GUILTY FL - Jordan Davis, 17, shot to death, Satellite Beach, 23 Nov 2012 #1

[gxm]

I'll take the word of a 45yo who has no criminal reccord any day over 3 teenagers!

I'd like to believe that, if their stories match up, most people would accept the word of the teenagers. IMO, they have no reason to lie as they were the ones being shot at.

This case puzzles me because I can not see any good reason for Dunn to have shot at a car full of teenagers. Unless he was drunk, and he's a mean drunk, that would be the only thing that would explain his behavior. Even if they had exchanged angry words, there's still no reason for him to fire shots. He could have just shown them the gun and told them to leave him alone or else. He didn't have to shoot the car up and kill a young man in the process!

 

[songline]

I'll take the word of a 45yo who has no criminal reccord any day over 3 teenagers!

WHY did he run and not call 911.

 

[mobeydick]

WHY did he run and not call 911.

I think you are going to find that not relevant to the case, what he done after the shooting is not going to be a big part of the case for the prosecutor or defense. What happened ten minutes before will be a big part of the case on both sides. Not saying this happened, WHAT IF some other person had asked the teenagers to turn down the music before the shooter got there. (Something the shooter didn’t know about) That may have made one of the teens agitated/angry and they may have taken it out on the shooter when he asked them to turn it down. Not saying that happened!

 

[mobeydick]

I'd like to believe that, if their stories match up, most people would accept the word of the teenagers. IMO, they have no reason to lie as they were the ones being shot at.
This case puzzles me because I can not see any good reason for Dunn to have shot at a car full of teenagers. Unless he was drunk, and he's a mean drunk, that would be the only thing that would explain his behavior. Even if they had exchanged angry words, there's still no reason for him to fire shots. He could have just shown them the gun and told them to leave him alone or else. He didn't have to shoot the car up and kill a young man in the process!

So people who get shot at automatically get the benefit of the doubt first? Are you that naive?

They would have no reason to lie if none of them threatened the shooter. If they did there would have plenty to lie about!

I see plenty of good reason if as his attorney stated they threatened him and represented a means to carry out that threat! Not saying they did!

 

[gxm]

I think you are going to find that not relevant to the case, what he done after the shooting is not going to be a big part of the case for the prosecutor or defense. What happened ten minutes before will be a big part of the case on both sides. Not saying this happened, WHAT IF some other person had asked the teenagers to turn down the music before the shooter got there. (Something the shooter didn’t know about) That may have made one of the teens agitated/angry and they may have taken it out on the shooter when he asked them to turn it down. Not saying that happened!

I completely disagree. Leaving the scene will be very relevant to this case. At the very least, it shows reckless disregard.

 

[mobeydick]

I completely disagree. Leaving the scene will be very relevant to this case. At the very least, it shows reckless disregard.

That trumps a murder charge how so. This case will be tried on what happened in the 30 minutes before the actuall shooting. ON WHAT BOTH SIDES DONE or didn't do!

 

[mobeydick]

I completely disagree. Leaving the scene will be very relevant to this case. At the very least, it shows reckless disregard.

It wouldn't to me!

 

[gxm]

So people who get shot at automatically get the benefit of the doubt first? Are you that naive?

They would have no reason to lie if none of them threatened the shooter. If they did there would have plenty to lie about!

I see plenty of good reason if as his attorney stated they threatened him and represented a means to carry out that threat! Not saying they did!

Yes. Unarmed people who are shot at get the benefit of the doubt. Especially when their stories match up. They are the victims. If Jordan was such a "threat" then why was he still in the car and not out of it and in Dunn's face when he was shot? Because Jordan wasn't a threat. He was an unarmed teenager sitting in a car, maybe mouthing off, maybe not.

As I said before, Dunn's only hope is that there's a witness to back up his version of events, and I have a sneaking feeling there won't be. He's also got a big hurdle to overcome with leaving the scene of the crime, consciousness of guilt galore, IMO.

 

[gxm]

That trumps a murder charge how so. This case will be tried on what happened in the 30 minutes before the actuall shooting. ON WHAT BOTH SIDES DONE or didn't do!

It's called "consciousness of guilt."



Consciousness of Guilt

When a person who is accused of a crime does something which an innocent person would not do, at least in theory, the law deems that he has displayed a consciousness of guilt. The jury is told that they may weigh such an act as being consciousness of guilt in their deliberations. An example may illustrate the point, and some problems attendant to it. A fight occurs between two men. Someone yells that the police are on their way. One man waits for the police. The other man runs away. Assume that the second man is charged with assault. The issue is what weight is to be attached to the flight by the accused when he learned that the police were coming. The jury will be told that such flight may (emphasis on the word "may") be evidence of consciousness of guilt. Now, the problem is that the accused may have had many unrelated reasons for running. He may have had traffic warrants outstanding. He may have been wanted on more serious charges. It is not a happy choice to consider having to tell the jury in this case about the defendant's problems in other cases just to disarm the consciousness of guilt theory. On the other hand, it is logical that, where unexplained, flight from a crime scene very well may illustrate the accused's own mental state that he had committed a crime. In a sense, the act of running places a burden on the accused to explain such conduct or face the consequences of it.


http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questi...iousness-guilt-consciouness-heard-find-3076/a

 

[Steely Dan]

It's called "consciousness of guilt."



Consciousness of Guilt

When a person who is accused of a crime does something which an innocent person would not do, at least in theory, the law deems that he has displayed a consciousness of guilt. The jury is told that they may weigh such an act as being consciousness of guilt in their deliberations. An example may illustrate the point, and some problems attendant to it. A fight occurs between two men. Someone yells that the police are on their way. One man waits for the police. The other man runs away. Assume that the second man is charged with assault. The issue is what weight is to be attached to the flight by the accused when he learned that the police were coming. The jury will be told that such flight may (emphasis on the word "may") be evidence of consciousness of guilt. Now, the problem is that the accused may have had many unrelated reasons for running. He may have had traffic warrants outstanding. He may have been wanted on more serious charges. It is not a happy choice to consider having to tell the jury in this case about the defendant's problems in other cases just to disarm the consciousness of guilt theory. On the other hand, it is logical that, where unexplained, flight from a crime scene very well may illustrate the accused's own mental state that he had committed a crime. In a sense, the act of running places a burden on the accused to explain such conduct or face the consequences of it.


http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questi...iousness-guilt-consciouness-heard-find-3076/a

C'mon, he had a puppy to attend to.

 

[Sonya610]

I'd like to believe that, if their stories match up, most people would accept the word of the teenagers. IMO, they have no reason to lie as they were the ones being shot at.

They would have EVERY reason to lie about it if they had a weapon. If they had a weapon they would know the police are going to put the pressure on and find out WHERE it came from. Whoever they got it from is really really not going to be cool with that, if they acquired a weapon on the street then there is a good chance the person they got it from would threaten to kill them if their name came up.

This is a high profile case with nationwide coverage and the fallout would be bad for anyone that contributed to it.

I am not saying they did have a weapon but you said "they would have no reason to lie" and I could think of some pretty strong reasons to do just that.

 

[IfIMay]

This shooter clearly doesn't fit into any of that!

how do you know that? Do you know him personally?

 

[gxm]

They would have EVERY reason to lie about it if they had a weapon. If they had a weapon they would know the police are going to put the pressure on and find out WHERE it came from. Whoever they got it from is really really not going to be cool with that, if they acquired a weapon on the street then there is a good chance the person they got it from would threaten to kill them if their name came up.

This is a high profile case with nationwide coverage and the fallout would be bad for anyone that contributed to it.

I am not saying they did have a weapon but you said "they would have no reason to lie" and I could think of some pretty strong reasons to do just that.

I find the idea of the teens having a weapon, or weapons, to be a leap in conjecture that I just can't make as there is no physical evidence to back it up at this time. If they'd had weapons, there would have been a shots fired from both sides, not just one. IMO, it will be more credible for Dunn to argue that he thought they had a weapon which I'm guessing is the approach his lawyer will take.

 

[Donjeta]

It wasn't a high profile case with nationwide coverage at the time they gave their first statements. They might have thought it would become so, or they might not.

 

[mobeydick]

It's called "consciousness of guilt."



Consciousness of Guilt

When a person who is accused of a crime does something which an innocent person would not do, at least in theory, the law deems that he has displayed a consciousness of guilt. The jury is told that they may weigh such an act as being consciousness of guilt in their deliberations. An example may illustrate the point, and some problems attendant to it. A fight occurs between two men. Someone yells that the police are on their way. One man waits for the police. The other man runs away. Assume that the second man is charged with assault. The issue is what weight is to be attached to the flight by the accused when he learned that the police were coming. The jury will be told that such flight may (emphasis on the word "may") be evidence of consciousness of guilt. Now, the problem is that the accused may have had many unrelated reasons for running. He may have had traffic warrants outstanding. He may have been wanted on more serious charges. It is not a happy choice to consider having to tell the jury in this case about the defendant's problems in other cases just to disarm the consciousness of guilt theory. On the other hand, it is logical that, where unexplained, flight from a crime scene very well may illustrate the accused's own mental state that he had committed a crime. In a sense, the act of running places a burden on the accused to explain such conduct or face the consequences of it.


http://www.lawguru.com/legal-questi...iousness-guilt-consciouness-heard-find-3076/a

It's also called scared of someone still being armed and without more rounds being able to shoot back.

 

[flourish]

This shooter clearly doesn't fit into any of that!

Clearly? Do you have access to his entire history, medical and otherwise? If you have information regarding his temperament, preferences, opinions, and general demeanor, I'm sure we'd all appreciate a link to that information.

Otherwise, I don't understand how you can state that as is if it a fact.

 

[mobeydick]

how do you know that? Do you know him personally?

No Criminal record over 45 years, pilot that owns airplane, I think you currently have to have a background check for that.

Never heard the name before last week and don't care if he is found guilty or not. I would like to know the truth, I doubt that is ever going to happen. I really wish there would have been audio/video of the shooting, something tells me there is, teenagers with cell phones record their altercations with old white folks! Do you think they may have destroyed that evidence?

 

[flourish]

ANY 45yo with no criminal record over any teenagers!

Oh, so this is an ageist thing, then? I can't imagine why else a person would be willing to take one person's word over a group of younger people's words unless their is some ageism involved. IMO.

 

[flourish]

No Criminal record over 45 years, pilot that owns airplane, I think you currently have to have a background check for that.

Never heard the name before last week and don't care if he is found guilty or not. I would like to know the truth, I doubt that is ever going to happen. I really wish there would have been audio/video of the shooting, something tells me there is, teenagers with cell phones record their altercations with old white folks! Do you think they may have destroyed that evidence?

RBBM
Some things are making more sense to me. It appears that you feel that teenagers have frequent altercations with old white folks. Huh. So...bullies of all ages never have altercations with people of other varieties of race and age? Very very interesting. :waitasec:

 

[mobeydick]

I find the idea of the teens having a weapon, or weapons, to be a leap in conjecture that I just can't make as there is no physical evidence to back it up at this time. If they'd had weapons, there would have been a shots fired from both sides, not just one. IMO, it will be more credible for Dunn to argue that he thought they had a weapon which I'm guessing is the approach his lawyer will take.

That does look like what she is doing. That being said it really doesn't matter if they actually had a shotgun. In Florida a Threat of death and the representation of something to carry out that threat would justify the use of deadly force to stop the threat.



I'm sure the defense is looking for people who were at the store before the shooter got there. If the teenagers harassed other people it would be game over for the prosecution!

There just isn't enough information to make a call at this point!