Depraved mind they've got to prove, I suppose. There is that, it didn't fly in the Zimmerman case.
Which was precisely my point.
By your own words, "feeling threatened but not actually being threatened" is actually an argument against a depraved mind, which requires "ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent." So yeah, I suppose that's a thing they've got to prove, and I suppose they have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I can go over the various reasons I think it's a "slam dunk" for manslaughter (or as close as you can get in a system that's theoretically biased heavily in favor of the defense), but my point is that it is not a "slam dunk" for second degree murder, and first degree murder is...well, I guess it's a thing you can charge if you feel like it. Or so it seems. The facts of the case seem to have no bearing on the charge, at least.
Well, evincing a depraved mind is not about what was actually going on in his head.
It's about whether his conduct was so bad that you'd only expect some kind of monster to behave that way.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
I'm still at a loss as to how they did that. I mean they charged him on everything but the murder, which implies his stand your ground defense didn't fly, but they thought maybe the dead man actually deserved killing? WHAT?
The 3 guilty counts of attempted second degree murder were against the other 3 people in the car, who survived. Plus one guilty count of basically negligent discharge of a firearm. These charges (and subsequent convictions) had nothing to do with Jordan Davis, per se.
The mistrial was against the death of Jordan Davis. From my read of the trial, some of the jurors either did not believe murder in the first degree applied, or agreed with Michael Dunn's interpretation of the events that Davis exited the SUV to escalate the confrontation.
Note that the last detail is the stickler, and what made the case difficult for the prosecution: Jordan Davis exited the vehicle while everyone else had stayed inside the cars.
I really think Florida law is the problem here, but not in the way you guys probably do. Failing to recognize "imperfect self-defense" as an option makes it difficult to convict for homicide in a case like this, especially if the prosecutor insists on swinging for the fences. The community is gonna have a hard time rallying around a "voluntary manslaughter" charge from the prosecutor as justice being served, but even second-degree murder is generally gonna be a crap shoot given the facts as presented.
In general, Florida doesn't let the jury split the difference on a self-defense killing and convict of manslaughter for "honest but unreasonable" self-defense. I believe that option was presented in the Zimmerman case (not explicitly, but by the inclusion of the manslaughter instruction), but it's unusual.
A lot of people are going to have a hard time convicting for murder if they think the accused didn't act out of malice, ill-will, etc. I think the prosecutor would have a much easier time getting a conviction on manslaughter, though with the kind of sentence he's facing for the four counts he did get hit with it's likely academic at that point.
One thing I will say is that for an affirmative defense the burden should fall to the defendant.
At that point you're acknowledging that you committed the act, but basically claiming that the circumstances were mitigated. Well, that's on you to show the jury that (and the judge; if you can't satisfy any kind of minimal basis for your affirmative claim, whether it's self defense or insanity or whatever, the judge shouldn't allow you to proceed with that defense before the jury even hears of it).
It's not enough to just gun someone down, and say "I felt threatened. Prove I didn't feel that way el oh el."
One thing I will say is that for an affirmative defense the burden should fall to the defendant.
At that point you're acknowledging that you committed the act, but basically claiming that the circumstances were mitigated. Well, that's on you to show the jury that (and the judge; if you can't satisfy any kind of minimal basis for your affirmative claim, whether it's self defense or insanity or whatever, the judge shouldn't allow you to proceed with that defense before the jury even hears of it).
It's not enough to just gun someone down, and say "I felt threatened. Prove I didn't feel that way el oh el."
I feel like this is an attitude one has when one feels there's no chance they'll ever be asked to do so.
I don't start fights, I actively avoid them, and I don't carry. The odds I'll ever have to make a self-defense claim, let alone in a deadly force case, are nearly zero. But I cannot imagine actually having that burden placed on me in a court of law, because even if it's true it's going to be tough to prove in many or even most cases. My entire position is based on the "what if it was me behind the table" idea.
I think it's easy enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the use of force was unjustified (either due to unreasonable fear, or lack of necessity) that the current system is fine. Even if it lets some guilty folks go free.
One thing I will say is that for an affirmative defense the burden should fall to the defendant.
At that point you're acknowledging that you committed the act, but basically claiming that the circumstances were mitigated. Well, that's on you to show the jury that (and the judge; if you can't satisfy any kind of minimal basis for your affirmative claim, whether it's self defense or insanity or whatever, the judge shouldn't allow you to proceed with that defense before the jury even hears of it).
It's not enough to just gun someone down, and say "I felt threatened. Prove I didn't feel that way el oh el."
I feel like this is an attitude one has when one feels there's no chance they'll ever be asked to do so.
I don't start fights, I actively avoid them, and I don't carry. The odds I'll ever have to make a self-defense claim, let alone in a deadly force case, are nearly zero. But I cannot imagine actually having that burden placed on me in a court of law, because even if it's true it's going to be tough to prove in many or even most cases. My entire position is based on the "what if it was me behind the table" idea.
I think it's easy enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the use of force was unjustified (either due to unreasonable fear, or lack of necessity) that the current system is fine. Even if it lets some guilty folks go free.
I don't think you can assert an affirmative defense if you can't establish a basis for it. Like, I don't think a judge will actually let you go in front of the jury.
The standard of proof probably isn't ridiculous, it's certainly not "beyond a reasonable doubt". But you do need something beyond just claiming "I felt threatened".
If there are no witnesses no history with the person (threats, etc) no injuries no nothing except you shot him and he wasn't armed?
At this point allowing a self defense claim is tantamount to saying it is acceptable to murder people as long as you aren't witnessed doing it.
I don't think you can assert an affirmative defense if you can't establish a basis for it. Like, I don't think a judge will actually let you go in front of the jury.
The standard of proof probably isn't ridiculous, it's certainly not "beyond a reasonable doubt". But you do need something beyond just claiming "I felt threatened".
The standard in most states is pretty low, but you're correct some basis must exist. It seems that in general the standard can be as little as "have a plausible story." Of course, that only gets you the instruction, the jury can still decide the prosecution's evidence and arguments are persuasive beyond reasonable doubt.
If there are no witnesses no history with the person (threats, etc) no injuries no nothing except you shot him and he wasn't armed?
At this point allowing a self defense claim is tantamount to saying it is acceptable to murder people as long as you aren't witnessed doing it.
I'm really not OK with that.
First off, I take offense at an ideological level with calling imperfect self-defense "murder." Murder implies malice, and in many cases of unreasonable self-defense that simply doesn't exist. It's probably a large part of why the jury failed to convict...because agree with me or don't, I'd say at least 1/12 of the population sees it the way I do, and has a real problem equating the two.
But even assuming you're talking about the real deal "perfect crime" version of murder-by-self-defense, it's not particularly common, and if there's truly no evidence to support self-defense (no injuries, no weapons, no history of violence, no nothing) then the jury should be able to convict for manslaughter.
Finally, making it difficult to convict in those scenarios doesnt' make it "acceptable." It just makes it hard to convict. Come on, we've done enough pages on this, you should know the difference. Just as rape isn't "acceptable" just because it's hard to convict. Just as many crimes aren't "acceptable." Sometimes we let guilty people go free. We do so because the alternative seems worse. As a society, sometimes we choose the least-shitty option. Unfortunately, that involves Zimmerman walking a free man, and this jackhole only doing sixty years instead of "foreverever."
I don't think you can assert an affirmative defense if you can't establish a basis for it. Like, I don't think a judge will actually let you go in front of the jury.
The standard of proof probably isn't ridiculous, it's certainly not "beyond a reasonable doubt". But you do need something beyond just claiming "I felt threatened".
The standard in most states is pretty low, but you're correct some basis must exist. It seems that in general the standard can be as little as "have a plausible story." Of course, that only gets you the instruction, the jury can still decide the prosecution's evidence and arguments are persuasive beyond reasonable doubt.
Sounds about right.
If you can convince the judge that you have a basis, then you get to tell the jury you did it in self-defense.
If not, you don't even get to claim it.
This prevents the scenario of just straight up murdering people in a dark alley and claiming self-defense to get away with murder and live free of fear of prosecution.
At least you'd have to go to the trouble to stage a crime scene if you wanted to pull that off.
Also I wasn't even talking about Zimmerman. He was injured, there were the 9/11 calls and conflicting witness acounts; he had a basis for self defense and the judge wasn't wrong to let him claim it.
I don't think you can assert an affirmative defense if you can't establish a basis for it. Like, I don't think a judge will actually let you go in front of the jury.
The standard of proof probably isn't ridiculous, it's certainly not "beyond a reasonable doubt". But you do need something beyond just claiming "I felt threatened".
The standard in most states is pretty low, but you're correct some basis must exist. It seems that in general the standard can be as little as "have a plausible story." Of course, that only gets you the instruction, the jury can still decide the prosecution's evidence and arguments are persuasive beyond reasonable doubt.
Sounds about right.
If you can convince the judge that you have a basis, then you get to tell the jury you did it in self-defense.
If not, you don't even get to claim it.
This prevents the scenario of just straight up murdering people in a dark alley and claiming self-defense to get away with murder and live free of fear of prosecution.
At least you'd have to go to the trouble to stage a crime scene if you wanted to pull that off.
Well yeah. But nothing gets you away from the fact that killing unarmed people can be justified. Disagree if you choose, but that's the law, and will continue to be.
EDIT: What I'm saying is that the bar to "plausible" and the level of "staging" required will always be low enough that some guilty people walk. We have to accept that.
I know you didn't mention Zimmerman, I mentioned him as a specific example of somebody who I do not believe acted in reasonable self-defense, but who should probably have walked anyway. Because that's just how the system has to work, unfortunate as it is.
I don't think you can assert an affirmative defense if you can't establish a basis for it. Like, I don't think a judge will actually let you go in front of the jury.
The standard of proof probably isn't ridiculous, it's certainly not "beyond a reasonable doubt". But you do need something beyond just claiming "I felt threatened".
The standard in most states is pretty low, but you're correct some basis must exist. It seems that in general the standard can be as little as "have a plausible story." Of course, that only gets you the instruction, the jury can still decide the prosecution's evidence and arguments are persuasive beyond reasonable doubt.
Sounds about right.
If you can convince the judge that you have a basis, then you get to tell the jury you did it in self-defense.
If not, you don't even get to claim it.
This prevents the scenario of just straight up murdering people in a dark alley and claiming self-defense to get away with murder and live free of fear of prosecution.
At least you'd have to go to the trouble to stage a crime scene if you wanted to pull that off.
Well yeah. But nothing gets you away from the fact that killing unarmed people can be justified. Disagree if you choose, but that's the law, and will continue to be.
EDIT: What I'm saying is that the bar to "plausible" and the level of "staging" required will always be low enough that come guilty people walk. We have to accept that.
I'm not so sure the law will always be this way.
It's should only take a few more ridiculous Florida murders to get some sort of legislative redress to concealed carry + scared of everything gun people = free murder
Gotta say, I really can't get behind that 10-20-Life law at all. Mandatory minimum sentences are bad enough as it is, but it penalizes threatening people with a gun, without actually harming them, almost as severely as actually killing them. That kind of sentencing can cause a perverse incentive to kill. (England used to have a death sentence for theft, for example. If you're going to get hung for robbing a man or hung for killing him, you're better off not leaving a witness.)
it can also have the effect of dissuading people from committing something really dangerous in the first place such as using a gun in a robbery the first place.
Gotta say, I really can't get behind that 10-20-Life law at all. Mandatory minimum sentences are bad enough as it is, but it penalizes threatening people with a gun, without actually harming them, almost as severely as actually killing them. That kind of sentencing can cause a perverse incentive to kill. (England used to have a death sentence for theft, for example. If you're going to get hung for robbing a man or hung for killing him, you're better off not leaving a witness.)
it can also have the effect of dissuading people from committing something really dangerous in the first place such as using a gun in a robbery the first place.
That's what felony murder laws are for.
kedinik on
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
A better law would be mandatory 10-20 for picking a fight while you're concealed carrying a gun.
I don't know about mandatory (mandatory sentences in general tend towards another form of injustice), but yes I'd agree that lawful concealed carry should be an significant aggravating factor in sentencing for such crimes, including simple assault.
And if the legislative redress is against concealed carry vice self defense, that's acceptable.
Possible, but not likely. Already have two circuits (including the ninth) holding carry as a "right," and if I had to put money on it I'd take the Supreme Court falling on that side as well (one or two other circuits have ruled against, so it's bound to wind up there). The courts have found that carry for self-defense can be regulated, but that those regulations can't be excessive. In this case it was a de facto local ban on concealed carry (in the form of a refusal to issue permits for general self-defense) along with a statewide ban on open carry...essentially combining into a complete ban on carry for most residents.
Which the court found unconstitutional.
I would agree, however, that it is the carry that is generally the issue, not the use of force (including deadly force) in self-defense. In most high-profile cases, remove the gun and the outcome is preferable (though doubtless in some subset you'd see negative outcomes with roles reversed). Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your viewpoint), the law in our country is solidifying in the other direction.
A better law would be mandatory 10-20 for picking a fight while you're concealed carrying a gun.
I don't know about mandatory (mandatory sentences in general tend towards another form of injustice), but yes I'd agree that lawful concealed carry should be an significant aggravating factor in sentencing for such crimes, including simple assault.
If it's a crime in and of itself though then you can still be very much guilty of "instigating a fight while carrying a gun" even if you're "firing in self defense" when you murder the persondefend yourself from the frightening brown person.
Might make some people think twice knowing that just starting shit while concealing a gun means you're on the hook for a felony.
A better law would be mandatory 10-20 for picking a fight while you're concealed carrying a gun.
I don't know about mandatory (mandatory sentences in general tend towards another form of injustice), but yes I'd agree that lawful concealed carry should be an significant aggravating factor in sentencing for such crimes, including simple assault.
If it's a crime in and of itself though then you can still be very much guilty of "instigating a fight while carrying a gun" even if you're "firing in self defense" when you murder the persondefend yourself from the frightening brown person.
Might make some people think twice knowing that just starting shit while concealing a gun means you're on the hook for a felony.
If we're splitting hairs between "aggravating factor" and "standalone felony," I'm probably* fine with the latter. Still can't buy stiff mandatory minimums, but that's a strong ideological stand on pretty much all crimes. We all agree here than brown folks get fucked by our justice system, but fucking over everybody instead isn't the proper solution. Merely "picking a fight while carrying" shouldn't be a decade minimum, sorry, that's some knee-jerk bullshit.
Mandatory minimums are mostly crap, but I do agree that there should be points added on to the sentencing guidelines for starting much of anything if you have a gun on your person.
Guns are super good at killing people, so if you're going to carry such an instrument around with you, should probably be held to a higher standard of not-shit-starting.
I thought they had all the options for the murder on the table? Was it just for first degree?
@Preacher. Sometimes prosecutors are reluctant to offer a jury the option of convicting on second degree murder when the defendant has been charged with first degree because these prosecutors consider second degree an "easy way out."
I'm still flabbergasted that the jury had 3 people who didn't think Dunn was guilty
This tells me that Dunn's only mistake was failing to kill the other three people
They did not find him guilty of first degree murder.
Which is a wholly reasonable stance to take since in Florida first degree murder requires premeditation.
Those exact same three jurors were more than happy to hit him with attempted second degree murder of the three other car passengers. Which were actually reasonable charges to make given the evidence.
I'm still flabbergasted that the jury had 3 people who didn't think Dunn was guilty
This tells me that Dunn's only mistake was failing to kill the other three people
It's unclear to me whether they actually thought he was not guilty, or whether they merely had reasonable doubt. The one jurors who was talking seems to indicate the former, but that's all hearsay.
Either way, they at least agreed that shooting into a fleeing vehicle is indefensible. It's not like the jury was handing the guy a medal.
It's my understanding that the lesser charges ( second degree and manslaughter) were included in the jury instruction. I've seen no news to the contrary, and at least one cite supporting it. It sounds like the dissenting jurors actually thought he was justified in the first shooting (or at least there was sufficient reasonable doubt).
It sounds like they'd not have convicted on any homicide charge.
Largely academic, since he's going away for the rest of his life anyway.
Juries don't typically like when prosecution shoot for the moon to get a lesser plea bargain then try to weasel out with a lesser charge.
If it wasn't 1st degree, then don't charge him for first degree hoping he'll please plea to manslaughter. You'll just get that shit thrown out "sorry he's not guilty" because juries don't give a fuck most of the time unless "THINK OF THE CHILDREN".
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Yeah they should have dropped it to 2nd degree once it was obvious he was going to trial
I think some of it is also media showboating. Happened with Zimmerman too. Case gets big media attention prosecutors want to throw the biggest charges they can at the case. Like they probbly could have slapped Zimmerman with a reckless endangerment charge easy but they shot for charges they couldn't prove in court instead.
No but I mean, it's entirely possible he's only going to do time for the 3 people he failed to kill and get nothing for the guy he killed
It's effectively irrelevant as the attempted murder charges are to be served consecutively, i.e. he's going to die in prison regardless. Depending on the order you think they count in, he could have always never served a day for the actual murder.
Its the nature of the conviction though, they effectively said if he had stopped at killing one innocent youth and not tried to kill the other three, he would have been completely fine. That kind of upsets people.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Its the nature of the conviction though, they effectively said if he had stopped at killing one innocent youth and not tried to kill the other three, he would have been completely fine. That kind of upsets people.
It's possible that a prosecution focused on proving manslaughter might have succeeded in eliminating reasonable doubt. Time spent tilting at the premeditation windmill was time wasted, and attempting to prove it may have lost goodwill with those holdout jurors.
But yes, unfortunately the "face to face" confrontation with the deceased is much more likely to run into reasonable doubt regarding self defense than firing into a fleeing vehicle. That's the real world.
Just like in the real world sometimes unarmed guys actually do pose threat of (and cause) great bodily harm.
But yes, if he'd stopped with the one shooting, all else held equal, he might have still been acquitted for manslaughter. That's the justice system, where we prefer free guilty men to innocent ones in prison. Cry all you want, ain't changing.
In most sane states mcdermott, you would not be able to shoot an unarmed person and have that called "manslaughter" no way did that young adult present any danger to the man who murdered him. It was a bad shoot, he is not an innocent person at all, he's a murderer.
Do you also think the old guy who shot that man in a movie theater was justified in standing his ground as he claims?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Most states have 2nd degree as depraved indifference which I think shooting into a carnofnunarmed people qualifies for
Unless you feel reasonably threatened, and think firing is reasonably necessary. The it's self defense.
The second set of shots was after no reasonable threat was present, beyond reasonable doubt, and thus unsurprisingly those shots were attempted second degree murder. Precisely because of your reasoning, I'd bet.
Giving what is known about the case, it's pretty fucking disturbing that three of the jurors felt that Dunn had acted in self-defense. I mean I can get the disagreement with nailing the fucker with first degree murder, but there is no fucking way anyone could argue that that fucker had acted in self-defense; especially, given what he did after shooting up someone else's vehicle at a convenience store.
In most sane states mcdermott, you would not be able to shoot an unarmed person and have that called "manslaughter" no way did that young adult present any danger to the man who murdered him. It was a bad shoot, he is not an innocent person at all, he's a murderer.
Which states are sane, then? Because most states period do not have a requirement that somebody be armed before you can shoot them. The standard is fairly consistent across states: reasonable threat of imminent great bodily harm, deadly force reasonably necessary to stop it, and duty to retreat varies but is quite often absent.
California, as a non-Florida example, meets all three criteria and also adds a kicker where the jury is specifically instructed as to "imperfect self defense." Meaning if you think the person acted in self defense rather than out of malice, even if that self defense was unreasonable, then you convict for manslaughter.
In short, you're wrong.
Do you also think the old guy who shot that man in a movie theater was justified in standing his ground as he claims?
I forget the specifics in that case, but I recall thinking he was unjustified as well. But that it sounded like manslaughter not murder.
For the record, again, I think Dunn was guilty as well. I'd have convicted for manslaughter, as a juror.* But it's close enough to reasonable doubt that an acquittal is not beyond the pale.
Giving what is known about the case, it's pretty fucking disturbing that three of the jurors felt that Dunn had acted in self-defense. I mean I can get the disagreement with nailing the fucker with first degree murder, but there is no fucking way anyone could argue that that fucker had acted in self-defense; especially, given what he did after shooting up someone else's vehicle at a convenience store.
People react in strange ways to trauma. I'd be careful reading too much into that. It's relevant, but hardly the slam dunk many treat it as.
Posts
Well, evincing a depraved mind is not about what was actually going on in his head.
It's about whether his conduct was so bad that you'd only expect some kind of monster to behave that way.
The mistrial was against the death of Jordan Davis. From my read of the trial, some of the jurors either did not believe murder in the first degree applied, or agreed with Michael Dunn's interpretation of the events that Davis exited the SUV to escalate the confrontation.
Note that the last detail is the stickler, and what made the case difficult for the prosecution: Jordan Davis exited the vehicle while everyone else had stayed inside the cars.
In general, Florida doesn't let the jury split the difference on a self-defense killing and convict of manslaughter for "honest but unreasonable" self-defense. I believe that option was presented in the Zimmerman case (not explicitly, but by the inclusion of the manslaughter instruction), but it's unusual.
A lot of people are going to have a hard time convicting for murder if they think the accused didn't act out of malice, ill-will, etc. I think the prosecutor would have a much easier time getting a conviction on manslaughter, though with the kind of sentence he's facing for the four counts he did get hit with it's likely academic at that point.
At that point you're acknowledging that you committed the act, but basically claiming that the circumstances were mitigated. Well, that's on you to show the jury that (and the judge; if you can't satisfy any kind of minimal basis for your affirmative claim, whether it's self defense or insanity or whatever, the judge shouldn't allow you to proceed with that defense before the jury even hears of it).
It's not enough to just gun someone down, and say "I felt threatened. Prove I didn't feel that way el oh el."
pleasepaypreacher.net
I feel like this is an attitude one has when one feels there's no chance they'll ever be asked to do so.
I don't start fights, I actively avoid them, and I don't carry. The odds I'll ever have to make a self-defense claim, let alone in a deadly force case, are nearly zero. But I cannot imagine actually having that burden placed on me in a court of law, because even if it's true it's going to be tough to prove in many or even most cases. My entire position is based on the "what if it was me behind the table" idea.
I think it's easy enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the use of force was unjustified (either due to unreasonable fear, or lack of necessity) that the current system is fine. Even if it lets some guilty folks go free.
I don't think you can assert an affirmative defense if you can't establish a basis for it. Like, I don't think a judge will actually let you go in front of the jury.
The standard of proof probably isn't ridiculous, it's certainly not "beyond a reasonable doubt". But you do need something beyond just claiming "I felt threatened".
If there are no witnesses no history with the person (threats, etc) no injuries no nothing except you shot him and he wasn't armed?
At this point allowing a self defense claim is tantamount to saying it is acceptable to murder people as long as you aren't witnessed doing it.
I'm really not OK with that.
The standard in most states is pretty low, but you're correct some basis must exist. It seems that in general the standard can be as little as "have a plausible story." Of course, that only gets you the instruction, the jury can still decide the prosecution's evidence and arguments are persuasive beyond reasonable doubt.
First off, I take offense at an ideological level with calling imperfect self-defense "murder." Murder implies malice, and in many cases of unreasonable self-defense that simply doesn't exist. It's probably a large part of why the jury failed to convict...because agree with me or don't, I'd say at least 1/12 of the population sees it the way I do, and has a real problem equating the two.
But even assuming you're talking about the real deal "perfect crime" version of murder-by-self-defense, it's not particularly common, and if there's truly no evidence to support self-defense (no injuries, no weapons, no history of violence, no nothing) then the jury should be able to convict for manslaughter.
Finally, making it difficult to convict in those scenarios doesnt' make it "acceptable." It just makes it hard to convict. Come on, we've done enough pages on this, you should know the difference. Just as rape isn't "acceptable" just because it's hard to convict. Just as many crimes aren't "acceptable." Sometimes we let guilty people go free. We do so because the alternative seems worse. As a society, sometimes we choose the least-shitty option. Unfortunately, that involves Zimmerman walking a free man, and this jackhole only doing sixty years instead of "foreverever."
Sounds about right.
If you can convince the judge that you have a basis, then you get to tell the jury you did it in self-defense.
If not, you don't even get to claim it.
This prevents the scenario of just straight up murdering people in a dark alley and claiming self-defense to get away with murder and live free of fear of prosecution.
At least you'd have to go to the trouble to stage a crime scene if you wanted to pull that off.
Well yeah. But nothing gets you away from the fact that killing unarmed people can be justified. Disagree if you choose, but that's the law, and will continue to be.
EDIT: What I'm saying is that the bar to "plausible" and the level of "staging" required will always be low enough that some guilty people walk. We have to accept that.
I'm not so sure the law will always be this way.
It's should only take a few more ridiculous Florida murders to get some sort of legislative redress to concealed carry + scared of everything gun people = free murder
it can also have the effect of dissuading people from committing something really dangerous in the first place such as using a gun in a robbery the first place.
That's what felony murder laws are for.
I don't know about mandatory (mandatory sentences in general tend towards another form of injustice), but yes I'd agree that lawful concealed carry should be an significant aggravating factor in sentencing for such crimes, including simple assault.
Possible, but not likely. Already have two circuits (including the ninth) holding carry as a "right," and if I had to put money on it I'd take the Supreme Court falling on that side as well (one or two other circuits have ruled against, so it's bound to wind up there). The courts have found that carry for self-defense can be regulated, but that those regulations can't be excessive. In this case it was a de facto local ban on concealed carry (in the form of a refusal to issue permits for general self-defense) along with a statewide ban on open carry...essentially combining into a complete ban on carry for most residents.
Which the court found unconstitutional.
I would agree, however, that it is the carry that is generally the issue, not the use of force (including deadly force) in self-defense. In most high-profile cases, remove the gun and the outcome is preferable (though doubtless in some subset you'd see negative outcomes with roles reversed). Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your viewpoint), the law in our country is solidifying in the other direction.
If it's a crime in and of itself though then you can still be very much guilty of "instigating a fight while carrying a gun" even if you're "firing in self defense" when you murder the persondefend yourself from the frightening brown person.
Might make some people think twice knowing that just starting shit while concealing a gun means you're on the hook for a felony.
If we're splitting hairs between "aggravating factor" and "standalone felony," I'm probably* fine with the latter. Still can't buy stiff mandatory minimums, but that's a strong ideological stand on pretty much all crimes. We all agree here than brown folks get fucked by our justice system, but fucking over everybody instead isn't the proper solution. Merely "picking a fight while carrying" shouldn't be a decade minimum, sorry, that's some knee-jerk bullshit.
* - Absolutely.
Guns are super good at killing people, so if you're going to carry such an instrument around with you, should probably be held to a higher standard of not-shit-starting.
@Preacher. Sometimes prosecutors are reluctant to offer a jury the option of convicting on second degree murder when the defendant has been charged with first degree because these prosecutors consider second degree an "easy way out."
This tells me that Dunn's only mistake was failing to kill the other three people
They did not find him guilty of first degree murder.
Which is a wholly reasonable stance to take since in Florida first degree murder requires premeditation.
Those exact same three jurors were more than happy to hit him with attempted second degree murder of the three other car passengers. Which were actually reasonable charges to make given the evidence.
It's unclear to me whether they actually thought he was not guilty, or whether they merely had reasonable doubt. The one jurors who was talking seems to indicate the former, but that's all hearsay.
Either way, they at least agreed that shooting into a fleeing vehicle is indefensible. It's not like the jury was handing the guy a medal.
It sounds like they'd not have convicted on any homicide charge.
Largely academic, since he's going away for the rest of his life anyway.
That's one way of looking at it.
The wrong way, though.
If it wasn't 1st degree, then don't charge him for first degree hoping he'll please plea to manslaughter. You'll just get that shit thrown out "sorry he's not guilty" because juries don't give a fuck most of the time unless "THINK OF THE CHILDREN".
I think some of it is also media showboating. Happened with Zimmerman too. Case gets big media attention prosecutors want to throw the biggest charges they can at the case. Like they probbly could have slapped Zimmerman with a reckless endangerment charge easy but they shot for charges they couldn't prove in court instead.
It's effectively irrelevant as the attempted murder charges are to be served consecutively, i.e. he's going to die in prison regardless. Depending on the order you think they count in, he could have always never served a day for the actual murder.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's possible that a prosecution focused on proving manslaughter might have succeeded in eliminating reasonable doubt. Time spent tilting at the premeditation windmill was time wasted, and attempting to prove it may have lost goodwill with those holdout jurors.
But yes, unfortunately the "face to face" confrontation with the deceased is much more likely to run into reasonable doubt regarding self defense than firing into a fleeing vehicle. That's the real world.
Just like in the real world sometimes unarmed guys actually do pose threat of (and cause) great bodily harm.
But yes, if he'd stopped with the one shooting, all else held equal, he might have still been acquitted for manslaughter. That's the justice system, where we prefer free guilty men to innocent ones in prison. Cry all you want, ain't changing.
Do you also think the old guy who shot that man in a movie theater was justified in standing his ground as he claims?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Unless you feel reasonably threatened, and think firing is reasonably necessary. The it's self defense.
The second set of shots was after no reasonable threat was present, beyond reasonable doubt, and thus unsurprisingly those shots were attempted second degree murder. Precisely because of your reasoning, I'd bet.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Which states are sane, then? Because most states period do not have a requirement that somebody be armed before you can shoot them. The standard is fairly consistent across states: reasonable threat of imminent great bodily harm, deadly force reasonably necessary to stop it, and duty to retreat varies but is quite often absent.
California, as a non-Florida example, meets all three criteria and also adds a kicker where the jury is specifically instructed as to "imperfect self defense." Meaning if you think the person acted in self defense rather than out of malice, even if that self defense was unreasonable, then you convict for manslaughter.
In short, you're wrong.
I forget the specifics in that case, but I recall thinking he was unjustified as well. But that it sounded like manslaughter not murder.
For the record, again, I think Dunn was guilty as well. I'd have convicted for manslaughter, as a juror.* But it's close enough to reasonable doubt that an acquittal is not beyond the pale.
* - given facts as I've seen them
People react in strange ways to trauma. I'd be careful reading too much into that. It's relevant, but hardly the slam dunk many treat it as.