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

[Karmady]

That is "excessive force". Is there a law for that?

Anyways, if they agreed him continuing to shoot at the vehicle, why they did not agree on M1? Is that not premeditation? :waitasec:

Yeah, that law would be attempted murder1 or 2 with no self defense lol

Premeditation CAN be in a brief period of time, but just because someone shoots again after a brief period where they could have stopped doesn't mean it's necessarily premeditation. The premeditation charge has evolved a lot over time. But the concept of cool reflection still pertains, imo. Whenever there's no evidence of planning whatsoever and an unexpected escalation of a conflict, you're gonna get an M2 rather than M1 conviction almost 100% of the time. But that's jmo

 

[magpie]

I hope we hear from more Dunn Jurors soon. I would really like to know what the heck they were thinking on that first charge that ended up in mistrial. I'm beginning to think jurors are just not cut out to sentence someone to LIFE (or death) even if they think the defendant is guilty. This is not the mindset that we need on juries. I would be happy to serve on a professional jury if we ever get to that in my lifetime... and if they would let me.
:waitasec: :denied:

I'm going to go watch some more of "The Closer". I'm already on Season 4 out of 7 Seasons. I love that show, one of my all time fav's. "Criminal Minds" with the devastatingly handsome actor Shemar Moore :hot:is another fav.

 

[writer7]

I just can't believe anyone would buy self defense after the man drove off after emptying his gun into a car full of people and never even called police -- ever. I mean, what does someone have to do to show that they are guilty down there in Florida?

3 jurors voting for self defense? It's absolutely insane.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Next cross of MD:

Mr. Guy: You didn't get out of your car because it was parked too close to the Durango?

MD: No, you see...

Mr. Guy: Answer yes or no...

MD: Well, I couldn't because...

Mr. Guy: Answer yes or no...

Judge: Mr. Dunn, answer yes or no.

MD.: Yes

Mr. Guy: Did you originally tell LE that the music way playing when you pulled in?

MD: Well, I made...

Mr. Guy: Answer yes or no.

MD. Well, I was...

Mr. Guy: Answer yes or no.

Judge: Mr. Dunn, answer yes or no.

MD: Yes

Mr. Guy: And, whenever the music began, you didn't move to another spot?

MD: Well, I was...

Mr. Guy: Answer yes or no.

MD: It was...

Mr. Guy: Answer yes or no.

Judge: Mr. Dunn, answer yes or no.

MD: No

etc, etc, etc. This will make MD go red-faced with fury.

Cross-examination of the accused is a relatively rare occasion for a prosecutor and they frequently don't know the basics. That's Juan Martinez' strength. He got to Alyce LaViolette as well as JA. He got to enough witnesses for the defense. It's what works. Ask any good defense lawyer.

 

[oyeyemi808]

Good morning Angela #Corey , Florida State Attorney for 4th JC whose office prosecuted #GeorgeZimmerman & #MichaelDunn will appear on #CNN this a.m.

 

[oyeyemi808]

Angela Corey on CNN now!

 

[gxm]

I am watching the trial from Day 1 - Opening and the prosecutor sounds like he is at a funeral. moo.

I found John Guy quite unimpressive. But given the overwhelming evidence, and witness testimony, I didn't think his poor performance would jeopardize a conviction. I was wrong.

 

[gxm]

In my opinion, Stornes lied about thinking it was only 6:30, and in my opinion, he did that to try to save his own skin. Unnecessarily, as it turned out, since the state ignored it.
If he would lie to save his own skin, in my opinion, he would lie to protect Jordon and his other friends.
Why would his statement to his parole officer be protected unless it was something negative for the state?
Putting an opinion in bold makes it no more true than any other opinion.

Tommie Stornes was on probation not parole. His statements to his probation officer were protected because they have nothing to do with the trial; and the defense, given that they had no evidence to support their case, would have attempted character assassination by bringing up things that did not pertain to the Jordan Davis murder case [modsnip]. If he'd actually said something about the case, it would probably have been admitted.

The facts are that even though Tommie Stornes might have been in trouble for being out late, he did not hesitate, after they escaped Dunn's barrage of bullets, to return to the Gate once they realized that Jordan Davis was seriously injured. His actions do not show consciousness of guilt, but Dunn's do.

 

[turaj]

Ron Davis will be on CNN at 8am est. Just and FYI

Well, if you watch his testimony on the stand it appears he is focused on just one of the jurors. It really is hard to tell but his eyes shift to one spot at all times when he wants to make a point, such as saying it was "a waking nightmare". If he is not, it sure appears that he is. jmo

Lambchop...no kidding...I picked up on that right away. It could have been a woman or white male about his age or older . It was obvious. He connected with three of them.

 

[turaj]

Saw Angela Corey this morning on CNN. I am not as repulsed by her as so many but really don't know the history. She did seem to be fed up with the criticism and points to the Florida law which does not require someone to retreat first. Lots of talk here about this not being a stand your ground case but she made an interesting point...that stand your ground language is built right into the self defense statute (or whatever you call it) and the lack of duty to retreat is making self defense cases very difficult to win. I think she makes good points and if she were bringing this case in New York Michael Dunn would have been convicted. I still think stand your ground was in this case and don't understand those that want to separate it.

 

[LambChop]

And we must take into account that Tommie Stornes was 20 years old at the time but yet knew enough to return to the Gate even though he knew he'd be in trouble because he was on probation. He never hesitated because he knew they had done nothing wrong. When you are wrong you flee in the hopes of not getting caught, you don't go back and report the incident to LE.

Now we look at MD who fled the scene, drove right past an officer who was arresting a DUI suspect across the street from where he exited the Gate, drove all the way home the next day. During this time he never reported the incident in which he knew someone died and never did call LE, they found him. This was a 46 year-old man who took a gun course to get a concealed weapons permit and knew what his responsibilities were in terms of gun ownership. Who was worldly enough to know what he was suppose to do and he still fled.

In considering MD's credibility on the stand stating he had no idea why he fled is a big red flag, IMO. He knows very well why he left the scene and so does RR. jmo

 

[LambChop]

I think the difference between self-defense and murder 1 in this case is what was overheard by the witness on the pavement beside MD's car and what MD claims he said. Witness reporting MD said something to the effect of you're not going to talk to me like that while reaching for his gun versus MD claiming he said, "Are you talking about ME?" The witness had no reason to lie that same night of the shooting when he gave his statement to LE. jmo

 

[Steely Dan]

Next cross of MD:

Mr. Guy: You didn't get out of your car because it was parked too close to the Durango?

MD: No, you see...

Mr. Guy: Answer yes or no...

MD: Well, I couldn't because...

Mr. Guy: Answer yes or no...

Judge: Mr. Dunn, answer yes or no.

MD.: Yes

Mr. Guy: Did you originally tell LE that the music way playing when you pulled in?

MD: Well, I made...

Mr. Guy: Answer yes or no.

MD. Well, I was...

Mr. Guy: Answer yes or no.

Judge: Mr. Dunn, answer yes or no.

MD: Yes

Mr. Guy: And, whenever the music began, you didn't move to another spot?

MD: Well, I was...

Mr. Guy: Answer yes or no.

MD: It was...

Mr. Guy: Answer yes or no.

Judge: Mr. Dunn, answer yes or no.

MD: No

etc, etc, etc. This will make MD go red-faced with fury.

Cross-examination of the accused is a relatively rare occasion for a prosecutor and they frequently don't know the basics. That's Juan Martinez' strength. He got to Alyce LaViolette as well as JA. He got to enough witnesses for the defense. It's what works. Ask any good defense lawyer.

Did I ask you what any good defense lawyer would say!!! :giggle:

Tommie Stornes was on probation not parole. His statements to his probation officer were protected because they have nothing to do with the trial; and the defense, given that they had no evidence to support their case, would have attempted character assassination by bringing up things that did not pertain to the Jordan Davis murder case just like you're doing right now even though you have no idea what he said to his probation officer. If he'd actually said something about the case, it would probably have been admitted.

The facts are that even though Tommie Stornes might have been in trouble for being out late, he did not hesitate, after they escaped Dunn's barrage of bullets, to return to the Gate once they realized that Jordan Davis was seriously injured. His actions do not show consciousness of guilt, but Dunn's do.

^^^^ That!

 

[daisy7]

There is a lot of confusion about the SYG law, so I want to give more info. No, I am not an attorney, just a Floridian who has followed this law closely from its inception to where we are now.

SYG originated from a case near me, whereby an elderly homeowner shot and killed a burglar post-Ivan. Basically, he had to wait 3 months before the SA decided not to prosecute him because they decided it was justifiable homicide under our existing self-defense laws. But, politicians and the NRA jumped on this case to prove why we needed a new law, and unfortunately it was voted into law. You can read a lot of details about the case here: http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...-born-of-2004-case-but-story-has-been/1225164

The main change with the SYG law is that there is no longer a “duty to retreat.” This is the 2004 statute on justifiable self-defense:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...TM&Title=->2004->Ch0776->Section 041#0776.041

And, this is part of current statute:
(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.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

BBM.

Also, there is the immunity statute:

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

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

IMO, this is why it took so long for GZ to be arrested. In order to get “SYG” immunity, the defendant needs to have a hearing before a judge who makes the decision.

Anyone (including media) that says this is not a “SYG case” is extremely misinformed. IMO, what they really mean is that the defendant didn’t go through the hearing process for SYG immunity. SYG is part of our state law and these are the instructions the jury was given.

So, a law was born that came out of the year of great hurricanes and fear across my state has morphed into allowing men to confront and kill unarmed teens. It makes me sick IMO, JMO and MOO.

 

[JusticeJunkie]

Tommie Stornes was on probation not parole. His statements to his probation officer were protected because they have nothing to do with the trial; and the defense, given that they had no evidence to support their case, would have attempted character assassination by bringing up things that did not pertain to the Jordan Davis murder case [modsnip]. If he'd actually said something about the case, it would probably have been admitted.

The facts are that even though Tommie Stornes might have been in trouble for being out late, he did not hesitate, after they escaped Dunn's barrage of bullets, to return to the Gate once they realized that Jordan Davis was seriously injured. His actions do not show consciousness of guilt, but Dunn's do.

We will never know if he said something about the case because the state blocked that. And I suspect they blocked it because it was not helpful to their case.

 

[Spellbound]

Jordan's parents seem to be very intelligent, well-spoken people. They are a pleasure to listen to. I have a lot of respect for them and their words.
JMO

 

[Steely Dan]

We will never know if he said something about the case because the state blocked that. And I suspect they blocked it because it was not helpful to their case.

If it had something to do with the case they couldn't block it. JMO

 

[LambChop]

If it had something to do with the case they couldn't block it. JMO

Plus TS had no knowledge before entering his SUV that MD had a gun and was planning on using it. Whatever he told his probation officer about why he was out after 7pm has nothing to do with the shooting other than it happened in a vehicle he was driving. It's the defense attorney's job to discredit witnesses and it has nothing to do with what the truth or facts are. This trial was never about TS but defense tried to make it so. Obviously nothing was found to discredit the other three in the car because we heard nothing from defense about their backgrounds. They were just normal kids out to pick up some girls at the mall. jmo

 

[gxm]

I keep reading comments elsewhere with people claiming the teens were at fault for "anti-social" behavior. I'm just constantly flabbergasted at people who seem to think teenagers listening to loud music is something out of the norm. Isn't that what teenagers do? How more normal can you get than a car full of young men listening to loud music and looking for girls? Why are these teens being demonized for such incredibly common teenage behavior? smh

 

[Soliloquy]

I keep reading comments elsewhere with people claiming the teens were at fault for "anti-social" behavior. I'm just constantly flabbergasted at people who seem to think teenagers listening to loud music is something out of the norm. Isn't that what teenagers do? How more normal can you get than a car full of young men listening to loud music and looking for girls? Why are these teens being demonized for such incredibly common teenage behavior? smh

I happen to think that trying to impose your will on others is anti-social behavior. I am a product of the '60's - loud music is a teenage rite of passage. :drumroll: