Here's Florida’s Next Trayvon Martin Case

[BainsBane]

"A white man named Michael Dunn shot and killed an unarmed black teenager named Jordan Davis in Florida last year after a brief dispute. The prosecutor overseeing the case is Florida state attorney Angela Corey. Dunn, who will be tried for murder, claims the shooting was in self-defense. Sound familiar?"

Dunn goes on trial in Sept. for first degree murder.

"The killing took place in November 2012, while Dunn was parked at a gas station convenience store, waiting for his girlfriend to emerge from inside. Four teenagers, including 17-year-old Davis, were parked* next to Dunn's car in an SUV. After an argument over the teens' loud music, Dunn fired on the boys from his car, killing Davis. Dunn claims he opened fire only after one of the teens threatened his life, brandished a gun, and started to exit the SUV. Later he told police that he had "never been so scared" in his life.

The Davis family attorney, John Phillips, told HLN recently that Davis' parents are "freaking out about justice" after the Zimmerman verdict. But in another HLN interview, he cautioned that the two cases aren't identical, saying "the justice process is different for both. You gotta keep them separate."

He's right—there are some crucial distinctions. No one but Zimmerman and Martin himself bore witness to Zimmerman pulling the trigger. But there were several eyewitnesses to the Davis killing, including his three friends who survived. Despite Dunn's claim that one of the victims had a gun, police recovered no weapon, and witnesses say no one involved got out of a vehicle except for Dunn, who allegedly did so as he fired his final shots. Instead of calling 911 or waiting for police to arrive, Dunn then fled the scene with his girlfriend, went back to his hotel and ate pizza, and later returned to his home without calling police. Whereas Zimmerman walked free for nearly six weeks and was only arrested and charged after a national outcry, police arrested Dunn the day after he killed Davis."

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/07/trayvon-martin-jordan-davis-stand-your-ground

[uponit7771]

1. Under SYG Mike Dunn WILL...> WILL go free because the jury will NOT be able to deliberate on

...what happened BEFORE or AFTER the kids were shot.

ONLY DURING and just like Zimmerman (his head being bashed in but only superficial woulnds were shown) Dunn doesn't HAVE... HAVE to claim a reality either (whether or not the kids had a gun) and RIGHTLY states that "in his mind" (Dunns words during the interrogation) the kids had a gun even though there was none found in the car

The portion of a normal self defense law that SYG erases is the duty to flee...

That INCLUDES... INCLUDES the duty to "avoid conflict"

Just as in the Zimmerman case because of SYG Mike Dunn had NO DUTY to "avoid conflict" and had no duty to flee once the kids said "I'm going to kill you..." (Dunns words)

SYG is a horrid...horrible ....evil law

[BainsBane]

2. Dunn would first have to prevail in a SYG hearing

in an effort to claim immunity. If he prevails, you know this whole law is a sham.

[uponit7771]

3. Zimmerman didn't CLAIM SYG protection ... it was in the jury instructions and the jury...

...jury had to deliberate on ONLY what was DURING the fight and not before or after.

The media and the right lied to America about the reach of SYG in the Zimmmerman trial

It was a bold faced lie for the media and the right to claim SYG had nothing to do with the Zimmerman trial

[Punkingal]

5. I agree

I don't understand why that SYG crap was in the instructions.

[uponit7771]

8. Man, you get all the smiley points etc if that could be found out. Why did the judge include them in

...this juries instructions and can we expect more?

[BainsBane]

9. Because SYG has rewritten FL self defense law in general

Uponit771 is right that the public had not been made aware of the full impact of the law in Florida.

[Punkingal]

11. Well the media sure did a hell of a job explaining that...

Not.

No wonder they pleaded self-defense. They got SYG as part of the package.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. This is all predicated upon the CLAIMS of juror B37

Which is worth 'nuthin in my opinion.

That said, SYG still doesn't apply if they included words to that effect in the jury instructions, because the defense's contention was that Zimmerman was on the ground under Trayvon, and could not physically flee anyway.

It could have been used if the defense tried a different tack, but given that specific claim, SYG is still uninteresting.

[BainsBane]

52. Not true

There is a lawyer here explaining how SYG changed self defense law in FL. Look at onenote's comments in this thread.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Again, it does not matter.

The jury believed Zimmerman, that he was ON THE GROUND UNDER TRAYVON. (And one witness and physical evidence corroborated that physical configuration, even though there was no witness as to who started the physical confrontation)

That means there is no ground to 'stand'. You cannot flee. That was the defense's ENTIRE CASE.

[BainsBane]

55. To pretend SYG had no effect on this case

Is simply false. Here you contradict yourself. First you say the claim SYG was related depends entirely on juror B47's comments (she only decided the verdict, after all), and now you say it didn't apply at all. The fact is SYG meant that the previous law and jury instruction noting that the AGGRESSOR had a duty to retreat before killing the other party is no longer part of FL law.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. That's not what I said.

I will elaborate on what I said meant: The jury instructions are not, to my knowledge, public at this time. We only know what Juror B37 CLAIMED the jury instructions to have been.

Is that not accurate? In either case, it DOES NOT APPLY.

"The fact is SYG meant that the previous law and jury instruction noting that the AGGRESSOR had a duty to retreat before killing the other party is no longer part of FL law."

You cannot retreat when someone is sitting on you. Period. Do you dispute the evidence that Trayvon was sitting on top of Zimmerman, when Zimmerman decided to draw his weapon and employ deadly force?

Recall the powder burn evidence. Trayvon was leaning over Zimmerman at the moment the gun discharged.
You have no duty to retreat when someone is sitting on you, because retreat is impossible.

In a state with common law Duty To Retreat (not sure if any still exist in the US, but that used to be the law in some states) this would still have been ruled a justifiable homicide, or excusable homicide in self defense.

[BainsBane]

60. I believe the jury instructions are part of the court record

They were debated extensively in court. People here on DU posted jury instructions before the verdict was reached or that brain-dead, racist juror started talking.

Zimmerman was the initial aggressor. He began the confrontation by following Trayvon. Whatever went down in the scuffle doesn't change that fact. Zimmerman's story that Trayvon tried to take his gun was an obvious lie, and I expect much of what he said was a lie.

I am really sick of gunners justifying murder. You only prove how fucking dangerous gun nuts really are. What's particularly repulsive is the notion that someone is entitled to kill just because he carries a gun. Zimmerman is the same as OJ Simpson or Ted Bundy. That only one of the three was convicted doesn't change their moral culpability.
They are evil killers all.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Actually, we agree on several points.

I agree that Zimmerman likely showed Trayvon the gun at some point. I do not believe the claim that he 'reached for it', without also assuming that Zimmerman must have brandished the weapon.

I agree WRT to fomenting the confrontation, by following (I would use the word 'stalking') Martin. However, that doesn't, by itself justify a physical confrontation in return. On the other hand, Zimmerman may well have initiated a physical confrontation as well.

I do not justify Zimmerman's actions. As a person with a CPL and a pistol that I carry on a regular basis, I part ways with Zimmerman's actions the second he stepped out of his car. That was stupid. That acted to escalate a confrontation. He put himself in a time and place where the use of that firearm, even in self defense, was more likely, not less likely. That is morally reprehensible to me.

And the sad thing is, the SYG law likely will be used to insulate Zimmerman from civil liability. So the family gets nothing. Nothing at all.

I can't express how sad that is. Not through text on a message board.


If B37 wasn't the only source of the jury instructions, I apologize. I didn't see any other source.

[BainsBane]

75. Okay, I'm sorry I misunderstood you

I have had several conversations with gun-proponents who do justify Zimmerman's actions. I'm relieved to know you do not.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. I have used him as a poster child for what not to do.

I can justify basically nothing about what he did. Not a thing. It's a perfect case to be used as an example with other people who have CPL's, what not to do.

If you value human life in the slightest, it is a case of what not to do.

[BainsBane]

79. I agree with that

but honestly some of the people who have argued Zimmerman was entirely justified creep me out and have made me more worried than ever about concealed carry. Have you expressed your views above in the Gungeon?

[AtheistCrusader]

81. Yes, but

I don't hang out there as much.

When you artificially narrow the scope to the moment when Zimmerman drew his gun, yes, a reasonable person in his position would likely be terrified, and I accept that argument in that artificial bubble.

But to get there at that moment, in that condition, at that time, you had to do some very un-reasonable things leading up to it.

Calling out a kid for no reason other than his race and manner of dress.
Stalking him.
Calling the cops on him.
Getting out of the car and following him.

Beyond that I can only speculate, but I certainly assume Zimmerman confronted him.
Edit: I suspect Zimmerman brandished his weapon, due to Trayvon Martin allegedly knowing to reach for it later in the confrontation.
I suspect Zimmerman may have initiated physical contact, but I do not know.

All I know for certain about that, is that Zimmerman is not a credible witness, and that I don't believe the jury should have listened to him.

I don't frequent the Gungeon like I used to. It's a bit of an echo chamber, now that the control advocacy policy forum exists.

[BainsBane]

82. I think the prosecution should have more consistently argued that from the start

that the incident began when Zimmerman first spotted Trayvon. If they had argued for manslaughter rather than 2nd degree murder, prepared their witnesses decently, and took jury selection more seriously, they would have stood a better chance at conviction. I understand overcharging to encourage a plea, but they should have changed their strategy before the trial began.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. I agree. I think adding the manslaughter charge later on

telegraphed a clear message to the jury that the prosecution wasn't very confident in their case. Super-unhelpful.

Should have been an option from the start.
(I think they should have added Zimmerman's use of Adderall and the other potentially anxiety-inducing drug. The defense sure as shit trotted out the pot/paranoia defense.)

[BainsBane]

84. I didn't know he was on Adderall

Jeez. That should have come in.

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Adderall and Temazepam

[BainsBane]

86. Goes together

If you're taking Adderall, you need Temazepam to sleep. The Adderall affects behavior more. Depending on how he tolerated the drug, it could have made him abnormally jumpy.

[COLGATE4]

103. No, they didn't. Manslaughter is included in

the Murder 2 charge. It's called a 'lesser included offense'.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. Yes, actually they did.

Prosecution supported it, Judge allowed it. Defense hated it.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/07/11/the-manslaughter-option-in-zimmermans-trial-an-explainer/

[COLGATE4]

106. I don't find anything in the WSJ article

that indicates that the Prosecution asked for Manslaughter to be included. It reads that the Judge included the charge. I don't know if she did this sua sponte. Natural for the defense to hate it.

[onenote]

89. The problem with arguing that the incident began when Zimmerman first spotted Trayvon

is that for purposes of deciding the self defense issue, as a legal matter, it did not. Even in a non-stand your ground jurisdiction, it wouldn't have mattered that Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Trayvon. (I would not use the term stalk because that has a very specific legal definition that is not satisfied by what Zimmerman did).

I agree that the jury could have disbelieved the version of events as described by the defense and their witnesses. But the law dictates that the prosecution has a high bar to clear in these cases and they failed to do so. Could they have done more? Sure. But in the end, I suspect it was the testimony of the witnesses who suggested that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman that did the most damage and the fact that there was conflicting testimony (all of it coming from individuals who were not "neutral" as to who was screaming). Given that the burden of proof was on the prosecution, this case was never a slam dunk.

[BainsBane]

90. Isn't it true that in some states the defendant must prove

he acted in self defense, what they call an affirmative defense, like insanity?

[onenote]

93. The prevailing rule these days is for the burden of proof

to be on the prosecution to convince the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did not act out of legitimate self defense. This is true of SYG states and non-SYG states.

Ohio still puts the burden on the defendant, by a preponderance of the evidence.

Also, in an SYG state, if the defendant wants to try for immunity from prosecution by asking for an SYG pre-trial hearing, the burden of convincing the judge that the defendant exercised legitimate self defense is on the defendant, by a preponderance of the evidence, even where the burden at trial is on the prosecution.

[BainsBane]

96. Thanks for the info. nt

[onenote]

65. Yes SYG changed Florida's self defense law. But those changes probably did not impact the outcome

of the Zimmerman case because, as others have pointed out, there was evidence from which the jury could have a reasonable doubt as to Zimmerman's ability to "retreat" from the danger after it arose.

One more try at explaining this: the common law duty to retreat did not determine whether it was reasonable for someone to fear for their life or body. Rather, it was a duty that arose AFTER one was in a position where one had such a reasonable fear and it requried that person to address that fear not by using force but by trying to retreat from the situation. It only applied where retreating could be done with complete safety. So, if you are in reasonable fear and you either can't retreat or can't do so safely, under the common law, you were justified in using force. If you were not in reasonable fear, whether or not you could or couldn't retreat was irrelevant.

[BainsBane]

87. Sounds to me like there is no real need for SYG then

Despite the gungeoneers insistence to the contrary. To listen to them, you ALWAYS had a duty to retreat under the old law. They don't care that it's used disproportionately to justify killings of African Americans.

[onenote]

92. As I've said, I'm not a fan of SYG. I think the common law duty to retreat is a better approach

provided that it is understood not to require one to retreat if that cannot be done with complete safety to you and others who might be in imminent harms way..

[AtheistCrusader]

98. In some states, there was an explicit duty to retreat.

IN some states the only effect of the SYG law is a shield against civil suit.

The laws vary from state to state.

[BainsBane]

99. The lawyer here explains it well

Onenote. He says the duty to retreat only applied when you could do so safely. You do not have to endanger yourself to retreat, you only need to avoid killing someone if possible.

[uponit7771]

111. This is false, the "DANGER" arose when Z called TM "scary" NOT NOT when TM started bashing

...Z's head into the ground

[onenote]

113. Link?

I'm curious what magical insight you have into exactly what the jury concluded with respect to specifics of the self defense claim.

[uponit7771]

116. ...to what? That Zimmmerman indicated he was afraid of TM?!

http://georgezimmermanisguilty.com/zimmerman-trial-day6/

So, you were afraid, retorted Serino, then why did you get out of your car? By challenging Zimmerman, Serino hoped to unnerve him and get him to tell the truth if he had been telling a lie

RIGHT THERE... RIGHT THERE in a NORMAL case Zimmerman would NOT be allowed to claim self defense because he did NOT... NOT "avoid conflict" he "followed" (ie chased) a person he was supposed to be "afraid" of.


The "conflict" in a normal self defense trial did not start at the point of Z's claim that TM started bashing his head into concrete it would've started at the moment Z saw there would be danger or conflict and decided NOT to avoid it.


Just like the women in FL who shot at the ceiling, she couldn't claim self defense because she didn't "avoid conflict" she went back into the house where she said she ran from

[onenote]

118. Wrongo. I've asked you multiple times to back up your claim of what it means to "avoid conflict"

You haven't because you can't. You can't because you are mistaken about the law. The duty is not simply to avoid conflict it is to retreat from a situation in which one faces imminent death or great bodily harm by retreating to avoid the conflict from manifesting itself in actual violence.

You don't have to retreat where you don't face imminent death or bodily harm. Not in any state in the country. Not ever.

I've given you an example a couple of times that you are too cowardly to address. I'll give you another chance. Victim owes defendant money. Victim tells defendant he can't pay him because he's broke. Defendant gets a call from a friend telling him that victim is at a bar drunken as a skunk, buying drinks for the house and laughing about how he screwed defendant. Outraged, defendant rushes to bar. Upon arrival, he finds victim and demand his money. Victim tells defendant to get lost. Defendant does not retreant and repeats his demand for repayment. Victim pulls out gun. The bar is crowded and there is no way for defendant to retreat with complete safety to himself and others in the bar should victim open fire. So defendant grabs knife and stabs victim before victim has chance to shoot. In the aftermath it turns out that the gun was empty -- no bullets.

In every state in the union, at any time in history, the defendant has a valid claim of self defense. But you claim that in a "NORMAL" case, the defendant wouldn't be allowed to claim self defense because he didn't "avoid conflict" as he could have by not going to the bar to confront a belligerent drunk in the first place or by leaving when the drunk (having not yet pulled a gun) told defendant to get out.

If that's the "NORMAL" case, you should have no problem producing not just one, but dozens of case backing up your position. After all, self defense has been part of US criminal law forever.

The case of the woman (Marissa Alexander) actually proves my point, not yours. She couldn't claim self defense, even in a SYG state because when she left (which she didn't have to do) she removed the imminent threat and thus she became the aggressor. Get it? In both a SYG state and a non-SYG state, in order to justifiably use force, you have to be facing an "imminent" threat. She didn't face such a thing when she went and armed herself. In my example above, if the defendant, having had his confrontation with the victim, had left the bar and then came back and shot the victim, it wouldn't have been self defense any longer because at the time he shot the victim the victim was not posing what a reasonable person could conclude was a reasonable threat to the defendant. The victim was simply sitting in a bar buying drinks, insulting the defendant, and spending money.

Thanks for playing.

[uponit7771]

119. So GZ didn't say he was afraid of TM?! Were you watching the same trial?! And tons of words does

....not make you right either.

You're claiming in a normal self defense claim a person can PUT himself in imminent danger by following the person he claims to be "afraid" of and STILL be able to claim self defense?!?!?!

A simple no , yes would do.... the 123423081hj234 word dissertations are starting to look like obfuscation

[onenote]

121. And once again you fail to back up your misreading of the law

Not because you choose not to back it up, but because you simply can't.

And my answer is yes, a person who is scared of another person can still follow that person and confront them non-violently and claim self defense if the other person escalates the confrotation by putting the first person in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. And that was the law even in a state with a duty to retreat.


Let's go back to my example. Let's say the guy who is owed money is 5 feet 5 inches and weighs 130 pounds. Let's say he knows that the guy he lent money to is 6 foot 4, 300 pounds, has a concealed weapons permit, and has a history of drunken bullying. The guy who is owed money tells the friend that calls him that he's scared of the victim, but he wants his money back, damn it, so he's coming to the bar to demand it. The defendant can claim self defense if the situation then plays itself out as I described. In an SYG state. Or in a non-SYG state. The law doesn't require people who are "scared" of other people to cower in the dark corners of their homes. They can confront the person that scares them and still claim self defense so long as they confrontation is non-violent.

I'll even support my position with a citation to legal authority. State v. Jackson, 94 Ariz. 117 (1963): "One who merely does an action which affords an oportunity for conflict is not therefore precluded from claiming self-defense. Fault implies misconduct, not lack of judgment." So if someone who is scared of someone makes the unwise choice of non-violently confronting that person, they can still claim self defense if the party they confront responds by actions that a reasonable person would view as creating an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm.


Your turn. Show me the legal authority for your position that people who are scared of other people can't claim self defense when they confront them lawfully (albeit ill-advisedly).

[onenote]

13. Because its part of the self defense law.

Prior to the enactment of the stand your ground amendment, Florida followed the common law rule which imposed a "duty to retreat" on a person who claimed to have had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. (There were exceptions to the duty to retreat; for example, there was no duty to retreat where the defendant was in his or her own home, or where retreating could not be done with "complete safety" etc.).

The enactment of the SYG law changed the law both procedurally and substantively. Procedurally, it created a new mechanism -- a pretrial hearing in which the defendant bears the burden of proof -- whereby a defendant can put forward evidence in support of their self-defense claim and if successful, avoid having to go through a jury trial. The substantive change in the self defense law was to modify the common law duty to retreat so that in most instances a defendant who claims to have used deadly force out of a resaonable fear that they faced imminent death or bodily harm does not have to try to "escape" the situation. (There are exceptions to this as well, such as where the defendant provoked the confrontation or was acting unlawfully themselves).

The misconception that SYG had nothing to do with the Martin case (and thus the misconception that there was some error by the court in giving the "SYG" instruction seems to flow from the fact that Zimmerman waived his right to have the pre-trial self defense hearing that the SYG law authorized. However, SYG is not separate from self-defense; it is part of self-defense (just as the duty to retreat was, under common law, part of self defense). Thus, it would have been error for the court NOT to have included the "SYG" language in her self defense instruction -- it is a part and parcel of the self-defense law.

[BainsBane]

7. good points

all true

[dsc]

19. even by that standard he is sunk

no gun, no open door, at least 3 witnesses, plus fleeing the scene. On top of all that, there is the forensics which were collected at the scene.

[okieinpain]

28. its going to be interesting. if you read up on the story

Some people say the kids left the scene and returned. Its going to be interesting.

[joc46224]

37. They didn't "leave the scene"

What I read is that the kids moved out of their parking space (because they were getting shot at!) and then reversed back into the same space once Dunn drove away. Even if there weren't moving their car out of the spot due to being shot at I can see them panicking and starting to drive to the hospital only the change their minds and realize it's probably best (faster) to call 911 and get an ambulance on the scene. These kids were just shot at 8 times after all---I would find it more odd if they hadn't started to move their car.

[okieinpain]

39. as i said its going to be interesting. n/ t

[AtheistCrusader]

45. Nope, he's going to jail.

There was no shotgun in the car. No gun recovered. No gun seen by any witnesses. And there are three surviving witnesses in the car to substantiate that.

Dunn is going to prison. SYG doesn't apply anyway.

[COLGATE4]

102. You have a fundamental problem with

your understanding of how the "reasonable fear" aspect works. It doesn't matter what was in Dunn's mind. It's what a jury decides a reasonable person would have thought under those same circumstances. And if the State presents eyewitness testimony to show that there was no gun and the cops found no gun it's not going to be easy for a jury to find that Dunn's behavior was reasonable.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Unfortunately I think Dunn will go free

He was scared in his own mind and apparently now that's good enough to kill unarmed black teenagers.

Claim your life is threatened and get away with murder even if YOU start the confrontation.

Welcome to 21st century America

[uponit7771]

6. YEAP that's the way SYG is written because, like in the Zimmerman case, the jury can NOT deliberat

...on what happened before or after the fight or shooting in this case.

They can only deliberate on what was a "reasonable fear" in Dunns mind not even a reasonable reality

Dunn doesn't have to claim SYG when it will be written into the jury instructions

[onenote]

14. Despite the efforts of many over an extended period of time, you still don't understand the law.

Last edited Thu Jul 18, 2013, 04:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Its really quite phenomenal.

The jury can and will consider all of the evidence in deciding whether Dunn has a legitimate claim of self defense. You are mistaken that what consitutes reasonable reality is irrelevant. The jury must decide whether a reasonable person (not Dunn, but the hypothetical reasonable person) would have, under the facts adduced at trial, been in fear of their life. A jury can weigh the fact that no weapon was found and conclude that Dunn is either lying about having thought there was a weapon or that, because there is no weapon and nothing that might be mistaken for a weapon, a reasonable person would not have thought that there was a weapon. The jury also can take into consideration Dunn's behavior following the shooting in determining his credibility.

I should add that even before the change in the law to replace the common law duty to retreat with the stand your ground principle (a change that I think should never have been made), Dunn probably would not have had a duty to retreat since his wife had left the vehicle and for him to leave could have (assuming he had a reasonable basis for fearing for his life etc) left her at risk and thus the duty to retreat would not have applied.

In short, this case probably would be approached similarly under both common law and current law. And the jury, under both common law and the current law, could (and I certainly hope will) determine that Dunn's actions (assuming that the evidence offers no basis for his imagining the teens had a weapon) were not those of a reasonable person.

[BainsBane]

15. unfortunately "reasonable person" generally means white jurors

Who often see black males as inherently dangerous.

[onenote]

18. That would be the case whether Florida has enacted SYG or not wouldn't it?

Again, under common law, Dunn would have a very strong case that he had no duty to retreat because it would have left his wife exposed to the danger he perceived. The case would, under both common law and current statutory law, come down to the issue of whether the jury believes that he was in fear for his life/body and/or whether there was a reasonable basis for such fear given the facts.

[BainsBane]

25. a strong case?

under threat from the music? The boy had no gun. WTF are you talking about?

[onenote]

26. a strong case that the common law duty to retreat didn't apply

assuming that he had a resaonable basis for fearing for his life. If he doesn't have a reasonable basis for fearing for his life/body -- and I don't think he does -- then whether its a SYG state or not makes no difference.

My point is that some are claiming that Dunn's case is made stronger because Florida has SYG. My point is that SYG is irrelevant. Dunn's case would rise or fall (and I think it falls) the same in a common law duty to retreat state as well as in an SYG state such as Florida.

That's WTF I'm talking about.

[BainsBane]

32. What fear could he possibly claim?

He got out of the car to approach the other car, shoot, and kill the young man. Then he fled from the scene. He was in a car, so if he had truly been in fear he could have driven away rather than getting out of the car to kill.

[onenote]

36. I don't think he had a reasonable fear

because there is no evidence to support his claim that he saw a gun or anything that a reasonable person might think was a gun.

But my point is that IF (and again I will stress that as I just said, I don't think the evidence would support such a claim) he had a reasonable fear, the law both before and after SYG would not have required him to drive away. That is because under SYG he was entitled to be where he was and because under the common law he only had a duty to drive away if he could do so with complete safety to him and his wife and she wasn't in the car at that point.

It's really not that complicated. The duty to retreat is what SYG changed and the duty to retreat only comes into play AFTER its been established that the defendant had a reasonable basis for fearing imminent death or bodily harm. My point, just to beat a dead horse, is that the issue would be the same in an SYG state or a common law state: is Dunn's assertion that he was frightened because he saw a gun credible and based on the evidence would a reasonable person have had such a belief. Assuming that a jury accepted Dunn's claim (and I can't say it enough times -- no jury should accept those claims based on the facts as they've been described), then the question is whether he had a duty to retreat and the answer, once again, is that he would not under either SYG law or common law.

[BainsBane]

41. Okay

I hope the jury doesn't believe him, or FL might as well legalize the murder of African Americans, because that is what the jury would be doing.

[lunasun]

23. How can one not be a threat in their unreasonable minds?

Oh that is easy >be submissive and do their bidding as you shuffle out of sight on to the back of the bus once your labor is done for the day
No walking /driving around where you please either esp at night in the dark
White teens never play loud offensive music from cars that make older white adults kill - YET!
What if it was some guitar group with the words" kill" at a high decibel? One psycho with a brain circuit missing and the teens get snarky on him and laugh at him and tragedy
This is more than a racial issue (but it is also that -obviously no question) and SYG = dangerous cultural moves on many levels for what it allows law

[COLGATE4]

104. There's no use talking to someone

who doesn't want to hear.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. That doesn't allow you to imagine a shotgun that doesn't exist.

Even if you narrow the scope of the time considered to the moment he fired, the defendant claims the kids in the car had a shotgun. They didn't. No witness saw one. No gun recovered by police.

Therefore, Dunn is a liar, and going to jail.

[Captain Stern]

10. The two cases aren't all that similar.

Pretty much the only things they have in common, is that the shooter is white, the victim is black, and the shooting took place in Florida.

Dunn will be convicted easily, if he doesn't cut a plea bargain.

[uponit7771]

12. They are VERY familiar in the terms of SYG. All that is needed is a threat "in your mind..."

...mind" and that is it, like in the Zimmerman trial the jury can't deliberate on what happened before or after the shooting because the "Duty to retreat" has been removed from self defense and that includes "avoiding conflict" because now the castle is on what ever "ground" you stand you.

"in my mind" is the EXACT words Dunn used too

My big question is whether the jury instructions will include SYG.

I don't see how they can charge M1 2 or 3 since Dunn did nothing but nicely ask them to turn down their music.....

There was no show of animus in his mind BEFORE asking the teenagers to turn down their music...he didn't have his gun out nothing

[onenote]

16. A person can claim that "in their mind" they believed the victim was a vampire

Last edited Thu Jul 18, 2013, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)

But that doesn't mean that the jury has to believe the defendant or conclude, based on the evidence, that a reasonable person would have thought the victim was a vampire.

The jury can decide whether the defendant's statement of his belief is credible and/or reflects something that a reasoanble person would have believed given the facts. For example, in this case, the outcome could conceivably turn on whether anything was found in the car that the defendant might have seen and mistaken for a gun. If there is nothing, the defense has a much harder time; if there is something, the prosecution has a harder time.

[uponit7771]

38. ...or claim that their head was being bashed in and nothing but scrataches on his head

[onenote]

42. And what is your point?

Case A: person claims that he used deadly force because he thought the victim was a vampire about to suck his blood. Jury doesn't have to buy the story and in all likelihood concludes eithter that the defendant is lying or that a reasonable person wouldn't have thought the victim was a vampire and thus the defendant has no claim for self defense (although he might have a case for an insanity defense).

Case B: person claims that they feared for their life because victim was on top of him and was in a position to cause him great bodily harm by smashing his head into sidewalk. Jury doesn't have to buy story -- could conclude that defendant is lying about victim being on top of him, can conclude that no reasonable person would fear having their head smashed into sidewalk, etc etc. On the other hand, if there is evidence from another witness that the victim was on top, the jury can choose to believe or not believe that testimony or consider it as creating doubt as to whether the prosecution's claim that the defendant was on top is true or not. The jury also could conclude based on the minimal nature of the injury that the defendant is lying when he says he was in fear for his life/body or that a reasonable person would have had such fear. By the same token, the jury could reach the conclusion that the minimal nature of the injuries sustained does not negate the truthfulness or reasonableness of the defendant's fear that they were about to suffer a much more significant blow.

Got it yet?

[uponit7771]

112. I've said it multiple times; "there's no standard for reasonable REALITY"

[onenote]

114. And you still aren't stating the law correctly.

And, frankly, your statement doesn't make a heck a lot of sense. But if it makes you feel good, keep repeating it. I think most everyone else has figured out how the law works and how mistaken you are.

[uponit7771]

115. "everyone" has the Zimmerman trial results. Everyone who is a rational person can see Z didn't have

...his head bashed against the concrete even once seeing people in helmets get concussions for hitting their head against AstroTurf ....Zimmerman didn't get a concussion from having his head smashed against the concrete multiple times, that's is the FURTHEST from rational thinking....

That's not even PLAUSIBLE, no ME sat up there and testified that they can concluded Zimmerman got his head BASHED against concrete multiple times...

"everyone" can see there is no need for a reality to be evident for the most absurd proffering of defenses to go to a jury to be deliberated on

"everyone" isn't seeing it the way you think

regards

P.S. I'm not stating a LAW! I'm stating a FACT

[onenote]

117. The law (and not just in SYG jurisdictions):

The defendant has a very low initial threshold to meet in order to have his or her self defense claim presented to a jury. Specifically, the defendant must be able to point to evidence in the record (whether testimonial evidence or physical evidence) that, if assumed to be true, could form the basis for the jury to conclude, based on the applicable burden of proof, that the defendant acted out of legitimate self defense.

Why assume the evidence to be true? Because the issue of self defense is a factual issue and in our system of jurisprudence (something you are remarkably unfamiliar with even after days of discussion) factual issues are decided by juries, not judges, in jury trials.

Once the low threshold has been met, the jury decides whether the claim of self defense is legitimate. In making that determination they can believe or disbelieve the testimony of any of the witnesses -- those testifying on behalf of the defendant and those testifying on behalf of the state. They can give what weight to the physical evidence as they determine is warranted. They decide. Its what juries do.

I've given you repeated examples to illustrate how the law works, none of which has penetrated into your head at all. I suppose I should just write you off as being beyond hope. But, just for shits and giggles, I'll give you one more:

Defendant shoots victim during an argument. Defendant claims it was self defense because the victim had shown him a gun earlier in the day and that right befor defendant shot, victim had started reaching into his pocket, seemingly (to the defendant) to get that gun. There are no eyewitnesses to the shooting, but there are eyewitnessses to the interaction between the victim and defendant earlier in the day (when the victim allegedly had shown the defendant a gun).

The defendant, if he or she testifies to his/her version of what happened, has clearly put into the record evidence that, if assumed to be true, could lead a jury to find the defendant's actions constituted legitimate self defense (i.e., the defendant actually had a fear of imminent death or great bodily harm when he/she shot the victim and a hypothetical "reasonable person" faced with the same circumstances could have reasonably felt in danger of life or limb. There is no eyewitness to the shooting, but there are witnesses to the earlier interaction between the defendant and victim that contradicts the defendant's story. Notwithstanding the conficting evidence, the case goes to the jury because, as noted, the decision as the facts -- the decision which witness or evidence to believe -- rests with the jury.
At trial, the state could attempt to rebut the claim of self defense by relying on the testimony of the witnesses to the earlier interaction between victim and defendant. The state might use testimony from those witnesses to show that defendant did not actually have the requisite fear because he or she was lying about what happened earlier in the day and/or what happened at the time of the shooting (the former being easier for the prosecution to argue since there are witnesses to what happened earlier in the day). Or the prosecution could argue that the defendant didn't act in legitimate self defense because the evidence establishes that while everything occurred as he described, he left out an important fact: he knew the gun the victim had earlier in the day was a toy. These are only a couple of the various scenarios that might be played out in court as the prosecution and defense battle it out. But the "reality" that the gun was only a toy (or that the victim didn't actually have a gun) would just be another assertion of fact for the jury to weigh both in terms of its truthfulness and its relevance.

I have no hope that this hasn't just sailed right over your head, but maybe you'll surprise me and have an epiphany.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. You can't just imagine a shotgun and claim SYG.

There is ZERO evidence that the victims pointed a shotgun at him, or even possessed a shotgun TO point.

He's fucked. I gave Zimmerman the presumption of innocence at the outset, but not this ass clown. He's toast.

[uponit7771]

108. according to Z trial a person doesn't have to have proof of injury just proof that an injury

...could've accord and that's mostly word of mouth.

Z was a bald faced liar, I don't see how the jury took his word for anything

[AtheistCrusader]

110. I agree Zimmerman is not a credible witness.

I also wonder why the jury believed him at all. I believe the Defense's choice not to put him on the stand was a masterstroke that saved his bacon. The jury didn't get to see him and his story completely fall apart and contradict himself, like we did. The jury only got to see some of that shit, like the Hannity interview. (In fact they may not have seen it at all)

However, I think your takeaway from the Z trial is possibly faulty. The Zimmerman defense team strained to show that Z was actually in danger. That he did suffer injury. That he could not escape, only fight.

This guy... imagined a weapon that by all appearances, only existed in his mind. Then he fled the scene of a crime. That's not going to fly with any jury. You can't attest to being afraid for your life of a threat that you imagined.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

107. Except SYG had nothing to do with the Zimmerman case.

Zimmerman didn't claim it, and it wasn't applicable. The defence claimed that Zimmerman was unable even to try to retreat due to being held down; the prosecution claimed that he was the aggressor; SYG didn't even come up. It was a common or garden self-defence plea, I believe.

[uponit7771]

109. It was in the jury instructions, Z didn't have to claim SYG

[Dreamer Tatum]

17. +1 This guy is toast. nt

[Blue_Tires]

22. I trust nothing when it comes to Florida juries now

Zimmerman should have been "convicted easily"...

[okieinpain]

29. exactly. n/t.

[BainsBane]

53. I wish it were just Florida

I don't believe it is.

[Scootaloo]

78. That's pretty much it right there

We can yarp about the excruciatingly fine details of the laws, as if we're experts... but in the end it comes down to toe-sniffers on the jury deciding whether or not "I wuz skurred!" is an acceptable defense.

[lunasun]

24. lat's try to remain positive like you for now

[sinkingfeeling]

20. Does Concealed Carry classes include telling shooters what to say after the

fact? Are you taught to say you had 'never been so scared' and 'I feared for my life'?

[BainsBane]

21. I think they are people who are afraid to begin with

paranoid in fact, which is why they feel the need to carry a gun.

[lunasun]

27. That is what makes it extra scary

[BainsBane]

34. agreed

No one has convinced me more than concealed carry is dangerous than the gungeoneers.

[naaman fletcher]

31. depends

I took classes where it was taught that if you are getting mugged or shoot someone that if there are witnesses you should immediately say to them "you saw that, the guy pulled a gun on me, wait here and tell the police what you saw".

[NatBurner]

33. pretty much

the courses tell you when lethal force is justified and when it is not, and if they don't tell you explicitly what to say, it is strongly implied

read up on a case here in texas, i think the guy's name was raul rodriguez. he was convicted of shooting his neighbor because his party was too loud

while he was on the phone with the police, he used all of the buzz words- matter of fact, i googled, and here are the quotes:

~snip~
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57462584-504083/raul-rodriguez-texas-man-gets-40-years-in-prison-for-fatally-shooting-neighbor-after-claiming-stand-your-ground-defense/

Rodriguez, 46, was convicted of murder on June 13 for the 2010 killing of 36-year-old Kelly Danaher, an elementary school teacher. Angry about the noise coming from a birthday party at his neighbor's home, Rodriguez went over to Danaher's house and got into an argument with her and two other men.

In a 22-minute video he recorded on the night of the shooting, Rodriguez told a police dispatcher "my life is in danger now" and "these people are going to go try and kill me." He then said, "I'm standing my ground here," and fatally shot Danaher and wounded the other two men.

At trial, defense attorneys said Rodriguez, who had a concealed handgun license, was defending himself when one of the men lunged at him and he had less than a second to respond. Prosecutors called Rodriguez the aggressor and said he could have safely left his neighbor's driveway any time before the shooting, and the said Rodriguez had a history of not getting along with Danaher and other neighbors.

One neighbor testified that Rodriguez bragged about his guns and said a person could avoid prosecution in a shooting by telling authorities you were in fear of your life and were standing your ground and defending yourself. During the trial's punishment phase, neighbors, former co-workers and Rodriguez's ex-wife testified that Rodriguez was abusive, a bad neighbor and once shot a dog.

~end snip~

same shit zimmerman did, IMO, except texas was like, 'nah, bro, fuck that shit'

[BainsBane]

35. Except the victim wasn't black

Was s/he?

[NatBurner]

43. nope!

there was another case here in houston where a white guy shot and killed two minorities (i think they were hispanic) that were robbing his NEIGHBOR'S house

he told the police he was gonna do it too, and he got off

the right wing radio crazies hailed him as a hero

let me see if i can find it-

here ya go, the "legendary" joe horn:

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-3517564.html

^^complete transcript, and it's fascinating

[BainsBane]

44. I remember this case

Thanks for the link because I'd tried unsuccessfully to find it. This is unbelievable sick. It was nothing less than an execution.

[lunasun]

69. Mr. Martin was not stealing anything. He was walking + minding his own business.

[aikoaiko]

30. There is less evidence to support self-defense, and more witnesses to the homicide...

...than with Zimmerman.

[uponit7771]

40. Even if Zimmerman had witness's, due to jury instructions, it wouldn't matter...

...there's no duty to flee with SYG and that includes the duty to "avoid danger" so when Zimmerman said TM was scary and got out of his car and followed him under normal self defense Z wouldn't be able to make a case

Under SYG the jury could ONLY deliberate on what was in Z's mind "at the time" of the shooting and not before or after.

In Florida it seems PLAUSIBLE that a car full of black teens would give someone a "reasonable fear" of something

[onenote]

47. Given your extensive research and expertise in this area

please give an example of a case in which the pre SYG duty to retreat was interpreted and applied the way you have suggested.

You simply are making stuff up to fit your own misunderstanding of the law.

The duty to avoid conflict under common law never meant what you seem to be claiming it meant.

I'll give you an example:

Defendant calls up victim and demands that victim pay him back money that defendant lent to victim. Victim tells defendant that he doesn't have any money and can't pay him back. Later that day, defendant gets call from friend saying that he's in a bar and victim is at the bar, is very drunk, and is buying round after round of drinks for the house. Enraged, defendant goes to bar to confront victim and demand his money back. When he gets to bar, he confronts victim and victim tells him to get lost. Rather than leave, defendant again demands his money; at this point, victim pulls out gun and drunkily tries to shoot defendant. But being drunk, he has forgotten to take off the safety. and when he pulls the trigger nothing happens. Not knowing why the gun didnt' fire and not wanting to give the victim a second chance, defendant grabs knife from pocket and stabs victim. Witnesses attest to facts as described.

Defendant could have "avoided danger" by not going to the bar to demand his money. He could've gotten a lawyer and filed suit in small claims court. He could've left the bar when the victim told him to get lost. He could have sought other ways to persuade victim to pay him back short of confronting him. But it never was the law, both pre SYG or post SYG that the defendant in this case couldn't claim self defense in this situation. Under SYG, defendant didn't have to run away after the victim pulled the gun on him even though it appeared that the gun may not be loaded or might otherwise not be functional. In a pre-SYG jurisdiction, defendant would have had to try to escape, but ONLY if he could have done so with complete safety to both himself and others in the bar. And in a crowded bar, it probably would not have been possible to run away and be reasonably certain that neither he nor anyone else would not be endangered by the victim making another attempt to shoot the fleeing defendant. So just as in the SYG state, he had no duty to avoid the conflict by retreating.

Take your time. I'm confident that eventually this will sink in.


Oh, and by the way, I asked you for an example in which,under pre-SYG law, "avoiding conflict" means what you claim it means (that Zimmerman had a duty to stay in his car, apparently). Still waiting for that.

[uponit7771]

57. Zimmerman case, I already did...Zimmerman didn't even have superficial wounds, he had scratches that

....amounted to nothing there was NO PROOF Zimmerman was getting his head bashed in

His belief was NOT... NOT based on reality and the jury STILL had to deliberate on it

Also, Zimmerman didn't "retreat" from the beginning...he got OUT of his car and followd the person he called "scary"...under ANY... ANY normal self defense Zimmerman "Following" a person he thought was dangerous or was scared of would negate the self defense claim...would toss it RIGHT out the window because it would be obvious that Zimmerman was moving TOWARDS danger and not in order to save someones life or any of that crap.

Under NORMAL self defense in Zimmermans case there was no "resonable fear" because Zimmerman did NOT "avoid conflict"

regards

[onenote]

62. Well, you certainly are a stubborn one

and are incapable of understanding rather basic concepts.

I just gave you an example in which the defendant came after the victim and confronted him. In which the defendant suffered nary a scratch. And yet it is abundantly clear that, in both an SYG state and a non SYG state, the defendant had a legitimate basis for presenting a claim of self defense to the jury. In fact, if in my hypothetical, the victim had pulled out a toy gun, the defendant probably would still have strong case for self defense unless the jury was persuaded that there was no way the defendant could not have known the gun being pulled was a toy and not real.

In the Zimmerman example, there was evidence that the victim was on top of the defendant. Whether the defendant had serious injuries, minor injuries, or no injuries at all are facts that can be considered by the jury in deciding whether a reasonable person, with someone on top of them (assuming the jury concludes that the state has rebutted that claim beyond a reasonable doubt) might reasonably fear that they are about to suffer grevious harm from having their head smashed against the sidewalk. You seem to think that the fact that the injuries he had means that no reasonable person could have feared that the next blow would be harder and more damaging. A jury could disagree and certainly, under both pre SYG and post SYG law would have the opportunity to decide that issue.


You should move on to trying to fathom some simpler legal concepts. Because self defense is clearly beyond your ability to comprehend.

[Niceguy1]

101. I admire

Your perseverence but many here are a lost cause when it comes to crtitcal thinking. It seems that emotions ruke the day.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Your conclusion of what SYG means is flawed. Sorry.

The law clearly needs to be re-tooled, but not for the reasons you are claiming.

[uponit7771]

58. ..NO it's not, there's no duty to retreat and there's no duty to "avoid conflict" either in that ...

...case the jury instructions in the Zimmerman case were overlty flawed.

The could ONLY decide what was in Z's mind AT THE TIME of the shooting not before or after

[onenote]

63. still waiting for you to show a case in which the duty to "avoid conflict" means what you claim

But don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.

[uponit7771]

70. I already did...regards

[onenote]

73. no you haven't.

I asked for a pre-SYG case example and you responded by citing Zimmerman, which is a case decided in a state that no longer has a duty to retreat.

You can't be this obtuse.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Again,

even in a 'duty to retreat state' if someone is sitting on top of you, you cannot retreat. That was the defense's contention. That is what the jury accepted.

This could have happened in the UK. Same outcome.

[uponit7771]

71. That's NOT what the jury accepted, people READ THE JURY INSTRUCTIONS they could NOT ... NOT

...deliberate on ANYTHING before or after the time of the shooting that includes what was sittign on top of who.

It was at the time of the shooting did Zimmerman have a reasonable fear.

regards

[AtheistCrusader]

72. And the fact that he was being SAT UPON factors into that reasonable apprehension, in the jury's eye

s.

Seriously, are you ACTUALLY contending that the Jury was not allowed to consider the fact that Trayvon Martin was sitting on him, the forensic evidence, or the witness that corroborated it?

Why did the defense even bring it up then? Shit, that trial could have been over in 20 minutes.

[onenote]

74. You couldn't be more wrong if you said the moon was made of green cheese.

Here is the instruction:

"A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.

In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real."


See the words "judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used." There was evidence that the jury apparently believed (or didn't disbelieve) that at the time Zimmerman used force, Martin was on top of him and in a position to do him great bodily harm. I keep telling you, its not that complicated if you exercise basic reading comprehension skills.

[aikoaiko]

51. But if Zimmerman had grabbed or tacked TM, it could have been different.

No one really saw who started the physical altercation between GZ and TM and that ambiguity plus GZ's injuries (as they were) were enough to support his story.

[uponit7771]

59. GZ had superficial wounds, there was little to no evidence that he was getting his head bashed in...

...and there was no reality to it either

[aikoaiko]

61. GZ didn't have to be beaten badly for that evidence to support his story.

I can see how those superficial wounds pushed his claim over the preponderance line with jurors. Some witnesses claimed GZ was on top and some said TM was on top, both mothers testified that their sons were yelling for help, but GZ was the only one with wounds from a beating. All it takes is for them to weigh that evidence 50.1% to 49.9% in favor of GZ.

[uponit7771]

66. You're right, he only had to fear "IN HIS MIND" that he WOULD WOULD get beat badly...

the fear does NOT ... NOT have to be based on ANY realities...just what's "...in my mind..." (dunns words) at the time and that's all the jury had to deliberate on; could a reasonable person fear that his head would've been bashed in, even with Z's superficial wounds, even if it's not based on ANY ... ANY realities of it being done so.

Basically a 4 yr old beats on a persons leg with floaty stick

The SYG law is HORRIBLY written

[onenote]

77. absolutely a reasonable person could fear that their head was going to be bashed in

if someone was sitting on top of them in a position to bash their head in. The fact that it hadn't yet been bashed in is no more decisive than the fact that someone pulls a gun on someone and it turns out it isn't loaded, or the safety is on, or it's really just a realistic looking toy gun. The jury properly decides whether it was reasonable under the circumstances for a person to fear for their life or body. Maybe the facts convince the jury it was reasonable, maybe they don't. Maybe the facts show there was a pillow under Zimmerman's head, or that Zimmerman is wearing a football helmet, in which case a juror might well conclude Zimmerman's professed fear was either a lie or not something a reasonable person would have under the circumstances. On the other hand, if the facts show that Zimmerman's is on a concrete sidewalk, whether or not he has yet suffered greivous harm is not decisive. Its whether it would be reasonable to fear that such harm is immiment -- about to happen in the future, not had or hadn't happened in the past.

And, one more point for the umpteenth time -- the issue of whether Zimmerman had a legitimate fear for his life is the same whether he is in an SYG state or a non-SYG state. All SYG says (and I hate SYG laws) is that one who has such a legitimate fear doesn't have any duty to retreat and can use deadly force (except in certain circumstances). In a non SYG state, a defendant who has a legitimate fear that they are at imminent risk of death or great bodily harm still has to try to retreat, subject to certain exceptions (including an exception for when retreat is not possible at the time one is facing the imminent harm.

[SeaLyons]

91. His head was no longer on the concrete when he shot Trayvon. I do not believe a "Reasonable" person

would have feared for their life, just as a reasonable person would have stayed in the car, and that's the basis I would have convicted him on.

[onenote]

95. FWIW, I agree with you.

While its easy to be an armchair juror, based on what I've heard and read, I would have been inclined do conclude that at the point Zimmerman used deadly force he did not have a reasonable basis to fear he was in danger of death or great bodily harm. But apparently the jury was not convinced beyond a reasoable doubt that Zimmerman's story was untrue and/or that the facts did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that his fear was unreasonable. Its a high bar for the prosecution. The fact that a reasonable person would have stayed in the car doesn't really matter. What matters is how a reasonable person would react to the situation when the alleged threat to Zimmerman's life/body arose.

[cthulu2016]

94. "IN HIS MIND" is wrong. That is not the law.

There is a vast legal difference between "a fear in his mind" and, "a reasonable fear in his mind." (The later is the law.)

The question, as a matter of law, is what a *reasonable person* would have been thinking in the precise circumstances Zimmerman was in.

He could have sincerely thought that Martin was a team twelve ninjas riding a tank and it wouldn't have mattered.

[aikoaiko]

97. not quite --- there's a reasonable person standard to be met.

[LanternWaste]

68. Quite the recent spate of strange and bitter crops...

"Here is fruit for the crows to pluck,
For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
For the sun to rot, for the trees to drop,
Here is a strange and bitter crop..."

[madville]

80. Not very similar

Beyond it involving a black teenager and a then legal gun-totter the cases are vastly different. There are tons of witnesses and other evidence in this case plus the shooter fled the scene, I would say he's guaranteed a murder two conviction since he didn't actually know the victim or plan it before that moment.

[cthulu2016]

88. The big difference here is that it will be provably UNREASONABLE

Dunn did not have a reasonable fear. Even if he believed 100% that one of the guys was aiming a shotgun at him, that means nothing (legally) unless a normal,typical, sound-minded *reasonable person* would have thought exactly the same thing.

The best a delusion of a shotgun could do for him would be manslaughter versus murder.

For the Dunn case to be like the Zimmerman case, the police would have had to find (100%) that Martin was never on top of Zimmerman beating him, in the way they found 100% that there was no shotgun on the Dunn scene.

And if there was no beating found with the certainty of no shotgun being found, Zimmerman would not have been aquitted.

(The alleged beating was the equivalent of the Dunn shotgun... the force claimed to have been resisted)

[BainsBane]

100. I hope you're right

but you never know until the verdict comes in.

[joeybee12]

120. Is the location a factor?

I know Sanford is a festering hole of ignorance, but is Jacksonville somewhat ok, whereas they wouldn't just try to cover up the killing of a young black male like Sanford did?

[Boom Sound 416]

122. Jacksonville has come a long way

In fact I believe the Sheriff is African American. That's to say if he was re-elected.

But it has a terrible history I'm sad to say. A very deep routed segregation and frankly self perpetuating segregation. Part of it remains because the city is divided by the St. John's river. And (while I'm oversimplifying a little) one side was black and the other white for a very long time.

Because of the racism in the real estate industry ("their goes the neighborhood" philosophy) it caused public schools to become very white or very black and the city council and school board did so little, the dept of Ed stepped in force the city to integrate the schools. My experience with this was in the late 80's and early 90's. every couple of years the city would try something new to integrate the schools. Magnet programs were the most effective, but it caused highschoolers to get on a bus at 5:30 in the morning. (Jax is a very large area city). Funny thing that happened in my highschool which was 48% black and 49% white, the students segregated themselves. There were literally black halls and white halls.

However, in all my travels around these United S's of A, which is not a small amount, I've never seen more interacial couples than in Jacksonville, Fl. I guess Newton was right after all. And maybe the human spirit has a little left in the tank.

At least enough to send this fuck to Old Sparky

[joeybee12]

123. Thanks...I didn't know much about the city...

But it does seem to be that with size, many things do get better...more influx of people and more diversity. Sanford seems like a little hole that just kind of exists on its own and really doesn't change much.

[Boom Sound 416]

124. Jax exploded in population

Through the 90's. greater metro area is now about 2.2 million. And it has gotten a lot better.

I can't speak to Sanford, but it's gets a little whacky in central Florida. Too much heat, too little water. I never cared much for the Orlando area.

You're welcome.