twa Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Now days, it seems like the rule is more like "there has to be a chance that maybe you were scared, OR the person you killed did something which in some way made things worse". Depends on where ya are, but the rule in general is you have to be in reasonable fear for your life or of great harm. it really hasn't changed much from that center, previously the duty to flee creeped in in places and of course restrictions on gun ownership/carrying which tilted off that center. the law allowing deadly force to protect property here is the only real swing in the opposite direction from center, and possibly the requirement that reasonable fear be from the shooters perspective rather than a not looking thru their eyes(that is still different in places) Is the Jury deliberating or are they off? still going and making requests http://legalinsurrection.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 Is the Jury deliberating or are they off?Sill deliberating, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Do they have a choice of charges? I cant believe they didnt come back within an hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 Do they have a choice of charges? I cant believe they didnt come back within an hour. Yup. Murder 1. Murder 2. Manslaughter. Plus a few other lesser charges. If he gets charged at all he's going to do a lot of time.Thought it would be a quick verdict, too, until Strolla's closing arguments. Still think he gets no less than Manslaughter. If I had to predict a verdict: 2nd degree murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I think it's 2nd degree murder. I don't see any prior intention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 I think it's 2nd degree murder. I don't see any prior intention. Premeditation can be formed in a very short time. I don't think the state quite proved Murder 1 though. As in the Zimmerman case, it appears Angela Corey overcharged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I have no idea how this deliberation is taking so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Yup. Murder 1. Murder 2. Manslaughter. Plus a few other lesser charges. If he gets charged at all he's going to do a lot of time. I don't see how Murder 1 is even on the table. The DA thinks he can prove that the shooter PLANNED on killing somebody? Unless there's some felony involved that I'm not aware of, like, if he was planning on robbing the store. Then felony murder might fly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 I have no idea how this deliberation is taking so long.Maybe because you didn't watch any of the trial?I think Dunn is guilty. But I'm not shocked that it's taking this long. That's one thing I can't stand about these trials. People instantly form an opinion as to guilt or innocence, without ever having watched a second of the trial. That was VERY prevalent in the Zimmerman trial. I'm not singling you out. Although going by your posts then, it was obvious you didn't watch the trial. Zimmerman being an idiot didn't warrant a guilty verdict. Dunn is guilty though. I'm pretty convinced he will be convicted. I don't see how Murder 1 is even on the table. The DA thinks he can prove that the shooter PLANNED on killing somebody? Unless there's some felony involved that I'm not aware of, like, if he was planning on robbing the store. Then felony murder might fly. The state covered that. They kept saying that premeditation can be formed in an instant. For instance: Dunn had to turn his back to the SUV. Open the glovebox. Reach in. Grab the gun's holster. Unholster it. Then turn back around and fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 The state covered that. They kept saying that premeditation can be formed in an instant. For instance: Dunn had to turn his back to the SUV. Open the glovebox. Reach in. Grab the gun's holster. Unholster it. Then turn back around and fire. I think it needs to be more than that, or else there's no such thing as Murder 2. I mean, is it Murder 1 if he aimed? Now, to me, that is a pretty good argument against the "I thought he was gonna kill me any instant" defense, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 I think it needs to be more than that, or else there's no such thing as Murder 2. I mean, is it Murder 1 if he aimed? Now, to me, that is a pretty good argument against the "I thought he was gonna kill me any instant" defense, though. As I said earlier, I think the DA, once again, overcharged a case.She probably knew she could get at least Murder 2, so she just went for all the marbles. I personally think she's an idiot. She showed her ass after the Zimmerman case. To answer your question: I don't really understand the laws there. Too confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Maybe because you didn't watch any of the trial? I think Dunn is guilty. But I'm not shocked that it's taking this long. That's one thing I can't stand about these trials. People instantly form an opinion as to guilt or innocence, without ever having watched a second of the trial. That was VERY prevalent in the Zimmerman trial. I'm glad it's taking a while. It means the jury is doing their job and considering the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 I'm glad it's taking a while. It means the jury is doing their job and considering the case. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 The sad thing is... the jury could buy into this logic. (I'm not being insulting to you by saying that. FL is just that ****ed up. )No insult at all. I grew up there. I know how ***ed up it is. Someone mentioned reasonable doubt at one point in the thread and the thought that ran through my head was "Yeah, but FLs level for reasonable fear is less reasonable than most." :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 For the record BS, just because I got better things to do than come on here and argue with you, doesn't mean I didn't see any of the trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I'm glad it's taking a while. It means the jury is doing their job and considering the case. a large part of is the numerous charges.....the jury instruction alone is over 40 pages (part of which they had to request a copy of today ) murder1 needlessly complicates it even more especially if any juror voted for it 1st ballot i agree it should not be rushed (even though I would clearly convict him of manslaughter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Actually, it did occur to me that maybe manslaughter might be a legit charge, in this case. I didn't think it was appropriate with Zimmerman. IMO, you pull a gun and fire for center of mass, then you intend to kill. But this guy? Was he merely shooting at a car? I could see that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 Actually, it did occur to me that maybe manslaughter might be a legit charge, in this case. I didn't think it was appropriate with Zimmerman. IMO, you pull a gun and fire for center of mass, then you intend to kill. But this guy? Was he merely shooting at a car? I could see that argument. He was shooting at the door where Davis was sitting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Actually, it did occur to me that maybe manslaughter might be a legit charge, in this case. I didn't think it was appropriate with Zimmerman. IMO, you pull a gun and fire for center of mass, then you intend to kill. But this guy? Was he merely shooting at a car? I could see that argument. manslaughter is killing a human w/o premeditation or malice....not shooting at objects. Manslaughter The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection. Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Manslaughter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 They said even with Manslaughter he's looking at 9-30 years, but would likely get closer to 30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 manslaughter is killing a human w/o premeditation or malice....not shooting at objects. Agreed. It's "I wasn't trying to kill anybody". I could see a defense of "If I was intending to kill (as opposed to chasing them off), I would have fired through the windows." Depends on how many people know (or who think that the shooter knew) that bullets go through car doors. (It's one of the things I read, a while back. Things that Hollywood teaches people, that aren't true. In Hollywood, cops are always taking shelter behind car doors. And it works.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 They said Tevin Thompson, the guy sitting in front of Davis would have likely been killed, too, had the front door not had an extra layer or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Agreed. It's "I wasn't trying to kill anybody". I could see a defense of "If I was intending to kill (as opposed to chasing them off), I would have fired through the windows." Depends on how many people know (or who think that the shooter knew) that bullets go through car doors. (It's one of the things I read, a while back. Things that Hollywood teaches people, that aren't true. In Hollywood, cops are always taking shelter behind car doors. And it works.) on the contrary ....it is trying to kill someone, just w/o premeditation or malice beforehand if they jury believes he had no intention of shooting someone then manslaughter will not be the verdict Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 manslaughter is killing a human w/o premeditation or malice....not shooting at objects. ] You'd have to be pretty stupid to fall for that one. It's sort of like how they taught us in basic training that it's against the Geneva Convention to shoot at troops with large caliber weapons but shooting at equipment like uniforms and boots is OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Maybe my understanding of manslaughter is wrong. The example I was given, in high school, of the classic manslaughter, was a drunk driver who kills somebody. He wasn't trying to kill anybody. But he caused a death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.