Cancel 2016.11
Darla
You're right and I should apologize - sorry Superfreak!
How To Make Sense Of The Michael Dunn Verdict
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
You're right and I should apologize - sorry Superfreak!
Stand Your Ground played zero role in the Michael Dunn “loud music” case.
Because the jury convicted Dunn of three counts of attempted murder, it is certain that the jury determined that Dunn was not acting in lawful self-defense. Stand Your Ground is a rule about one detail of when self-defense is lawful.
Accordingly, the assertion that Stand Your Ground may have been a reason why the jury hung on the first degree murder charge is totally implausible. The three convictions for second-degree murder show that the jury had determined there was no self-defense; ergo, jury confusion about self-defense was not the reason why the jury deadlocked on first-degree murder.
Moreover, Stand Your Ground played no part in the legal theory of the case, as presented by the prosecution or the defense.
Stand Your Ground laws are very simple. They state that the victim of a violent criminal attack does not have to retreat before using force in self-defense. Here are the Florida self-defense statutes, with the Stand Your Ground rule:
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.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) [The person against whom the force was used was a lawful resident of the home, or owner of the vehicle]; or
(b) [Child custody disputes]; or
(c) [The person using defensive force was engaged in an unlawful activity]; or
(d) [The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer who was performing his duties and properly identified himself.]
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Michael Dunn claimed self-defense, and so the Judge instructed the jury on Florida self-defense law by reading the relevant statutes. These statutes include the Stand Your Ground language. Like the language about child custody disputes, at many trials where self-defense is at issue, the Stand Your Ground language will be irrelevant, even if it is read aloud by the Judge.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/17/stand-your-ground-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-dunn-verdict-in-florida/
Because the jury convicted Dunn of three counts of attempted murder, it is certain that the jury determined that Dunn was not acting in lawful self-defense. Stand Your Ground is a rule about one detail of when self-defense is lawful.
Accordingly, the assertion that Stand Your Ground may have been a reason why the jury hung on the first degree murder charge is totally implausible. The three convictions for second-degree murder show that the jury had determined there was no self-defense; ergo, jury confusion about self-defense was not the reason why the jury deadlocked on first-degree murder.
Moreover, Stand Your Ground played no part in the legal theory of the case, as presented by the prosecution or the defense.
Stand Your Ground laws are very simple. They state that the victim of a violent criminal attack does not have to retreat before using force in self-defense. Here are the Florida self-defense statutes, with the Stand Your Ground rule:
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.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) [The person against whom the force was used was a lawful resident of the home, or owner of the vehicle]; or
(b) [Child custody disputes]; or
(c) [The person using defensive force was engaged in an unlawful activity]; or
(d) [The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer who was performing his duties and properly identified himself.]
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
Michael Dunn claimed self-defense, and so the Judge instructed the jury on Florida self-defense law by reading the relevant statutes. These statutes include the Stand Your Ground language. Like the language about child custody disputes, at many trials where self-defense is at issue, the Stand Your Ground language will be irrelevant, even if it is read aloud by the Judge.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/17/stand-your-ground-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-dunn-verdict-in-florida/
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You typed all that and were still unable to provide a single thing that answered the question; but you just used it to state that you had no clue.
Any other time you would have stated your OPINION, as to when it should occur; but for some reason, this time you just want to hide behind your keyboard.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
No you haven't.
What you have posted is how you FEEL it should fit; but you've completely ran away from stating FACT.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Just tell your family that Darla didn't mean it personally.
Anti-Party
Tea Is The New Kool-Aid
I'm not going to read the thread or the situation.
I can guarantee what is going on in this case though even when I know nothing about it.
The party that wants "less government" TRUSTS Government when they make a mistake.
I can guarantee what is going on in this case though even when I know nothing about it.
The party that wants "less government" TRUSTS Government when they make a mistake.
LMAO!
Irony abounds.
jet57
New member
Ya can't feel a thought dude.
jet57
New member
Hi; yeah that's the trouble with the radical right: they're impervious to fact.
Hooded thugs smell... like illegal substances.
Noise pollution (loud rap music) forces attention; hoodies instill grave concern, and punk ass language provokes self defense. The whole vehicle stunk of illegal activity. Dunn thought he saw firearms, which makes perfect sense in this case, and he opened fire. He really ought to be set free.
Last edited:
Only thug lovahs like you care enough to learn their language.
jet57
New member
None of that proves anything other than a prejudice. I understand that Dunn will be retried for murder 1 and I hope they stick him. The man had no business pulling a gun and then he only made everything worse. I can't think of better case of clear cut stupidity than that.
The pinnacle of idiocy is charging Murder 1. The chances of a conviction for that charge is as likely as winning the lottery. Besides, the man will be in prison for life. This railing on and on is pure-D stupid, ax-grinding bullshit.
zappasguitar
Well-known member
I have to agree.
It's a waste of taxpayer dollars and it accomplishes nothing.
Dunn IS going away for the rest of his life, why waste taxpayer dollars on a show trial?
jet57
New member
dunn deserves to be in jail for the rest oif life; which I think will about 15 minutes when he gets in the joint. (just like that horrible guy who had those girls in his house for some 11 years or so). Charging him and trying him on murder one charges is the very best thing that can happen becasue there needs to be a strong message sent about this self defense bullshit and guns: it's getting out of hand.