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

[NoCalMike]

 

 

It's more or less the same story all over again: a white man shooting a black teenager dead in Florida in a tragic dispute that perhaps could have been avoided. Yet, why is Jacksonville trial of Michael Dunn and Jordan Davis not receiving the same amount of media attention or criticism as the George Zimmerman vs. Trayvon Martin case?

 

 

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: WHITE MAN, APPARENTLY

 

Oh yeah that's right he is only half white. Eliminating any possible notion of prejudice or racial profiling that might have taken place. Oops, my mistake.  My whole explanation is ruined due to a small technical error. Dammit.

Look, all I'm saying is everyone is counting him as a full on white guy, and this as strictly a white on black crime. In reality he's less white than Desi Arnaz pounding a bongo drum down at the Babalu, but this can't be a hispanic on black crime because that's just unexciting now, isn't it?

 

I take the blame for miscommunicating my thoughts.  I shouldn't have said he was a white guy in the first place so I concede that.  The sentiment I more wanted to get across was the burden african-americans especially youth, carry on their shoulders about the presumption of guilt because of inconsequential things like "he was walking slow" or "he was wearing a hoodie" I think this type of sentiment is directed towards african americans over other races and it comes from more than just white folks.  It seems they have to answer and be held to a degree of blame and association to crimes comitted by other memebers of their race more than any other race.  Why that is, I am not sure.

[Boss_Hogg]

Not even close.

 

The ass clown who shot the kid was arrested the day after the shooting. It's still sad and I feel for the parents of Jordan Davis.

[Redskins Diehard]

I take the blame for miscommunicating my thoughts.  I shouldn't have said he was a white guy in the first place so I concede that.  The sentiment I more wanted to get across was the burden african-americans especially youth, carry on their shoulders about the presumption of guilt because of inconsequential things like "he was walking slow" or "he was wearing a hoodie" I think this type of sentiment is directed towards african americans over other races and it comes from more than just white folks.  It seems they have to answer and be held to a degree of blame and association to crimes comitted by other memebers of their race more than any other race.  Why that is, I am not sure.

In this case it appears from the phone call at least that race was not one of the primary contributors to "suspicion". I never but it when someone says they "don't see race". We see it all the time in sports. Jeremy Linn, Wes Welker, back in the day the Rodman/Thomas quotes about Bird.

None of us know Zimmerman, none of us know Martin. Would Zimmerman have called the police if Martin was white? Asian? Hispanic? Does Zimmerman call the cops on EVERY black male in the neighborhood?

We heard the quote a number of times "to the living we owe respect, to the dead we owe only the truth". Does the prosecution really believe that they lived up to that quote? Do we really think that Trayvon was shot for wearing a hoodie? For being black? For having skittles and tea?

Do we think that the onlt thing we can tell young black males to protect themselves is that they shouldn't wear hoodies? And that they should walk a reasonable pace? Is there no point in saying "if you feel threatened call the police?" And use violence only as a last resort?

On the particulars of the case in the OP...I don't see how either of these cases are related to the Zimmerman case. It definitely looks like this guy had no reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. No justification for lethal force.

[steve09ru]

 

 

 

It's more or less the same story all over again: a white man shooting a black teenager dead in Florida in a tragic dispute that perhaps could have been avoided. Yet, why is Jacksonville trial of Michael Dunn and Jordan Davis not receiving the same amount of media attention or criticism as the George Zimmerman vs. Trayvon Martin case?

 

 

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: WHITE MAN, APPARENTLY

 

Oh yeah that's right he is only half white. Eliminating any possible notion of prejudice or racial profiling that might have taken place. Oops, my mistake.  My whole explanation is ruined due to a small technical error. Dammit.

Look, all I'm saying is everyone is counting him as a full on white guy, and this as strictly a white on black crime. In reality he's less white than Desi Arnaz pounding a bongo drum down at the Babalu, but this can't be a hispanic on black crime because that's just unexciting now, isn't it?

 

I take the blame for miscommunicating my thoughts.  I shouldn't have said he was a white guy in the first place so I concede that.  The sentiment I more wanted to get across was the burden african-americans especially youth, carry on their shoulders about the presumption of guilt because of inconsequential things like "he was walking slow" or "he was wearing a hoodie" I think this type of sentiment is directed towards african americans over other races and it comes from more than just white folks.  It seems they have to answer and be held to a degree of blame and association to crimes comitted by other memebers of their race more than any other race.  Why that is, I am not sure.

I'm not sure how people can accuse whites of racially profiling whenever a white person kills a black person when 92% of african americans murdered are murdered by another african american. 

 

What about the white population killed by a african americans?  Is that because of race?

I take the blame for miscommunicating my thoughts.  I shouldn't have said he was a white guy in the first place so I concede that.  The sentiment I more wanted to get across was the burden african-americans especially youth, carry on their shoulders about the presumption of guilt because of inconsequential things like "he was walking slow" or "he was wearing a hoodie" I think this type of sentiment is directed towards african americans over other races and it comes from more than just white folks.  It seems they have to answer and be held to a degree of blame and association to crimes comitted by other memebers of their race more than any other race.  Why that is, I am not sure.

In this case it appears from the phone call at least that race was not one of the primary contributors to "suspicion". I never but it when someone says they "don't see race". We see it all the time in sports. Jeremy Linn, Wes Welker, back in the day the Rodman/Thomas quotes about Bird.

None of us know Zimmerman, none of us know Martin. Would Zimmerman have called the police if Martin was white? Asian? Hispanic? Does Zimmerman call the cops on EVERY black male in the neighborhood?

We heard the quote a number of times "to the living we owe respect, to the dead we owe only the truth". Does the prosecution really believe that they lived up to that quote? Do we really think that Trayvon was shot for wearing a hoodie? For being black? For having skittles and tea?

Do we think that the onlt thing we can tell young black males to protect themselves is that they shouldn't wear hoodies? And that they should walk a reasonable pace? Is there no point in saying "if you feel threatened call the police?" And use violence only as a last resort?

On the particulars of the case in the OP...I don't see how either of these cases are related to the Zimmerman case. It definitely looks like this guy had no reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. No justification for lethal force.

He called the cops on Martin before he even knew the race of that individual.  Say he did know the race though, wouldn't the suspicion arise based off of past descriptions of previous burglars?  If you are on the lookout for a White man, tall, skinny and in his 30s are you going to look for a black man or are you going to be more alert to those who fit the description? 

[nonniey]

After the less than steller conduct of the press during the Zimmerman case you want them to get more involved in this case??

[Redskins Diehard]

steve09ru, on 18 Jul 2013 - 10:51, said:

He called the cops on Martin before he even knew the race of that individual. Say he did know the race though, wouldn't the suspicion arise based off of past descriptions of previous burglars? If you are on the lookout for a White man, tall, skinny and in his 30s are you going to look for a black man or are you going to be more alert to those who fit the description?

I agree he called before he conclusively knew the race. The way he "guessed" in response to the question and the way he confirmed it later when he was sure makes me believe that. However, even IF all of the burgulary suspects were black you should not assume that all blacks are burgulary suspects.

In the early days of Afghanistan we were on the lookout for anyone that looked "Chechen". Basically we were looking for white people. In that environment that was enough to raise suspicion. But it didn't paint the complete picture. And it shouldn't, in my opinion be used to paint the complete picture here either.

[JoeWolf990]

this is not the same, but Stand Your Ground has to go. Its absurd.

[NoCalMike]

As far as black on black crime. I am interested to see stats about white on white crime or other races comitting crime against their own race.

 

It's reasonable to think most crimes comitted period are against people that the criminal is in close vicinity of, social group, neighborhood etc etc etc.  Is there a stat for other races comitting crime against their own race?

 

We constantly see the black on black crime trope used as some sort of "gee they can't get it together" rallying cry, but I'd be interested to see if most races have similar high rates of crime against their own race.

[Redskins Diehard]

As far as black on black crime. I am interested to see stats about white on white crime or other races comitting crime against their own race.

 

It's reasonable to think most crimes comitted period are against people that the criminal is in close vicinity of, social group, neighborhood etc etc etc.  Is there a stat for other races comitting crime against their own race?

 

We constantly see the black on black crime trope used as some sort of "gee they can't get it together" rallying cry, but I'd be interested to see if most races have similar high rates of crime against their own race.

I don't think black on black crime is being used in that regard in this case. It is being used to counterbalance the underlying theme here that this non-black person hunted down a black person. As if that is a common threat being dealt with by the black community. I would suspect that most white folks that are criminals do commit crimes against other white folks. I don't have data to support that but given your assertions and additionally the fact that most people in this country are white then it seems logical to conclude that white people are the victims of white crime.

There was a black guy going OFF on Piers Morgan last night about this case. He was definitely passionate about what he was saying and cited a bunch of statistics. I don't remember the specifics but the implication was that young black men are disproportionately the victims and perpetrators of murder in this country.

[ABQCOWBOY]

 

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.

Using that standard, I would imagine the majority of murders are similar.

Yeah every murder case with an unarmed underage black victim that is shot and killed by an older white adult in the state of Florida would be similar. 

I don't agree.  Zimmerman was not White.  He was Hispanic and White. 

this is not the same, but Stand Your Ground has to go. Its absurd.

 

Stand your ground is really not much different then self defense.  I think that the whole Stand Your Ground issue needs to be looked at a bit more closely.  If it is, in fact, a self defense law then I think you have to question the wisdom of taking it off the books.

[NoCalMike]

I heard on one of the cable news shows that gang members are taking advantage of the stand your ground laws because of how much gray area can be used to justify lethal force.

 

 

Stand your Ground is not the same as the self defense law(s) that have been on the books for a long time.

[twa]

this is not the same, but Stand Your Ground has to go. Its absurd.

Why is it absurd?

 

if some racist turd is threatening your life you should be legally obligated to flee?

[ABQCOWBOY]

I heard on one of the cable news shows that gang members are taking advantage of the stand your ground laws because of how much gray area can be used to justify lethal force.

 

 

Stand your Ground is not the same as the self defense law(s) that have been on the books for a long time.

What are the differences between Stand Your Ground and Self Defense Laws?

[NoCalMike]

Well one main difference I believe is that with the regular self defense law you are obligated to try and retreat/escape a situation, exhaust all options before using force in return, especially deadly force.

 

Under Stand your Ground there is no such obligation

[twa]

Well one main difference I believe is that with the regular self defense law you are obligated to try and retreat/escape a situation, exhaust all options before using force in return, especially deadly force.

 

Under Stand your Ground there is no such obligation

you are still under the obligation to use all other options except fleeing

[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

 

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.

 

One of her lawyers was on Piers Morgan last night (not sure if it was a rerun, I only caught a part of it while I was at the gym).

 

He added a few more details (obviously this is her side of the story)...

 

1) Her husband had abused her previously to the point that she was in the hospital.

 

2) He kicked her while she was pregnant with the child, it ultimately caused her to deliver her baby pre-mature.

 

3) At the house, he kicked her while she was in the bathroom then barred her from leaving the bathroom because he was upset over her texting a former boyfriend.

 

4) The shot she fired was from 2 feet away. Had she intended to shot the husband, she is a very very very bad shot... 

 

5) The garage in which she got the gun from wasn't operational. So she could not leave the house after going to the car (to get the gun).

 

 

 

I guess (with the little that I do know about this case), I still can't fathom how the jury didn't see an abused wife who was in fear for her life from an abusive husband. If there ever was a reasonable finding of self-defense, it would appear to me that this is one of those cases.

 

I suspect with the increased attention to this case (thanks to the Zimmerman acquittal), she will get the conviction overturned in the future. 

[NoCalMike]

Isn't Stand Your Ground more liberal as far as returning force with deadly force, as well?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well one main difference I believe is that with the regular self defense law you are obligated to try and retreat/escape a situation, exhaust all options before using force in return, especially deadly force.

 

Under Stand your Ground there is no such obligation

 

I am not certain this is true.  I am not a Lawyer, so I can not say with any degree of certainty but I am not sure that you must flee.

[steve09ru]

Everyone keeps bringing up the Stand Your Ground Law but didn't Zimmerman go away from that and stick strictly with Self Defense?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Everyone keeps bringing up the Stand Your Ground Law but didn't Zimmerman go away from that and stick strictly with Self Defense?

 

 

Zimmerman's defense did not use the Stand Your Ground Defense.  They used Self Defense.   I have heard many Legal Annalysts say that it would not have made any difference if Florida was a Stand Your Ground State or not. 

[twa]

Isn't Stand Your Ground more liberal as far as returning force with deadly force, as well?

No, it changes nothing on escalation nor justification in using force.

it simply removes legal liability for not fleeing

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Everyone keeps bringing up the Stand Your Ground Law but didn't Zimmerman go away from that and stick strictly with Self Defense?

 

You guys are missing a lot of points on this.

 

The big point people are making is that Zimmerman knew about Stand Your Ground and so it emboldened him to chase someone down.  He knew he had a gun, and if anyone tried to confront him, he could "stand his ground."  That is the theory that upsets a lot of people about these laws.

 

I've also gone over how self-defense and stand your ground are really one, but most don't want to hear that.

[twa]

Knowing the law emboldens people to not put up with people violating it forcibly?....is that a bad thing?

 

Confronting justifies no force in defense

[steve09ru]

As far as black on black crime. I am interested to see stats about white on white crime or other races comitting crime against their own race.

 

It's reasonable to think most crimes comitted period are against people that the criminal is in close vicinity of, social group, neighborhood etc etc etc.  Is there a stat for other races comitting crime against their own race?

 

We constantly see the black on black crime trope used as some sort of "gee they can't get it together" rallying cry, but I'd be interested to see if most races have similar high rates of crime against their own race.

Most crimes are same race.  The thing we always here though is "whitey was racially profiling" but yet black on white crime is over 2x as much.

 

This only gives 1976-2005:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf

 

Racial comparisons start around page 60.

 

You also have to factor in that there are 6x more whites than blacks.

 

If you factor that in and equal everything out (if there were the same number of both races) 2005 would show as with original and then weighted to factor in the 6x white differential:

 

W on W:  4,755

B on W: 934 --> 2,802 (multiplied by 3x since B is only half of equation)

B on B: 4,497 --> 26,982 (was multiplied by 6x since B is full equal)

W on B: 337 --> 1,011 (multiplied by 3x since B is only half of equation)

Everyone keeps bringing up the Stand Your Ground Law but didn't Zimmerman go away from that and stick strictly with Self Defense?

 

You guys are missing a lot of points on this.

 

The big point people are making is that Zimmerman knew about Stand Your Ground and so it emboldened him to chase someone down.  He knew he had a gun, and if anyone tried to confront him, he could "stand his ground."  That is the theory that upsets a lot of people about these laws.

 

I've also gone over how self-defense and stand your ground are really one, but most don't want to hear that.

Oh I know they are pretty similar, but don't both require that a felony as is being committed?

 

If a felony is not being committed then self defense and stand your ground should be thrown out.  I don't necessarily agree they should be ridden of if a felony is being committed though regardless of who began the non physical initiation.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Knowing the law emboldens people to not put up with people violating it forcibly?....is that a bad thing?

 

Confronting justifies no force in defense

 

First of all, Trayvon Martin was not violating the law when Zimmerman started following him.  So, your point is a non sequitur.

 

Second, it is a bad thing.  It would have been better if Zimmerman walked away.  It would be better if we did not have vigilantes thinking they should be policing their neighborhoods despite the fact that they do not have the type of training that a law enforcement officer does.  

 

Actually, this is the first time I've heard someone argue that its good to promote vigilantism.  

 

So, IF its true that SYG prompts people to be more aggressive because they know they can shoot at the first sign of confrontation, then yes, its is bad policy.  Most people would agree with that.  Probably 99% of people.  The real world argument is whether SYG really does that.  And as a corollary, if it does it to such a minute degree that it is better to live with the very minor uptick in vigilantes for the increased right to self-defense.  

 

But, I repeat, no one would say a good thing about stand your ground is that it promotes more people to take the law into their own hands.  They deny it does that, or that it does it significantly.