Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "A Florida gun collector has pleaded not guilty to a murder charge alleging that he opened fire on a car full of unarmed teenagers, killing one, in an altercation that police say stemmed from loud music. Michael David Dunn, 45, acted "as any responsible firearms owner would have," his lawyer said of the Friday evening incident at a gas station outside a convenience store in Jacksonville, Fla." <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/28/15513847-florida-man-pleads-not-guilty-to-shooting-teen-to-death-over-loud-music?lite">http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_new...sic?lite</a> I'm done with Florida.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Oh my God. This happened in November. I hadn't heard of it till you posted this. Here are more recent stories I found from a quick google search. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-02/story/2nd-judge-leaves-michael-dunnjordan-davis-case">http://jacksonville.com/news/c...vis-case</a> <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-07-16/story/lawyer-man-accused-killling-jordan-davis-predicts-corey-will-seek">http://jacksonville.com/news/c...ill-seek</a> He's claiming self-defense. That should (operative word: should) be harder for him than Zimmerman since a). there was no actual physical contact (!) and b). there are witnesses still alive. "Dunn told police he thought the teenagers were pointing a gun at him during an exchange of words. But no gun was found in the vehicle or on any of the teenagers." Of course, the killer is also claiming victimhood, saying he'll only be convicted because Zimmerman wasn't. Good God, if this guy gets off too... "done with Florida" will be an understatement.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Michael David Dunn, 45, acted "as any responsible firearms owner would have" >>> Does include leaving the scene after shooting into an occupied car 8+ times and not reporting the incident to police?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 If there's one thing I've learned, it's that the term "responsible gun owner" is, shall we say, fungible. It means something entirely different to gun nuts than to actual reasonable people.
Originally Posted By planodisney Has anyone heard the story of the black girl serving 20 years in Florida for firing a warning shot into the wall to scare off her abusive husband. The shot went into the neighboring residence but no injured. The same prosecutor who filed charges against Zimmerman decided it was a good idea to file charges against this girl. She has small children and now is locked up for 20 years. Saw this story twice on CNN last night and can't even describe my anger. I can't stop thinking about this girl. An appeal is filed, but is there any common sense out there. A judge can step in and play 13th juror and has many options in a situation like this. I'm beyond angry at the social menaces who are taking political advantage of the Zimmerman case and claiming racial injustice and won't stop persecuting this guy who was found not guilty in a more than fair trial, but I am far more angry that this girl has been taken from her children for defending her life and is locked ip for 20 years. No one was injured in any way. This IS social injustice and if she were an attractive middle class white woman, no way would she be in jail. And yet we can do nothing. This prosecutor must be removed immediately. She also withheld discovery evidence in the Zimmerman case that the defense had to fight for and then fired the guy who blew the whistle on her. She has way over stepped her bounds.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 This case has been brought up many times (including here, and certainly in the media in general) because of the obvious connection through the prosecutor with the Zimmerman case. This woman fired a warning shot that hit nobody, and gets 20 years. Zimmerman kills Martin and gets acquitted. But justice is color-blind in Florida. Right.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 This woman fired a warning shot that hit nobody, and gets 20 years. Zimmerman kills Martin and gets acquitted. But justice is color-blind in Florida. Right.<< The Prosecutor went for the right charge, which was aggravated assault...Had he tried for attempted murder she would have been probably found not guilty... The Prosecutor went for the best charge to get a conviction... On the other hand, the Prosecutor in the Zimmerman case went for Murder-2 charges, which was impossible to prove, at the last minute he added manslaughter but by that time the damage was done... Now IMO the woman got screwed and I hope she is pardoned and is released from prison, BUT...you can't really look at these cases as being equal..Bottom line the Prosecution royally F'd up in the Zimmerman case...
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Also, look at these facts from the case... She went into the garage, got a gun and then returned with the gun, can't see how this is the same thing as the Zimmerman case, where he didn't have to run to his car in middle of altercation with Martin and grab his gun so he could shoot him... <<Alexander pushed past Gray and went into the garage where she got her gun from her car's glove compartment. Gray told prosecutors in the deposition that Alexander came back into the house holding the weapon and told him to leave. He refused, and what happened next is somewhat unclear. In his deposition, Gray said "she shot in the air one time," prompting him and the children to run out the front door. But when Gray called 911 the day of the incident, he said "she aimed the gun at us and she shot." << <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/">http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50...-ground/</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The Prosecutor went for the right charge<< No charge was the right charge.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 >>The Prosecutor went for the right charge<< No charge was the right charge.<< I already said she got a bum rap, but if the Prosecution was looking to get a conviction he went for the right charge...
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "The Prosecutor went for the right charge, which was aggravated assault....." Yeah. That was the difference between the two cases. Not the makeup of the jury and how they perceived the defendants and the plaintiffs. No. Couldn't possibly have been that.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "She has small children and now is locked up for 20 years." And guess who has her children. Yep, her abusive husband. "On the other hand, the Prosecutor in the Zimmerman case went for Murder-2 charges, which was impossible to prove, at the last minute he added manslaughter but by that time the damage was done..." This is an important point and one that everyone agrees on. I suspect that the prosecution, on behalf of the state, never intended to give a 100% effort to convict because the authorities never wanted a trial in the first place. Remember that it took them almost two months to press charges against GZ, and when they did it was only because of media focus and national outrage. The smug look of relief on the Attorney General's face following the verdict said it all. She was practically smiling and tap dancing at the press conference.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 "The Prosecutor went for the right charge, which was aggravated assault....." Yeah. That was the difference between the two cases. Not the makeup of the jury and how they perceived the defendants and the plaintiffs. No. Couldn't possibly have been that.<< It wasn't the only difference but IMO it's a factor to consider....
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think the most important factor was the one I mentioned. The default assumption of the jury was the same as the default assumption of Zimmerman. All Martin was doing was walking to his father's house, but Zimmermans default assumption was that he was up to no good. The jury had the same default assumption in the back of their minds. For sure the jury member who spoke out had that assumption. I saw a lawyer on TV say that she couldn't believe the prosecution didn't strike her from the jury pool. And that as soon as this jury member was picked, this lawyer knew that at most it was going to be a hung jury because this woman would never vote to convict.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think the most important factor was the one I mentioned. The default assumption of the jury was the same as the default assumption of Zimmerman. All Martin was doing was walking to his father's house, but Zimmermans default assumption was that he was up to no good. The jury had the same default assumption in the back of their minds. For sure the jury member who spoke out had that assumption. I saw a lawyer on TV say that she couldn't believe the prosecution didn't strike her from the jury pool. And that as soon as this jury member was picked, this lawyer knew that at most it was going to be a hung jury because this woman would never vote to convict.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< The default assumption of the jury was the same as the default assumption of Zimmerman. >>> The default assumption of the jury was that Zimmerman was innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution had the burden of proof to establish that a) Z intended to kill him (or perhaps intended to commit another felony that resulted in his death), and b) did so with malicious intent. In the absence of proving those things beyond a reasonable doubt, the correct verdict is not guilty, even if the jury though he might have done it, and even if they thought it more likely than not that he did it. Any reasonable doubt in the jury's mind goes to the favor of the defendant.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Yes of course. But this juror, at least, started with not only the assumption that Zimmerman was innocent until proven guilty, but that Martin was guilty until proven innocent.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But justice is color-blind in Florida. Right.<< And at the NRA, who of course is screaming bloody murder that a gun owner's rights have been trampled, despite being a black woman....
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< But this juror, at least, started with not only the assumption that Zimmerman was innocent until proven guilty, but that Martin was guilty until proven innocent. >>> Perhaps, but that may not be relevant to the case. Martin was not on trial here. Let's take the hypothetical situation of where Martin was up to no good that night: he had hypothetically just shoplifted the Skittles and was canvassing the neighborhood to commit a future burglary and had no business being there, but where all of the other facts and events are essentially the same. I'm not sure that Martin's bonafides have anything to do with the charges against Zimmerman. At least as far as Murder 2 goes, as the situation fell apart, it's all about Zimmerman's intent. And, in the above hypothetical, things would have been identical from Zimmerman's point of view from what actually happened. Therefore, I don't know that a juror's opinion of Martin is really relevant. I do agree that it seems surprising that she was not excluded.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Perhaps, but that may not be relevant to the case. Martin was not on trial here" Not theoretically. In reality. Absolutely he was.
