

Originally Posted By: MrB


As for you worrying about me having a gun, I can tell you I'm probably the safest person one could be around. I certainly don't have or exhibit the hate that comes from others that profess.

Dave

Don't take this the wrong way...but...

That's what They ALL Say. smirk
Posted by: DLC

Re: Well... - 02/20/14 05:21 PM

Yeah. WHO'D think a retired COP would shoot a guy in cold blood over Texting !!! crazy
I'm all for Background checks ,... but this shows even they aren't anywhere near perfect !!
And they'll never be any check for mental disease or over-aggression !
Posted by: MrB

Re: Well... - 02/21/14 01:03 AM

We are on a different case now, but I don't believe he shot the man because he was texting but from the confrontation that followed the texting. The confrontation could have been over anything but this time it was disagreeing over texting.

So many issues arise that end in violence but not until they have escalated past the original face off.

Yelling screaming, insulting ones person, mother or sister is not enough of a reason to pull ones gun from its holster. It has to be reasonable expectation of bodily harm or death. It's not enough just to want to end the confrontation and go home . Throwing popcorn is not enough. It has to be accompanied with direct violence.

Dave
Posted by: DLC

Re: Well... - 02/21/14 05:45 AM

Dave your right, BUT it shows ANY ONE can lose control and if there's a gun available... well tragedy occurs. HAD the gun NOT been there- there would have only been verbage or a few punches !! This was supposedly a "trained professional" - cops are TRAINED to control their emotions - that's why they appear so "stiff- robotic" when you talk to them... Now a daughter is fatherless !! and a supposedly "good guy" faces jail time !! Just so someone can carry a F-ing gun any F-ing where they want !!! ?? SO ILLOGICAL !! and I'm not Mr Spock !!

Were going back to Dodge f-ing City !! eek
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Well... - 02/21/14 07:38 AM

Originally Posted By: DLC


We're going back to Dodge f-ing City !! eek



iz there an echo in here?

Posted by: MrB

Re: Well... - 02/21/14 11:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Celandine
Originally Posted By: DLC


We're going back to Dodge f-ing City !! eek



iz there an echo in here?



You know, I lived in Dodge City for 32 years. A good town if you can put up with the smell.

Lots of good people there. Lots of folks really trying to make a difference. Good school system. I am proud that I was a part of it.

Dave
Posted by: Celandine

Re: Well... - 02/21/14 12:16 PM

Originally Posted By: MrB
Originally Posted By: Celandine
Originally Posted By: DLC


We're going back to Dodge f-ing City !! eek



iz there an echo in here?



You know, I lived in Dodge City for 32 years. A good town if you can put up with the smell.

Lots of good people there. Lots of folks really trying to make a difference. Good school system. I am proud that I was a part of it.

Dave

No Worries...

...but I think most of us have moved beyond the time
in our history when is was acceptable to engage in
shoot-outs to settle disagreements and disputes.

In case you hadn't heard...
...we call it, "Having Recourse To the LAW".
Posted by: DLC

Re: Well... - 02/21/14 04:11 PM

I'm sure it is Dave... I'm just using it as a Figure of speech... but did I say Dodge City, KS ?? wink

(course there isn't any other Dodge City in the USA... I looked, but didn't know til I did!) eek

No offense Dave...

" I'm a victim of soicumstance !! " Neaahhh-aahh ! eek

wink
Posted by: MrB

Re: Well... - 02/22/14 02:44 PM

The expression "get the hell outa Dodge" has been used for years. As well as using it as a symbol for shoot Em ups. Back in the 1870's a major New York paper called Dodge City, ks the wickedest city in the nation and for good cause. But I believe Deadwood had it beat for general lawlessness.

Actually ther were few shootings in Dodge back then. Wyatt Earp was only evolved in one and that one is disputed as he and another deputy shot at the same time .

When I left Dodge there were four murders within the first three months of that year. It's still rather rough. Gangs, you know

Dave