Come on down to Florida and shoot a black kid- it's open season

Apparently another Florida jury is going to embarrass this state tonight by declaring they are hung on the Jordan Davis trial. An armed white man killed an unarmed black teenager. There was no doubt about that fact. The armed white man objected to the teenager's music, and thought that was reason enough to shoot him in cold blood.
And now another Florida jury is going to refuse to convict him for it.

If this case shows nothing else, it shows the "stand your ground" law should be repealed immediately because it is nothing but a license to murder another human being because you don't like his skin color or his culture.

I am ashamed to be a Floridian every time something like this happens in our state, and it seems to be happening more often all the time.

Well, now that the jury is in, they did not reach a verdict on the charge of first degree murder, but at least did convict the murdering creep  of "attempted" 2nd degree murder. The jury was hung and there was a mistrial declared on the charge of 1st degree murder. So he was convicted of Trying to kill the other 3 teens in the car but not of actually killing Jordan Davis. That's ridiculous. The other 3 teens weren't injured.

I wonder exactly what someone has to do in this state to be convicted of 1st degree murder?
Killing an unarmed teenager that you never met before and who is sitting in his car dressed for a prom is not 1st degree murder. Would it have been if the kid was white?

No one knows but I'm betting it would.

I only just recently even read about the case, but from the one article I did read it sounded like even his girlfriend thought he murdered the guy in cold blood. Is that an accurate assessment, or... ?? I do not recall in what paper I read the article.

A mistrial doesn't mean the dude is off the hook. The prosecutor stretched by going for 1st degree - I'm sure the jury got hung up on the legal definition of "premeditated"

Otter wrote:

Well, now that the jury is in, they did not reach a verdict on the charge of first degree murder, but at least did convict the murdering creep  of "attempted" 2nd degree murder. The jury was hung and there was a mistrial declared on the charge of 1st degree murder. So he was convicted of Trying to kill the other 3 teens in the car but not of actually killing Jordan Davis. That's ridiculous.  The other 3 teens weren't injured.

I wonder exactly what someone has to do in this state to be convicted of 1st degree murder?
Killing an unarmed teenager that you never met before and who is sitting in his car dressed for a prom is not 1st degree murder. Would it have been if the kid was white?

No one knows but I'm betting it would.

So then the title of this post is incorrect and that's not what a jury found?...He was convicted and a mistrial can be prosecuted again...

nochain wrote:

A mistrial doesn't mean the dude is off the hook. The prosecutor stretched by going for 1st degree - I'm sure the jury got hung up on the legal definition of "premeditated"

It's easy to be a monday morning lawyer without having the actual facts of the case and/or know what the jury deliberated behind closed doors...There seems to be a knee jerk reaction and an agenda attached to any case of this nature...to simply say it was because it was a black individual and wouldn't have happened to a white individual is simply factless but it sells news and gets a reaction...Don't think anyone would really feel any better about the situation if the roles were reversed...

Speaking of music choices only, from my experience, I can say that nine times out of ten that loud music blasted out of a car is done by blacks or thuggish white wannabe hip hoppers.  And the music, heavy on the bass, is laced with obvious "F" words.

Craigslist is loaded with people selling 1,000-plus watt amps with capacitors and 12-18" subwoofers with boxes to hold 'em.  These aren't your daddy's AM car radios.  These systems are made to be LOUD!

My son turned me on to a genre of music known as dubstep.  It is heavy on the bass as well.  If I wasn't so much into listening to audiobooks in the car, I'd probably be booming too.  In my youth, I was told by an ECSO officer that he could arrest me for "broadcasting without a license".  That nice officer let me go with just a warning.

Age has taught me that I should respect others' "space" and turn down car music at convenience stores, gas stations, and traffic lights. Young kids just haven't seemed to learn that lesson yet.

Eric wrote:

Speaking of music choices only, from my experience, I can say that nine times out of ten that loud music blasted out of a car is done by blacks or thuggish white wannabe hip hoppers.  And the music, heavy on the bass, is laced with obvious "F" words.

Craigslist is loaded with people selling 1,000-plus watt amps with capacitors and 12-18" subwoofers with boxes to hold 'em.  These aren't your daddy's AM car radios.  These systems are made to be LOUD!

My son turned me on to a genre of music known as dubstep.  It is heavy on the bass as well.  If I wasn't so much into listening to audiobooks in the car, I'd probably be booming too.  In my youth, I was told by an ECSO officer that he could arrest me for "broadcasting without a license".  That nice officer let me go with just a warning.

Age has taught me that I should respect others' "space" and turn down car music at convenience stores, gas stations, and traffic lights.  Young kids just haven't seemed to learn that lesson yet.

I just ignore them, they play the crap as loud as they can to get a reaction - I don't give them the satisfaction.

nochain wrote:

Eric wrote:

Speaking of music choices only, from my experience, I can say that nine times out of ten that loud music blasted out of a car is done by blacks or thuggish white wannabe hip hoppers.  And the music, heavy on the bass, is laced with obvious "F" words.

Craigslist is loaded with people selling 1,000-plus watt amps with capacitors and 12-18" subwoofers with boxes to hold 'em.  These aren't your daddy's AM car radios.  These systems are made to be LOUD!

My son turned me on to a genre of music known as dubstep.  It is heavy on the bass as well.  If I wasn't so much into listening to audiobooks in the car, I'd probably be booming too.  In my youth, I was told by an ECSO officer that he could arrest me for "broadcasting without a license".  That nice officer let me go with just a warning.

Age has taught me that I should respect others' "space" and turn down car music at convenience stores, gas stations, and traffic lights.  Young kids just haven't seemed to learn that lesson yet.

I just ignore them, they play the crap as loud as they can to get a reaction - I don't give them the satisfaction.

Certainly isn't worth confronting over loud music not matter how annoying...

I think of premeditated murder as when someone has made a plan to murder someone. Didn't sound like there was a whole lot of premeditation to me, but then, I did not hear the evidence. 

I also ignore the music thumpers... don't even look their way. We don't get a lot of those up here though.

You know those huge loudspeakers they have at stadiums? Well, I had the guts to one that was about the size of a football (without the huge horn). I installed it under my hood and hooked it up to a PA system. MAN! That thing was LOUD!

I got quite a few laughs outta that thing.   

Otter wrote:

Would it have been if the kid was white?

No one knows but I'm betting it would.

Why?

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

Would it have been if the kid was white?

No one knows but I'm betting it would.

Why?

That's what's the problem when assumptions are made...you know the old saying about 'assume'...Easy to throw something like race out as a contributing factor without having to prove anything...kind of what journalists and flame throwers do...

Do YOU know what race the jury members were?? What about the lawyers?  What about the judge? What about the witnesses? What about the police? Would it make 1 bit of difference if they were all black?  Racism comes from making assumptions and opening your mouth about them before knowing ALL of the FACTS..

Jake92 wrote:

Do YOU know what race the jury members were?? What about the lawyers?  What about the judge?  What about the witnesses?  What about the police?  Would it make 1 bit of difference if they were all black?  Racism comes from making assumptions and opening your mouth about them before knowing ALL of the FACTS..  

The judge was white. I'm not sure the jury itself was ever shown on the TV screen. The DA was also white.
I'm pretty sure the jury wasn't all black people, not all 12 of them anyway. It only takes one person to hang a jury, but the point is that if this guy was guilty of attempting murder on the other three kids in the car, then why was he also not guilty of murdering the car's driver? The jury did not have to find premeditated murder, they had the option of several different levels of murder given to them by the judge to consider. They could not decide on any of them, even though it was very obvious that this was the individual who killed the unarmed boy.  There was never any question about that. He was convicted of shooting into an automobile, of attempting to murder the other kids, but not of the actual crime of murder itself.
It's not always racism that is involved in these situations, but if even one of the 12 jurors was acting from a racist viewpoint rather than from simple logic, that could have been the reason for the hung jury. And I can't figure out any other possible reason. Not with an admission of who the shooter was, the fact that the shooter was armed and the kid was not, and the fact that the shooter was convicted of attempting to murder other people in the car. There just isn't any other logical reason I can fathom.
Logically, and by his conviction, we can know that he was trying to kill the people in that car. He did kill one of them.
"Attempted murder" doesn't cover what he did. He succeeded.

By your first post, YOU knew the outcome and claimed racism BEFORE the verdict was given..  The SUBJECT of your first post screams racism.. Were YOU there to see the crime??  NO!!!  Were YOU in the courtroom?  NO!!  Do you have a license to practice law??  NO!!   Murder takes premeditation, where manslaughter does not..  Did he stop and make plans to kill the person or did he react to a stressful situation..  A mistrial normally means there was NOT convincing evidence to PROVE the charges..  The prosecuter will probably take a few months or years to get everything together and there will be a retrial..

Jake92 wrote:

By your fiorst post, YOU knew the outcome and claimed racism BEFORE the verdict was given..  The SUBJECT of your first post screams racism.. Were YOU there to see the crime??  NO!!!  Were YOU in the courtroom?  NO!!  Do you have a license to practice law??  NO!!   Murder takes premeditation, where manslaughter does not..  Did he stop and make plans to kill the person or did he react to a stressful situation..  A mistrial normally means there was NOT convincing evidence to PROVE the charges..  The prosecuter will probably take a few months or years to get everything together and there will be a retrial..  

If someone wants to see racism in everything...they will....The strange part of this situation is that not one person that's commented has defended the actions of the shooter and yet the impression is that there is support for his actions...When a trial goes to a jury it's always a gamble...how many times have we been told that a case is a 'slam dunk' and then the verdict goes the opposite way?...But to call out the judge because he's white...the prosecutor etc.,is in and of itself questionable and explains much about that way of thinking...maybe those that throw the race card around so easily need to look into a mirror before calling others racists...It may be just as simple as the prosecutor did not make his case for premeditated murder...

Without knowing everything about the case, I can't make a decision that will affect someones life.. From the very little info, I guess he was upset about the loud music, asked the guy to turn it down, which he did, then it was turned back up. The guy got mad and shot him for turning it up. YES, he's guilty of being very very stupid, and guilty of at least manslaughter, but murder takes planning the crime before doing it. If he intentionally followed him into the parking are and pulled the gun and shot him, then I would be comfortable with a murder charge. Which car was the first one there? Was the shooter there and the other one came up with the loud music or was the loud music there first? How much time elapsed between the time both cars were there and the shooting? There are a LOT of unknown things.

Jake92 wrote:

Without knowing everything about the case, I can't make a decision that will affect someones life..  From the very little info, I guess he was upset about the loud music, asked the guy to turn it down, which he did, then it was turned back up.  The guy got mad and shot him for turning it up.  YES, he's guilty of being very very stupid, and guilty of at least manslaughter, but murder takes planning the crime before doing it.  If he intentionally followed him into the parking are and pulled the gun and shot him, then I would be comfortable with a murder charge.  Which car was the first one there?  Was the shooter there and the other one came up with the loud music or was the loud music there first?  How much time elapsed between the time both cars were there and the shooting?  There are a LOT of unknown things.

Watched just a few comments pertaining to this case but not really pertaining to this case...there were three people interviewed and their concern was...fix the stand your ground law...or repeal the entire law...In this case don't see this law as a defense unless of course the shooter was somehow convinced that his life was in danger...The comments made were similar to those in the Zimmerman Trial where stand your ground wasn't even used as a defense...It's strange though that some that are against stand your ground support the talk of legislation that allows a warning shot to be fired and/or a weapon to be displayed in order to stop a situation and without prosecution for doing so...there are so many wrongs with those ideas...

Using a weapon should be the very last thing anyone should do.  Walking away with a black eye and no shots fired is a lot better than pulling a gun out, even if the trigger is not pulled.  Of course, if someone pulls a weapon, the situation changes and your reactions will change.

Without ALL of the evidence and testimony, it's impossible to make a good decision of guilty or innocent, so I could not say guilty of premedated murder.

Jake92 wrote:

By your first post, YOU knew the outcome and claimed racism BEFORE the verdict was given..  The SUBJECT of your first post screams racism.. Were YOU there to see the crime??  NO!!!  Were YOU in the courtroom?  NO!!  Do you have a license to practice law??  NO!!   Murder takes premeditation, where manslaughter does not..  Did he stop and make plans to kill the person or did he react to a stressful situation..  A mistrial normally means there was NOT convincing evidence to PROVE the charges..  The prosecuter will probably take a few months or years to get everything together and there will be a retrial..

My first post was made when the jury was still out but after they had reported to the judge that there was a mistrial on the murder count. My second post was made after the jury returned to the court room and announced their completely ridiculous verdict.
There's an excellent op ed piece in today's PNJ, if you'd like to catch up on the actual facts of the case. It's written by Dewayne Wickham who is a columnist for USA today. He says the only conclusion that could possibly be reached from the mistrial is that the jury must believe Jordan Davis is still alive. That's the only way there could be any possible confusion about whether Mr Dunn murdered him or not.
Michael Dunn did not turn himself in after the murder, by the way. He drove to a motel and ordered a pizza, according to the report. Then he slept off the alcoholic drinks he'd taken at a wedding reception before he killed the teenager.  He was with his girlfriend when he shot the teenagers, but both of them rode away from the scene in his car and he wasn't located until the next day. He didn't wait on the scene to be arrested, he fled the scene.
Here's a paragraph from the article:
Davis was the only one hit by the gunfire. And while he was pronounced dead, in a twisted way the jury's verdict in this controversial
murder case calls into question that medical finding.  How else do you explain the 12 member jury's conclusion that Dunn was guilty of three counts of second-degree attempted murder for firing into the SUV and missing three of its occupants, but deadlocked on whether he was guilty of murdering Davis?
 The jury also found Dunn guilty of shooting into an occupied vehicle. But it was not able to convict Dunn of being responsible for killing Davis."

There's not any doubt about Michael Dunn's guilt anymore- he's been convicted. I don't have to have been on the jury to have followed the case. And as for manslaughter not needing premeditation, the jury did not even convict him of manslaughter. They were given the option of several choices as to what to call this murder by the judge. They didn't have to go for first degree murder. But they chose "nothing" as their verdict. There's no way this isn't a ridiculous decision and in the article Mr Wickham concluded that Davis was killed because he was "unforgivably black."  
I don't think it's such an outlandish conclusion to reach. You may think so, but I don't.

Racism does STILL exist and it's often a reason that crimes are committed. To say it's not the cause every time something like this comes up is just hiding your head in the sand.

Like I said, the prosecutor will probably take time to get the facts straight and everything lined up to take it to court again..  A mistrial does NOT mean he was innocent or guilty.  It means the proof was not there to back up ALL of the evidence and testimony..  The jury decided they didn't have enough PROOF, just like the jury for OJ Simpson didn't have the proof they needed for a guilty finding. I was not a witness and was not at the trial, so I can not give my honest opinion..

Jake92 wrote:

I was not a witness and was not at the trial, so I can not give my honest opinion..  

That's because to you (and me) it's a legal matter and not a racial one where facts are insignificant. The racial distortion from both sides of the radical spectrum in this country is what perpetuates a problem that should have gone away at least 2 generations ago.

BINGO nochain!!!!!!

Jake92 wrote:

Like I said, the prosecutor will probably take time to get the facts straight and everything lined up to take it to court again..  A mistrial does NOT mean he was innocent or guilty.  It means the proof was not there to back up ALL of the evidence and testimony..  The jury decided they didn't have enough PROOF, just like the jury for OJ Simpson didn't have the proof they needed for a guilty finding.  I was not a witness and was not at the trial, so I can not give my honest opinion..  

Has anyone here ever attempted to make the point that racism no longer exists?...Didn't think so...But playing the race card over and over begins to become like the little boy that cried wolf and makes it much more difficult when an actual racism charge is leveled...Don't know how many times mistrial has to be explained...if it's so obvious then the prosecutor will go to trial again...So far only the criminal side has been addressed...sure there will be a civil side coming soon and the actions of the shooter will be evaluated and the burdon of proof will be lessened and it would be difficult to see how he [shooter] would be responsible for the death of this individual...Yup some here [myself included] that may have their head in the sand if that means that throwing racism allegations so easily and with no evidence to support is harmful and those that throw racism again without proof may have their heads elsewhere....