Florida Loud Music Shooting

[MJS]

Not sure if this has been discussed on here. This happened a while back, but it bears similarities to Zimmerman/Martin.
http://www.nbcnews.com/#/news/us-news/mistrial-declared-murder-charge-loud-music-trial-jurors-n31231

Jurors on Saturday found a white Florida man guilty of three counts of attempted murder and one other charge for the fatal shooting of a black teenager over loud music, but a mistrial was declared on the most-serious charge against the defendant — first-degree murder.After deliberating for more than 30 hours over four days, the jury convicted Michael Dunn, 47, of three counts of attempted murder in the second degree and one count of firing a deadly missile into an occupied vehicle, but deadlocked on the first-degree murder charge, prompting the judge in the case to declare a mistrial on that charge.





Florida State Attorney Angela Corey indicated she would seek a retrial on

Thoughts on this? IMHO, I'm glad to see the guy arrested and charged. Hopefully if a retrial happens, another mistrial on that 1 charge, doesnt happen again. Hey, I'm sure we all have pulled up along side a car, with loud music playing. Does it bother me? LOL...not at all. Why? Because I really don't care. Oh sure, I'll shake my head or mutter to myself or my wife, "Is that music loud enough for ya?" but not once have I ever actually said anything to the driver or occupants of the car.

Furthermore, I think the SYG law in FL needs to be revamped. IMO, I think people are a bit quick on the draw, no pun intended. Sure, if the guy in the other car pulls a weapon? Sure, ok, I can justify that. But if he simply says, "**** you. Shut your mouth or I'll kick your ***!" and that's the end of it..well, no, sorry, I don't think that warrants pulling a gun.

 

[crushing]

This one does appear to be more of a SYG case if it turns out the shooter actually felt threatened, whereas the Zimmerman case was an outright case of self defense against an attacker.

 

[MJS]

This one does appear to be more of a SYG case if it turns out the shooter actually felt threatened, whereas the Zimmerman case was an outright case of self defense against an attacker.

I heard that the guy claimed he saw a weapon. I also heard that no weapon was found. Whether or not there ever was one, I really don't know. I'm curious though...so if I'm understanding this law correctly, the simple act of feeling treatened or that bodily harm may happen, is cause enough to shoot and possibly kill someone? If that's the case, then why did this even go to trial? I mean, if the guy clearly felt threatened or bodily harm, what was the problem? I might be missing something in the case.

 

[ballen0351]

Stuff like this happens all the time and the fact he was charged and convicted shows its not a stand your ground case. So no need to change the stand your ground law

 

[MJS]

Stuff like this happens all the time and the fact he was charged and convicted shows its not a stand your ground case. So no need to change the stand your ground law

Out of curiosity, and aside from him being convicted, what makes this not a SYG case? As I said, perhaps I'm just not understanding the SYG law in Fl.

 

[ballen0351]

Out of curiosity, and aside from him being convicted, what makes this not a SYG case? As I said, perhaps I'm just not understanding the SYG law in Fl.

Apparently he wasn't in any danger. You can't just say oh I'm scared and shoot someone. There has to he a real threat that something is going to happen. For example I can't walk up and say I'm going to kill you and not do anything else and you shoot me. I say I'm going to kill you and I'm holding a knife and moving in your direction. You now have a real threat. Also in reading the stand your ground law in fla you can't start the confrontation and then shoot. It sounds like he confronted these guys first starting the situation.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Please to all the idiots out there if someone does some thing you do not like ie. like playing loud music at a gas station. Just wait a few minutes and they will be gone. Really it is that simple just use some common sense!

 

[billc]

This looks at the case and the Stand Your Ground law...

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/02/stand-your-ground-law-is-not-a-license-to-kill/

More specifically, SYG as a legal concept functions ONLY to relieve a defender of a legal duty to retreat before he can use deadly force in self-defense. It has nothing whatever to do with such other distinct self-defense law concepts as reasonable fear of harm, presumptions of reasonable fear, which party bears the burden of persuasion, or self-defense immunity.

That is significant, because SYG only addresses a duty to retreat once the defender would otherwise be justified in the use of deadly force. In other words, assuming Dunn was in such imminent threat of death or seriously bodily harm that use of deadly force was legally justified, did he need to look for a way to retreat? Florida law, as the law in most states, says No, a person who otherwise is justified in using deadly force does not need to retreat.
Little emphasis was placed on the issue of post-threat retreat during the trial, particularly once the shotgun was brought into play. While we cannot completely rule out that SYG played some role in the non-verdict until we hear from the jurors, SYG as a law has nothing to do with the issues that are front and center in the press, namely whether Dunn had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm justifying use of deadly force.

The ability to safely retreat was not an issue in the Dunn trial, which I watched almost in its entirety and blogged about daily. And for good reason. Is there anyone who believes it is possible to safely flee from a shotgun-armed attacker standing a yard away? Shotgun pellets travel at ~1,200 feet per second, and in backing up Dunn would first have had to bring himself closer to that shotgun, which was behind him. He’d merely have been shot as he passed by Davis. Given these facts there was no safe avenue of retreat in this scenario, which is why it was not a major issue in the case. (In any case, no duty to retreat would have required Dunn to leave behind his fiancé, Rhonda Rouer, who did not return to his car until after the act of purported self-defense has occurred.)
Even non-SYG states do not require you to retreat if doing so will increase your danger–retreat is only required if a safe avenue of retreat exists. Absent a safe avenue of retreat, there is no duty to retreat. Absent a duty to retreat there is no role for SYG to relieve you of that duty. Under the facts of this case, SYG is irrelevant.
This was not a SYG case, whether or not one believes that Dunn acted in lawful self-defense.

 

[MJS]

Apparently he wasn't in any danger. You can't just say oh I'm scared and shoot someone. There has to he a real threat that something is going to happen. For example I can't walk up and say I'm going to kill you and not do anything else and you shoot me. I say I'm going to kill you and I'm holding a knife and moving in your direction. You now have a real threat. Also in reading the stand your ground law in fla you can't start the confrontation and then shoot. It sounds like he confronted these guys first starting the situation.

Yeah, that's pretty much what happened. I figured there was more to the law, but just wanted more clarification. Hell, you had a retired cop shoot someone in a movie theater....and supposedly all the other guy did was toss a bag of popcorn at him. Yeah, assault with a deadly bag. LOL! Sorry, that's no justification to shoot anyone, in addition to getting pissed off over someone texting.

 

[MJS]

Please to all the idiots out there if someone does some thing you do not like ie. like playing loud music at a gas station. Just wait a few minutes and they will be gone. Really it is that simple just use some common sense!

Couldn't agree more! Sadly, way too many people are lacking the bold part.