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

[Nova]

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.

Daisy7, I am so very sorry for your losses.

BBM: "No duty to retreat" has been the law in supposedly "liberal" California for at least 26 years. It's not quite the radical notion the media have made it seem. (It was carefully explained to my jury that people get killed trying to run away and so the law in CA does not require them to do so.)

ETA to continue the example of the murder case on which I was a juror, the killer wasn't required to retreat, but the evidence showed he went to considerable effort to (a) conceal a large and heavy knife, (b) run around a lengthy barrier headed TOWARD the victim, (c) chase down his victim and (d) continue to stab the victim long after the victim was obviously incapacitated. After a week of strenuous debate and a good deal of shouting, we finally decided those actions weren't just a matter of "standing his ground" or even "self-defense", but represented an aggressive and unjustified murder of the victim (jerk though the latter may have been).

So at least for that one jury, "no duty to retreat" did NOT mean that all aggressive actions by the defendant were thereby justified. As I said, that was 26 years ago and probably doesn't represent current California law; but my point is that "no duty to retreat" isn't necessarily the blank check the media have suggested. Not to the police and not to jurors.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I wonder: Why do I always hear about people in small towns who don't lock their doors--yet have enough guns under their pillow to equip a small army? I always hear about how ~safe~ it is where they live but also about how they have 574773744 guns to protect themselves. It is so odd.

 

[writer7]

Dang that's a strange post

First, I don't buy any immediate fear from the shooter, I think there is a reason he BECAME FEARFUL after he asked them to turn down the music.

Second, Why in the world would he/anybody think they may be carrying a shotgun before they parked near someone! In other words I don't think he thought they were armed until he seen someting reprersented as a gun!

That is one of the most outlandish things I've ever read!

I find some of your posts strange, now that we're trading critiques.

I can usually spot gang members or wannabe gang members. I'd avoid them at a gas station because they may be armed and dangerous. That's one example.

I also avoid drunk rednecks (for lack of a better word), assuming they may be armed and dangerous. That's another.

There are many more examples, if you think about it. Usually tough guys try to let folks know they are tough guys. That's not to say that every dangerous person looks the part, but sometimes you get pretty good warning, yeah.

 

[mobeydick]

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.

Read No. 2 in the law, then look all the homicides in florida and see if it matches the law! It doesn't, The State of florida ignores that section.

 

[mobeydick]

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.

I'm sure it wasn't intended that way but it happens alot.

 

[mobeydick]

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

I live in Southeast GA. I get the Jacksonville news outlets. I travel to Florida many times a year, Use to be season ticket holder to the Jags games. I use to have a GA. CCP which was at the time allowable in Florida as a CCP. As a firearms owner and traveler to Florida I followed the changes very closely and there was no clause in Florida statute that required someone to retreat or flee to defend themselves in there home or auto before the SYGL. There may have been one in public places but I never heard that it was. Before the SYGL a person COULD use deadly force if he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. (if someone saw another person shoot lets say a store clerk they could use deadly force to stop that person from doing it again and have no need to retreat or flee) Its been that way in FL a long time
That is correct it changed NOTHING in/as practice/d by LE! People believe the SYGL somehow shields them from invesigation or arrest from LE. It doesn't As proven by this case and the Zimmerman case.

 

[mobeydick]

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

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.

 

[mobeydick]

I find some of your posts strange, now that we're trading critiques.

I can usually spot gang members or wannabe gang members. I'd avoid them at a gas station because they may be armed and dangerous. That's one example.

I also avoid drunk rednecks (for lack of a better word), assuming they may be armed and dangerous. That's another.

There are many more examples, if you think about it. Usually tough guys try to let folks know they are tough guys. That's not to say that every dangerous person looks the part, but sometimes you get pretty good warning, yeah.

I can spot them too, I don't avoid them, I have a right to be there. I'm NOT going to let them impose their will on me. Chances are I'm armed and dangerous also.

Drunk Rednecks can be dangerous moreso then anyone else. I wouldn't think so.

The shooter in this case doesn't look the part of a redneck, gang member (KKK) or tough guy! his record kind of shows that too!

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I can spot them too, I don't avoid them, I have a right to be there. I'm NOT going to let them impose their will on me. Chances are I'm armed and dangerous also.

Drunk Rednecks can be dangerous moreso then anyone else. I wouldn't think so.

The shooter in this case doesn't look the part of a redneck, gang member (KKK) or tough guy! his record kind of shows that too!

People commit murder all the time who aren't members of a gang or look like a tough guy or have a previous record.

 

[LolaMoon08]

I find some of your posts strange, now that we're trading critiques.

I can usually spot gang members or wannabe gang members. I'd avoid them at a gas station because they may be armed and dangerous. That's one example.

I also avoid drunk rednecks (for lack of a better word), assuming they may be armed and dangerous. That's another.

There are many more examples, if you think about it. Usually tough guys try to let folks know they are tough guys. That's not to say that every dangerous person looks the part, but sometimes you get pretty good warning, yeah.

BBM As someone who bartended in a club for 11 years, drunk rednecks were the worst! Bikers come in second. Coked up rich kids have to be third. Hispanic gang banger wanna-be's fourth. Then black wanna-be thugs fifth. The white wanna-be thugs were just fun to laugh at. They acted tough, but a bouncer in their face and they'd melt like butter.

Also, living in Florida, the tourists can be really bad! Not to point out specific countries, but Russians can be really bad. They were more likely to be violent and look for a fight. Germans can be really bad too. I love the Canadians though. They're a cool bunch, but they don't tip very well -- if at all.

I could go on and on all day with the different types of people that I have come into contact with. The point is, violence and aggression comes from all types. Some worse than others, but just because someone doesn't look the type based on whatever flawed view you have of them, doesn't mean they are not violent or that they won't start a fight or even act the tough guy.

MOO

 

[LolaMoon08]

I can spot them too, I don't avoid them, I have a right to be there. I'm NOT going to let them impose their will on me. Chances are I'm armed and dangerous also.

Drunk Rednecks can be dangerous moreso then anyone else. I wouldn't think so.

The shooter in this case doesn't look the part of a redneck, gang member (KKK) or tough guy! his record kind of shows that too!

I didn't know a record could tell if you are a redneck, gang member, KKK etc... A mugshot on the other hand might answer some of those questions and I can look at his mugshot and tell he thinks he is a tough guy.

His online history would be a better place to look at to see if he had any affiliation with certain groups. We know he was anti-government so who knows if he has been to any online forums and what he has written on them?

He has been in trouble with the law though. He was in trouble with the Federal Government for flying in a no fly zone. So, he obviously has no problem breaking the law. His money and a good lawyer probably helped him out of that one.

 

[songline]

But that's where context matters, too. If you went to the dentist's office and suddenly thought you saw someone with a shotgun because you have some abnormal fear of dental assistants, folks would just think you were bonkers.

Some of us aren't buying the immediate fear because these young men were Black and listening to loud music. They were just teenagers in a car at 7 in the evening, in a good spot of town, buying gas or something as people do.

The man should have just parked far away from them and left them alone if he really thought they were a possible danger. Starting a fight with someone you think is likely to be carrying a shotgun just seems incredibly strange -- or unbelievable. Keeping in mind that many people use violence when they get very angry, it's a good bet (imho) that the man was more likely very angry than honestly in fear of the guys. He pulled up beside them and started an argument!

We know not only does the BS story of a the other guy had a gun "I THINK" not wash at all. But so often those who stand up for the perp, are working on his team to try and change your mind about your position.
I am so glad that here at WS we know not to buy that stuff. :twocents:

 

[songline]

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.

Not so sure this will be a he said she said.
We have one dead, a car that is shot up, because the guy does not like loud music in a public place, and no shotgun anywhere (JUST BS).
We have a shooter who fled the scene, never called 911 who may have been drinking at a party, but was not breathalyzed that night because he was only apprehended the following day.

SOMONE DID SEE and called the 911 number - that someone wanted to stay anonymous.

 

[gxm]

There were several people in the car that was shot up. Yes? So it won't be a he said/she said. If the people in the car are all telling the same story, then IMO their combined testimony will outweigh the shooter's lone version of events. And it's very likely the shooter won't even take the stand to testify. The person who needs a witness, IMO, is the shooter, not the victims.

 

[flourish]

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

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.

Thanks for the info, mobeydick.

So this sounds like if, after an investigation, IF the investigation finds the force to be justifiable then that's when the immunity comes in. Do people get arrested while the investigation goes on and then charges are dropped if it's found to be justifiable? Someone has to rule it as justifiable in order for the civil action immunity to kick in. The person isn't immune to "criminal prosecution" until their actions are deemed justified...clearly, Mr. Dunn's actions weren't immediately deemed justified, and still haven't been. Personally, I would hope someone using force would be detained during an investigation--who is to say they aren't a danger to themselves or others until a thorough investigation is completed.

So, I'm not really sure how the immunity thing applies here?

 

[Nova]

Read No. 2 in the law, then look all the homicides in florida and see if it matches the law! It doesn't, The State of florida ignores that section.

I don't understand your point.

Section (2) merely says that the use of force is not per se probable cause for arrest. The arresting officer must see other evidence that suggests the use of force was not self-defense. (Like, I don't know, maybe the fact that the shooter is armed and the victim is not.)

What is your evidence that this clause is ignored in Florida?

 

[writer7]

BBM As someone who bartended in a club for 11 years, drunk rednecks were the worst! Bikers come in second. Coked up rich kids have to be third. Hispanic gang banger wanna-be's fourth. Then black wanna-be thugs fifth. The white wanna-be thugs were just fun to laugh at. They acted tough, but a bouncer in their face and they'd melt like butter.

Also, living in Florida, the tourists can be really bad! Not to point out specific countries, but Russians can be really bad. They were more likely to be violent and look for a fight. Germans can be really bad too. I love the Canadians though. They're a cool bunch, but they don't tip very well -- if at all.

I could go on and on all day with the different types of people that I have come into contact with. The point is, violence and aggression comes from all types. Some worse than others, but just because someone doesn't look the type based on whatever flawed view you have of them, doesn't mean they are not violent or that they won't start a fight or even act the tough guy.

MOO

My point was that these boys must not have looked like anyone Dunn wanted to avoid, because he pulled up right beside them and even asked/told them to turn down their music.

That doesn't automatically make them non-violent folks, of course, but we know that he didn't seem concerned by them upon first seeing them. He pulled up beside them of his own accord and engaged with them.

 

[mobeydick]

I didn't know a record could tell if you are a redneck, gang member, KKK etc... A mugshot on the other hand might answer some of those questions and I can look at his mugshot and tell he thinks he is a tough guy.

His online history would be a better place to look at to see if he had any affiliation with certain groups. We know he was anti-government so who knows if he has been to any online forums and what he has written on them?

He has been in trouble with the law though. He was in trouble with the Federal Government for flying in a no fly zone. So, he obviously has no problem breaking the law. His money and a good lawyer probably helped him out of that one.

A criminal record, in this case lack of tells you a lot more about his personality then a mugshot. You cannot tell anything about him through the mugshot. If you say you can, I know how much to respect anything you post!

If the only mistake in life he has ever made is flying into NASA airspace , BTW he lives near there I would take his word over ANY teenager! 3/4 of the people in this country believe the government should be brought down to size!

 

[mobeydick]

There were several people in the car that was shot up. Yes? So it won't be a he said/she said. If the people in the car are all telling the same story, then IMO their combined testimony will outweigh the shooter's lone version of events. And it's very likely the shooter won't even take the stand to testify. The person who needs a witness, IMO, is the shooter, not the victims.

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

 

[eileenhawkeye]

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

Or do you really mean...the word of a white man over black teenagers?