GUILTY FL - Jordan Davis, 17, shot to death, Satellite Beach, 23 Nov 2012 #8

[RANCH]

As a homicide survivor, I don't think there is ever closure. However, justice for your loved one is needed, warranted, and necessary. It is hard to come to terms with the death of a loved one by the hands of another. JMV, IMO.

I've had someone close to me be the victim of a homicide and maybe the word closure is not the right word. I will never forget him. Or the last time I saw him. Or the last words that we said to each other.

But we do move on with life. The family in my personal experience wanted the death penalty for the guy who killed their son. They didn't get that. The A hole got life in prison.

I'm sorry that I can't properly relate in words how I feel.

 

[Leilei]

This trial watcher is off to bed. Will see y'all tomorrow, hopefully with some new information as to what exactly deadlocked the jurors. Okay, probably not, since they're probably exhausted and just want to rest and regroup for a while.

Thank you to everyone for the facts, the links, the tweets (Popsicle!!), the discussion, the theories, the humor, and most of all, the friendliness and respect for everyone's opinions. I learned a lot, again, because y'all are so darned awesome Goodnight!

 

[ElleElle]

As a homicide survivor, I don't think there is ever closure. However, justice for your loved one is needed, warranted, and necessary. It is hard to come to terms with the death of a loved one by the hands of another. JMV, IMO.

:goodpost:

:loveyou: Thanks Zuri.

I don't understand why there would be another trial? :blushing:

 

[Gin]

I understand needing justice, but maybe closure is best. Is putting Jordan's family through another trial with all of the pain that it means worth it?

I guess that it's up to the family to decide and not me.

JMO-Closure really never happens. It's one of those "concepts" that sounds nice, but in reality, really isn't helpful. Families may (over time) come to terms with their loss, but they never get over it. The loss becomes a part of their life, but the pain (sometimes worse, sometimes better) is always nearby.

 

[RANCH]

JMO-Closure really never happens. It's one of those "concepts" that sounds nice, but in reality, really isn't helpful. Families may (over time) come to terms with their loss, but they never get over it. The loss becomes a part of their life, but the pain (sometimes worse, sometimes better) is always nearby.

Does prolonging the criminal justice process with little change in the time the killer is incarcerated help the family to "come to terms with their loss"?

That's my question.

 

[usnuzuloose]

Thank you everyone.

 

[Zuri]

I've had someone close to me be the victim of a homicide and maybe the word closure is not the right word. I will never forget him. Or the last time I saw him. Or the last words that we said to each other.

But we do move on with life. The family in my personal experience wanted the death penalty for the guy who killed their son. They didn't get that. The A hole got life in prison.

I'm sorry that I can't properly relate in words how I feel.

I totally understand what you are saying and thank you for hearing me. I am so sorry for the loss of your friend.

 

[Cat99]

I don't think so, that isn't the way I understood it. My understanding of what she was saying is that if the defense thought MD was over charged - there was a process, written into Florida law, whereby the defense could dispute the charges. There was also a process for the "stand your ground" defense. MD's lawyer chose not to file either process.

That's just the way I heard it.

Salem

From what I remember,

Yes, the Grand Jury handed down the indictment(s), so State went with that and was not formally challenged by the defense.

 

[daisy7]

I don't think so, that isn't the way I understood it. My understanding of what she was saying is that if the defense thought MD was over charged - there was a process, written into Florida law, whereby the defense could dispute the charges. There was also a process for the "stand your ground" defense. MD's lawyer chose not to file either process.

That's just the way I heard it.

Salem

Not an attorney, but I believe you are correct. The "Stand Your Ground" defense is just a technical, legal re-interpretation/re-wording of the already existing self-defense law, whereby a judge could decide that the charges were unwarranted in a separate SYG hearing. In this case (as with the GZ case), both attorneys chose not to pursue the official SYG defense, because, IMO, they would have had the burden of proof. Proving their clients were innocent as opposed to the state proving they were guilty.

Hope this makes sense! As always, IMO.

 

[Zuri]

Does prolonging the criminal justice process with little change in the time the killer is incarcerated help the family to "come to terms with their loss"?

That's my question.

I can only speak for myself. For me, they were separate issues. I wanted the _________who killed my brother to rot in jail and go to hell. They were sentenced to LWOP. One died in prison and the other one is still serving. The DP was in the table and the shooter pled out with the permission of our family. The DA asked us what we wanted to do. Justice was served according to the law.

Coming to terms with our loss? Never. I miss my brother every single day. If coming to terms with his death means helping others, honoring my brother, advocating for change and laws that protect others, then I would say yes. Accepting he is dead? Yes. Pain? Yes Watching my mother grieve and weep at the kitchen sink? Heartbreaking.

Life does go on. But we are forever changed. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Tears are rolling as I write this. Excruciating pain. For the last 32 years....But you would never know if you met me. You learn to hide it and you live your life. But you are never, ever the same.

 

[Salem]

As a homicide survivor, I don't think there is ever closure. However, justice for your loved one is needed, warranted, and necessary. It is hard to come to terms with the death of a loved one by the hands of another. JMV, IMO.

A wise man once told me that closure is basically impossible, that survivors must integrate the experience into their lives the best they can and move on because it never is really "closed."

Salem

 

[LambChop]

Does prolonging the criminal justice process with little change in the time the killer is incarcerated help the family to "come to terms with their loss"?

That's my question.

I really don't know for sure but if this were my son I'd want his name cleared. MD has accused JD of trying to kill him. Today's verdict was for the other 3 passengers. His parents may still want to see justice for their son.

If I were MD I'd be after a plea deal to spare the parents and admit he could have been mistaken about the gun. He never did say he actually saw a shotgun only that he saw a 4 inch barrel that appeared to be a shotgun. Even if he serves half his present sentence he'll be in his late 80's by the time he gets out. Time to do the right thing for once in his life. jmo

 

[ElleElle]

There may not be immediate closure. Death has stages and more stages if the death was murder to someone close.

I always believed that a situation like this can create more awareness for some, as it should not be about class, gender, race, religious views.

Also, some people should not have guns and I don't buy the self-defense in this case. :moo:

 

[Zuri]

IMO and MOO, Jordan Davis and the 3 other kids in that Durango were innocents. They experienced terror, violence, hatred. No kid should ever experience what those kids did at the hands of MD. I don't care if he felt threatened or disrespected. He didn't need to fire 10 bullets into a car. He did not act reasonably or prudently. He deserves whatever the judge sentences him to and I hope that one day, he will realize what he did was ethically, morally and completely wrong. JMV

 

[LambChop]

I can only speak for myself. For me, they were separate issues. I wanted the _________who killed my brother to rot in jail and go to hell. They were sentenced to LWOP. One died in prison and the other one is still serving. The DP was in the table and the shooter pled out with the permission of our family. The DA asked us what we wanted to do. Justice was served according to the law.

Coming to terms with our loss? Never. I miss my brother every single day. If coming to terms with his death means helping others, honoring my brother, advocating for change and laws that protect others, then I would say yes. Accepting he is dead? Yes. Pain? Yes Watching my mother grieve and weep at the kitchen sink? Heartbreaking.

Life does go on. But we are forever changed. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Tears are rolling as I write this. Excruciating pain. For the last 32 years....But you would never know if you met me. You learn to hide it and you live your life. But you are never, ever the same.

Oh, Zuri, I'm so sorry and sad to hear that.

 

[Cat99]

Not an attorney, but I believe you are correct. The "Stand Your Ground" defense is just a technical, legal re-interpretation/re-wording of the already existing self-defense law, whereby a judge could decide that the charges were unwarranted in a separate SYG hearing. In this case (as with the GZ case), both attorneys chose not to pursue the official SYG defense, because, IMO, they would have had the burden of proof. Proving their clients were innocent as opposed to the state proving they were guilty.

Hope this makes sense! As always, IMO.

BBM - however, Strolla brought SYG defense in this case in and combined it with the duty to retreat and/with the use of deadly force.


IMO - In a sneaky back door maneuver.

 

[Zuri]

A wise man once told me that closure is basically impossible, that survivors must integrate the experience into their lives the best they can and move on because it never is really "closed."

Salem

Thank you for sharing that wisdom. He was absolutely correct...

 

[Steely Dan]

I brought over this post from the last thread;

I think that the acquittal of George Zimmerman affirms the validity of "stand your ground" laws even though the Florida SYG statute wasn't used in his defense.

In my opinion no man or women should ever have to run and hide from an attacker and hope for the best. Everyone has the right to defend themselves from evil people who mean to harm them. MOO.

I don't understand this. Are you saying that no innocent person need fear for their lives, or that no person, guilty or innocent fear for their lives. I mean that if somebody is not committing a crime that rises to the level of attempted murder that they shouldn't have to fear for their lives, or that people who are committing a crime that rises to the level or murder shouldn't have to fear? I don't understand.

Let me explain to you why I'm having a hard time with this. JD was sitting in a car jawing with a psychopath, IMO, and the worst crime he committed was "possibly" being disrespectful. That is not a death penalty worthy crime.

JD didn't have a gun. I'd bet diamonds to donuts on it. Here's why I'm so sure.

MD is a pathological liar. He will say whatever he needs to say to get out of :censored: he gets himself into. I'll go only by introduced evidence to make my point. There's a lot more on the net you can find.

1. MD lied about calling the police. He never called the police and never broached the subject when the crop cop he was going home to talk to called him! Based on that I feel it is beyond a reasonable doubt that he never intended to call police as he lied about.

2. He lied about telling his girlfriend the kids had a gun. She testified to that fact. It seems to me that by watching her cry on the stand she didn't want to say that, but she knew it was the truth.

3. He lied about thinking he saw a gun and being afraid because of it.

If the kids had a gun he wouldn't have left after they fled. Surely he'd be aware that cops would be on the scene shortly, or if he wasn't sure he could have called 911 himself. He was not afraid of the "gang" coming after him. He didn't bring the gun with him inside, he didn't mind walking Charlie in front of the hotel, and he didn't call police, who would have protected him, if that were the case. He lied about having a fear for his life.

The boys ditching the gun is a theory that is false beyond a reasonable doubt. If the kids had a long gun (Remember he said he "thought" he saw four inches of a long gun. Not a handgun, not a knife, not a rock, not a pair of scissors and not a piece of paper with intent to give him a papercut that could fester into an infection that could spread to his blood and kill him.) So we're looking for a long gun. There were people in the next strip mall and nobody reported seeing them throw anything on the roof, or hide anything. What the kids did do is to come back to the gas station, where the cops and witness' were, to seek help for their friend. Tommie Stornes didn't give a crap that he was violating parole. He came back because it was the closest place to get help for his friend.

An independent witness heard Dunn scream something to the effect of "YOU'RE NOT GOING TO TALK TO ME THAT WAY!!!!" just before the shots were fired. There wasn't a gun, and you can't kill someone because you "thought" you saw a weapon. You have to have a reasonable fear for your life. A kid yelling at you from another car doesn't rise to the definition of reasonable. If it did then paranoid schizophrenics could run the streets without consequences for killing innocent people.

The police didn't search for a gun because nobody at the scene told them they saw the kids ever have one. The only person who could have told them was hiding out from the law. The police didn't botch the search, they didn't have any information that they needed to look for a gun. They didn't look for hidden handguns, knives, scissors, rocks, paper, or anything else that could be lethal, so I guess they botched those searches too.

The kids didn't fire back with any type of gun. It's my belief that if they had a gun. They would have used it in defense. So, IMO, there is no reasonable doubt the kids had one.

IMO, MD didn't want to be interrogated about the incident at all. Especially, right after it happned. Why? because he never "thought" he saw a gun, he had no proof they had a gun, and knew that he'd have to explain why he shot at them and his only true answer would have landed him M1.

So he was able to muddy the waters enough by using that excuse, the one he caused himself, to get a mistrial on M1. It worked, there are enough paranoid schizophrenics out there to keep him from being found guilty by 12 out of 12.

 

[Steely Dan]

I'd just like to pat myself on the back for post #53 in the GUILTY - FL - Michael Dunn on Trial for shooting death of Jordan Davis, 17#7 thread. I think I nailed it.

 

[LambChop]

IMO and MOO, Jordan Davis and the 3 other kids in that Durango were innocents. They experienced terror, violence, hatred. No kid should ever experience what those kids did at the hands of MD. I don't care if he felt threatened or disrespected. He didn't need to fire 10 bullets into a car. He did not act reasonably or prudently. He deserves whatever the judge sentences him to and I hope that one day, he will realize what he did was ethically, morally and completely wrong. JMV

Did you see the picture captured by the photographer in the back of the courtroom? MD is standing with his hands turn up as if he is questioning what just happened. He still does not get it. Someone mentioned reading that a friend of his said MD liked to brag about stepping in poo and coming out smelling like a rose. Not this time. jmo