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

[RANCH]

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.

In Florida there is a statute that gives people immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action which is the actual "stand your ground" law.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting 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 was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

This statute was not used in the George Zimmerman case or the Michael Dunn case. They both used a simple self defense or justifiable homicide defense.

The reason I see that the SYG statute not being used in Michael Dunn's case is because it wouldn't work. Any judge looking at this case would see that it wasn't a SYG case and it would work against Dunn to pursue it.

In the George Zimmerman case it was so obvious it was a self defense case that it wasn't necessary to use the SYG statute and they just went to trial and won.

I don't understand why people make such a big deal about Florida's "stand your ground" law when in reality it hasn't had that much of an effect. MOO.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

 

[Jax49]

Mark O'Mara was just interviewed on WJXX and he said Florida statue requires a sentence of at least 60 years for the three 2nd degree attempted murder convictions.

I'm so confused as to the sentencing requirements because other "experts" are saying the sentences could be concurrent.

 

[Leve]

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 think for me it would depend on just what this jury was hung on. If they could decide between 1st or 2nd degree I'd be OK.

If they could decide between murder or self defense, I'd want to retry him.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[RANCH]

I brought over this post from the last thread;



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.

I'm not trying to defend Michael Dunn. All I'm saying is that people should be allowed to defend themselves if attacked. Is there something wrong with that idea? I hope not.

I've always felt that Dunn is guilty of murder in the first degree.

 

[RANCH]

I think for me it would depend on just what this jury was hung on. If they could decide between 1st or 2nd degree I'd be OK.

If they could decide between murder or self defense, I'd want to retry him.

Hope that makes sense.

That makes perfect sense. Maybe this jury got stuck on premeditation like some on this forum said even though it shouldn't matter. Another jury using common sense could be brought on board, do a good job and find Dunn guilty.

 

[LambChop]

Mark O'Mara was just interviewed on WJXX and he said Florida statue requires a sentence of at least 60 years for the three 2nd degree attempted murder convictions.

I'm so confused as to the sentencing requirements because other "experts" are saying the sentences could be concurrent.

Not sure but both the DA and defense said he was facing 60 plus years. It could be because every time he pulled that trigger as the car pulled away was an attempt to kill one of the passengers. There were 3 shots fired each being an attempt to kill the occupants. jmo

 

[Jax49]

Not sure but both the DA and defense said he was facing 60 plus years. It could be because every time he pulled that trigger as the car pulled away was an attempt to kill one of the passengers. There were 3 shots fired each being an attempt to kill the occupants. jmo

It seems the people with the most knowledge say 60 years. I think I've reached the point where I don't care anymore how it works, just that it does and he gets at least 60 years on these convictions.

Maybe I'll be a lawyer in my next life and then I'll understand it. LOL

 

[Cat99]

I think for me it would depend on just what this jury was hung on. If they could decide between 1st or 2nd degree I'd be OK.

If they could decide between murder or self defense, I'd want to retry him.

Hope that makes sense.

IMO - the jury (well, not all of them) were hung on the degree of the charge.

Frankly don't see the point, of being hung on that issue, in that he was found guilty on all of the other charges.

Stubborness?

 

[ElleElle]

In Florida there is a statute that gives people immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action which is the actual "stand your ground" law.



This statute was not used in the George Zimmerman case or the Michael Dunn case. They both used a simple self defense or justifiable homicide defense.

The reason I see that the SYG statute not being used in Michael Dunn's case is because it wouldn't work. Any judge looking at this case would see that it wasn't a SYG case and it would work against Dunn to pursue it.

In the George Zimmerman case it was so obvious it was a self defense case that it wasn't necessary to use the SYG statute and they just went to trial and won.

I don't understand why people make such a big deal about Florida's "stand your ground" law when in reality it hasn't had that much of an effect. MOO.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

BBM ~ Well, I don't believe this, but that is OK.

SYG is so subjective. IMO, SYG to me means that any psycho person can shoot and kill someone by playing this card.

There is no war going on is there? Maybe there is, because these case are quite controversial.

 

[Steely Dan]

I was out tonight and unable to keep track of what was happening, but I had guessed that the first degree murder charge would be the sticking point, likely owing to some misunderstanding of the nature/standard of premeditation. Does that seem to have been the case?

Not in my opinion. It seems to me that a person or persons on the jury actually thought he had a legitimate fear for his life.

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

The thanks button was not enough for that. :hug:

In Florida there is a statute that gives people immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action which is the actual "stand your ground" law.



This statute was not used in the George Zimmerman case or the Michael Dunn case. They both used a simple self defense or justifiable homicide defense.

The reason I see that the SYG statute not being used in Michael Dunn's case is because it wouldn't work. Any judge looking at this case would see that it wasn't a SYG case and it would work against Dunn to pursue it.

In the George Zimmerman case it was so obvious it was a self defense case that it wasn't necessary to use the SYG statute and they just went to trial and won.

I don't understand why people make such a big deal about Florida's "stand your ground" law when in reality it hasn't had that much of an effect. MOO.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

BBM

I don't understand why it's still law if it's had little to no effect. It seems that people are emboldened by the law. Whether they use it or not.

Mark O'Mara was just interviewed on WJXX and he said Florida statue requires a sentence of at least 60 years for the three 2nd degree attempted murder convictions.

I'm so confused as to the sentencing requirements because other "experts" are saying the sentences could be concurrent.

I've heard conflicting reports too. I've heard it's mandatory to sentence them consecutively, and I've heard there's an option to do it concurrently. I'd really like to nail that down.

 

[Steely Dan]

I'm not trying to defend Michael Dunn. All I'm saying is that people should be allowed to defend themselves if attacked. Is there something wrong with that idea? I hope not.

I've always felt that Dunn is guilty of murder in the first degree.

I apologize. I thought you were saying that MD was using self defense. As I said I was unclear. I'm sorry I jumped to a conclusion.

 

[Steely Dan]

I forgot to add that there is nothing wrong with that. In fact if I hear a cop got into a shootout with someone and killed them, I usually don't care. Save the taxpayer's money. Sometimes though, even the cops get it wrong.

 

[RANCH]

BBM ~ Well, I don't believe this, but that is OK.

SYG is so subjective. IMO, STG to me means that any psycho person can shoot and kill someone by playing this card.

There is no war going on is there? Maybe there is, because these case are quite controversial.

What part of the Florida's "stand your ground" statute helps psycho people shoot and kill people?

Here's the statute for everyone to read.

A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting 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 was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

It doesn't say anything about allowing anyone killing anybody.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

 

[Jax49]

RIP Jordan.

So sad. This would have been his 19th birthday.

 

[ElleElle]

What part of the Florida's "stand your ground" statute helps psycho people shoot and kill people?

Here's the statute for everyone to read.



It doesn't say anything about allowing anyone killing anybody.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

Thanks! :seeya: I understand the statute, I just don't like it. lol

I guess to me if you have to use a gun for self-defense against someone who does not have a gun, it is no longer self-defense. Some people use guns violently and should not own, much less use it for self-defense.

 

[Cat99]

RIP Jordan.

So sad. This would have been his 19th birthday.

Yes, Jordan would be 19 today.

He is in Heaven where his life is eternal, and there is no doubt in my mind he is with Trayvon as well.

My Prayers for Jordan's Mother and Father on this day of his 19th birthday, coming on the heels of this trial. Justice will be served for Jordan.

 

[Jax49]

Thanks! :seeya: I understand the statute, I just don't like it. lol

I guess to me if you have to use a gun for self-defense against someone who does not have a gun, it is no longer self-defense. Some people use guns violently and should not own, much less use it for self-defense.

BBM

May I respectfully offer an example where that logic would not apply. For example, if an old woman is attacked by a young man and shoots him dead, is that not self defense?

 

[RANCH]

Thanks! :seeya: I understand the statute, I just don't like it. lol

I guess to me if you have to use a gun for self-defense against someone who does not have a gun, it is no longer self-defense. Some people use guns violently and should not own, much less use it for self-defense.

I would rather have my mom or sister have a gun to defend themselves against a crazed rapist who doesn't have a gun any day.

I don't believe in fair fights against the bad guys. They should always lose.

MOO.

 

[liljim]

does anyone know if the jury instructions have been published? ty

 

[nightwatch]

Post #38 nice said steely. Jmo

ciao