Florida's loud music case

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Florida's loud music case

Post by mr friendly guy »

http://abcnews.go.com/US/victim-loud-mu ... d=22558295
'I Was the Victim,' Says Loud Music Trial Shooter in Jailhouse Phone Call
Feb. 17, 2014

Prosecutors released audio Monday of several jailhouse calls placed by Michael Dunn -- the man at the center of another controversial Florida trial -- shedding new light on his mindset in the initial days after he fatally shot 17-year-old Jordan Davis over a confrontation over loud music.

“I’m the [expletive deleted] victim here. I was the one who was victimized,” says Dunn, 47, in one of the calls in which he appeared to chuckle while speaking about his predicament. “I’m the victor but I was the victim too.”

In a separate call with his fiancé Rhonda Rouer, Dunn makes the connection between his situation and scenarios where police officers doubt rape victims.

“I was the one that was being preyed upon and I fought back. It’s not quite the same but it made me think of like the old TV shows and movies where like how the police used to think when a chick got raped going, 'Oh, it’s her fault because of the way she dressed.' I'm like, 'So it’s my fault (laughing) because I asked them to turn their music down. I got attacked and I fought back because I didn’t want to be a victim and now I'm in trouble. I refused to be a victim and now I'm incarcerated.”

Prosecutors accused Dunn of killing Davis in a convenience store parking lot after they got into an argument over loud music. Jurors found Dunn guilty on four of five charges for shooting at Davis’ friends, who were also in the car, as well as firing a gun into a car in the 2012 incident. However, jurors could not agree on the first-degree murder charge for shooting Davis, prompting a mistrial on that count.

The recordings mirror statements Dunn made in trial in which he stated that he believed his life was in danger, thus leaving him little choice but to shoot. The case has once again rekindled anger in some circles about self-defense laws, in particular “stand your ground,” despite it never being invoked during the trial.

Dunn testified that after he asked Davis to turn down the music blaring from the teen's car, a confrontation ensued and that Davis approached the middle-aged software developer. Dunn said he believed Davis had a weapon, leaving him little choice but to defend himself. However, a gun was never recovered at the scene.

In one of the nine calls released today, Dunn reads a letter that he planned on sending to the judge presiding over his case in an effort to make bail. Repeatedly both he and his fiancé say that the legal system is stacked against them, however Dunn says the law is on his side.

“I'm super confident if they take this to trial it will be a short deliberation,” said Dunn.

Dunn who placed the calls while in isolation also made repeated efforts to distance himself from fellow inmates, “Being in a room by myself really sucks, but better than being in a room with them animals.”

He will spend at least 60 years behind bars for the attempted murder charges. Prosecutors have indicated that they plan to retry Dunn on the first-degree murder charge.
Dunn was not convicted of first degree murder but has been convicted on counts of attempted murder.

Remember during that Trayvon Martin thread when I pointed out based on what I see on the American system, I can start an altercation, claim that I "believed" the person had a gun and then shoot them in "self defense" and get away with murder. Remember how people argued that was unlikely blah blah blah. Well this comes darn close when the jury won't convict of first degree murder, although it might in subsequent trials. I think my point has been made.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by mr friendly guy »

Reuters has some more information

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ... MR20140216
"The self-defense argument made some headway. The jury, or some of them, believed he saw a muzzle of a gun," said David Weinstein, a former state prosecutor, now in private practice in Miami.
I think this is telling. Remember no gun was found.

Oh and before someone goes self defence wah wah. I have no problems with self defence laws. I just have problems where the laws are written in such a way that self defence easily becomes vigilantism.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Simon_Jester »

Some reasonable changes I think might be made to a self-defense law like this:

1) In this case, was there no physical evidence? There really should be either physical evidence or credible testimony supporting a claim of self-defense. I would think that's normal practice because self-defense is an affirmative defense- you're confessing to the crime and saying you have an excuse, so the burden of proof shifts to you. Again, I would think there would have to be some such evidence. The situation as described, where the defendant (apparently) presents no information other than his own claim of self-defense and the jury can't agree on murder... that beggars the imagination. It could happen, but I have to wonder if something is being left out.

In the Zimmerman case there was physical evidence- the injuries on Zimmerman's head, while not very severe, were at least consistent with someone who was being held down and having their head banged into the ground.

2) It might be prudent for the law to be amended to apply extra scrutiny to cases where the defendant clearly provoked the incident. The provocation immediately puts premeditation and first-degree murder on the table, and it also works against a common test applied to self-defense law: that you can't be acting in self-defense unless you are threatened and need to use violence to protect yourself. There is no reasonable definition of 'protect yourself' under which it counts as 'protect yourself' to jump into the lion's den and then shoot him for roaring at you.

If that can't be addressed within the existing legal framework, then we need a whole new category of murder/manslaughter for "provoked a fight, saw the other party begin to make maybe-violent moves, then decided to end it by escalating to lethal force."
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 11235
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by mr friendly guy »

Simon_Jester wrote:Some reasonable changes I think might be made to a self-defense law like this:

1) In this case, was there no physical evidence? There really should be either physical evidence or credible testimony supporting a claim of self-defense. I would think that's normal practice because self-defense is an affirmative defense- you're confessing to the crime and saying you have an excuse, so the burden of proof shifts to you. Again, I would think there would have to be some such evidence. The situation as described, where the defendant (apparently) presents no information other than his own claim of self-defense and the jury can't agree on murder... that beggars the imagination. It could happen, but I have to wonder if something is being left out.

In the Zimmerman case there was physical evidence- the injuries on Zimmerman's head, while not very severe, were at least consistent with someone who was being held down and having their head banged into the ground.
My understanding is that it hinges on what is considered "reasonable" belief that you are threatened (see my second link). I don't consider is reasonable just because you are afraid. I consider it reasonable if there is physical evidence of a threat, like they actually have a gun as opposed to you claiming you "believed" they had a gun. Without a definition of what is reasonable, you can get such bullshit interpretations which would be equally valid under the law if not valid under logic.
Simon_Jester wrote: 2) It might be prudent for the law to be amended to apply extra scrutiny to cases where the defendant clearly provoked the incident. The provocation immediately puts premeditation and first-degree murder on the table, and it also works against a common test applied to self-defense law: that you can't be acting in self-defense unless you are threatened and need to use violence to protect yourself. There is no reasonable definition of 'protect yourself' under which it counts as 'protect yourself' to jump into the lion's den and then shoot him for roaring at you.

If that can't be addressed within the existing legal framework, then we need a whole new category of murder/manslaughter for "provoked a fight, saw the other party begin to make maybe-violent moves, then decided to end it by escalating to lethal force."
I agree. Although what some people would say is, well starting an altercation isn't necessarily illegal. For example if I start insulting you because of loud music you are playing, I am certainly being a dick, but I am not doing anything illegal per se.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to - 14.
Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Simon_Jester »

mr friendly guy wrote:My understanding is that it hinges on what is considered "reasonable" belief that you are threatened (see my second link). I don't consider is reasonable just because you are afraid. I consider it reasonable if there is physical evidence of a threat, like they actually have a gun as opposed to you claiming you "believed" they had a gun. Without a definition of what is reasonable, you can get such bullshit interpretations which would be equally valid under the law if not valid under logic.
What I'm saying is that there should at least be some supporting evidence that you reasonably had such a belief. A guy who's getting his head bounced off the ground reasonably thinks his life is in danger, that's a very good support for a self-defense claim. A guy who is standing in the open, nowhere close to the other person, does not have such support unless someone can present some kind of supporting evidence that it really did look like the victim was drawing a weapon.

In other words, you shouldn't have to prove they really had a gun, but you should have to at least substantiate the claim that you believed they had a gun, just to avoid people getting off on self-defense claims purely because "dead men tell no tales."

The reason I say you shouldn't have to prove the threat was real is twofold.

One part of it is to stop people from being deterred against defending themselves. Some criminals carry fake weapons around and use them to threaten people with. How is it fair to you to call you a murderer for shooting someone who was waving a weapon in your direction, just because that weapon turns out after the fact to have been a realistic-looking cap pistol?

The other part of it is that in some cases a threat can go directly from "not fully emerged" to "bang, you're dead" faster than you could react. If the situation is tense, potentially violent, and someone dips a hand in their pocket and says "I'm going to kill you!" it is reasonable to infer that they're dipping their hand into their pocket so they can get something to kill you with. Even if they are in fact drawing a cell phone- if you wait for their hand to come out of their pocket it may be too late to protect yourself.

But in both these cases there's going to be supporting evidence that justifies, such as the cap pistol itself, or the statement "I'm going to kill you!" This supporting evidence should have to be presented to win the self-defense claim.
Simon_Jester wrote:2) It might be prudent for the law to be amended to apply extra scrutiny to cases where the defendant clearly provoked the incident. The provocation immediately puts premeditation and first-degree murder on the table, and it also works against a common test applied to self-defense law: that you can't be acting in self-defense unless you are threatened and need to use violence to protect yourself. There is no reasonable definition of 'protect yourself' under which it counts as 'protect yourself' to jump into the lion's den and then shoot him for roaring at you.

If that can't be addressed within the existing legal framework, then we need a whole new category of murder/manslaughter for "provoked a fight, saw the other party begin to make maybe-violent moves, then decided to end it by escalating to lethal force."
I agree. Although what some people would say is, well starting an altercation isn't necessarily illegal. For example if I start insulting you because of loud music you are playing, I am certainly being a dick, but I am not doing anything illegal per se.
Actions that are not in themselves illegal can still undermine your case in a criminal defense, if they provide evidence of unsavory motives on your part. Taking out a life insurance policy on someone who is later killed isn't in itself illegal- but it is strong evidence for premeditation in a murder case.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Flagg »

Just proves yet again that Floriduh juries are goddamned idiots. How is it that you convict this pondscum racist shitbag of 3 counts of attempted murder yet deadlock on the murder charge? It's illogical unless you think being black is enough of a mitigating factor to knock it down to murder 2. Ridiculous, inexcusable, and the various minority communities should be commended for not rioting. Because if the races were reversed there WOULD be rioting.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3083
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Tribble »

Flagg wrote:Just proves yet again that Floriduh juries are goddamned idiots. How is it that you convict this pondscum racist shitbag of 3 counts of attempted murder yet deadlock on the murder charge? It's illogical unless you think being black is enough of a mitigating factor to knock it down to murder 2. Ridiculous, inexcusable, and the various minority communities should be commended for not rioting. Because if the races were reversed there WOULD be rioting.
I'm almost certain that's precisely why the jury let him off. I've heard that the Republicans are trying to make the "Stand you Ground" law even more broad by letting people fire "warning shots" if they feel threatened. And if those shots just "happen" to kill a black person... well, no doubt the juries will view it as an "accident" and let the white guy go.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29205
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by General Zod »

Flagg wrote:Just proves yet again that Floriduh juries are goddamned idiots. How is it that you convict this pondscum racist shitbag of 3 counts of attempted murder yet deadlock on the murder charge? It's illogical unless you think being black is enough of a mitigating factor to knock it down to murder 2. Ridiculous, inexcusable, and the various minority communities should be commended for not rioting. Because if the races were reversed there WOULD be rioting.
I think the big problem is proving that it was pre-meditated, as opposed to being a spur of the moment altercation.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3083
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Tribble »

I think the big problem is proving that it was pre-meditated, as opposed to being a spur of the moment altercation.
Does Florida have a 2nd degree murder charge? The Mens Rea for that is only the intention to commit homicide, and no pre-mediation is required.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Flagg »

General Zod wrote:
Flagg wrote:Just proves yet again that Floriduh juries are goddamned idiots. How is it that you convict this pondscum racist shitbag of 3 counts of attempted murder yet deadlock on the murder charge? It's illogical unless you think being black is enough of a mitigating factor to knock it down to murder 2. Ridiculous, inexcusable, and the various minority communities should be commended for not rioting. Because if the races were reversed there WOULD be rioting.
I think the big problem is proving that it was pre-meditated, as opposed to being a spur of the moment altercation.
Premeditation only requires a split second of forethought. Since the victim had no gun, nothing resembling a gun, and was (excuse the language please) an "uppity nigger" (heard almost daily by white people at work when I lived in that cesspool of a state) that's premeditation.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Flagg »

Tribble wrote:
I think the big problem is proving that it was pre-meditated, as opposed to being a spur of the moment altercation.
Does Florida have a 2nd degree murder charge? The Mens Rea for that is only the intention to commit homicide, and no pre-mediation is required.
Yes. They should have added the lesser 2nd degree charge as an option but I have mixed feelings about these prosecutors (same ones from the Zimmerman case, which is apples and oranges from this so no talking about it please) and their desire for murder convictions in SYG cases.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14792
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by aerius »

Uh, yeah, hello people, MURDER 1. They tried to nail him for 1st degree murder, as in planned & premeditated killing, or a killing resulting from burglary, hijacking, rape, kidnapping, or one of the other things covered under the statutes. If the prosecutors went for murder 2 it would be a slam dunk, but for whatever dumbass reason they tried to go for murder 1, and not surprisingly they couldn't get it to stick since they couldn't prove the premeditated part beyond a reasonable doubt and it didn't fit the other conditions either.

This is not a case of Florida laws suck or jurors are morons, it's the prosecution fucking up by trying for a 1st degree murder charge when there was no way to prove it. I don't know why they went for murder 1, only reason I can think of is someone wanted to stick him with the death penalty instead of just having him rot in jail for the rest of his life.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Flagg »

aerius wrote:Uh, yeah, hello people, MURDER 1. They tried to nail him for 1st degree murder, as in planned & premeditated killing, or a killing resulting from burglary, hijacking, rape, kidnapping, or one of the other things covered under the statutes. If the prosecutors went for murder 2 it would be a slam dunk, but for whatever dumbass reason they tried to go for murder 1, and not surprisingly they couldn't get it to stick since they couldn't prove the premeditated part beyond a reasonable doubt and it didn't fit the other conditions either.

This is not a case of Florida laws suck or jurors are morons, it's the prosecution fucking up by trying for a 1st degree murder charge when there was no way to prove it. I don't know why they went for murder 1, only reason I can think of is someone wanted to stick him with the death penalty instead of just having him rot in jail for the rest of his life.
Simply pulling the gun when they were in their vehicle and posing no threat = Murder 1.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3083
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Tribble »

aerius wrote:Uh, yeah, hello people, MURDER 1. They tried to nail him for 1st degree murder, as in planned & premeditated killing, or a killing resulting from burglary, hijacking, rape, kidnapping, or one of the other things covered under the statutes. If the prosecutors went for murder 2 it would be a slam dunk, but for whatever dumbass reason they tried to go for murder 1, and not surprisingly they couldn't get it to stick since they couldn't prove the premeditated part beyond a reasonable doubt and it didn't fit the other conditions either.

This is not a case of Florida laws suck or jurors are morons, it's the prosecution fucking up by trying for a 1st degree murder charge when there was no way to prove it. I don't know why they went for murder 1, only reason I can think of is someone wanted to stick him with the death penalty instead of just having him rot in jail for the rest of his life.
Well, I wouldn't put it past the Florida Police to deliberately charge him with first degree murder because they knew he wouldn't get convicted. It's mighty suspicious that the police didn't try to include 2nd degree murder as an option for the jury to consider.

And were talking about Florida jurors here. Just mentioning "I saw a black guy" is enough to be a defence. Really, Stand Your Ground ought to be renamed "Shoot the Black Dude".
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29205
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by General Zod »

Flagg wrote:
General Zod wrote:
Flagg wrote:Just proves yet again that Floriduh juries are goddamned idiots. How is it that you convict this pondscum racist shitbag of 3 counts of attempted murder yet deadlock on the murder charge? It's illogical unless you think being black is enough of a mitigating factor to knock it down to murder 2. Ridiculous, inexcusable, and the various minority communities should be commended for not rioting. Because if the races were reversed there WOULD be rioting.
I think the big problem is proving that it was pre-meditated, as opposed to being a spur of the moment altercation.
Premeditation only requires a split second of forethought. Since the victim had no gun, nothing resembling a gun, and was (excuse the language please) an "uppity nigger" (heard almost daily by white people at work when I lived in that cesspool of a state) that's premeditation.
Not according to Florida laws, apparently. Not saying I agree with it, just that I can see the reasoning that leads to it. It's really proof that Florida laws are fucked up more than anything.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statuTes/ind ... 82.04.html
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
a. Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
b. Arson,
c. Sexual battery,
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
f. Kidnapping,
g. Escape,
h. Aggravated child abuse,
i. Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
j. Aircraft piracy,
k. Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
l. Carjacking,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
n. Aggravated stalking,
o. Murder of another human being,
p. Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person,
q. Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
r. Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism; or
3. Which resulted from the unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium, or methadone by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
(b) In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment.
(2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Carjacking,
(m) Home-invasion robbery,
(n) Aggravated stalking,
(o) Murder of another human being,
(p) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(q) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(r) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or in the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the second degree, which constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any felony other than any:
(a) Trafficking offense prohibited by s. 893.135(1),
(b) Arson,
(c) Sexual battery,
(d) Robbery,
(e) Burglary,
(f) Kidnapping,
(g) Escape,
(h) Aggravated child abuse,
(i) Aggravated abuse of an elderly person or disabled adult,
(j) Aircraft piracy,
(k) Unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb,
(l) Unlawful distribution of any substance controlled under s. 893.03(1), cocaine as described in s. 893.03(2)(a)4., or opium or any synthetic or natural salt, compound, derivative, or preparation of opium by a person 18 years of age or older, when such drug is proven to be the proximate cause of the death of the user,
(m) Carjacking,
(n) Home-invasion robbery,
(o) Aggravated stalking,
(p) Murder of another human being,
(q) Aggravated fleeing or eluding with serious bodily injury or death,
(r) Resisting an officer with violence to his or her person, or
(s) Felony that is an act of terrorism or is in furtherance of an act of terrorism,
is murder in the third degree and constitutes a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(5) As used in this section, the term “terrorism” means an activity that:
(a)1. Involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life which is a violation of the criminal laws of this state or of the United States; or
2. Involves a violation of s. 815.06; and
(b) Is intended to:
1. Intimidate, injure, or coerce a civilian population;
2. Influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
3. Affect the conduct of government through destruction of property, assassination, murder, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Flagg »

The kid was 17, so I think shooting him counts as aggravated child abuse.
Also he committed Murder of another human being.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14792
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by aerius »

Flagg wrote:Simply pulling the gun when they were in their vehicle and posing no threat = Murder 1.
The 1st degree murder charge was for killing Davis, who by that point had stepped out of the car. You will note that a)none of the people in the car were killed, and b)Dunn was convicted on a bunch of charges related to shooting at the people in the car.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
General Zod
Never Shuts Up
Posts: 29205
Joined: 2003-11-18 03:08pm
Location: The Clearance Rack
Contact:

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by General Zod »

Flagg wrote:The kid was 17, so I think shooting him counts as aggravated child abuse.
Also he committed Murder of another human being.
So slap him with Murder 2 and call it a day? He won't be getting out of jail anytime soon given the 25 year minimum mandatory for firearms.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14792
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by aerius »

After thinking about it a bit, my theory is the prosecutor went glory hogging and lost. A murder 2 conviction plus all the firearms related charges would easily put Dunn in jail for the rest of his life, even manslaughter + firearms violations would be enough to do it and either of those options is an easy conviction. Murder 1 gives the option of the death penalty, but other than that there's no difference since the guy's never getting out of jail. But it is a more prestigious conviction IF the prosecutor can get it. Problem is proving it is highly questionable at best in this case.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Flagg »

With Floriduhs 10-20-life laws he's looking at a 60 year minimum so he's already going to jail for life. Just that Davis has yet to get any kind of justice.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3083
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Tribble »

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01 ... ing-shots/

Yep, I think I can rule out Florida on my list of place to live, or perhaps even visit.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Flagg »

Tribble wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01 ... ing-shots/

Yep, I think I can rule out Florida on my list of place to live, or perhaps even visit.
Lived there for 22 years. No desire to go back. Not even to see friends and family. The only good thing about GCC is that Floriduh will be underwater.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3083
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Tribble »

"A person with a firearm is a citizen. A person without a firearm is a victim." - Republican Sen. Greg Evers

Jesus, the more I read, the worse it gets.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
Broken
Padawan Learner
Posts: 341
Joined: 2010-10-15 10:45am
Location: In Transit

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by Broken »

aerius wrote:
Flagg wrote:Simply pulling the gun when they were in their vehicle and posing no threat = Murder 1.
The 1st degree murder charge was for killing Davis, who by that point had stepped out of the car. You will note that a)none of the people in the car were killed, and b)Dunn was convicted on a bunch of charges related to shooting at the people in the car.
Didn't the medical examiner testify that Davis's wounds were consistent with him being seated when he was shot? So far as I know, no one but Dunn claims to have seen a shotgun or Davis even out of the other car.
"If you're caught with an ounce of cocaine, the chances are good you're going to jail. Evidently, if you launder nearly $1 billion for drug cartels and violate our international sanctions, your company pays a fine and you go home and sleep in your own bed at night." Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)


The Noldor are the Wise, and the Golden, the Valiant, the Sword-elves, the Elves of the Earth, the Foes of Melkor, the Skilled of Hand, the Jewel-wrights, the Companions of Men, the Followers of Finwë.
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14792
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Re: Florida's loud music case

Post by aerius »

Broken wrote:Didn't the medical examiner testify that Davis's wounds were consistent with him being seated when he was shot? So far as I know, no one but Dunn claims to have seen a shotgun or Davis even out of the other car.
I don't know, I'm just going by what the article in the first post says.
I'm really not motivated enough to go digging for court documents and coroner's reports. But if someone else wants to find them for me I'll read through them when I have the time and give my comments.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
Post Reply