Jordan Davis, the next Trayvon Martin? Is FL law the problem?

[Mr. Sinister]

Edit, nevermind

[Bubble Screen]

LOL ML. I understand my opinion on both rap and country being crap isn't a popular one.

As for this case: I can't see how Dunn avoids murder one here.

Zimmerman case: anyone see the lawyer on his right on Saturday as the judge was giving the verdict? Wow. That woman is beautiful.

[mcsluggo]

agreed, very tenuous similarities... 

 

(and agree with the ".. the evidence in the case failed to support murder." assesment of zim, (as opposed to exonerated him).

 

 

 

Question... why the hell does the general public have the footage of interogation in an active criminal investigation??  (i didn't open thelink, but that is what it SOUNDED like was there)

Florida has a sunshine law(or something like it) that makes many records /documents public

count me in the group that thinks MUCH less of this crap should be public  (during the investigation/trial)

[CrypticVillain]

People always try to make stuff related to race when they have the opportunity to.

Well I am starting to realize that people are just dumb or just down right evil, not racist per se.....

 

Seriously, shooting at a car because they have loud music playing. At a gas station nonetheless? Yeah, race has no issued being discussed in this case, it was just somebody being drunk and stupid.

[DM72]

People always try to make stuff related to race when they have the opportunity to.

Well I am starting to realize that people are just dumb or just down right evil, not racist per se.....

 

Seriously, shooting at a car because they have loud music playing. At a gas station nonetheless? Yeah, race has no issued being discussed in this case, it was just somebody being drunk and stupid.

He did say he hates "thug music." We can draw our own conclusion that if it was a white guy blasting country music, this might not have happened.

[twa]

 

agreed, very tenuous similarities... 

 

(and agree with the ".. the evidence in the case failed to support murder." assesment of zim, (as opposed to exonerated him).

 

 

 

Question... why the hell does the general public have the footage of interogation in an active criminal investigation??  (i didn't open thelink, but that is what it SOUNDED like was there)

Florida has a sunshine law(or something like it) that makes many records /documents public

count me in the group that thinks MUCH less of this crap should be public  (during the investigation/trial)

I agree, but I think it only gets released once charges are filed

[The Evil Genius]

I think I'm more disturbed by the Florida woman who recently got 20 years for firing a warning shot near her husband (who she had a restraining order on because he allegedly abused her).

 

Somehow that didn't meet the stand your Florida ground requirements (I'm guessing because she went to her car to get the gun rather than leaving the house she had a right to be in). 

 

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/top-news/Florida-Mom-Gets-20-Years-For-Firing-Warning-Shots-During-Confrontation-With-Husband--215667471.html

[CrypticVillain]

People always try to make stuff related to race when they have the opportunity to.

Well I am starting to realize that people are just dumb or just down right evil, not racist per se.....

 

Seriously, shooting at a car because they have loud music playing. At a gas station nonetheless? Yeah, race has no issued being discussed in this case, it was just somebody being drunk and stupid.

He did say he hates "thug music." We can draw our own conclusion that if it was a white guy blasting country music, this might not have happened.

Yeah, but do you think a sane person would hate "thug music" so much that they are willing to bust a couple of caps to the side of an SUV?

 

I just think that sometimes it is lazy to call something racist, instead of digging deeper into what the real problem is. But that is just me.

[Larry]

count me in the group that thinks MUCH less of this crap should be public  (during the investigation/trial)

 

Agreed. IMO, in general, the cops should conduct investigations, hand over the information to the prosecution and defense, and keep their mouths shut. It's public information when it comes out in court, and until it gets to that point, it's nobody's business. (And the media is simply publishing rumors.)

----------

I'm not sure about first degree murder. I thought that required premeditation, and just from reading the thread, I don't see any clue that this guy even knew who these people were until the confrontation was in progress.

(To me, "premeditation" has to last longer then 3 minutes, or however long the confrontation lasted.)

Second degree, I have no problem with. (Although, IMO, even then, wouldn't they have to prove that he intended to kill when he fired into the car?)

Maybe they're going for "felony murder", instead, which doesn't require premeditation.

----------

 

Am I reading the OP correctly? 

 

Girl goes into store, hears multiple gunshots, comes out, sees BF putting gun away.  BF says "they threatened me, so I shot em".  Then they get in the car and go back to their hotel? 

 

Really boosts my opinion of their credibility, and their judgement. 

 

----------

Wondering if I'm going to be seeing people announcing that "the prosecution has to prove that the kids didn't attack him, or they have to acquit him"

[Kilmer17]

I think I'm more disturbed by the Florida woman who recently got 20 years for firing a warning shot near her husband (who she had a restraining order on because he allegedly abused her).

 

Somehow that didn't meet the stand your Florida ground requirements (I'm guessing because she went to her car to get the gun rather than leaving the house she had a right to be in). 

 

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/top-news/Florida-Mom-Gets-20-Years-For-Firing-Warning-Shots-During-Confrontation-With-Husband--215667471.html

I think this was posted in the other thread.  But the issues here are that 1- She left the scene and returned with the gun, thereby eliminiating her right to claim self defense of SYG.  And 2- The jury didnt believe her story that it was just a warning shot.

 

Florida has a law that says if you discharge a gun while committing a crime (doesnt matter what the crime is), then there is a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years.  Judges do not have the power to change it.

 

It's a stupid law that should be addressed before SYG imo.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The similarities are that the guy with the gun initiated the confrontation, shot an unarmed person, and is claiming self defense.

 

That doesn't mean every single detail of each case is the same or that one case doesn't appear more clear cut than the other.

 

That's not a similarity that is not in dispute.  Zimmerman claimed that Martin confronted him and that he never confronted Martin.

 

Its not the same.

[twa]

Larry they will have to prove he wasn't in reasonable fear of life/great harm

 

no different than having to prove his bullet killed the kid

 

the murder 1 is probably because he armed himself(took the gun out of the glove box)

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I think I'm more disturbed by the Florida woman who recently got 20 years for firing a warning shot near her husband (who she had a restraining order on because he allegedly abused her).

 

Somehow that didn't meet the stand your Florida ground requirements (I'm guessing because she went to her car to get the gun rather than leaving the house she had a right to be in). 

 

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/top-news/Florida-Mom-Gets-20-Years-For-Firing-Warning-Shots-During-Confrontation-With-Husband--215667471.html

 

I still haven't seen a good rendition of the facts in this case, or an explanation as to why she was found guilty.  Its entirely likely that there was a good reason to not believe her.  And she probably got convicted of attempted murder because she shot at her husband.  

[elkabong82]

I think I'm more disturbed by the Florida woman who recently got 20 years for firing a warning shot near her husband (who she had a restraining order on because he allegedly abused her).

 

Somehow that didn't meet the stand your Florida ground requirements (I'm guessing because she went to her car to get the gun rather than leaving the house she had a right to be in). 

 

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/top-news/Florida-Mom-Gets-20-Years-For-Firing-Warning-Shots-During-Confrontation-With-Husband--215667471.html

 

I still haven't seen a good rendition of the facts in this case, or an explanation as to why she was found guilty.  Its entirely likely that there was a good reason to not believe her.  And she probably got convicted of attempted murder because she shot at her husband.  

 

It was pointed out that in walking to her car to retrieve a gun that she had the opportunity to leave but decided to return instead so syg did not apply. Apparently her children being in there with a man with a violent history who was in a heated argument with her did not matter for some reason. 20 years for firing a warning shot is absolutely absurd even if you hold the view that she was wrong for firing the gun.

 

The attempted murder charge IMO was overcharging, which is what state prosecutions love to do (did it in the Zim case w/o sufficient evidence too), only this one stuck. The prosecution argued that the bullet in the ceiling deflected up from the wall, but had it deflected down one of the children could have been hit or killed. That ignored that a gun pointed upward probably won;t have a bullet deflecting down and basically penalized the woman for not directly hitting the ceiling. I get that she should have just shot straight upward, but even then according to FL law when syg doesn't apply there is a 10-20-life law when guns are involved where there is mandatory minimum sentencing. It is a stupid, overreaction law that favors an extreme and treats all cases involving a gun as similar right off the bat, which isn't the case. It's the kind of law politicains put forth to make themselves look good in a soundbyte or brief headline, but in reality is terrible because it ignores case by case context.

[Kilmer17]

 

I think I'm more disturbed by the Florida woman who recently got 20 years for firing a warning shot near her husband (who she had a restraining order on because he allegedly abused her).

 

Somehow that didn't meet the stand your Florida ground requirements (I'm guessing because she went to her car to get the gun rather than leaving the house she had a right to be in). 

 

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/top-news/Florida-Mom-Gets-20-Years-For-Firing-Warning-Shots-During-Confrontation-With-Husband--215667471.html

 

I still haven't seen a good rendition of the facts in this case, or an explanation as to why she was found guilty.  Its entirely likely that there was a good reason to not believe her.  And she probably got convicted of attempted murder because she shot at her husband.  

 

It was pointed out that in walking to her car to retrieve a gun that she had the opportunity to leave but decided to return instead so syg did not apply. Apparently her children being in there with a man with a violent history who was in a heated argument with her did not matter for some reason. 20 years for firing a warning shot is absolutely absurd even if you hold the view that she was wrong for firing the gun.

Yep.  The law clearly needs to changed.

[twa]

it appears it was the GJ that bumped this guys charge to 1st degree

http://newsone.com/2103331/jordan-davis-michael-dunn-first-degree-murder/

[Tulane Skins Fan]

 

I think I'm more disturbed by the Florida woman who recently got 20 years for firing a warning shot near her husband (who she had a restraining order on because he allegedly abused her).

 

Somehow that didn't meet the stand your Florida ground requirements (I'm guessing because she went to her car to get the gun rather than leaving the house she had a right to be in). 

 

http://www.indianasnewscenter.com/news/top-news/Florida-Mom-Gets-20-Years-For-Firing-Warning-Shots-During-Confrontation-With-Husband--215667471.html

 

I still haven't seen a good rendition of the facts in this case, or an explanation as to why she was found guilty.  Its entirely likely that there was a good reason to not believe her.  And she probably got convicted of attempted murder because she shot at her husband.  

 

It was pointed out that in walking to her car to retrieve a gun that she had the opportunity to leave but decided to return instead so syg did not apply. Apparently her children being in there with a man with a violent history who was in a heated argument with her did not matter for some reason. 20 years for firing a warning shot is absolutely absurd even if you hold the view that she was wrong for firing the gun.

 

The attempted murder charge IMO was overcharging, which is what state prosecutions love to do (did it in the Zim case w/o sufficient evidence too), only this one stuck. The prosecution argued that the bullet in the ceiling deflected up from the wall, but had it deflected down one of the children could have been hit or killed. That ignored that a gun pointed upward probably won;t have a bullet deflecting down and basically penalized the woman for not directly hitting the ceiling. I get that she should have just shot straight upward, but even then according to FL law when syg doesn't apply there is a 10-20-life law when guns are involved where there is mandatory minimum sentencing. It is a stupid, overreaction law that favors an extreme and treats all cases involving a gun as similar right off the bat, which isn't the case. It's the kind of law politicains put forth to make themselves look good in a soundbyte or brief headline, but in reality is terrible because it ignores case by case context.

 

I basically disagree with this entirely.  Firing a gun in the same room at someone is a big deal.  "Warning shots" are not nothing.  Just like any other shot, the bullet can hit and kill people.  

 

One minute its the wall that she hit, now its the ceiling?  I am assuming that what she did was shoot at her husband and hit the wall.  That sounds like attempted murder to me.  

 

And going to your car to get a gun and then going back into the house is first degree, pre-meditation also.  I don't see anything wrong with this woman getting 20 years.

 

Not so far.

The thing I find strange about the law in Florida is not that someone can "stand their ground," but that the prosecution has the burden to disprove self-defense.  I could be wrong on this, but I think in most states and in the common law self-defense claims, the defendant has the burden of proving self defense because it is an affirmative defense.

 

Again, I could be wrong, but that makes more sense to me.

[twa]

TSF...it is not unique to Florida,self defense once asserted at trial must be disproven or the evidence available be insufficient to support it as reasonable.

there is the probable standard level of proof that exists pre-trial that a defendant must meet to use it to avoid /dismiss charges,but no burden at a trial(except that the evidence supports it)

Ohio I think is the only oddity in that

 

states with a duty to flee only require that be demonstrated unreasonable

 

we do of course require a defense be presented even in cases where the defendant refuses to plea or help with the defense(which is a burden of the state)

 

add

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/160/203/

 

Self-Defense is for Juries to Evaluate, Not for Judges to Exclude

[The Evil Genius]

TSF,

 

The gun was in her car, which was in her garage. To me, that would be no different than going into your bedroom to get a bat or gun if there was an intruder. Is that pre-meditation then?

That said - I do see where there are holes (some big ones) that cause heartburn to her story (much more so than the location of the gun).

 

Again - the case details seem to change depending on where you read it from, but allegedly she stayed the night at that house - then after the husband and his kids returned the next day, everything was a-okay (despite the restraining order against him and the previous abuse). She even showed him pictures of their recently born child. 

 

Sometime during that day, they allegedly got into an argument & he allegedly forced her into a bathroom and then allegedly barred her originally from leaving. Once he cooled down, she was able to get free and went to the garage, got the gun, & fired a shot into the wall (she claims it wasn't at him), and that shot ricocheted into the ceiling. 

 

To me - that doesn't seem worthy of 20 years although it appears that the judges hands were tied based on flawed legislation (that even the original author of the legislation says wasn't designed to put someone like her behind bars for a minimum of 20 years).

[CrabR]

From what I have read about it the guy is guilty as hell. You don't fire 8-9 shots and claim self defense. This is nothing like the Zimmerman case

[Destino]

The prosecution argued that the bullet in the ceiling deflected up from the wall, but had it deflected down one of the children could have been hit or killed.

I'm virtually alone in this but I have a general problem with the criminal justice system punishing people for what could have happened but didn't.  Very rarely does that feel like justice to me as opposed to purposely destroying a persons life in order to make a point, a point that may or may not be valid and worth making at all, let alone at the cost of a persons life.  20 years in jail is a ruined life and I'll never see it as anything less.  

[The Sisko]

I think they should just cut to the chase and declare him innocent right now. Why waste money and everyone's time?

[Popeman38]

TSF,

 

The gun was in her car, which was in her garage. To me, that would be no different than going into your bedroom to get a bat or gun if there was an intruder. Is that pre-meditation then?

That said - I do see where there are holes (some big ones) that cause heartburn to her story (much more so than the location of the gun).

 

Again - the case details seem to change depending on where you read it from, but allegedly she stayed the night at that house - then after the husband and his kids returned the next day, everything was a-okay (despite the restraining order against him and the previous abuse). She even showed him pictures of their recently born child. 

 

Sometime during that day, they allegedly got into an argument & he allegedly forced her into a bathroom and then allegedly barred her originally from leaving. Once he cooled down, she was able to get free and went to the garage, got the gun, & fired a shot into the wall (she claims it wasn't at him), and that shot ricocheted into the ceiling. 

 

To me - that doesn't seem worthy of 20 years although it appears that the judges hands were tied based on flawed legislation (that even the original author of the legislation says wasn't designed to put someone like her behind bars for a minimum of 20 years).

20 years is ludicrous. However, 20 years is mandatory for using a firearm in the commission of a felony in Florida. So it's not like she was sentenced unfairly compared to other firearm offenses. GZ would have received 20 years if convicted of manslaughter.

[twa]

I think they should just cut to the chase and declare him innocent right now. Why waste money and everyone's time?

if the majority of the evidence supported that I would probably agree, especially since it also wastes the chance of a later conviction

From what I have read about it the guy is guilty as hell. You don't fire 8-9 shots and claim self defense. This is nothing like the Zimmerman case

I agree he seems guilty, but the number of shots could be justifiable

agree it is nothing like the other

 

the number of shots allowed is the number it takes to stop a reasonable threat,they will even allow excess

[Bubble Screen]

TSF,

The gun was in her car, which was in her garage. To me, that would be no different than going into your bedroom to get a bat or gun if there was an intruder. Is that pre-meditation then?

That said - I do see where there are holes (some big ones) that cause heartburn to her story (much more so than the location of the gun).

Again - the case details seem to change depending on where you read it from, but allegedly she stayed the night at that house - then after the husband and his kids returned the next day, everything was a-okay (despite the restraining order against him and the previous abuse). She even showed him pictures of their recently born child.

Sometime during that day, they allegedly got into an argument & he allegedly forced her into a bathroom and then allegedly barred her originally from leaving. Once he cooled down, she was able to get free and went to the garage, got the gun, & fired a shot into the wall (she claims it wasn't at him), and that shot ricocheted into the ceiling.

To me - that doesn't seem worthy of 20 years although it appears that the judges hands were tied based on flawed legislation (that even the original author of the legislation says wasn't designed to put someone like her behind bars for a minimum of 20 years).

20 years is ludicrous. However, 20 years is mandatory for using a firearm in the commission of a felony in Florida. So it's not like she was sentenced unfairly compared to other firearm offenses. GZ would have received 20 years if convicted of manslaughter.

He could have gotten 10-30 years for manslaughter.