Dunn created the confrontation, made it deadly & under FL's insane laws, the prosecution was limited

[DonViejo]

Michael Dunn’s sick license to kill: The hot-blooded murder of Jordan Davis and Florida’s perverted justice

Dunn created the confrontation, then made it deadly. Under Florida's insane laws, the prosecution was still limited

PAUL CAMPOS

The failure to convict Michael Dunn for shooting Jordan Davis to death in the course of an argument over whether the 17-year-old and his friends were playing their car stereo too loudly illustrates that, as a practical matter, hot-blooded murder is often perfectly legal under Florida law – and that of many other states as well.

Criticisms of the jury fail to appreciate that the prosecution was faced with an almost impossible legal burden in this case, and only Dunn’s decision to fire three more shots at a fleeing vehicle (after he had already emptied seven of the bullets in the gun’s clip when killing Davis) kept him from escaping any punishment at all.

Unlike the George Zimmerman trial, the Dunn case featured a straightforward application of Florida’s “stand-your-ground” law. That law works like this: If Dunn had a reasonable fear that he was about to suffer “great bodily harm,” then he had a legal right to shoot Davis to death, rather than, for example, choosing to protect himself by driving away, even if Dunn knew that driving away would have protected him from harm.

If you think that sounds crazy, you haven’t heard the half of it. Because the “stand your ground” law creates an affirmative defense for criminal defendants, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn’s claim that he had a reasonable fear he was about to suffer great bodily harm was false. Such laws, in effect, put the victim rather than the killer on trial, which is exactly what happened in this case.

more
http://www.salon.com/2014/02/16/michael_dunns_sick_license_to_kill_hot_blooded_murder_of_jordan_davis_and_floridas_perverted_justice/

[DesMoinesDem]

1. This article is BS.

the Dunn case featured a straightforward application of Florida’s “stand-your-ground” law.

No it didn't. The defense didn't use the stand your ground law as a defense.

[LiberalAndProud]

2. Really?

Dunn claimed he acted in self-defense, testifying that he thought he saw a gun pointed at him from Davis’ vehicle.

Under the stand your ground law, he had no duty to retreat. Shooting is better than running in Florida. Yes. Stand your ground was the legal issue at hand.

[DesMoinesDem]

9. If the stand your ground law was used

there would first have been a stand your ground hearing. There wasn't. The law wasn't used.

[jeff47]

11. SYG was in the jury instructions, per the SYG law.

An SYG hearing can end the trial early. But the SYG law also altered the jury instructions when the defendant tries for a justifiable homicide defense.

[Major Nikon]

16. Hogwash

SYG is the self defense law in Florida. The SYG hearing is just one aspect of it.

[DesMoinesDem]

18. Fact.

There were already laws to cover self defense. Stand your ground was not used as a defense. That is a fact.

[Fred Sanders]

21. It was considered by the jury, it HAD to be, so obviously it could have been a factor:

Dunn's lawyer, Cory Strolla, did mention it during his closing argument, saying, "His honor will further tell you that if Michael Dunn was in a public place where he had a legal right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force."

As in the Zimmerman case, the jury instruction concerning justifiable homicide mentioned that right, and it is more plausible in this case that it made a difference, since Dunn arguably could have driven away even if, as he claimed, Davis menaced him with a shotgun. (By contrast, Zimmerman's account of the fight that ended in Trayvon Martin's death, which was supported by substantial evidence and seems to have been accepted by the jury, precluded the possibility of retreat, since Zimmerman claimed Martin knocked him to the ground and was on top of him, smacking his head against the concrete.) Then again, even states that impose a duty to retreat make an exception when it cannot be done safely, and driving away from a gunman who has just threatened to kill you (per Dunn's account) would be pretty risky.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/02/16/did-floridas-stand-your-ground-law-hang

You are just WRONG about your point that the SYG either was not "used by the defence", or that it was not a factor.

It simply WAS.

[heaven05]

30. it was murder, pure and simple

by a racist pigshit bastard.

[Major Nikon]

22. Trying to pass off your opinions as fact doesn't do much for your credibility

Self-defense law in FL was dramatically different prior to SYG. That is a fact, and the differences had a lot more to do with just the SYG hearings. The difference is that prior to SYG a person claiming self-defense had to provide an affirmative defense of the use of deadly force. Now the burden is on the prosecution to affirmatively prove that there was no cause to use deadly force. In cases where there are no witnesses because the perpetrator killed them, it places an almost insurmountable burden of proof on the prosecutor. That's why you have so many people not being prosecuted for deadly shootings in Florida after SYG as opposed to prior to SYG.

http://www.blakedorstenlaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1687102.html

[X_Digger]

23. This shit again?

If you even read your own "article", you can see that those presumptions occur within castle doctrine, not SYG-

The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear that deadly force was necessary; and
The presumption that the intruder intended to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

"Intruder"? How can one have an "intruder" on a street?

Here's the relevant section of Florida code:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
...
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

Hence "intruder". Those are the two presumptions mentioned in your article. They are specific to unlawful entry into one's "castle".

Now, looking at the actual SYG statute:

Same page, lower down..

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Notice the lack of 'presumptions'? It would not say 'if he or she reasonably believes' if there was a presumption of such.

The presumption that the defendant had a reasonable fear only applies in one's home, in case of unlawful entry.

I'm really waiting to hear how you think that those presumptions actually apply to SYG rather than castle doctrine- "intruder" and all.

Hint: Next time, don't just pick a random lawyer's webpage.

[Major Nikon]

24. Que the amateur lawyer gun apologist

Right on time.

I don't do trolls and I'm not going to continue a topic of discussion I've already schooled you on and specifically told you I wasn't interested in pursuing with you. If I wanted to hear 'your' opinions, I'd go watch Hannity reruns. Now off to the shit list you go!

Cheers!

[X_Digger]

26. How do you have an "intruder" on a street, Major?

You might want to find a better source, if you're going to spout inanity.

eta: And "schooled"?!? You ran away after I showed you that your ambulance chaser source isn't even consistent with the law.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Unless the defendant waives such a hearing. eom.

[TorchTheWitch]

12. And the law doesn't allow someone to assume they see a weapon

The law also doesn't allow you to shoot someone who has threatened you with a weapon but for whatever reason retreats as Dunn claimed in one of his multiple stories - that Davis was getting back into the car when Dunn shot him (ie: Davis was not a threat at the time because according to Dunn he was getting back into the car and thus retreating. And seeing as there was a ton of evidence that there was no weapon I don't believe the jury believed there ever was. The defense tried to claim that during the time the car of teenagers left the parking spot and when they came back that they could have stashed a weapon in the bushes, except that independent witnesses testified that the only time any of them got out of the car was when they realized that Davis was badly hurt, two of them got out of the car and went to Davis's side to try to help him - no weapon, and no one from the car trying to stash a weapon in shrubbery or a trash bin or whatever. Further, no weapon was discovered anywhere near the scene. Dunn was never shot at, and his actions of getting out of his car, and circled behind it making a huge target of himself in order to continue shooting at the fleeing car. Had he believed they had a gun he would never have made such a target of himself. Also, Dunn's actions after leaving the scene and going back to his hotel show that though he claims he was terrified that these gun toting kids were going to come after him he parked right in front of the hotel, left his gun in the car and took his dog out for a walk. He also never called the police to tell them that a car full of kids with a gun were driving around threatening people and he was terrified they were coming after him. On top of that, his own fiance - a DEFENSE witness, on rebuttal testimony swore that at no time did Dunn ever tell her he saw that the kids in the car had a gun or some other gun-like thing that he believed was a gun.

So, where does SYG come in to this case? It doesn't. There is simply FAR too much evidence that proved not only that there was no gun or gun-looking thing but that Dunn at no time believed that they had a gun or a gun-looking thing. Further, even with SYG language included in Florida's self-defense law, it says that there must be an immediate threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Again, the evidence showed clear as a bell that there never was an immediate threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm. This is likely why the first thing the jury asked for was to see the dummy and the sticks after watching testimony from the medical examiner that proved that Davis was shot while sitting in the back passenger seat in the car and that he was shot when his door was closed. Even with Dunn changing his story to try to fit the ME's findings in claiming that he shot Davis while Davis was BACK in the car that means that he had retreated and was no longer a threat at the time that Dunn fired at him.

In this case, SYG was not at issue - Dunn was never threatened with imminent death or severe bodily harm. There was no gun or gun-looking thing, the law doesn't allow him to assume a weapon exists, nor does it allow him to shoot anyone when they are in retreat (assuming that Davis ever got out of the car which he didn't and which other evidence showed).

The SYG law in Florida provides that a person does not have a duty to retreat when in a public place they have a right to be when they are threatened with imminent death or severe bodily harm. Dunn was not ever threatened with imminent death or severe bodily harm even according to his own claims concerning what occurred that he testified to. Florida's self-defense law including SYG do not allow a person to assume a "thing" that did not exist in the first place is a weapon, nor does it allow a person to kill someone who is in retreat (as Dunn testified that he shot Davis when he got back into the car and was therefore in retreat and no longer an imminent threat), nor does it allow for someone to continue to shoot at a car full of people that is in retreat and when there are other people in that car that were at no time any threat.

Show me where the SYG law had anything at all to do with this case. If you're going to make the claim you should be able to back it up.

[kcr]

13. The jury didn't just ask for the dummy with the sticks, did they?

They asked questions pertaining to self defense, for each count. Dunn was not himself claiming the gun was made up, was he? No. He claims he saw a gun and felt threatened. It's a SYG case.

[TorchTheWitch]

14. here we go again

The SYG law specifically provides that a person must REASONABLY believe that they are in immediate threat of death or severe bodily harm. By Dunn's own words under oath he testified that Davis got BACK into the car when Dunn shot him. Therefore, (if you believe that Davis ever did get out of the car (and evidenced proved he did not) he was in retreat and no longer a threat at the time that Dunn shot him. Florida's self-defense laws INCLUDING SYG do not allow a person to kill someone when they are in retreat as Dunn himself testified that he was because at that point there is no longer a threat. Florida's self-defense laws also do not allow someone to ASSUME they see a weapon, they have to be certain it is a weapon whether a gun or bat or fists or whatever and that they are threatened with IMMANENT death or severe bodily harm.

A TON of evidence showed that Dunn was never at any time threatened with immanent death or severe bodily harm and in part by his own words under oath in claiming that Davis RETREATED back into the car at the moment that he first pulled the trigger. Dunn even claimed that Davis was at the moment RETREATING when he pulled the trigger because he testified that Davis was still in the process of getting back into the car and only shut the door behind him after Dunn shot him when the ME proved wasn't true with the dummy and sticks as well as where the bullets went inside Davis's body and what they did (he would have been physically incapable of shutting the door after being shot). Further, other evidence proved that Davis's door was not open even a little with ballistic evidence as well as testimony from the other kids in the car that Davis COULDN'T have opened his door because of the automatic child locks that the driver had to operate, and at the time the driver was in the store (proven with surveillance cameras at the store).

Yes, the jury asked self-defense questions, but they pertained to the surviving members in the car which is made clear in this video of the judge and attorneys discussing how to answer those questions and the fact that very soon after they were answered the jury announced that they had verdicts concerning the three passengers...

Watch the whole thing. It is clear that the jury was confused by the instructions and the judge says that they struggled over the language and it was indeed unclear. But those questions were clearly about how they should apply self-defense for each person in the car - whether each person is considered together or each considered separately. They didn't have anything to do with SYG or what justifiable use of force consists of, etc.

[kcr]

15. Jury instructions included SYG as per the law

And his lawyer mentioned SYG:" His honor will further tell you that if Michael Dunn was in a public place where he had a legal right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force."

You are flat out wrong in stating it had nothing to do with this case.

[X_Digger]

25. Did you leave out the center bit?

Here's the statute:

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Wait.. I see it in another article:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/16/cnn-falsely-claims-stand-your-ground-played-no/198080

"His honor will further tell you that if Michael Dunn was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in a public place where he had a legal right to be.."

Why did you snip out that bit?

There was no credible evidence that Dunn was attacked, no reasonable person would believe he was, therefore the rest of it is moot.

[leftynyc]

41. Technically, he was

Just mouthing off to someone can legally be construed as assault (which doesn't involve touching another person - once you touch, it's battery). That said, Dunn is a murderous scum and I hope the state has learned from any weaknesses in their case and tries him again.

[Diamonique]

3. The defense didn't "technically" use SYG, but

the SYG wording is part of Florida's "justifiable homicide" defense.

That's why Dunn came up with the imaginary gun-wielding teenager getting out of the car and coming after him. He concocted that lie days after the incident, when he realized he was in trouble.

[DonViejo]

4. Juror instructions included consideration of SYG in their deliberations...

I'm going to go search for the article now, will post when I find it. Meanwhile, I highly recommend this comment written last night by DU'er (and former Prosecutor) Laxman:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024507361#post11

If you can handle a little levity about Mr Dunn's future, here's another comment I recommend.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024507361#post6

[russspeakeasy]

6. Thanks for posting this.

[DonViejo]

5. Did you read the full article?...

If you had, you would know exactly why the law applied in this case; because of the stupid FL law which pretty much mandates its application.

[geek tragedy]

7. Fuck Ron Paul, and ALEC too nt

[rhett o rick]

8. ALEC supports the TPP. Whose side are you on? nm

[mmm413]

33. The prosecutors overcharged

There was no reason to have charged him with 1st degree. I'm not defending him. This was definitely prosecutorial misconduct. They did the same thing with Trayvon Martin. They overcharged and left the jury with no choice. At least this jury had the choice of other charges. This prosecutor should be fired. It's hard to tell, since I haven't looked at her record other than this trial and Zimmerman's, whether she overcharges in other cases involving a white person against a black and/or brown person. I think that would be the most interesting line of inquiry.

[rocktivity]

36. The top charge should have been second degree murder, then

Last edited Tue Feb 18, 2014, 03:29 PM - Edit history (4)

"the killing of another human being during the commission of a felony that is imminently dangerous to human life," the felony being that Dunn shot into the car as it was retreating.

What the prosecution failed to do was explain the differences between premeditation and intent, and that second-degree murders applies to death caused by a commission of a felony as well as displaying a depraved indifference to human life.

The jury tried to make a consolation prize out of convicting Dunn of everything else. But they didn't take into account how it would look to give justice to the people that Dunn didn't kill and not give it to the person he did kill.


rocktivity

[tblue37]

39. The jury instructions included the SYG language because he claimedself-defense. nt

[Downwinder]

10. Makes a statement that it is all right to shoot up a person

but don't shoot up a car. In America property is more important than people.

[A Simple Game]

17. Now that's not necessarily true.

It depends on who the person is and who owns the property.

[Fred Sanders]

19. Insanity is legalizing self induced ANGER as a perfectly acceptable state of mind that establishes

a defence, when it should establish the opposite.

Logic and hundreds of years of carefully crafted self defence precedents by the Courts through common law have been turned on its head.

[gopiscrap]

27. this is so fucked up!

We need to get rid of guns altogether!

[kamron]

28. ok ppl settle down

this isn't a town hall..... forget about the court procedures, and whether or not syg was used... The real issue is that damn florida crazy state. Is it safe to say no more vacations to florida.

[Lamonte]

29. Common sense should rule

The law enables white jurists to hide behind the law even when the facts are obvious. Common sense tells most of us we cannot be sure of what Dunn's motives or intent was. We do know the results of his choices. This law is almost a technicality that can be used to find a way to avoid doing what is right. If on a case as a jurist like this, I would not have any trouble ignoring a law that gives a killer protection from prosecution. I would like to know which jury members would not convict because this under attack victim Dunn had the right to stand his ground even though he was at fault for the escalation.

[maxrandb]

31. Makes you wonder that if you are a young black man

and you see a white man, you would think; "I need to stand my ground and shoot this guy, before he stands his ground on me"

This fucking law needs to be changed! We used to say; "someone needs to fix this before someone gets killed"....well it's too fucking late for that.

Fuck this country's stupid ass gun culture.

[Blue_Tires]

32. Quoted for truth:

Because the “stand your ground” law creates an affirmative defense for criminal defendants, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn’s claim that he had a reasonable fear he was about to suffer great bodily harm was false. Such laws, in effect, put the victim rather than the killer on trial, which is exactly what happened in this case.

And that's *exactly* what they did to Trayvon...That's how "Walking home and minding his own business" in reality becomes "He alone was to blame for putting himself in that situation" in a courtroom...

[Vattel]

34. Long live the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard!

[bettyellen]

35. "Because the “stand your ground” law creates an affirmative defense for criminal defendants" it is

one fucked up law- people make mistakes and fear things they should not. It doesn't mean they should not get jail time just for using that excuse.

[guyfromla]

38. Reverse the skin color of the victim and shooter

And the verdict would be a unanimous one on 1st degree murder

[chwaliszewski]

40. Food For Thought

Isn't the state (Florida), with the insane gun law (i.e., Stand Your Ground) that seems to be letting the killers of innocent black men (i.e., Jordan Davis, Trayvon Martin) get away with murder, the same state that is home to the Rosewood Massacre?

link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_massacre

[Jerry442]

42. Has this scenario been happening?

I once did a post similar to this, but since SYG has been in effect for a while, it seems worth revisiting.

Imagine, person #1 and person #2 are walking down the street toward each other. As they draw close, #1 reaches into his coat, draws a handgun, and shoots #2 several times in rapid succession, killing him. There are eyewitnesses, but since they were not paying any special attention to either person before the gunshots, eyewitness testimony is vague and conflicting.

Person #1 claims that #2 appeared to be armed, had a hostile manner about him, made a threatening gesture, and appeared to be about to draw a weapon, although no weapon was found. In short, #1 states that he was in fear for his life and "stood his ground." Person #2 is silent, being dead.

Here's my question: in an SYG state, does the prosecutor have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that #1 did not fear for his life to get a second-degree murder conviction? If that's so, how could the prosecutor possibly prove that?

Add to the mix, maybe #2 wasn't a saint. Maybe #2 had past encounters with law enforcement. Wouldn't that make the prosecutor's job even harder, even if #2's past wasn't technically admissible at trial?