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

[flourish]

I would like everyone to state what it would take (what provocation) for them to feel the need shoot someone in a public area. Obviously it would not be loud music so what would it be.

I'm guessing one of the kids mouthed off at him. What set you off to beat up a much younger man?

Smart as an emu, you!

:blowkiss:

 

[Donjeta]

<snip times two>

Well, you can lop all the non gun-owners off right at the top of the pile of us, right there. I'd reckon the non-gun owners' claims that they would never shoot someone over loud music is fair and accurate. It also kinda implies that they would never shoot someone. Period. Because they don't have guns.

Then you have to consider okay so how many of the poster left, the gun owners, how many of them actually carry &/or are nearby their weapons and how often, and whether or not their weapons are kept loaded.

Then you gotta find someone who is first willing to say they would shoot someone at all ever, and who carries &/or is nearby their loaded weapons often enough for this to be a reasonable scenario, because some of the gun owners might not be willing to say they would shoot someone in the first place.

THEN you have to get over the final hurdle of, if you've gotten this far, would you shoot someone because their music was too loud?

You see, it whittles down and down until you get to a smaller amount of posters that can even answer that question. Seems it might be like that in the general populace, too?

So, uh, good luck getting your question answered in any way that could be truly meaningful towards making a point?

:waitasec:

Yeah, and the thing is, people are not always willing to publicly admit all the bad things they are capable of anyway. Often not even to themselves.

I mean, how many people have you heard say that they are reckless drivers who endanger lives every time they grab the steering wheel because of their speeding and other blatant disregard of traffic safety regulations? Yet some people are.

How many people are willing to say that they are capable of losing their temper over something of no consequence and having a road rage incident and shoot someone over a totally trivial mishap that occurred on the road? I've yet to meet anybody who says so, but yet some people do lose their temper on the road with disastrous results. Neighbors have waged wars for disagreements that seem very minor to everybody else. But would any of them admit to you that they're warring over something that does not matter simply because they can't get over their hostility? No.

I don't think you are very likely to find anyone on this board or elsewhere who is willing to say that they could lose their temper over loud music enough to kill someone. But some people do lose their tempers over things that started out as pretty trivial. Once it gets past a certain level of rage, they don't stop and think, hey, is it really worth it to get an assault charge or worse for loud music/a minor traffic accident/a small neighborly annoyance, because it's not about the initial trigger any more, it's about their rage.

 

[Steely Dan]

There is no evidence there was another weapon involved in this incident. JUST the shooter's weapon.

Up to that point, it was loud music and possibly words.

You don't take a gun to a word fight.

Words don't kill people, but people with guns do.

JMHO
fran

BBM

:floorlaugh:

Loud music + "mouthing off" wouldn't do it either, typically. So either the shooter's a loose cannon or his life or someone else's was threatened. We have no idea at this point which is true. Personally, I have a hard time believing the loose cannon theory for a person in public likely on video with no prior history. It's possible, but unlikely.On the other hand, there are plenty stories of teens engaging in random acts of violence in public places over something stupid or over nothing at all. The age of the perps and why they did what they did is truly frightening and also far more consistent with youthful offenders who have no context for the consequences of what they do. The 14 year olds who killed over the cigarette in PA is what I'm thinking of here. Ridiculous behavior obviously done with no concern about the consequences -- yet done. And an innocent life is ended by "kids" YOUNG kids. 14 years old. Took out a gun and shot someone.

These weren't fourteen year olds. They didn't have a gun, that anyone not facing charges, saw.

BBM

We don't know his prior history. He might be a hothead. All we know at this time is that the guy shot nine(?) times into an SUV on kids playing loud music.

According to the shooter's counsel, there was a threat of a gun or a gun.

Also, it's my understanding that the shooter carried his gun regardless of whether there was "a fight," so he didn't carry a gun to a word fight, he had the gun and the right to carry it whether or not there was a fight of any kind, or none at all. He could have carried his gun to a toddler's birthday party and still been well within his rights.

Disagreeing with the law is different than questioning what this individual did within his rights under existing law -- to carry a gun at all times if he chose to do so.

BBM

First, KC's council says her dad molested her and disposed of the body. Lawyers are going to say anything to get their clients off.

Second, that's the problem. The law in Florida gives the average bonehead the chance to decide if they are in danger or not. The fact that this guy is being held in jail with no bond makes me think they have a very strong case. When the sunshine law evidence starts to come out we'll know a lot more.

sbm~
and the teens fleeing in fear for their life!

this is a hyperbole, imo, complete with the exclamation point and, at minimum, a subjective statement based on no known evidence. Which is fine since, as I understand it, you're speaking as a poster and not a moderator. That said, there's no evidence that I'm aware of that there was any fear on the part of the people in the vehicle that was shot at or that they left the scene because of any fear. They obviously weren't afraid of loudly blasting music in a public place and we'll see whether they were afraid of a verbal or physical confrontation, including deadly force. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but I have no reason to believe one way or the other based on the limited objective information currently available.

BBM

Frantically backing up the SUV isn't trying to get away? I'm not afraid of blasting loud music in public either. I'm not afraid of that because in 48 years on this planet I've been asked nicely to turn it down, if it ever came up. When it did it was usually my dad asking me turn it down in my room.

From your post it seems that you believe that blasting loud music in public is against the law. Blasting loud music on private or public property can be a ticketable offense, and maybe once in awhile an arrestable misdemeanor. However, in order to get arrested, in most areas, you have to have ignored a police officers request to do so.

JMO

 

[JaxFlaGal]

Dunn's changing attorneys: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topst...Man-accused-of-killing-teen-gets-new-attorney

 

[mobeydick]

I completely disagree. So far, the evidence shows that the shooter is the one who initiated the confrontation and then escalated the situation by bringing a gun into the mix. The shooter was outside of his car, Jordan was not. The shooter was the aggressor at every point from start to finish. After shooting Jordan, Dunn then escalated the situation by fleeing the scene and hiding out.

Loud music is not a "threat." Mouthy teens are not a "threat." An annoyance to some, but not a threat. Dunn met an annoyance with deadly force which, IMO, is antisocial and inexcusable violence.

Asking someone to do something is NOT escalating the situation, even if he had to yell to be heardover the music/noise! If one of the teens threatened physical harm on the shooter or his GF that is escalating the situation first. How do you know that, were you there? <mod snip> Mouthy Teens are not a threat unlees they express a threat. You express a threat you had better expect that threat to be met with force. Ask a cop about that!

 

[mobeydick]

Are you really saying that because Dunn killed Jordan over loud music then the friends should be accessories since they were listening to the loud music that set Dunn off? No judge or jury is going to buy that angle. IMO, the best Dunn can hope for is a short-time manslaughter plea deal and I really don't think he's going to get it unless he's very well off and very well connected. IMO, as soon as he fled the scene, he sealed his fate: guilty of murder. He killed a young man with his whole life ahead of him over loud music, I can't imagine any judge or jury will find Dunn sympathetic. JMHO and all.

Where have you seen me post the shooter killed anyone over loud music. I have said the very opposite from day one!<mod snip>

If it an be proved the teens threatened the shooter, YES, they can be charged with his death! <mod snip>

 

[songline]

There is no proof the shooter escalated the situation, NONE. There is evidence he responded to threats.

There is absolutely no evidence that he responded to any threats.

Bring the evidence....Talk is cheap.

 

[songline]

I would like everyone to state what it would take (what provocation) for them to feel the need shoot someone in a public area. Obviously it would not be loud music so what would it be.

RAGE, and insanity, depraved indifference.

 

[songline]

Please show me where the bolded part of your quote is a KNOWN FACT:



You have embellished.

YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN....
Police say there is no Shot gun, NONE!
Fabricated story came up after he got an attorney.

 

[songline]

IMHO, people can claim anything they want. But, ........ the problem here is the shooter did NOT claim the victims had a weapon when he was arrested and gave his initial statement. ............, that wasn't brought into the mix until he got an attorney, ....... additionally, there was no other weapon found at the scene.

I guess it will depend on if there's any witnesses to what transpired, either the verbal altercation or the actual shooting and the teens fleeing in fear for their life!

IF no witnesses to words or proof there was another weapon, the only thing sure is, ................ Mr. Dunn shot at least 7 or 8 rounds towards a vehicle full of teens and shot and killed one. Left the scene and the next day fled to his home hours away and LE had to contact him first.

I have no chance of being on the jury that could possibly determine Mr. Dun's fate, however, IF I was, I'd believe he shot for no reason other than he COULD and left hoping to get away with it.

That's just me though, and
JMHO
fran



PLEASE NOTE, this is my view and in no way represents Websleuths or the owners of Websleuths or administration of Websleuths. This is JMHO, that's all.

:clap: :clap: GREAT POST :clap: :clap:

I strongly believe and know that some posters are moles, with one intention to change public opinion.
in fact we had one on the Ana Nicole case, and on the Rose Speaks site, 2 posters/moles got arrested.

 

[rossva]

Again, please read what YOU wrote. I have never mentioned ANYTHING about a shotgun, just that YOU have embelished the facts.


Originally Posted by songline
"and he was not threatened with death."

What YOU wrote, that he was not threatened with death, is NOT A KNOWN FACT. It is YOUR embelishment of the FACTS. Whether or not there was a shotgun is irrelevant to whether or not he was threatened with death.

YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN....
Police say there is no Shot gun, NONE!
Fabricated storycame up after he got an attorney.

Again, another example of embelishment of a fact. There is no proof, at least yet, he fabricated anything.

 

[songline]

Again, please read what YOU wrote. I have never mentioned ANYTHING about a shotgun, just that YOU have embelished the facts.


Originally Posted by songline
"and he was not threatened with death."

What YOU wrote, that he was not threatened with death, is NOT A KNOWN FACT. It is YOUR embelishment of the FACTS. Whether or not there was a shotgun is irrelevant to whether or not he was threatened with death.


Again, another example of embelishment of a fact. There is no proof, at least yet, he fabricated anything.

There is no report about a shot gun on the police report, then the shooter got lawyerd up and the story of some shot gun came into play.
NOBODY RUNS unless they are hiding from something.

Who knows this GUN COLLECTOR may have a bunch of guns that have been in other crimes.

YOU SEEM TO BE DEAD SET on anything the shooter said must be so. :waitasec::waitasec:

This guy even canceled a date with his own son the next morning and went home.
His son had a very important celebration why did he cancel that morning date too?
Did he go home to unload some other weapons that may put him in additional mess?
JUST SAYING!!!!!!
How do you play this BS out? Innocence does not run. He is old enough to know better.
ME think he had to go home; and he is a gun collector, who knows what lurks in his closet.

I will never understand standing up for the shooter who ran, especially when the facts are thin.
To me that is always a red flag.

 

[gxm]

I suspect you are right (though in the end, it is the defendant's decision, not his lawyer's). I only meant to correct the statement that the defendant's statements (in court, but also outside of court) were not "evidence".

I don't know all the hearsay rules, but I suspect anything Dunn said immediately before, during and after the shooting will be admissible.

Yes. It is the defendant's decision. But a good lawyer, IMO, would persuade him against such foolishness. IMO, Dunn taking the stand would be a disaster. He has already shown that he can't keep his story straight. Any halfway decent prosecutor would make mincemeat out of him. JMHO and all that.

 

[gxm]

Asking someone to do something is NOT escalating the situation, even if he had to yell to be heardover the music/noise! If one of the teens threatened physical harm on the shooter or his GF that is escalating the situation first. How do you know that, were you there? <mod snip> Mouthy Teens are not a threat unlees they express a threat. You express a threat you had better expect that threat to be met with force. Ask a cop about that!

Dunn escalated the situation by engaging the teens first. They did not engage Dunn. Dunn engaged them. He initiated the incident. Personally, I can't imagine why someone would even bother to hassle other people over loud music in a quick mart parking lot. It's not like either party would be there for an extended time. IMO, Dunn was confrontational and looking for a fight.

Then, when words were exchanged, Dunn further escalated the situation by getting his gun out of the glove box and shooting at the teenagers as they tried to back away. NOTE: They did not aim the car toward Dunn and try to run him over (which is what a life-threatening aggressor would do); nope, they were leaving and there was no longer anything for Dunn to be afraid of. He shot at retreating, unarmed teenagers, killing one young man who had his whole life ahead of him.

I know that Dunn claims he was threatened and that a shotgun was pointed at him but I think his story is completely unbelievable. Why? Because if the shotgun was already out and pointed at Dunn, then there would have been an exchange of gunfire. The kids wouldn't have sat there like sitting ducks, they would have shot back as soon as Dunn drew his weapon. The police found no shotgun and no casings other than Dunn's. There is simply no credible evidence that the teens had a weapon or posed a credible threat to Dunn. Their biggest weapon was their vehicle which they could have used to try to run Dunn over but they didn't. IMO, that's because the teens were never the aggressors. Dunn picked a fight and then pulled a gun on unarmed kids. Unless credible evidence proves otherwise, I hope they lock him up and throw away the key.

 

[gxm]

Somebody should make mincemeat out of him. He cut a child's life to an end.

I'm not one to usually say this but I think Dunn will find prison a very unfriendly place. And I think he's going to have to get used to it for a good long while. JMHO and all that.

 

[gxm]

Where have you seen me post the shooter killed anyone over loud music. I have said the very opposite from day one!<mod snip>

If it an be proved the teens threatened the shooter, YES, they can be charged with his death! <mod snip>

It would need to be a credible threat. And a credible threat could have been executed before Dunn had a chance to get his gun out of the glove box which is why I do not believe Dunn's shotgun story. There was never a credible threat to Dunn, if there were, there would be physical evidence of either shotgun casings or injuries to Dunn's body. There is neither.

 

[rossva]

Please show one post of mine where I have said anything either side has said is so. Please show one post of mine where I standing up for Dunn.

All I am doing is pointing out how you stating your opinion as a fact, and calling out another poster for doing the same thing.

You have stated: Originally Posted by songline
"and he was not threatened with death."

That statement is an embellished fact, or, at most, your opinion. We do not know if Dunn was or was not threatened with death.

You also stated: Originally Posted by songline "Fabricated story"

That statement is an embellished fact, or, at most, your opinion. We do not know if Dunn did or did not make up whether there was a gun or not. There could have been a gun,(the teens did leave the scene, and return) or Dunn could have thought there was a gun. Just because one report claims to report he didn't mention a shotgun does not mean he made the story up.

I will never understand convicting some one of a crime, especially when the facts are thin, or not known.

To me that is always a red flag.

YOU SEEM TO BE DEAD SET on anything the shooter said must be so. :waitasec::waitasec:

I will never understand standing up for the shooter who ran, especially when the facts are thin.
To me that is always a red flag.

 

[fran]

Stop the arguing back and forth now.

All opinions are welcome.

Agree to disagree and move on.

No one needs to have the last word.

It is against TOS to tell other posters what to do or attack a poster, rather than the post.

I'm going to go back through the more recent posts and remove the large lettering in the body of the posts. It's not necessary and totally distracting to the conversation.


TIA
fran

 

[Steely Dan]

Dunn's changing attorneys: http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topst...Man-accused-of-killing-teen-gets-new-attorney

Maybe this one can turn :censored: into shineola.

Again, please read what YOU wrote. I have never mentioned ANYTHING about a shotgun, just that YOU have embelished the facts.


Originally Posted by songline
"and he was not threatened with death."

What YOU wrote, that he was not threatened with death, is NOT A KNOWN FACT. It is YOUR embelishment of the FACTS. Whether or not there was a shotgun is irrelevant to whether or not he was threatened with death.




Again, another example of embelishment of a fact. There is no proof, at least yet, he fabricated anything.

There is no proof that the kids threatened him with anything. Changing his story to police would be a good sign that he's fabricated at least part of his testimony.

Asking someone to do something is NOT escalating the situation, even if he had to yell to be heardover the music/noise! If one of the teens threatened physical harm on the shooter or his GF that is escalating the situation first. How do you know that, were you there? <mod snip> Mouthy Teens are not a threat unlees they express a threat. You express a threat you had better expect that threat to be met with force. Ask a cop about that!

If Florida's stand your ground law allows people to kill because someone says "I'm going to kill you." That's an infringement on free speech. IMO, they'd have to at least show some actual intent to follow up on the threat. They'd need to move towards you or start to brandish an actual weapon. If the law in Florida allows you to kill based on words it is greatly flawed and needs to be taken to the SCOTUS for clarification. I don't think that's how the law works, and I think it's the reason for the mystical shotgun.

BTW, in your fight if you had landed a punch that killed the guy, it would seem, that according to you, you're friends could all have been arrested too.

JMO

 

[songline]

Please show one post of mine where I have said anything either side has said is so. Please show one post of mine where I standing up for Dunn.

All I am doing is pointing out how you stating your opinion as a fact, and calling out another poster for doing the same thing.

You have stated: Originally Posted by songline
"and he was not threatened with death."

That statement is an embellished fact, or, at most, your opinion. We do not know if Dunn was or was not threatened with death.

You also stated: Originally Posted by songline "Fabricated story"

That statement is an embellished fact, or, at most, your opinion. We do not know if Dunn did or did not make up whether there was a gun or not. There could have been a gun,(the teens did leave the scene, and return) or Dunn could have thought there was a gun. Just because one report claims to report he didn't mention a shotgun does not mean he made the story up.

I will never understand convicting some one of a crime, especially when the facts are thin, or not known.

To me that is always a red flag.

HERE ARE SOME FACTS WE DO KNOW and enough to not trust Dunn at all.
Shoots and unarmed boy of 17 years to death.
He does not dial 911
He leaves the scene of the crime, and can never say He did not know better. :nono:
He cancels his plans with his son for the next morning right after his sons important celebration.
He drives home.

And his GF does nothing either, no call to 911
(was she afraid of him? were they cut of the same cloth?)

HERE ARE 2 SPECULATIONS OF MINE
If you run you must have a good reason
he was definitly old enough to know better :yes:
Either his gun was not licensed/registered
OR
As a gun collector DID he have more guns at home that MAYBE were used in a crime, had to unload them?

HERE ARE THINGS THE POLICE DID
They said there was no shot gun found anywhere - that means BS about the threat.
They arrested the shooter - That means they did not trust him, and had enough to arrest.

So If you see me as embellishing..... Great.
I am reading some delusional posting on thies thread pleas address them. not me.