Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michael Dunn trial: Man accused of shooting teen over music
BayNews9 ^ | February 2, 2014 | Tamara Lush / AP

Posted on 02/04/2014 6:02:49 AM PST by Uncle Chip

A man with a gun. A black teen, shot dead.

Was it murder or self-defense?

Jury selection is scheduled to begin Monday in Florida in the trial of 47-year-old Michael Dunn, a Satellite Beach software developer charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder in the November 2012 shooting of 17-year-old Jordan Davis outside a Jacksonville convenience store.

Authorities say an argument over loud music led to the shooting. Davis was parked in a vehicle with three friends outside the store. Dunn and his fiance had just left a wedding reception and were heading back home when they stopped at the store and pulled up next to the sport utility vehicle that Davis was sitting in.

An argument began after Dunn told them to turn the music down, police said. One of Davis' friends turned the music down, but Davis then told him to turn it back up.

According to authorities, Dunn became enraged and he and Davis began arguing. One person walking out of the convenience store said he heard Dunn say, "You are not going to talk to me like that."

Dunn, who had a concealed weapons permit, pulled a 9 mm handgun from the glove compartment, according to an affidavit, and fired multiple shots into the SUV, striking Davis in the back and groin.

Dunn later told police he felt threatened. His attorney has said Dunn saw a gun and shot in self-defense, perhaps laying the ground work for a case under Florida's "stand your ground" law.

If the case sounds familiar, that's because it has echoes of a trial that received wide attention and happened only two hours away.....

(Excerpt) Read more at baynews9.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: jordandavis; michaeldunn
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last
To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
AEMILIUS PAULUS said: "It is the gun nut lunacy that will ultimately cost us our right to keep and bear arms in a sane and rational manner. "

Why don't you spell out the extent of the "right" of which you speak?

None of the Bill of Rights has ever been repealed, except by unlawful court decisions.

Assuming that the Second Amendment is not repealed, is there a right to bear arms or is there not? Is there a right to carry concealed or is there not? Is there a right to carry openly or is there not? Is the state of Kalifornia infringing said right or are they not?

61 posted on 02/09/2014 9:01:49 AM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
AEMILIUS PAULUS said: "People will get sick of the resulting carnage-(which is already starting i.e shooting a person for texting)-and repeal the Second Amendment. "

We'll have to follow Arizona very carefully then. They have repealed virtually all of their gun laws and don't require a permit to carry openly or concealed. It should be there that we see the effective repeal of the Second Amendment and not in some state like California.

Unfortunately, the race is over. The Second Amendment has been effectively repealed in California and not in Arizona.

You're asking me to fear that I will lose my right to keep and bear arms because of what is happening in Arizona? It's gone already and I'm waiting for the courts to recognize the infringements and restore my rights.

Is it your opinion that the Ninth Circuit will or will not restore my rights? Should they restore my rights or follow your thinking that permitting the exercise of the right will destroy the right?

62 posted on 02/09/2014 9:28:17 AM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

No Constitutional “Right” is absolute. The framers were not that stupid. To quote the cliche “No man has a right to shout fire in a crowded theater.”


63 posted on 02/09/2014 12:52:18 PM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

No Constitutional “Right” is absolute. The framers were not that stupid. To quote the cliche “No man has a right to shout fire in a crowded theater.”


64 posted on 02/09/2014 12:54:38 PM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: William Tell
I have lived in California all my life and have owned guns since 1950 and I keep and bear arms, shoot and hunt. I merely follow simple rules in carrying; i.e. gun in the trunk ammunition in the glove box when going target shooting or hunting. I have enough confidence in myself, at 76 years of age, that I feel no need to carry a fire arm on my person. To put it another way I'm not an hysteric that sees a bogey man lurking everywhere.

I am ambivalent about private citizens owning automatic weapons such as AK-47's; and am dead against carrying pistols at will. I can learn from the actions of citizens from the 19th century who stopped unlimited carry based upon the fact it did not work. We live in times where the fanatics can rise to leadership positions due to their lack of self restraint.

65 posted on 02/09/2014 1:09:00 PM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
AEMILIUS PAULUS said: To quote the cliche “No man has a right to shout fire in a crowded theater.”

You most certainly DO have a right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater.

You may do so without negative consequences if, in fact, there is a fire. You may do so if you are an actor on the stage and the script calls for it.

You don't need a license. You don't have to be registered. No training is required. You may say it as many times as you wish or think prudent.

The government has no say in the matter and cannot exercise prior restraint to prevent you from shouting fire in a theater.

And, very similar to the keeping and bearing of arms, you have a responsibility not to unreasonably engender panic in the crowd.

You, evidently being one who would panic in a crowded theater if someone shouts "fire", would also panic if a person were to bear arms in your presence; except, of course, if that person were wearing a police uniform, regardless of whether the person was actually a policeman.

66 posted on 02/09/2014 1:17:07 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

Either or thinking is not too bright. The choice is not either an unlimited right to carry at will or no right to carry at all. That is a false dichotomy. The true rule being ownership and possession is guaranteed carrying is not at will and one must demonstrate reasonable grounds for doing so.


67 posted on 02/09/2014 1:27:04 PM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

“Either or thinking is not too bright.”

The above is an either or statement.

At best it’s incoherent, at worst it refutes itself. A concise illustration of the state of all leftist ideology.

Very similar to the statement of postmodernism: “There is no such thing as truth.” If this statement is true, it’s false.


68 posted on 02/09/2014 1:35:56 PM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

I can’t believe you are serious in your statements. They are among the silliest I have seen in years. On the otherhand perhaps you truly require each and every contingency of the use of the term “fire” to be spelled out in detail. Lord!


69 posted on 02/09/2014 1:37:06 PM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

Oh Lord! Good Bye and Good Luck.


70 posted on 02/09/2014 1:38:40 PM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

I couldn’t help myself.


71 posted on 02/09/2014 1:40:36 PM PST by reasonisfaith ("...because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thessalonians))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: William Tell

if it was rap, he should be not guilty. lol


72 posted on 02/09/2014 1:42:40 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
AEMILIUS PAULUS said: "The true rule being ownership and possession is guaranteed carrying is not at will and one must demonstrate reasonable grounds for doing so."

So, what is your legal theory to support this?

That the word "bear" in the Second Amendment was put there by accident and doesn't count?

That the practices of Midwestern towns in the nineteenth century constitute an amendment to the Constitution?

Would not your approach render the entire Constitution null and void? What would prevent that?

What definition of "right" is consistent with allowing the government to dictate whether one may exercise such right? Wasn't the purpose of the Bill of Rights to prevent the government from involving itself in these matters?

If you claim that the Founders intended to permit the government to dictate the circumstances of keeping and bearing, what is it that prevented the Founders from saying so? Under your interpretation, how is the "right" to keep and bear any different from the situation in Russia or Zimbabwe? Your "may issue" approach in Kalifornia has, until recently, been proven identical to "no carry" and still is for most of the population.

The law in Kalifornia is virtually identical to what you propose; that is, the local law enforcement chief gets to decide who has "good cause". Do you really believe that virtually every one of the ten million or so people in Los Angeles County have no "good cause"?

73 posted on 02/09/2014 2:23:26 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: gr8eman

Exactly. If somebody is playing their music or doing an activity that annoys you, without violating your rights, then just leave the area.


74 posted on 02/09/2014 2:26:19 PM PST by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
AEMILIUS PAULUS said: "... one must demonstrate reasonable grounds for doing so."

To whom? The Republican House? The Democrat Senate? The Present in the White House? The mayor of one's town? The police chief in one's town?

And who pays when the judgement is wrong and a person suffers great bodily harm or death because of such decision? The taxpayers? The cops? You?

How much expensive jewelry is enough to satisfy the need? If dead pizza delivery people could talk, would they agree with you?

75 posted on 02/09/2014 2:28:12 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

That would be equivalent to around 250,000 homicides in the U.S. today (actual number is around 16,000). Dodge City population in 1876 was about 1,200.


76 posted on 02/14/2014 9:37:22 PM PST by exhaustguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson