Loud Music Murder Trial

[Larry]

Oh, I'm certain it's a factor.

Those statistics which twa is trying to claim that these laws protect blacks overwhelmingly demonstrate it.

You have to be unanimous on each count, that's why.

And someone voted not guilty, on the least of the charges.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Florida is getting little crazy lately.

[Bubble Screen]

Lets tell it like it is, when you have a trial like this one and the Zimmerman/Martin trials, you're always going to have "at least" one juror who sympathizes with the defendant who comes in with a pre-determined opinion on young black youths.

OR you have two black females who agreed with the idiot DA and thought Murder 1 was the correct charge.

[Bubble Screen]

Oh, I'm certain it's a factor.

Those statistics which twa is trying to claim that these laws protect blacks overwhelmingly demonstrate it.

And someone voted not guilty, on the least of the charges.

They were HUNG on the murder 1 charge. That could have meant two jurors wanted murder 1 and the rest of the sensible ones wanted murder 2. It doesn't say they thought he wasn't guilty.

[Burgold]

I wonder if Stand your ground could be used as a successful defense in a gang war?

[twa]

Florida is getting little crazy lately.

 

they been crazy, watching the crazy is just becoming a national pasttime

[Larry]

OR you have two black females who agreed with the idiot DA and thought Murder 1 was the correct charge.

Noticing how hell bent you are on claiming that he escaped any conviction whatsoever for the killing, because the DA made a charge you don;t think he was guilty of, AND that some juror was determined to do what you disagree with, AND that you're absolutely certain that it was because them two blacks had it in for the white guy.

Says a lot.

About you.

[twa]

I wonder if Stand your ground could be used as a successful defense in a gang war?

 

overall no,on a individual basis possibly

 

should members of a gang have a duty to flee from anothers attack?...yes or no 

 

as long as you are where you are allowed to be and not committing a crime self defense is a right

[skinsmarydu]

It wasn't illegal for Zimmerman to leave his vehicle.

I never said it was. But killing someone sure was. Whether justified or not was the question, in both of these cases. That the prosecutor couldn't properly charge & convict on either one is a travesty.

That was my point.

[Larry]

I wonder if Stand your ground could be used as a successful defense in a gang war?

At least from what I've read, it HAS been used by drug dealers, claiming that "I thought he was gonna kill me, and take the drugs".

(The law specifically states that people who are in the process of committing a felony are still permitted to kill in self defense, if they aren't committing a forcible felony.)

They were HUNG on the murder 1 charge. That could have meant two jurors wanted murder 1 and the rest of the sensible ones wanted murder 2. It doesn't say they thought he wasn't guilty.

 

They were HUNG on murder 1, murder 2, and manslaughter. On every single charge related to the person he killed.

[Bubble Screen]

Noticing how hell bent you are on claiming that he escaped any conviction whatsoever for the killing, because the DA made a charge you don;t think he was guilty of, AND that some juror was determined to do what you disagree with, AND that you're absolutely certain that it was because them two blacks had it in for the white guy.

Says a lot.

About you.

So it's ok for DM72 to pull the race card, but no one else can't? And I wasn't "certain" that's what happened. Just throwing out another VERY possible scenario.

I'm simply telling you that jurors can dig in on their beliefs and they don't have to change their stance on a particular count. That doesn't mean they thought he was innocent. It could simply mean they wanted Murder 1 and only Murder 1. Not sure why that is so difficult to understand.

[Bubble Screen]

I never said it was. But killing someone sure was. Whether justified or not was the question, in both of these cases. That the prosecutor couldn't properly charge & convict on either one is a travesty.

That was my point.

I guarantee you if the DA had properly charged both cases, there would have been a different outcome in at least one of these cases.

In closing arguements in the Zimmerman case, the prosecution didnt even want the jury to even consider a lesser charge. That's a problem, when he should have never been charged with Murder 1 to begin with.

[Kilmer17]

Can someone clarify-

If a juror refuses to budge from murder one, can that hang the jury?

I'm asking because I've seen posters claim that the jury didn't convict on any charge, and I'm wondering if one juror refusing to move from murder one would cause that.

The thinking is, he's going to jail forever, why let him skate on a lesser charge. Lets hang the jury and let them retry him

[Mocountyskins]

lmao Chris Rock said "If he is scared of black kids listening to music then he is going to be really scared in jail"

[Larry]

Can someone clarify-

If a juror refuses to budge from murder one, can that hang the jury?

Not sure I understand your question(s).

I'm pretty certain that, in a simple case, where we have one defendant, one crime, and one charge, then a hung jury is when the jury cannot unanimously agree on either guilty or not guilty.

Now, in these cases where the DA pulls the "lets charge the guy with multiple crimes, and let the jury decide which one he did"? I'm not sure of all the rules.

Probably a question for the lawyers.

If, hypothetically, the jury's voting was:

1). Murder 1: not guilty, 11-1.

2). Murder 2: Guilty 12-0.

3). Manslaughter: Guilty 12-0.

Then the guilty verdicts are unanimous, and can't be retried. But can the DA go back and try Murder 1 again? I sure don't know.

I assume that they WOULDN'T. (Retry it). They'd take the murder 2 conviction and move on to the next case. But COULD they? I dunno.

[Kilmer17]

I think that's right too. But until we hear from the jury, we won't know how the deliberations went.

I think it's more likely there was a single juror steadfast on murder one who refused to vote for a lessor charge, then there was a juror who didn't think he was guilty of any of them

I think that's right too. But until we hear from the jury, we won't know how the deliberations went.

I think it's more likely there was a single juror steadfast on murder one who refused to vote for a lessor charge, then there was a juror who didn't think he was guilty of any of them

[twa]

Can someone clarify-

If a juror refuses to budge from murder one, can that hang the jury?

I'm asking because I've seen posters claim that the jury didn't convict on any charge, and I'm wondering if one juror refusing to move from murder one would cause that.

The thinking is, he's going to jail forever, why let him skate on a lesser charge. Lets hang the jury and let them retry him

 

yes, it would be flouting the jury instructions imo,but it can happen

 

a juror could reason that they would not retry him for the higher charge if they settle for a lower one

 

and to the other poster ...yes you can be tried for murder1 after a manslaughter conviction IF you have not been acquitted of it

already

 

 

the jury's choice makes no sense to me 

[skinsmarydu]

But until we hear from the jury, we won't know how the deliberations went.

And we may never know...can't they choose to remain anonymous, either individually or as a group?

[Larry]

I think that's right too. But until we hear from the jury, we won't know how the deliberations went.

I think it's more likely there was a single juror steadfast on murder one who refused to vote for a lessor charge, then there was a juror who didn't think he was guilty of any of them

Yeah, it's certainly a possibility.

If, on the changes of murder 1, murder 2, and manslaughter, . . . if the voting is:

Juror 1: Guilty, Not, Not.

Juror 2: Not, Guilty, Guilty.

Then all three charges have a non-unanimous vote.

Now, in that case, I'd say what we've got, is a juror who's trying to bully the rest of the jurors into doing what he's demanding. I think the appropriate response is to make them keep at it, and hope that the stubborn one(s) become less arrogant.

But that's just me. And it's a lot of assumption.

----------

And we may never know...can't they choose to remain anonymous, either individually or as a group?

IMO, they not only can, but should be required to.

[skinsmarydu]

IMO, they not only can, but should be required to.

I agree...like I posted a few pages ago, another "juror B-29" story is not gonna be good.

edit: coverage on MSNBC now

edit 2: I'd love to tell ya what they said, but my husband is getting sick for some reason...****

[Bubble Screen]

Can someone clarify-

If a juror refuses to budge from murder one, can that hang the jury?

I'm asking because I've seen posters claim that the jury didn't convict on any charge, and I'm wondering if one juror refusing to move from murder one would cause that.

The thinking is, he's going to jail forever, why let him skate on a lesser charge. Lets hang the jury and let them retry him

If even one juror refuses to move on one count, that can hang the jury on that count, alone. And he can only be retried on that count alone. The other convictions stick.

Edit: and yes, you can retry one count for the same charge. I've stated several times already that Corey (DA) plans to try him for murder 1 again.

[Bubble Screen]

I think that's right too. But until we hear from the jury, we won't know how the deliberations went.

I think it's more likely there was a single juror steadfast on murder one who refused to vote for a lessor charge, then there was a juror who didn't think he was guilty of any of them

I think that's right too. But until we hear from the jury, we won't know how the deliberations went.

I think it's more likely there was a single juror steadfast on murder one who refused to vote for a lessor charge, then there was a juror who didn't think he was guilty of any of them

No, it would only take one juror wanting murder 1 refusing to budge to be hung on that count.

And we may never know...can't they choose to remain anonymous, either individually or as a group?

They can choose to remain anonymous, but once they speak to the media they lose that right.

[Boss_Hogg]

Hopefully Dunn's cellmate listens to the "thug music"

[The Sisko]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-10-28/opinion/ct-oped-1029-guns-20131029_1_ground-laws-blacks-ground-defense

 

Who benefits from the law? Actually, since poor blacks who live in high-crime urban areas are the most likely victims of crime, they are also the ones who benefit the most from stand your ground laws...

 

you can tell your people to put their fate in a jury's hands...I'll tell mine to think before they shoot.

Great article my buddy wrote about these new gun laws and race.

Following Florida's passage of "stand your ground" in 2005, "justifiable" homicides tripled from an average of 12 a year from 2000-2004 to an average of 35 a year from 2005-10.

Moreover, in a nationwide study of "justified" homicides from 2005-10, John Roman of the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center found that where the victim and shooter are strangers and not law enforcement, fewer than 3 percent of black-on-white homicides were deemed justified. When the shooter is white, however, and the victim is black, the rate leaps to 36 percent in "stand your ground" states.

 

 

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2013-08-13/news/os-ed-stand-ground-10-20-life-081313-20130812_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-gun-laws

 twa my reply was essentially going to be what's in the article smoreese posted. The author of the article you quoted took some numbers and facts, threw them together and came up with some spurious conclusions. What matters to me is that concealed carry permit holders of any race take their ability to use deadly force seriously and that the law holds them to this standard, all of them, no matter their race. In these two cases and others that haven't made the national news, I think this clearly hasn't happened.

 

I'm sorry but in my mind when you approach someone who's not breaking the law and not bothering you in any way, if the outcome is the use of deadly force it's almost always going to be the fault of the person initiating the confrontation. In this case, Dunn could have just as easily called the police to report the loud music and let it go. He certainly would have been within his rights to do so. He could have also just did what most of us do, shake his head and go about his business or any number of other things that wouldn't have resulted in him even drawing, let alone firing his weapon and killing someone. What I always ask myself is "Would I or anyone acting reasonably do this if I wasn't carrying?" If the answer is no, I don't do it. Even if the answer is yes, if I think the result might be a confrontation that might end badly, I'm still not going to do it. In short, I think the concept of minding your own business doesn't get thrown out the window simply because you're carrying.

 

Dude, it isn't the jury pool. It's the idiot DA overcharging that leads to the confusion plus the prosecution not proving their case, along with confusing jury instructions. And you can't have the jury pool made up of 80% blacks if the jurisdiction is made up of only 30% blacks.

The jury did a really good job with the verdict. They were very thorough. And they eventually got it right. The biggest problem with these trials is that the very people that are up and arms over Zimmerman and Dunn not getting convicted of Murder 1, are the same fools that didn't watch one second of either trial. Anyone that watched these trials (objectively) will tell you that both cases were overcharged. Most of these people had made up their minds these guys were guilty of Murder 1 from day one. It's idiocy.

Edit: and as for the jurors skipping murder 2 and manslaughter, as to count one. That's not how it works. What likely happened is that one or two jurors dug in early on in deliberations and weren't going to change their minds. In other words, the two black women on the jury could have wanted murder one on the killing of Davis, but the other jurors didn't. That's called being "hung" on that particular count.

 Here's my problem with your line of reasoning. The DA could have charged him with murder 2 which I agree would have been more appropriate. However, there's nothing to say that the same scenario mightn't have happened. One or more jurors could have still stuck to their position to force a mistrial hoping to get their way the next time around. I don't think it's asking too much to give them all the options and expect that they'll make an intelligent decision to arrive at a verdict on the correct charge. If not, keep them sequestered until they do. If I were the judge I'd be willing to leave them there indefinitely if need be. If the result is not guilty then so be it.

 

Aside from this, there's a bigger problem though. You said earlier that the hung jury didn't matter because Dunn essentially got what amounted to a life sentence anyway. Whether he's retried on the murder charge or not, I fully expect he'll appeal the decision. I have to wonder, assuming his testimony didn't cut off this line of argument already whether his lawyer will be able to say that he had no way of knowing whether his life was still in danger when he was firing at the truck. After all, he probably couldn't have known whether Davis was incapacitated from his first shots. If at least some on the jury buy that he was truly fearing for his life, then it's absolutely reasonable for him to continue firing, not at the other occupants but to prevent Davis from firing back. ---> not guilty of attempted murder. For this reason, if he's not ultimately convicted of murder or manslaughter for killing Davis, I think there's a decent chance he walks at some point on appeal as in my mind the two are linked together.

 

why is the black on black higher than the white on white....and no protest marches

Regarding your first question, If Dunn had been Black I'd still be equally outraged. However for many it just wouldn't push the obvious buttons because of the mistaken notion that Blacks can't profile other Blacks. Additionally, as highlighted in smoreece's article there's a reasonable perception among many (me included) that the law has a different standard for the reasonable use of deadly force depending on the races of the shooter and person who gets shot.

 

Regardless of the races involved, concealed carry shouldn't mean you get to kill someone simply because you don't like their behavior, you think they're threatening in some vague, non-specific way or because you're profiling them for some reason.

[twa]

 

Regardless of the races involved, concealed carry shouldn't mean you get to kill someone simply because you don't like their behavior, you think they're threatening in some vague, non-specific way or because you're profiling them for some reason.

 

It doesn't.....some people on both sides of the issue clearly think it does,but it in no way does.

 

the lack of evidence(and presumption of innocence) can certainly work in a defendants favor, but that is a different matter

 

the writer of that piece made several major mistakes btw,but he isn't alone....even the NY Times puts out incorrect assumptions

 

add

From my reading of the case I would have convicted him of manslaughter

It is possible he is telling the truth about a weapon though....but I doubt it seriously