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

[mobeydick]

BBM

Maybe nothing more than a drunken, trigger-happy racist white dude.

Or a wan-a-be bullying someone he thought defenseless!

 

[mobeydick]

Maybe the only thing that scared him was the fact that these guys were black, therefore gangsters, therefore carrying guns, therefore violent. It doesn't mean he actually saw a gun.

I don't think he thought that are first sight, if he would have he would have most likely avoided them because he was alone (no back up). Most racist keep the their mouth shut when their alone!

 

[mobeydick]

I don't think he should have feared them (well, for the record, I don't think we can really say who should be afraid of whom). But he could have avoided them quite easily. They were in a public place. He could have parked away from them. If he thought their music was too loud, he could have just left.

Which he did, but not before shooting one of them.

Again it's clear he didn't fear them at first, when he arrived, i'm sure if he did his GF would have gotton out of the car. Some other event/action made him fearful!

 

[tlcya]

Like you yourself said earlier,
The BBM is SHOCKING to me and highly offensive.

IMO, I dont think we know yet whether any testimony from anyone else will state whether other weapons were brandished from the other car. If it turns out the shooter was not threatened with another weapon, then I hope he is tried and convicted.

on this I can agree, Hatfield. It is equally offensive to assume and proclaim that the shooter is or probably is a trigger happy, racist.

Race may have factored into his decision making, it may not have. And trigger happy is subjective. One man's trigger happy may be another man's hyper-vigilance.

While I have my own theories as to the motivations of Mr. Dunn, you are right, it is wrong and yes, even offensive, if I transmute those theories into fact without anything more than my own opinion on which to base it.

I agree also with your statement that if the tale turns out to be as relayed by witnesses and not by Mr. Dunn, I too hope he is convicted and jailed.

 

[Donjeta]

Again it's clear he didn't fear them at first, when he arrived, i'm sure if he did his GF would have gotton out of the car. Some other event/action made him fearful!

Fearful - or just angry and aggressive?

 

[mobeydick]

JMO
Regarding SYG law, I do think the initial intention of the law is good. However, I think the problem with it is that certain people are misinterpreting it and using it in totally wrong situations. Those type of people will probably end up learning in a court of law what is legal and what is not legal with any SYG defenses.

I am all for giving legal rights to potential innocent victims to defend themselves, but I am totally against anyone abusing the SYG laws and trying to use it in situations that have no business being even part of their defense.

Many years ago, there was a story of a criminal robbing a house and falling down the stairs because a toy was left on the staircase, and they sued the homeowner. Not sure if they were successful in lawsuit. There are other stories that are similar. I think the intent of laws like SYG are meant to try and provide valid legal protection for innocent victims. The only problem with them is when they are abused, but the good thing is that any abuse of the SYG will probably not be successful in a court of law, so the parties trying to abuse the law will probably learn they are incorrect in court.

The FL. SYGL as written is not practiced by the state of FL. The Zimmerman case and this case proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Both claim SYG and both have been/were arrested!

The ONLY thing the FL. SYGL does is give the person who killed another person Immunity from civil litigation IF the state is not successful in getting a conviction. It doesn't prohibit the state from prosecuting the killer!

 

[Hatfield]

This does bring up a problem for the jury if there are no additional witnesses and one side says one thing and another side says another thing. I suppose it comes down to which party seems more credible on the witness stand. That would be tough job for a jury.

The scary thing too is that depending on the lawyers involved, one side may do a better job of convincing a jury because they had a better lawyer. It is sad to think of the cases lost just because of a bad lawyer.

I truly hope in this case, someone is able to testify at trial exactly what occurred and the total truth is told. That is the main thing to me no matter where the chips fall. Total truth and nothing but the truth.

 

[mobeydick]

Fearful - or just angry and aggressive?

All of the above for all parties involved!

 

[daisy7]

The FL. SYGL as written is not practiced by the state of FL. The Zimmerman case and this case proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Both claim SYG and both have been/were arrested!

The ONLY thing the FL. SYGL does is give the person who killed another person Immunity from civil litigation IF the state is not successful in getting a conviction. It doesn't prohibit the state from prosecuting the killer!

This is not what that SYG statutes state. A person who claims SYG is not automatically not prosecuted nor immune from civil penalties:

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.
(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).

Respectfully, bolded and underlined by me. The big question is if it was justifiable.

Here is the link for the above: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

Here's the full statute on use of justifiable force: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html

 

[Hatfield]

This is not what that SYG statutes state. A person who claims SYG is not automatically not prosecuted nor immune from civil penalties:

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.
(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).

Respectfully, bolded and underlined by me. The big question is if it was justifiable.

Here is the link for the above: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

Here's the full statute on use of justifiable force: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html

That was very helpful. Thanks. I find #2 + #3 very interesting.

For #2, LE should never even arrest someone unless they "determine" it was used unlawfully. It seems like their determination could later be proven wrong in court, and then the person can be released, but the weird thing is #3 only gives compensation back to the person for Civil cases only.

So, if it is later proven a person was lawful, he can only get money from civil cases and not the criminal case whch is interesting.

I do like this law though if used properly. I like #3 in that it makes people really think before they file a civil case against someone. They need to be pretty sure that the person was unlawful before they file a civil case against someone, otherwise they risk losing money themselves.

 

[mobeydick]

This is not what that SYG statutes state. A person who claims SYG is not automatically not prosecuted nor immune from civil penalties:

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.
(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).

Respectfully, bolded and underlined by me. The big question is if it was justifiable.

Here is the link for the above: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.032.html

Here's the full statute on use of justifiable force: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776ContentsIndex.html

That is exactly what I said, the SYG law changes NOTHING about the way LE or the DA can go after anyone accused of killing someone. The ONLY thing it changes is IF the state cannot get a conviction for the killing! The person accused of the killing is given immunity from civil litigation. That is the only thing the SYGL changes in practice for people who have killed someone in FL.

 

[daisy7]

I am not an attorney and I definitely have firm beliefs against guns. I had a family member killed from gun-related accident and a few months ago, I had a dear friend take her own life with a gun.

So, I am not the most un-biased person about guns out there.

IMO, as a Floridian, the big change to the existing self-defense law in my state with SYG is that the shooter no longer has to try to retreat -- that they can shoot to kill if they feel their life is in danger. Before, they had to attempt to flee, before shooting the perp to make it justifiable.

The shooter has always had to prove it was justifiable as a defense. SYG is not nor has ever been intended to automatically be a get out of jail free card.

I agree that it is not being applied consistently across the state and that is one of the many concerns I have with the law.

JMO.

 

[mobeydick]

That was very helpful. Thanks. I find #2 + #3 very interesting.

For #2, LE should never even arrest someone unless they "determine" it was used unlawfully. It seems like their determination could later be proven wrong in court, and then the person can be released, but the weird thing is #3 only gives compensation back to the person for Civil cases only.

So, if it is later proven a person was lawful, he can only get money from civil cases and not the criminal case whch is interesting.

I do like this law though if used properly. I like #3 in that it makes people really think before they file a civil case against someone. They need to be pretty sure that the person was unlawful before they file a civil case against someone, otherwise they risk losing money themselves.

NO, If a person is convcted, Plea, civil action can take place against the convicted. If the person is Not convicted the civil action cannot be take against the person who killed.

 

[mobeydick]

I am not an attorney and I definitely have firm beliefs against guns. I had a family member killed from gun-related accident and a few months ago, I had a dear friend take her own life with a gun.

So, I am not the most un-biased person about guns out there.

IMO, as a Floridian, the big change to the existing self-defense law in my state with SYG is that the shooter no longer has to try to retreat -- that they can shoot to kill if they feel their life is in danger. Before, they had to attempt to flee, before shooting the perp to make it justifiable.

The shooter has always had to prove it was justifiable as a defense. SYG is not nor has ever been intended to automatically be a get out of jail free card.

I agree that it is not being applied consistently across the state and that is one of the many concerns I have with the law.

JMO.

That is incorrect, The only thing the SYGL changes in practice is if the state doesn't get a conviction for any reason you are immune from civil actions!

 

[daisy7]

The FL. SYGL as written is not practiced by the state of FL. The Zimmerman case and this case proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Both claim SYG and both have been/were arrested!

The ONLY thing the FL. SYGL does is give the person who killed another person Immunity from civil litigation IF the state is not successful in getting a conviction. It doesn't prohibit the state from prosecuting the killer!

Please explain the bolded part above which states that SYG as written is not practiced by FL since both were arrested. As I posted above, if LE does not think it is justifiable, there is nothing in the law that says the person is immune from being arrested simply because they claim SYG.

 

[Donjeta]

I'm not a lawyer but I don't think the SYG law was ever intended to mean that nobody can ever get arrested if they claim SYG.

Every murderer would always claim SYG if it worked like that.

 

[daisy7]

That is incorrect, The only thing the SYGL changes in practice is if the state doesn't get a conviction for any reason you are immune from civil actions!

I'm not sure of you are a Floridian and it doesn't really matter as all opinions matter here.

If you are a Floridian, then I'm sure you know that not requiring fleeing was a huge change and opposed by many with the new SYG law. I guess it doesn't even matter as some are focused on (presumed automatic) protections the law gives to the shooter (which it doesn't).

Anyways, here is the statute on this topic under the new SYG law:

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.

Snipped and BBM.

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

 

[flourish]

That is incorrect, The only thing the SYGL changes in practice is if the state doesn't get a conviction for any reason you are immune from civil actions!

You've mentioned this a couple of times--I don't remember if you already have, but can you provide a link which states this alleged civil action immunity?

Also, is there a copy of the law as it was and a copy of the law as it is so that direct comparisons can be made, if it's considered so important?

I also noted you state above "changes in practice." Are you indicating that the written law and the way the law is applied in reality are different? If so, can you expand on that--perhaps with some examples and links supporting that?

Thanks in advance

 

[Nova]

The FL. SYGL as written is not practiced by the state of FL. The Zimmerman case and this case proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Both claim SYG and both have been/were arrested!

The ONLY thing the FL. SYGL does is give the person who killed another person Immunity from civil litigation IF the state is not successful in getting a conviction. It doesn't prohibit the state from prosecuting the killer!

Mobey, I don't understand. Your post seems to imply that Fla's SYG gives one immunity from arrest, and I do not believe that is the case. It may change the level of proof required for an indictment IIRC, but nobody is immune from prosecution.

ETA: Never mind, mobey. You and Daisy7 sorted this out above. Thanks.

 

[Nova]

This does bring up a problem for the jury if there are no additional witnesses and one side says one thing and another side says another thing. I suppose it comes down to which party seems more credible on the witness stand. That would be tough job for a jury.

The scary thing too is that depending on the lawyers involved, one side may do a better job of convincing a jury because they had a better lawyer. It is sad to think of the cases lost just because of a bad lawyer.

I truly hope in this case, someone is able to testify at trial exactly what occurred and the total truth is told. That is the main thing to me no matter where the chips fall. Total truth and nothing but the truth.

Hatfield, despite recent publicity, California's self-defense provision isn't that different from SYG. (I was even watching an old movie the other day and one character began talking about California's "castle doctrine" (not the same thing, but related) as if it were something novel.)

And I've been a juror on a self-defense case and, yes, we were asked to evaluate the truth of testimony based on factors such as the witness' demeanor, whether s/he has reason to lie, the testimony of others, etc. In the case I was on, the defendant testified convincingly, but the circumstantial evidence told a very different story.

Such are the challenges of all juries, not just those in Florida.