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. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    for playing music too loud or something

    also check out that haircut

    [IMG]

    so apparently he was guilty of attempting to murder the other three occupants of the car, which he failed to do because the body of the dude he successfully murdered didnt murder(?) got in the way of the bullets... the system works!!..?
    Last edited by Rogue_Ten, Feb 16, 2014
  2. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    I've heard this a lot of times. There was basically no chance of a first-degree murder charge sticking as it required complete premeditation which... always seemed like a stretch. He's still going to jail for the rest of his life, no?
    Obi-Zahn Kenobi likes this.
  3. Juliet316 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 27, 2005
    star 7
    Yeah, he's looking at a 60 year prison sentence for the attempted murder charges. There's no way he's leaving prison in anything but a casket. Still sucks that he skated on the murder charge.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  4. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    yeah im just pointing out how absurd the system is. i dont care how long he's going to prison for. long prison sentences dont rehabilitate or provide restitution to a victim's family. especially when the headline result which backs the general bent of systemic violence in this country - namely that black lives are worth less than white
  5. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Should be retagged Senate. Seriously and all that.

    So for a criminal law conviction of first degree murder, mens rea would have to be established in conjunction with actus reus. Given the nature of the crime - and sadly mitigated by the cluster-**** that is the 2nd Amendment and its influence on American law - it would be impossible to establish intent. Therefore, it would be more likely second degree (assuming that's a thing in Floridan law) murder.

    In any event, when you give people firearms and tell them, "Go on, Billy Jimbob. That's your right, use it" you will have problems. Adding the castle doctrine is like throwing a bag full of nails into the middle of an epileptic support group meeting - someone's going to get hurt.

    Look, when kids misbehave, you take their toys away. When kidults - aka Americans - misbehave, you get the NRA in to lobby and lobby hard.

    [face_flag]
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  6. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    as OP, i forbid senate retagging. it would go against my Founder's Intent for this thread

    also i am aware of the difference between first and second degree murder. but that puts the onus on the prosecutor to not bungle the damn case. and the fact is this type of **** happens more often in white on black crime than the reverse, and as long as the impression exists it will continue to reinforce racial division and fear in the black community
    Last edited by Rogue_Ten, Feb 16, 2014
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  7. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    If you invoke that Founder's right, it basically says you do not lift.
  8. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    Easy way to solve these issues is when someone is on trial for harming a minority person have the jury and judge by law required to be of that same minority group. And when a person of a minority is charged with something, likewise have the jury and judge by law required to be of their same minority status.

    Also when it comes to minority victims change the proof needed to convict from 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to just being the 'preponderance of the evidence'
    Last edited by GenAntilles, Feb 16, 2014
  9. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    I thought he was going to be tried again on that charge?
  10. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    There are so many cases in the news of white men shooting black people for no reason that I get them confused. I thought this guy was the one who killed the woman asking for help after a car accident.

    [face_rofl]8-}
  11. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    Do white Americans only shoot blacks, or do Hispanics also get some lead lovin' too?
  12. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Why? Premeditation requires that he intended to kill before he started firing the weapon, not that he have an intricately planned plot laid out months in advance involving exotic poisons and booby traps. In this particular case, he happened to have killed someone of an ethnic group he called "the scourge of this nation" and whom he suggested should get shot more often. I don't think the leap to intent is nearly as large as you're making it.

    EDIT: Ghost, yes they are going to retry that charge. But I really don't know what to say. All physical evidence contradicated his testimony. Other witnesses, up to and included his own fiancee, contradicted his testimony. Even his own re-tellings of the story contradicted one another. Jordan Davis was indisputably unarmed, had not opened the door, and was trying to move away from the side of the car Dunn was on when the bullets started. Short of the killer holding up a copy of his driver's license and social security while firing and simultaneously yelling about how he's doing it for no reason, I have trouble conceiving of a stronger case for a murder conviction.
    Last edited by Jabba-wocky, Feb 16, 2014
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.
  13. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Last edited by Darth Guy, Feb 16, 2014
    Ender Sai likes this.
  14. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9

    1. When perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being;

    or

    (2) The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual

    The first is a hard, hard sell given the legal disposition of "premeditated design," versus the second which... is really a slam-dunk here. Those are both the relevant FL statutes.

    DA's fault, plain and simple. All things considered though, the dude's going to die in prison.
  15. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Yes, I know. That's why my post discussed what "premeditation" meant. How do you feel it's a "hard sell?" What about the fact pattern here suggests to you that a second degree charge is most appropriate?
  16. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9
    Because it's an easy sell to say "he didn't intend to kill the kid when we went out to the car, he just got angry in the moment / feared for his life / Stood His Ground after getting into an argument over loud hip-hop music" which eliminated premeditation and even easier to say, even based on the above, because he was being imminently dangerous to the other people in the car.

    As the charges held up on Attempted 2nd Degree Murder, it seems likely the jury would have agreed with this... :p
    Ender Sai likes this.
  17. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    yeah whatever happened to that car accident help guy? or the dude who shot the 8 year old for throwing something at his car or whatever?
    Last edited by Rogue_Ten, Feb 16, 2014
  18. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
  19. dp4m Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 8, 2001
    star 9

    Interestingly, Florida's about as stupid as stupid can be and Stand Your Ground is not inherently limited to your property, as I understand it. Which is... patently insane, if true...
  20. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    A couple things though:

    1. You might want to brush up on what happened. He never "went out" to the car. He was in his the whole time.

    2. You realize that in Florida, a jury may convict on any lesser charge than the one brought?

    3. I don't really see how it's an "easy sell." The first branching point is whether this act in any way constitutes self-defense. If someone thought it did, they shouldn't be charging him with murder at all. That would also be a fairly absurd position to take, in my opinion, given the complete lack of evidence to support it. The second branching point is, given that it wasn't self-defense, was he trying to kill or not. Taking one position or the other isn't inherently "easier". . .it's just taking a position.
    Last edited by Jabba-wocky, Feb 16, 2014
  21. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    But doesn't stand your ground inherently allow for a split-second gut feeling to be the deciding factor in any given scenario?

    I'd suggest you look into the perception bias stuff in the link I posted. Or read "Blink".
  22. Rogue_Ten Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 18, 2002
    star 7
    MY FOUNDERS INTENT HAS BEEN VIOLATED!!! NULLIFICATION NULLIFICATION!! DO NOT ATTAINDER ME
    EmpireForever and heels1785 like this.
  23. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Ender, they are from his jailhouse letters after awaiting trial. And they certainly referred to African-Americans, not to people that listen to rap music. Here is the context.

    Source: Page 17 of 56, pdf of collected letters of Michael Dunn

    Someone explain to me how that isn't specifically and exclusively about black people.

    As to your "Stand Your Ground" point, if they had accepted that argument, the case would not have gone to trial. If they accepted a more general self-defense, you could have acquitted him of the murder charge. But there is no situation where, as dp4m (and now you) seem to be suggesting, these sort of principals could be invoked merely to downgrade the severity of a standing murder charge and dismiss the notion that he had intent. They are separate questions.

    EDIT: Going further, these cases require a reasonable belief of imminent danger. There is lots of evidence his was unreasonable. Contrary to what he claimed, the teenagers never had any weapon. Contrary to what he claimed, none of several witnesses saw anyone attempting to open the car door or approach his vehicle in any way. He didn't even produce the claim about a gun until more than a day after killings, and never told to any of the first or closest people to whom he related the story.
    Last edited by Jabba-wocky, Feb 16, 2014
  24. duende Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 28, 2006
    star 5
    shot a few greens in my day
  25. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 9
    I can't get that to load now Wocky but will look later.

    Let me be clear; my opinions are as follows:

    1) Your nation's gun laws are breath-takingly stupid and anyone who defends them is, in my view, soulless and asinine
    2) Mr Dunn almost certainly provoked a confrontation
    3) Mr Dunn almost certainly panicked in his reaction to said confrontation and used disproportionate force
    3b) To that extent Mr Dunn may have felt he saw a weapon in the deceased's hands
    4) Mr Dunn's actions are indefensible

    So my opinion is clear, let me state that in the context of the letter of the law you would not be able to establish mens rea beyond reasonable doubt. Hence why I agree with dp's comments. The situation would not have sufficient evidence either way.
    Jedi Merkurian likes this.