BringBackFergy Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=22348612 This case is distinguishable in that there was no physical contact (unlike Zimmerman) but a perceived threat. Will be interesting to see how the prosecutor approaches this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 What in the world does this have to do with "stand your ground"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 Allegedly, Dunn felt threatened by the victim (or one of the occupants in the vehicle) pointing a gun (or what he thought was a gun) so he opened fire. It's a bastardized version of "stand your ground" which the defense will offer as an affirmative defense for opening fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 This is as weak as it gets. He tells a car full of teenagers to turn the music down, which they do, then he tells them to turn it down again and claims he saw a gun and starts shooting? This is the kind of stuff Brady lives for. I am as pro gun as anyone but this guys a nut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 SYG will be tested in Michigan, which is more the castle doctrine. The man that shot thru the door at the drunk womanwill be all over tthe media come Sept/Oct. Just in time for... But this case, like the idiot Texan who shot the teacher in the street over a party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 From what's been reported stand your ground defense shouldn't really apply here unless the laws there are goofy. Why do people think stand your ground means you get to shoot someone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 From what's been reported stand your ground defense shouldn't really apply here unless the laws there are goofy. Why do people think stand your ground means you get to shoot someone? This exactly. Stand your ground has a very narrow definition, and given the reporting here, it doesn't apply to this incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 This exactly. Stand your ground has a very narrow definition, and given the reporting here, it doesn't apply to this incident. 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013. Florida's "self defense" statute and the phrase "stand your ground" are used interchangeably (or so it appears). No duty to retreat = stand your ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 this guy sounds like he's someone who was emboldened to the point of stupidity by having a concealed-carry permit. if he wasn't carrying, I'd wager that he wouldn't have said a word to them about their music in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=22348612 This case is distinguishable in that there was no physical contact (unlike Zimmerman) but a perceived threat. Will be interesting to see how the prosecutor approaches this one. Music too loud? Sure, just pull out a gun and start blasting away... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 Music too loud? Sure, just pull out a gun and start blasting away... The loud music is not the perceived threat to which I was referring. The "shotgun barrel" (or some type of firearm pointed out the window) is apparently the imminent danger which caused him to start firing. Hard to get in this guy's head and I tend to agree with Azalin (i.e. he was carrying and thought he was Clint "!@#$in" Eastwood, when he should have gone about his business and left without a word...either that, or get in his own car and start blaring his Englebert Humperdink CD) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Music too loud? Sure, just pull out a gun and start blasting away... In retrospect they should have turned the music down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The loud music is not the perceived threat to which I was referring. The "shotgun barrel" (or some type of firearm pointed out the window) is apparently the imminent danger which caused him to start firing. Hard to get in this guy's head and I tend to agree with Azalin (i.e. he was carrying and thought he was Clint "!@#$in" Eastwood, when he should have gone about his business and left without a word...either that, or get in his own car and start blaring his Englebert Humperdink CD) Thinking someone has a gun doesn't give you the right to shoot them. And it still doesn't mean you're able to use syg. There was never a threat from which he needed to stand his ground. All threats are not equal. Someone could threaten to punch you, and you don't have to run away, but you don't get to shoot them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Music too loud? Sure, just pull out a gun and start blasting away... Classic meaningless response on your part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 Thinking someone has a gun doesn't give you the right to shoot them. And it still doesn't mean you're able to use syg. There was never a threat from which he needed to stand his ground. All threats are not equal. Someone could threaten to punch you, and you don't have to run away, but you don't get to shoot them. Read the statute. If the jury believes his story the SYG defense would apply (although I agree with you, I can think of other hypothetical where there is a grey area). Hopefully, this jury can find he acted hastily and was unreasonable in his perception of the imminent threat. Sounds like he was looking for a reason to test out his 9mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Read the statute. If the jury believes his story the SYG defense would apply (although I agree with you, I can think of other hypothetical where there is a grey area). Hopefully, this jury can find he acted hastily and was unreasonable in his perception of the imminent threat. Sounds like he was looking for a reason to test out his 9mm. I'm no lawyer, but I'd have to think that most juries would be capable of making the distinction, which is how this is supposed to work. The jury decides, not the media, judge, lawyers, etc. It's our job to let that jury do its. Then live with that. Yeah, it's possible that the jury believes his story/applies the law incorrectly, its just as possible they don't. The GZ case was a clear demonstration of the jury thinking, and applying the law as written, regardless of how some of them may have felt. This is not about feel. This is about think. We'll see, but right now, I don't think "seeing" a gun qualifies for SYG the same way that getting physically attacked does. Just using logic and English, the standing of ground requires ground, and ground that is being threatened. Sitting in your car is not threatening this guy's ground. Getting out of the car, and moving towards him would be. If this guy is moving towards the car, he left his ground, therefore, he has no ground in which to "stand". Seems pretty straightforward to me, but again, it's on the jury to do the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackFergy Posted February 5, 2014 Author Share Posted February 5, 2014 (edited) I'm no lawyer, but I'd have to think that most juries would be capable of making the distinction, which is how this is supposed to work. The jury decides, not the media, judge, lawyers, etc. It's our job to let that jury do its. Then live with that. Yeah, it's possible that the jury believes his story/applies the law incorrectly, its just as possible they don't. The GZ case was a clear demonstration of the jury thinking, and applying the law as written, regardless of how some of them may have felt. This is not about feel. This is about think. We'll see, but right now, I don't think "seeing" a gun qualifies for SYG the same way that getting physically attacked does. Just using logic and English, the standing of ground requires ground, and ground that is being threatened. Sitting in your car is not threatening this guy's ground. Getting out of the car, and moving towards him would be. If this guy is moving towards the car, he left his ground, therefore, he has no ground in which to "stand". Seems pretty straightforward to me, but again, it's on the jury to do the right thing. I understand your point. The confusing part is the interpretation of the "ground". If I was defending this dope I would argue that the only ground that matters is the soil and/or pavement under the defendant's feet at that very moment. The distance between defendant and victim is inconsequential when the allegation involves the threat of a firearm projectile which can travel at upwards of 1000ft per second. The statute provides a defense to those who are " justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another " Taken another way (as the defense will surely argue), Dunn was justified to use deadly force and did not have a duty to retreat from that parking lot or from where he was parked because he reasonably believed the gun barrel ( long cylinder or whatever the hell it was he claims) could cause imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or his wife. The jury will not determine the ground as much as they will determine if his perception was reasonable (the jury uses a "reasonable man standard" and will ask themselves if they were in that same situation, would a reasonable man have perceived this object (which was never found) as a threat to cause great harm or imminent death). If they answer in the affirmative, he can satisfy the elements. Basically, it appears to be a "he said - she said" and who the jury will believe as it relates to the object protruding from the car. Edited February 5, 2014 by BringBackFergy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 this guy sounds like he's someone who was emboldened to the point of stupidity by having a concealed-carry permit. if he wasn't carrying, I'd wager that he wouldn't have said a word to them about their music in the first place. Bingo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I understand your point. The confusing part is the interpretation of the "ground". If I was defending this dope I would argue that the only ground that matters is the soil and/or pavement under the defendant's feet at that very moment. The distance between defendant and victim is inconsequential when the allegation involves the threat of a firearm projectile which can travel at upwards of 1000ft per second. The statute provides a defense to those who are " justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another " Taken another way (as the defense will surely argue), Dunn was justified to use deadly force and did not have a duty to retreat from that parking lot or from where he was parked because he reasonably believed the gun barrel ( long cylinder or whatever the hell it was he claims) could cause imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or his wife. The jury will not determine the ground as much as they will determine if his perception was reasonable (the jury uses a "reasonable man standard" and will ask themselves if they were in that same situation, would a reasonable man have perceived this object (which was never found) as a threat to cause great harm or imminent death). If they answer in the affirmative, he can satisfy the elements. Basically, it appears to be a "he said - she said" and who the jury will believe as it relates to the object protruding from the car. Maybe. But, again, with only knowing the tiny bit that we do, that seems like a lot of moving parts, that all have to work exactly right, for the jury to say not guilty. Any one of those parts fail, especially the missing cylinder, which sounds like BS to me, and the whole thing falls apart. It could be a simple as this: a reasonable man reasons that other cars, not including his, may be in a parking lot doing lots of things, including playing loud music. That's a reasonable expectation for a 7/11 parking lot. Otherwise, once again using English and logic: it's called a driveway. The shooter wasn't at his house. We aren't supposed to walk around assuming we can control parking lots, unless we own them. Therefore, I don't buy the shooter's story. Frankly, I fail to see anything reasonable about demanding the music be turned down at all. This is a friggin 7/11. I've literally driven into all sorts of them with all sorts of cars playing music loudly. I'm there go to the store, not be the arbiter of stereo volume(one thing is certain: we'd all be better off if each of us told the very next self-appointed arbiter of whatever...to F off and mind their own business. Perhaps if someone had done that to the shooter, years ago, this never would have happened.) Also, it's 7/11. The faster I get what I need, the faster I GTFO. Who needs the hassle of arguing about music? Why would anyone go looking for that kind of hassle, unless they had an agenda? You're at a 7/11 of all places, what was he doing, buying the week's groceries, after coming from a wedding? No. We all know what convience store means. The whole point is spending more, so that you spend as little time there as possible. If this guy was doing it right, he's out of there in 30 seconds, far far away from the pernicious "loud music". Thus the shooter's entire premise seems unreasonable to me. It's a lot more likely: the shooter was looking for trouble. Coming from a wedding implies boozed up, and looking for trouble. These points pretty much ensure that it's not a he/she said thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Thinking someone has a gun doesn't give you the right to shoot them. And it still doesn't mean you're able to use syg. There was never a threat from which he needed to stand his ground. All threats are not equal. Someone could threaten to punch you, and you don't have to run away, but you don't get to shoot them. It does in San Diego, police shoot people here all the time here just for thinking they have a gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts