Another florida teenager shot - stand your ground

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/loud-music-leads-to-murder_n_2200708.html

What I find important based on the little information available.

Mr. Dunn had just left his daughters wedding reception. His GF was buying a bottle of wine from a "Gas station". He shot an unarmed teenager, who was sitting in the backseat of a SUV, twice after firing 7-8 times into the vehicle. He then left the scene of the crime, went back to his hotel, and was arrestted the next morning. Witness's wrote down his license plate numbers which allowed the police to find him, after he'd already driven home!

Of course he's using Florida's "Stand your Ground law". The story coming out seems to be pretty Damning for Mr.Dunn. Hopefully this will be another wake up call for Florida, probably not though.

This guy should get the death penalty and his daughter's an idiot, "a tragedy on both sides" really, what's Mr. Dunn's tragedy here? Fuck I hate people.

Well he's obviously grasping at straws, but "stand your ground"?
What, was the horrible rap music they were playing too loud attacking him? Forcing him to fire into a vehicle?

I'm sorry, but what does she think discharging a firearm does, exactly? If you're firing a gun at someone, you either intend to kill them or you're a goddamned idiot.

Can't it be both? This ass was pressing a situation in a gas station parking lot, he could have just driven away if he didn't like the music, it's not like it was his next door neighbour or something.

Incidentally it's fucktards like this that are the best argument for repealing the second amendment and slapping the whole nation with strict gun control laws.

Hmm I'm really spitting a bunch of bile today, I'm not even in a bad mood I just don't want to deal with stupid shit, which is all I've been dealing with today unfortunately.

This guy was drunk. That's going to come out, but it won't be admissible since he left the scene of the crime.

He was forced to kill someone, duh. What was he supposed to do, drive away??

He was standing his ground on behalf of racist white people everywhere, still in a state of crisis following the election. I'm sure it's leading up to an amazing courtroom speech modeled after the Otter defense.

Leaving aside the wholesale ridiculousness of the rest of this quote and the fact that I'm pretty sure I do know what I would do in that situation, the bolded part really is an excellent argument for gun control. People really do react ludicrously based on terrible instincts sometimes. It would be good if people didn't have the means to murder other people handy when they did that.

According to the CNN story, the car full of teenagers was backing away when Dunn shot. Hard to see how "stand your ground" or regular self-defence would apply. Seems like a much weaker defence compared to the Zimmerman case, plus unlike the Zimmerman case there are witnesses apart from the shooter.

He also fled the scene (understandable if in danger, but you'd flee to the cops, not your hotel. Or at least call the fucking cops when you get there), and then fled the city.

Beyond any stand your ground issues, dude's doing time for his behavior after the fact.

Out of curiosity, are there laws in the US against carrying guns while drunk?

In some places, yes.

Yes. They are pretty strict in most places. It's understood by gun owners that you will be in a much stickier situation even if it's otherwise a legal shooting if alcohol was involved.
Edit:

Well, shit. I guess I just have had CC permits in the exceptions, then.

Duh, they were obviously backing up to ram his car. Probably while shouting "We're going to ram you white devil and we hate whiteys and you'll die from this ramming we'll ram into you!"

Yep, the defense's basis for the 'felt threatened' part of this is likely going to be 'he thought they were going to try to run him over'.

It sounds like there are plenty of witnesses to contest that, though.

Maybe the guy just watches way too many action movies and thinks cars are bulletproof?

I do not think it is proper for an attorney representing a party in a criminal case to voice an opinion as to the guilt or innocence in the media because it calls too much attention to the fact that attorneys are a giant bunch of whores who will say anything and that is detrimental to the American people's faith in their system of justice. Unless you win, of course, and then you shout it from the tippy top of the mountain that the other side sucks farts from sleeping people's butts, and how.

Is there, as yet, any indication that this defense won't be laughed out of the room and this guy isn't going to prison for murder?

Not that I can see.

I'm sure everyone is shocked, shocked that a good portion of the folks at FreeRepublic are sympathetic to the shooter, because loud bass-heavy music is really scary.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2963622/posts#comment

The money quote: "This wasn't self-defense, this was a public service", said about the middle-aged white man shooting the unarmed black teenager.

Imagine the fucking riot act waiting for that guy if there exists a caring and just God.

The Earth is a sphere, duh. By backing away, they were really coming straight at him. Just, you know, the long way around.

I also don't see where stand your ground would apply here. A person can claim anything they want to defend their actions, doesn't mean it has any basis in reality or makes the law they are claiming a bad law automatically.

That is true. It IS a bad law--a terrible law, really--but not because of this.

It's a bad law because as written it CAN apply in similar situations to this, since the standard is "felt threatened" not "was in danger".

The law needs some level of tweaking to stop having it blanket apply to plenty of offensive situations, as opposed to applying only to defensive situations.

edit: this is to say the main reason he's going down is because he fled the scene and made no attempt to contact the authorities about the shooting. Had he simply killed the man and the fled and called the cops, the burden of evidence would be on everyone else to prove that he didn't feel threatened at the time.

It's also a bad law because too many people apparently think it applies in whatever not-actually-threatening situation they happen to be in, whether or not they defend themselves under it successfully. This asshole was wrong about his actions being covered by Stand Your Ground, and he's going to go to prison because of it. And the other guy is dead. Woo, great result.

Yes and no. The burden should be on the prosecutor to prove that this guy wasn't threatened. That's part of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". I think proof beyond a reasonable doubt should apply to self-defence cases just as it applies to other cases. Second, it is not enough for Dunn to claim that he subjectively felt he was in danger. He also has to provide some evidence that his subjective belief of danger was reasonable (ie. that a reasonable person in Dunn's position would fear for his life or safety). This is because the statute reads

" A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony ... "

As I see it, this case will be about whether Dunn's belief that he was in danger was reasonable.

I am extremely skeptical that the SYG law had anything to do with the escalation in this situation or a statistically significant portion of any crime-of-passion shootings in SYG states. It's incredibly generous to think that a drunk guy used it to justify his actions while shooting a teenager over loud music rather than coming up with it later as a half-assed defense while cowering in a hotel room while totally not hiding from the cops. It IS a terrible law for the reasons Kildorn stated, but not for your reason.

What kind of music are we talking here, like... T Pain bad, or Soulja Boy bad? This is important.

All signs point to Skrillex.








;)

Haha yeah! Or Run DMCohmygodI'mold :***(

It could have been some Miami Bass genre boom-biddy-boom-boom from the late 80s/early 90s. Pipe 2500 watts of that ass through a stack of 15's and the old white dude's pacemaker would shit itself before exploding in his heart. That's a clear-cut case of self defense.

If only he'd played DJ Assault, every bullet would just vanish and be replaced by asses and titties.

Of imminent death or great bodily harm.

Not just "danger."

Regardless, it reads like it was drafted by someone who huffs paint fumes for fun.

Would he have been carrying a gun if not for the really permissive range of scenarios in which he'd be allowed to use it in "self-defense?" Would he have even thought to just start shooting if he lived in a place that didn't make as many excuses as possible for people who do? We obviously can't know this particular guy's thought process, but when you condition people to view killing other people as a perfectly cromulent way of settling disputes, you're asking for cases like this one.

Actually, a surprisingly decent portion are either saying wait and see or that it flat-out doesn't look like self-defense. I'd say that a mere fifty percent support out Freep is a really bad sign for this guy.

Then again, there's this comment from some Freeper.

what?

Edit: Of course even people saying it sounds like murder are still kind of racist about it. "When I hear African fertility rights it makes me crazy too!" "I hate listening to jungle music at stop lights!"

I know this has fallen off the map due to every other person in America being shot at since, but, after the grand jury trial they upgraded his charges from second degree to first degree murder. Bringing up the possibility of life without parole.

There's also something about the kids in the car saying they hadn't left the scene but they did? But everyone is just saying "Well yeah, they were being shot at."

The kids in the car were black, so we must all be told there was no, repeat, no drugs or weapons in the car.

If the kids were white, and the shooter black, would anyone wonder about such things?

If someone reported there was a gun in the car then yes, I'm sure people would wonder about such things. That said it sounds like Dunn is just trying to lie his way out of this situation and fabricate a threat for his Stand your Ground defense.