main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate [American Just Us] white man convicted of attempted murder after successfully murdering black teen

Discussion in 'Community' started by Rogue_Ten, Feb 16, 2014.

  1. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    Part of my point is merely that it requires you accepting that he actually thought he saw a weapon. Given how extremely late in the process he brought that up, it seems to me more likely that may never have done so, but simply said he did, because it provides a mitigating circumstance. Which, apparently and incredibly, worked.

    EDIT: Though, yes, I will agree with you that the converse side of that argument is that if you choose to to believe his testimony on those points, it does make pre-meditation harder to sustain.
     
  2. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001

    Sorry, you're quite right about the case from a few points up -- I don't know why I had it in my head that he approached the car from a residence rather than a car-on-car interaction in a gas station. Either way, if he claimed Stand Your Ground, Florida is stupid and it doesn't have to be applied solely in one's residence that I am aware of.

    However, the crux of the argument I was making was not to argue anything other than First Degree Murder and proving premeditation was a hard sell to begin with. You'll notice my first argument revolved around "got angry in the moment" -- which is grounds enough to not be premeditation. You keep assuming premeditation applies "with intent to kill before he pulls the trigger" which is generally a false argument. as -- it is known -- you "can't know someone's heart" and that would be the only way to prove it.

    First Degree Murder basically is only easy to prove in the cases of Felony Murder (which is a 1st degree charge) or in the case of hiring someone to kill someone, or having written proof. The DA could likely easily have gotten a Second Degree Murder conviction. Regardless of what he claimed (assuming he claimed a self-defense plea), even were that rejected by a jury the prosecution would still have to prove premeditation.
     
    Ender Sai likes this.
  3. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001

    I can't not believe it, either. Which is the whole point of "beyond reasonable doubt". Likely that old white man tries to tell kids to turn music down, conversation gets heated, he either gets angry and shoots them or gets pants-wettingly scared and shoots them - can't say for sure. Could have either thought he saw a gun then or replaying the incident in his head, saw it in hindsight. Or it could be a ruse to mitigate the charges. I don't know, which is why I would not be able to agree on a murder charge.

    I'm fairly sure most lawyers would agree that their opinion might be he is a racist jerk but the legal argument is less clear.
     
  4. yankee8255

    yankee8255 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    May 31, 2005
    The jury clearly didn't buy Dunn's self-defense assertion, if they did, they couldn't have convicted him of the attempted murder charges. Is it possible that they were hung as what degree of murder it was, i.e. some jurors voting for first degree, others for second degree? Given that the shooting was the result of what seems to have been a heated argument, it wouldn't be that surprising that he not be convicted of first degree murder, as the "malice aforethought"/"premeditated design" was not present.

    If, on the other hand, the jury was hung because one or ore jurors was voting not guilty on all murder charges, well, that simply makes no sense at all given the attempted murder convictions.
     
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  5. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    Ender, I guess I don't necessarily have too large a problem with that. After all, in spite all of our attempts to be as objective as possible, each individual is going to have a slightly different line for "beyond a reasonable doubt" based on their experiences and personality. But, separately, I think it's the case that if you were to follow the trial closely--as I did moreso than the other posters in this thread--you may have found the defendant's testimony thoroughly impeached and his credibility destroyed.

    I fully understand that there is a difference between how we feel about things and how the exact letter of the law dictates we deal with them. But I'm arguing that what people are expressing here is more complex than that. I think careful study of the case's details would push you "beyond a reasonable doubt" on the question of intent.
     
  6. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001

    But the point is the jury -- the actual jury -- a) found his self-defense / Stand Your Ground points completely false and b) could not prove premeditation and hence could not convict in murder in the first degree...

    My only point in all of this has been that that specific charge always seemed like a stretch because proving premeditation, and not a felony/drug/etc. murder, is always harder especially in the case of random violence -- but it seemed like a murder in the second degree charge would have been a slam-dunk, assuming the self-defense charges were irrelevant which they were.
     
  7. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    But there is a significant gap between saying "X is harder to prove than Y" and claiming that Y is a "stretch." The former is just a statement of fact. Yes, the standard required for one charge is higher than another. But to call first degree murder a "stretch" is to specifically say that after evaluation, you found the charge tenuous to inappropriate. That's the notion I'm disputing.

    I do not think this represented some sort of error on the part of of the prosecutor. I don't believe the facts of the case would fail to sufficiently support the charges that were brought. I think it to more likely that it was an issue with individual jurors, if anything. For more information, though, we'll really need someone to speak up about the internal deliberations. The big questions are what was the deadlock over, and how close was the vote. A 6-6 split is far different than 11-1, I think you'll agree. Likewise, as others have pointed out, disagreement over fist vs second degree murder would be different than splitting over first degree murder versus innocence.
     
  8. yankee8255

    yankee8255 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    May 31, 2005
    Would either of had a problem if the jury had come back with a 2nd degree murder conviction?

    It's also worth pointing out that the attempted murder convictions were for 2nd degree.


    Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk
     
  9. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001

    That was exactly my point; first degree murder always seemed an overreach by the DA... second degree murder basically is textbook to the FL statute description...
     
    Ender Sai and yankee8255 like this.
  10. yankee8255

    yankee8255 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    May 31, 2005
    Yeah, the original article left me a bit confused, to be honest, as it makes it seem there jury members voting to acquit. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a large majority voting for second degree and a few more 'radical' holdouts insisting on first (which I believe would bring the death penalty into play).


    Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk
     
  11. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001

    Agreed 100%. So long as there's any doubt, there's doubt (as de Niro said in Ronin). So First Degree was absurd as a charge.

    Jabba-wocky - there shouldn't be any doubts among us as to whether the man intended first degree murder. Otherwise, how would you have established mens rea? Second degree seems infinitely more plausible.
     
  12. I Are The Internets

    I Are The Internets Shelf of Shame Host star 9 VIP - Game Host

    Registered:
    Nov 20, 2012
    As long as the guy is going to prison for a very long time and not getting off with a slap on the hand that is probation.
     
  13. yankee8255

    yankee8255 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    May 31, 2005
    I don't know that I'd say she definitely overcharged, she did convince at least one juror of her case, maybe several. Her track-record doesn't give one much confidence in her, though.


    Gesendet von meinem iPhone mit Tapatalk
     
  14. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    Ender, that's simply not true. What you're talking about is an ideal, but it's far from reality. By your logic, any charge that results in a hung jury out to lead to an acquittal. After all, why would there be any disagreement? Rod Blagojevitch, notoriously corrupt Governor of Illinois, ought to go free by this logic: his first trial ended in a hung jury, and if one person was unconvinced about his corruption, there is no way we can establish his crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. Even when we're trying our best to be objective, unconscious biases and other factors can influence our judgments, as the literature you cited earlier in the thread pointed out. Because of this, it is both abstractly possible and recorded pretty regularly in jurisprudence that people might disagree on whether the standard of reasonable doubt has been met or not. The mere fact of disagreement in no way sullies the strength of a determination.

    dp4m, I don't mean to go in circles, but your argument seems circular. I just want to make sure you realize that talking about what seems "textbook" isn't a commentary on the law, but what you think happened. Yes, if you think it's only been proven that he acted recklessly out of his anger, but without specific intent, second degree murder is the perfect description of what happened. If, on the other hand, you thought intent was proven, that wouldn't really fit, and first degree murder is the perfect charge. If you think he's a righteous, innocent white man set upon by savage colored thugs, and that he barely escaped with his life through skill and perseverance, then this is a textbook "Stand Your Ground" statue case, and he shouldn't be standing trial for murder at all. In no case are you actually making objective commentary on the trial or legal proceedings themselves. You are just restating your own opinion of what you thought happened.
     
  15. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    It does when the charge is wildly inappropriate like first degree murder.
     
  16. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    And you know it's inappropriate based on one thread in the JCC and all the details of a trial you didn't follow for an incident you don't otherwise know about? Quite the ironclad case.
     
  17. VadersLaMent

    VadersLaMent Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 3, 2002
  18. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001

    Wocky, first degree requires that intent is established beyond reasonable doubt. News organisations do not seem sympathetic to this man and yet there's nothing to insinuate mens rea. If you know otherwise, speak up.
     
  19. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    I've spoken about some of them generally in this thread already. Your specific responses to those issues have consistently been, by your own admission, assumptions about the case given your (and dp4m's) own lack of knowledge about what it actually entailed. If you'd like to have serious discussion, go take up the time to look into the things your casually glossing over.

    We are in a situation where people who are much more versed in the details of the trial than you have come to the opposite conclusion. It is beyond stupid for you to simply assume that the sole reason for this disagreement is that everyone else is a bunch of maladjusted yahoos that can't understand basic legal principles.
     
  20. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Scenario:

    1) Two cars are at gas station, passenger in car 1 goes in to store.
    2) Car 1 driver asks Car 2 to turn down that noise / get off my lawn.
    3) ????
    4) Car 1 open fires at Car 2, killing Car 2's driver unbeknownst to Car 1's driver.
    5) Car 1 peels off.

    What else is really misinformed about the case; those are the basic facts, no?
     
  21. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001

    The fact that the jury couldn't agree beyond reasonable doubt on first degree murder suggests in fact a massive racist cover-up Wocky. You are correct.

    That they had no issue in reaching a second degree murder charge is probably a combination of racism and income inequality. Plus global warming and the West Bank.

    The difference between first- and second-degree murder in US law is a semantic one and the fact that Mr Dunn had a carry and conceal permit - another of your little cancers from that bastard 2nd Amendment - is proof he intended to shoot black kids. Proof positive, in fact, of mens rea.

    Just think how much more fun you'd have as a legal professional in the UK, Wocky. Wigs and robes!
     
  22. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Seriously though, Stand Your Ground law in Florida adds to the State's burden of proof by requiring that the State prove that a person did not act in self-defence. Based on both that and the requirement to establish mens rea and actus reus to secure a first degree murder charge it's bloody impossible to suggest the charge was a valid one.

    Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying I think the guy is a good man or acted properly. But your country, so utterly and irredeemably ****ed as it is, has allowed this to happen. The sooner you get over yourselves and use the Constitution for what it's best suited for - wiping your arse - the sooner you can get sanity back into your national identity.
     
  23. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    1. All of Step 3 which is not in fact "???" But filled in quite well with physical evidence, and eyewitness testimony

    2. Significant character evidence that offers insight into the perpetrator's state of mind

    3. Multiple factors that seriously and objectively degrade the trustworthiness of the man whose story you are using as your basis for doubting the state's theory of the case.

    I am very well aware that in a generic situation where someone gets shot at the gas station after an argument, you can't really talk about intent to do so. But what I don't seem to have seen you acknowledge is that this is not a generic case. It is a specific one. With specific facts that do speak to some of your concerns. If you want to have that discussion, I'm happy to--I'd in fact think it would be healthy. But argue from knowledge. It's indefensibly arrogant to assume that everything you don't know must agree with what you already think. In what other situation would you do that? How is this much better than the guys you're mocking over in the Christianity thread for dismissing whole scientific disciplines that they've never studied for a single minute? Before you talk about something, you should take the time to know what you're talking about.

    Ender: Let's be clear here. I have never accused anyone of racism save the perpetrator, who wrote multiple letters expressing explicitly racist sentiment, and even naming it as such. While I am disappointed in the verdict, my position throughout this thread has always been that different people will at times disagree on whether a case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You are the only in this entire thread so arrogant to assume that disagreement with your personal opinion is an implication that the other side must somehow be fundamentally flawed. Especially when repeatedly in the thread (and even in your most recent post), you make comments that betray a flat misunderstanding of either this case, the applicable law, or both.
     
  24. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    All I meant with "3) ????" is that the facts were under dispute (as is natural in a criminal prosecution), not to imply that the jury couldn't come to some reasonable decision on what actually happened in 3) which is... y'know... the jury's job.

    But, realistically, it's a random encounter between people in a period of time likely under 10m. Do you know how astronomically difficult it is to prove premeditation in that period of time? Significant character evidence offers nothing necessarily about the actual state of mind of the person, either at the time period or the specific case of pulling the gun and pulling the trigger. Harry Truman was apparently a known anti-Semite; and yet one of his closest advisors for some matters was a Jewish man and, when faced with acknowledging the State of Israel, he did it.

    I'm not saying that the dude is not a horrible human being. I'm not saying that the young man who lost his life deserved it. All I'm saying is, outside of an actual felony murder, murders involving drugs, killing a cop or killing your spouse... random encounters between people seem to be a very hard burden of proof as a first-degree murder charge for the DA.
     
  25. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Wocky since my posts I've read a few background articles, including the in-depth Rolling Stone pieces; law blogs; US and local news services.

    Bear in mind I studied law, too.

    And bear in mind my personal opinion is this guy is a racist dick whose douchebaggery was amplified by the bat**** crazy gun laws in your country. Had the laws been written by intelligent, sane people and had Americans also been more sane, this wouldn't have happened. But you're all as nuts as room full of Russians so here we are.

    Nothing you have said, or I have read, would suggest that he had mens rea beyond reasonable doubt when you factor in the burden of proof imposed on the state by Stand Your Ground legislation.

    Now I'm not an expert like you, so my definition of a reasonable doubt may be completely wrong. I was always taught reasonable doubt was that there could be no reasonable doubt as to guilt in the mind of a reasonable person. Since the provisions of Stand Your Ground require the prosecution to establish that someone in Mr Dunn's situation felt sufficiently threatened, and that is damned near impossible to disprove, it creates a neat scenario where his get out of jail free card is almost assured. Again; this is not to deny that in my view, this guy is 100% a murdering swine. It's to say that applying the standard a judge or jury would, he's not guilty of first degree murder and it beggars belief that a more realistic charge, like 2nd degree, was not levelled.

    Until such a time as the conviction is overturned on appeal or similar, Mr Dunn is not guilty of first degree murder. Legally.