Dunn: to all the people that say "he will die in prison"

[DonCoquixote]

Florida has little problem with people dying in prison. Indeed, there are many people who were on Death Row who were found innocent, and even so, the death penalty marches on. Companies make MONEY from prison, and companies are trying to rewrite laws so that more people, not just minorities, go to prison. The only reason this guy will die in prison is because of a prison stuffing law that makes using a gun get more time, which was offered as a dog bone to the people tired of Florida Gun Violence.

But the fact is, Florida is still unwilling to convict someone for KILLING a BLACK PERSON. If he only shot once, and kill Jordan, then it is very possible none of these other charges would stick. That just means the bigots will practice more, and use the gun laws until the art of killing Black kids becomes a science, which the lawyers will gladly aid in. Already the yahoos down here are saying "they didn't convict him for shooting the black kid, only the truck."

Dunn will be imitated, as was Zimmerman, and 2014 and 2016 will be deadly as the GOP will do everything to make sure voting democrat is illegal, by the Legal means and the winked at illegal means.

[arely staircase]

1. killing black kids will become a science

I think that is right.

[Major Nikon]

8. It already is

The gun homicide rate among whites were as high as it is for blacks, there would not be a gun control debate in this country.

[Kennah]

2. He will probably die in prison ...

... and you are correct that there are still plenty of things seriously fucked up in Florida and elsewhere with asshats indiscriminately killing people who pose no threat to them.

Jordan Davis won't come back, and the verdict has to hurt his family and friends.

One has to take some solace in the fact that Michael Dunn likely won't ever breath fresh air, particularly if he gets retried on Murder One and convicted.

[brush]

3. And that dirtbag prosecutor Angela Cory will overcharge them again so the jury won't convict

She did the same in the zimmerman trial. She's not fooling anyone.

The charge should have been 2nd degree murder — a crime of passion, not 1st degree — premeditated.

[Evergreen Emerald]

5. Over charging is a fallacy

There are lesser included offenses. If the jury cannot convict on murder, they can convict on the lesser included charges. The issue was not "over charging," but rather, the stupid law.

[rrneck]

6. I didn't follow the case...

could the jury have convicted on lesser charges than murder one? If so, it sounds like jury nullification (by one juror).

[Evergreen Emerald]

7. Yes.

There were a number of options. The result is sickening. It will be interesting to hear the jury comments, you are likely correct regarding nullification.

[TorchTheWitch]

9. well, that's obvious

Murder 1 was the correct charge and the one he's guilty of since there was no gun and no threat. The law defined premeditation as possible to occur in a split second. It is not required that there be a long period of time to consider it nor that there be any planning.

I still think that the jury wrestled with premeditation since most people have the erroneous idea that premeditation requires a long period of time and planning and couldn't wrap their heads around it being able to occur in a split second and with each trigger pull.

A "crime of passion" isn't a legitimate excuse to avoid Murder 1, and a "crime of passion" isn't justifiable when that "passion" is anger because a kid had the gall to talk back to you. "Crime of passion" is not a legitimate legal defense but an excuse by a defendent to try to excuse premeditation and only in situations of reasonable extreme anger or heartbreak. It's laughable as an excuse in this case, hence why the defendant was not stupid enough to use it.

Since you didn't follow the case, it's probably not a good idea that you weigh in on something you admit you don't know anything about.

We don't know why the jury couldn't come to agreement on lesser included charges. It could have been because someone or more than one refused to budge off of Murder 1 or it could have been a variety of reasons. Without the jury saying what it was we aren't going to know.

[rrneck]

12. How would one go about

proving split second premeditation?

[TorchTheWitch]

14. there was no split second premeditation in this case

It was a conscious decision that took the amount of time for Dunn to decide to use his weapon, get it out of the glove box, take it out of the holster, rack the slide, point it and pull the trigger. Plenty enough time for him to decide it was not a legitimate reason to fire his gun at anyone just because he was angry with them and much more than a split second. He made the conscious decision to shoot from the split second he reached for the glove box to get his gun. Florida law also provides that there must be a conscious decision to pull the trigger each and every trigger pull... you can't just fire off a volley without thought about each shot, what's it's pointing at, what it will do, and why the trigger is pulled. That's a good thing.

As for other cases, it would depend on the evidence and what evidence the jury believed that showed a split second premeditation.

Look up the laws in Florida if you want to know about what is considered premeditation. If the jury instructions are released in the case we'll know what the detailed explanation is for it as far as the Dunn case is concerned.

[rrneck]

15. So you don't know. Allrighty then. nt

[TorchTheWitch]

16. how could anyone know what split second premeditation would be

in each and every case especially when it's laughable to assume I know about all Florida murder cases and the circumstances and evidence for each one. In each case it is the prosecutor's responsibility to try to prove premeditation however long a time it was given whatever the circumstances are. How the hell would *I* know that about cases in the state I'm not even aware of?

Split second premeditation was explained a few times during the Dunn trial, and it's not my job to quote it for you. Go watch the whole trial yourself. All of it is on YouTube. This case didn't even have to prove a split second premeditation because in this case that period of time was many seconds longer - starting from the second Dunn decided to reach for his gun and lasted up to his pulling the trigger the first time making that period of time to consider many more seconds than one.

It also isn't my job to find the exact law and quote if for you nor give case examples in which split second premeditation was proven and how it was proven. I didn't write the law, Florida did, and they decided that premeditation can be as little time as a split second. Ask Florida why they wrote the law. You wanted to know, and you have a search engine. Why ask me in the first place? I'm not being paid to be your teacher. Find out your own self if it bothers you so much that I tried to be helpful and explain it to you concerning this particular case which had many more seconds than a split second premeditation, for free and on my own time. Without a particular set of circumstances and particular evidence it isn't even possible for me or anyone else to tell you how in any individual case split second premeditation is proved as every case is different with a different set of circumstance and evidence. Geez. It doesn't take a bloody rocket scientist to figure out that much.

[JackInGreen]

18. Me thinks the intent of the question

was to derail and detract, not to actually engage in dialogue.

[TorchTheWitch]

19. sure looks that way

[brush]

23. IMO it's asking too much for jurors to decide . . .

that Dunn made a conscious, split-second premeditation to kill. That's an extremely high bar of proof for the trial prosecutor to get over as most jurors, judge's instruction or not, feel as most people do that 1st degree murder takes more planning.

It's seems pretty obvious imo that there's a pattern established now by Angela Cory to go with the highest charge instead of the more obvious and provable on. In this case, 2nd degree murder.

Seems intentional to me, as in the zimmerman trial and, conversely, in the Marrisa Alexander case. Fortunately this jury was smarter than the zimmerman jury and convicted Dunn on lesser charges.

I would have preferred though that the murderer Dunn be convicted on at least one of the other available murder charges — 2nd degree or manslaughter.

[whopis01]

13. Ah, but if some jurors feel it is premeditated murder and others feel it is not premeditated

you can still end up with a hung jury. You need a unanimous vote either way.

At this point we don't know whether or not the ones who hung the jury were holding out for first degree murder or for acquittal.

[brush]

21. They didn't convict on the murder charge

Of course there were other charges, thank God, no one is arguing that, but imo it seems the failure to not charge the obvious crime, second degree murder, was purposely done to confuse the jury and perhaps not get a conviction.

To me that seems like a repeat of the overcharging against zimmerman, and conversely Marissa Alexander, that gave that jury an excuse not to convict on murder.

This jury, fortunately, was smart enough to convict on the other charges and not fall for the prosecutor's "error". It would have been nice though for them to convict that murderer on at least one of the other available murder charges — 2nd degree or manslaughter. I mean, why give an out to a possible racist juror?

And as far as fallacy, it looks like a pattern to me, not fallacy.

[DonViejo]

29. Last night a former Prosecutor(?) who also is a DU member

commented that the fact Dunn walked back to his car, opened the glove compartment and retrieved his gun IS premeditation. This DU'er also wrote that Dunn will be convicted at retrial. I wasn't sure how they charged him with 1st degree murder but, this DU'ers explanation about going to the car and retrieving the gun helped me understand how the charge came about. I'll look and see if I can find that comment and link to it here if I do locate it.

On Edit:

Here's the comment by laxman:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024507361#post11

If you can handle a little bit of levity, this post by riverwalker will provide it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4507414

[tblue37]

20. Murder 2 and manslaughter were available to the jury. They deadlocked

because one or more jurors insisted that it was self defense.

By including the M1 charge, Corey ensured a 12-person jury, which is probably why the attempted murder charges did get a convicyion. If she had not charged above M2, there would only have been 6 people on the jury, and the odds of getting people who would refuse to let that scunbag walk would have been much worse. With only 6 on the Zimmerman jury, it was easier to steamroll the one hold-out and force her to agree to acquit.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. I think she's a lousy lawyer and so are her staff.

But I don't think she lost this and the Zimmerman trial on purpose. Why would she sabotage her own career? Hanlon's Razor applies: never attribute to malice that which can be better attributed to incompetence.

[brush]

26. It's Florida

She knows what's expected out of her office. IMO there seems a pattern of overcharging — zimmerman and Dunn that's much harder to prove thus, killers of blacks do not get convicted of murder. Do I need to say more? And conversely Marissa Alexander, a black woman, who was deemed not eligible for the Stand Your Ground defense and WAS convicted (she has at least recently, because of pressure from the community, been granted a new trial.

[rrneck]

4. The takeaway message for anybody with an itchy trigger finger and a racial grudge

it that they can't count on a jury nullification to save them.

I don't think there's a conspiracy to discover the best way to turn the law into a license to kill.

[TorchTheWitch]

10. and he might get out for good behavior or paroled

Prisons are also spitting out a lot of people that should remain locked up.

One thing I'd like to know is whether or not these guilty charges include possibility of parole.

[localroger]

25. They don't. No parole. /nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. If you add up all the minimums he will be getting 75 years

His only hope is that the judge allows the sentences to run concurrently.

I doubt that.

[former9thward]

30. In Florida there is no parole for non-capital felonies.

The minimum is 85% of the sentence.

[TorchTheWitch]

31. That's good to know, thanks

So, at his age he's never going to be getting out of prison. Good.

I still want to see the retrial for the murder of Jordan Davis and hope he'll be found guilty for that as well. His family and friends need justice.

[geek tragedy]

11. Florida law: you can shoot any black kid you want until they run away. nt

[uponit7771]

17. Zimmermans lawyer, " people got the wrong idea from Zimmerman trial" ( mine)

[kalisto2010]

22. Race baiter in Chief Matt Drudge doesn't even have the story on his site.

I find that hilarious. I guess he couldn't find a way make Michael Dunn the victim.

[etherealtruth]

28. He needs to be retried and convicted

The defense in this case and the Zimmerman case are predicated on the deranged belief that black men are "prone" to violence ... and these defenses perpetuate the belief "being afraid for one's life" is reasonable if it is a "scary black man" one is claiming to be afraid.

What has been proven to me is that scary white yahoos with guns are the ones prone to violence and are the ones that should be feared