The Other George Zimmerman Trial

[Formaldehyde]

Get this. The white non-black guy was again not convicted of murder after killing an innocent black teen. But he was convicted of attempted murder for shooting at the ones who survived...

Michael Dunn convicted on 4 of 5 charges in loud-music murder case

A jury has found Michael Dunn, the Florida man accused of shooting an unarmed teenager to death during a dispute over loud music, guilty of four charges, but the jury was unable to reach a decision on the top count, first-degree murder.
Dunn, who is white, fired 10 shots into an SUV, killing Jordan Davis, 17, who was black. The shooting in a convenience store parking lot in Jacksonville erupted after Dunn asked the teenagers in the vehicle to turn down their music.

Dunn was charged with first-degree murder, three counts of attempted second-degree murder and one count of firing into a vehicle in the Nov. 23, 2012, shooting. The jury couldn’t reach a decision on the first-degree murder charge, but convicted on the other four.

As usual, the Daily Show had a field day with it.

Do you remember saying you hate that "thug music"?

No. If anything I would have called it "rap crap"?

Because believe you me, I know my racially-tinged terms for music.

What do you think of Florida justice and the patently absurd "stand your ground" law now?

 

[woody60707]

Strolla said Dunn fired only when he saw Davis wielding a weapon from inside the Dodge Durango SUV and felt threatened.
Police didn't find a weapon in the SUV, but Strolla contended that the teens got rid of it during the three minutes they were in an adjacent parking lot after fleeing the gunshots. He said detectives should have immediately gone to the area and searched but failed to do so.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...erdict-20140213,0,5446202.story#ixzz2uI5HDG21

It sounds like the jury was just trying to split the baby. Sure, odds are he shoot the kids out of angry, but no one can be 100% sure he didn't see a weapon.

 

[Dralix]

Sounds to me like they would have convicted on second degree murder.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It sounds like the jury was just trying to split the baby. Sure, odds are he shoot the kids out of angry, but no one can be 100% sure he didn't see a weapon.

You certainly do seem to have a propensity for believing everything the defense claims in cases such as this.

From the Daily Show video:

No one else saw Jordan Davis with a gun. Nor did anybody else see him get out if the car.

 

[bhsup]

I'm guessing you would have not believed the story of the one-armed man, eh Forma?

 

[Labtec600]

Why would he be convicted of first degree murder?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Dunn testified that he saw what he thought was 4 inches of a shotgun barrel.

I think that's called a "handbrake". Or a "stick shift".

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm guessing you would have not believed the story of the one-armed man, eh Forma?

The black kids hired him to kill Dunn so they could make a fortune selling bad legal drugs manufactured by a corrupt pharmaceutical company?

 

[Light Cleric]

Stand your ground didn't even affect the verdict of these cases(Zimmerman didn't even bother with a stand your grouns hearing), I don't know why people continue to conflatle that with the actual problems like racial profiling and just incredible stupidity in these cases(ICBM hit it on the head lol) or argue against it with cases where it WAS involved.

Okay, I know WHY, but yeah...

 

[Kennigit]

I like how the article is afraid to say "cracker"

 

[Formaldehyde]

Stand your ground didn't even affect the verdict of these cases(Zimmerman didn't even bother with a stand your grouns hearing), I don't know why people continue to conflatle that with the actual problems like racial profiling and just incredible stupidity in these cases(ICBM hit it on the head lol) or argue against it with cases where it WAS involved.

Okay, I know WHY, but yeah...

What utter nonsense, as usual.

Michael Dunn case highlights squishy Stand Your Ground law

Jurors in the notorious Michael Dunn case began their deliberations by turning to Page 25 of the standard instructions they had carried into the jury room. They learned right off that when it comes to deciding claims of justifiable homicide, Florida stands on nebulous grounds.

They considered the key phrases that Circuit Judge Russell L. Healey, in his bland monotone, had read to them after the closing arguments.

The defendant “has no duty to retreat.”

The defendant has “the right to stand his ground.”

“The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual.”

The jurors had been told by defense attorney Cory Strolla in his final argument 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.”

There they were again, those magic words that have been plaguing the Florida justice system since 2005: “stand his ground.”

4 Reasons Why Stand Your Ground Made a Difference in the Michael Dunn Trial

I'm shocked that some commentators are claiming that Florida's Stand Your Ground law was not relevant to the recent outcome of the Michael Dunn "loud music" murder trial (which I prefer to call "another suspicious white man shooting an unarmed black kid" trial). Stand Your Ground was very much a part of both the Dunn trial as well as the George Zimmerman case. In both, defense attorneys opted not to have a pretrial hearing that might have exonerated their clients based on Stand Your Ground. However, that's only one part of the law. Stand Your Ground went on to play a part in both trials and contributed to unjust outcomes in both cases.

In the more recent case, Dunn, who is white, killed 17-year-old Jordan Davis in November 2012 after having an argument with him over loud music in a convenience store parking lot where Davis sat in an SUV with three young friends. Dunn fired 10 shots, including three at the SUV as it was fleeing. After the shooting, Dunn and his fiancé went to a local hotel, ordered a pizza, opened a bottle of wine, and watched a movie. The next morning he drove two hours away to his home, where he was apprehended.

1. The judge directly told the jury Michael Dunn had the right to stand his ground.

2. The jurors who wanted to convict Dunn did not have the pre-Stand Your Ground jury instruction to support their position, though they were arguing its logic.

3. Dunn's defense attorney explicitly argued Stand Your Ground at trial.

 

[Berzerker]

What do you think of Florida justice and the patently absurd "stand your ground" law now?

I think the juries did a good job achieving justice and Zimmerman didn't argue stand your ground and he was acquitted, Dunn was convicted.

 

[Light Cleric]

FYI when you edit your posts to completely change the contents multiple times it becomes difficult to answer.

What utter nonsense, as usual.

Michael Dunn case highlights squishy Stand Your Ground law

I see you continue to cherry pick things from random articles and mock people who disagree wth you. By the way, this provides no support for argument; a defense lawyer arguging something and then the jury convicting his client on 4 charges, facing 60+ years in jail, and still facing the last charge(he was not acquitted) is not really successful. It's cute that you worded the OP to avoid saying there's a retrial coming, though.

You also didn't address that Zimmerman waived his hearing for "stand your ground".

Berserker actually said it pretty well here.

Nonesense is not addressing claims and pretending you did, Forma.

The jusge told him he had the right to stand his ground..the lawyer told them that..and...? The judge did not say that is what HAPPENED here. Did the jury BUY that it applied here? Can you say with certainty that he would have been convicted on this last count, that he still may be convicted of, if that law was not on the books? Just because a headline says something doesn't mean its arguments will fly. How about try not to behave dissmissively and condescending to people who disrupt your narrative?

 

[Formaldehyde]

"FYI" try discussing the topic instead of me, while spreading "cherry-picked" propaganda from the usual suspects.

Both cases obviously have much to do with the patently absurd "stand your ground" law, despite neither attorney trying to have the charges dropped under one particular aspect of that law.

EDIT: And I find it hypocritical that you edited your own post 8 minutes after making it, while not making your first post until 6 minutes after my last edit.

 

[Light Cleric]

So is that your way of saying "I can't address your claims" and ducking out of an argument when it isn't going according to your narrative?

I gave you that FYI because I quoted your post, spent time responding to it...and then you just decided to re-write the whole thing to something much less mature, which makes me feel like I wasted keystrokes.

I'm not even making an argument about the stand your ground law here(I don't necessarily like it although does not affect me as I don't live in Florida), just that it keeps getting thrown around as a buzzword(buzzphrase?) waaaay too often.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You have yet to debunk a single statement from my two sources, which clearly show that BOTH cases had much to do with this wacky law.

"So is that your way of saying "I can't address your claims" and ducking out of an argument when it isn't going according to your narrative?"

 

[Light Cleric]

You have yet to debunk a single statement from my two sources, which clearly show that BOTH cases had much to do with this wacky law.

"So is that your way of saying "I can't address your claims" and ducking out of an argument when it isn't going according to your narrative?"

I explained it pretty clearly in post #13. Please explain how SYG affected directly affected the outcome that found him convicted on 4 attempted murder counts and facing 60+ years in prison, and a 5th charge that is going to be retried. Would they have found him "super guilty" on the attempted murder charges without SYG existing?

Or do you want to turn this into a Googlefest where I go find random articles that say something to the contrary? I don't see what that accomplishes.

Also, I edited my post because I left a sentence incomplete, not because I re-wrote the entire thing. Please exercise reading comprehension there.

 

[Formaldehyde]

So you would rather continue to troll than try to show how the statements made in either article are somehow flawed?

Again, merely because neither defense attorney wanted to take a chance to have the charges dismissed under one aspect of the SYG law, it clearly doesn't mean that the rationale behind it isn't completely warping the self-defense statutes of the judicial system in 26 states.

'Stand your ground' killed my son

Over the past few weeks, people have talked endlessly about my son, Jordan Davis. Jordan was a really good kid who was warm and fun loving. On Nov. 23, 2012, Jordan, age 17, stopped with friends at a gas station in Jacksonville, after some Black Friday shopping. It was there, in the back seat of a red Durango, that I lost my son forever. He died after a dispute over loud music ended in a senseless shooting.

The gunman, Michael Dunn, was tried for the death of Jordan and the attempted murder of his friends. Dunn was convicted of three counts of attempted murder, but not for my son's death.

Much of the debate over the shooting has focused on whether race played a role. Jordan and his friends were black; the shooter is white. While I understand the racial significance of this discussion, I believe the blame lies with the culture that emboldened Dunn to pull a loaded gun from his glove compartment and a law that encourages unnecessary violence. Florida's "stand your ground" law is the reason my son is dead.

Florida's permissive gun laws and its culture of "shoot first, ask questions later" is why a stranger shot my child. Instead of settling a dispute over loud music in a reasonable manner, Dunn overreacted. His actions were not only senseless, tragically, they also were irreversible. "Stand your ground" laws empower emotional people to end an argument with a gun, and until these laws are rolled back we will continue to suffer more senseless tragedies like the one my family has endured.

People ask me what they can do to honor Jordan's memory. The answer is simple: They can join me and other moms who are calling on Florida and 25 other states to repeal "stand your ground" laws. There is a difference between feeling threatened and being in a life-threatening situation. That distinction should be clear under the law. In many states, it isn't.

As Jordan's mother, I am committed to dedicating my life's work to advocating for my son, and my voice is magnified by working with so many other moms who want a better, safer country for them.

The last Mother's Day card I received from Jordan was just after he moved to Jacksonville from our home in Atlanta. My breast cancer had returned, and I had sent Jordan to live with his father as I underwent treatment. In the card, Jordan wrote, "Thanks for being my number one cheerleader, my number one fan, and for never giving up on me. You believed in me when nobody else did. Even though I don't let you kiss me anymore, I love you and you have been the best mother."

Dunn had a chance to tell his story, but my Jordan will never have that opportunity because an angry man with a loaded gun took it away from him.

It is my job to keep being his mom and to ensure that his legacy is a nation with gun policies that protect rather than threaten children and families.

 

[classical_hero]

Look at all these "law and order" types getting it on here.

 

[Berzerker]

Zimmerman case was not stand your ground, your source merely asserted it was and proceeded to quote the Dunn case

and your source is easily debunked - if you're laying on your back from an assault and your head is being dribbled on a sidewalk its no longer a matter of standing your ground, just self defense. The Dunn case involved stand your ground because he perceived an imminent attack, Zimmerman was attacked.