Topic: Florida Shooting Echos Trayvon Martin Case, but this time a conviction?

[chaoslord29]

You can probably find articles for it just about anywhere but Reuters is one of my favorite (and largely non-partisan) news outlets: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-dunn-idUSBREA121AU20140203

The highlights are:

Michael Dunn, 47, faces first-degree murder charges in the death of 17-year-old Jordan Davis on November 23, 2012.

Dunn said he had asked the teenagers to turn down their music, Davis refused and the two exchanged words (threats). Dunn says he opened fire because he thought he saw the barrel of a shotgun pointed out the back window at him, though police found no weapon.

(According to NPR) Dunn fired 4 shots into Davis's vehicle, then four more shots as they pulled away. Witnesses reported no sign of Davis or anyone else attempting to leave the car prior to shots being fired.

So, this looks to me like a pretty open and shut case of belligerent abuse of a firearm that resulted in the death of an unarmed teenager (all racial tensions aside). Honestly I felt certain conflict over the Trayvon Martin shooting, but if the same application of the 'stand your ground' policy is applied here it would seem to me to be a blatant disregard for justice.

Now I'm not opposed to gun ownership, I just have a healthy respect for the fact that as long as people own and have access to guns, there will be wrongful gun-deaths. That's as true for police and military personnel (who receive rigorous training in the use of their weapons) as it is for civilians (who are in many cases not required to have the same). So, I feel that laws should put responsibility on the gun-owner not to let the use of their weapon cause someone else's death, in self-defense or not. Murder in self-defense to my mind is every bit as morally culpable as cold-blooded murder, even if we must necessarily distinguish it for legal purposes.

Anyway, just wanted to see what dissent, discussion my fellow writers of Elliquiy might offer on this case.

[Shjade]

Regardless of the other details, the fact that half this guy's shots were fired as they were trying to drive away from him should be enough to make any kind of "I felt endangered" claim 100% bs. Even if they HAD a shotgun in the car, if they never fired it and he kept shooting while they were trying to get away from the crazy guy shooting at them, its presence should be irrelevant.

Unfortunately, people being crazy bastards is nothing new. :|

[Valthazar]

So, I feel that laws should put responsibility on the gun-owner not to let the use of their weapon cause someone else's death, in self-defense or not.

What do you mean by a law for responsibility on gun-ownership to not cause another person's death, in self-defense or not?  Perhaps you could explain this further.

I just don't understand the purpose of owning a firearm for defensive purposes, if the intent isn't to have the potential of shooting someone during warranted situations.  (Unless it is being used specifically for hunting).

[Oniya]

It doesn't help that this guy was at a service station.  Zimmerman at least had the weak excuse that he was functioning as Neighborhood Watch.

(And I agree with Valthazar: my father, grandfather and uncle all owned guns at one point or another - Dad served in two wars, and Grandpa and my uncle were both hunters - and I learned that shooting 'to wound' is something that you only see in the movies.)

[Iniquitous]

It doesn't help that this guy was at a service station.  Zimmerman at least had the weak excuse that he was functioning as Neighborhood Watch.

(And I agree with Valthazar: my father, grandfather and uncle all owned guns at one point or another - Dad served in two wars, and Grandpa and my uncle were both hunters - and I learned that shooting 'to wound' is something that you only see in the movies.)

As the daughter and sister to retired cops who served in the army and marines, niece to a deputy sheriff and gun lover myself, I can tell you that if you pull a gun on someone you had best be ready to shoot to kill. There is no shooting to wound. If all you do is wound then you stand a chance of the other person taking your gun and using it on you.

It's real simple - guns do not kill people. People kill people. All this bitching over guns when guns are not the problem. We humans are the problem.

[chaoslord29]

What do you mean by a law for responsibility on gun-ownership to not cause another person's death, in self-defense or not?  Perhaps you could explain this further.

I just don't understand the purpose of owning a firearm for defensive purposes, if the intent isn't to have the potential of shooting someone during warranted situations.  (Unless it is being used specifically for hunting).

Florida (and other state's) "Stand your ground" law is a big part of the controversy, because it preemptively justifies a gun owners use of their firearm in any situation where they 'feel threatened' without exploring other options to retreat or otherwise resolve the situation without violence. This obviously appeals to certain 'honorable' sentiments and echoes the romanticized "These Colors Don't Run" battlefield mentality.

Problem is, none of those various sentiments are, to my way of thinking, morally justifiable, especially in a civilian setting. To be clear, I affirm the right to own a gun as a defensive weapon, and with proper training and due care it is undeniably effective in that regard. The problem is, just owning a gun doesn't provide you with the skills to use one effectively in defense, let alone instill the responsibility you take on in owning and operating a tool specifically designed to end human life.

In short, my stance is that murder in self defense is every bit as reprehensible as murder (aggravated, premeditated, or otherwise). Laws should reflect that, I think, by not automatically exonerating those who use a gun in self-defense or put another way, people who own guns should still have the threat of a murder charge over their head even when they use the gun "defensively".

As the daughter and sister to retired cops who served in the army and marines, niece to a deputy sheriff and gun lover myself, I can tell you that if you pull a gun on someone you had best be ready to shoot to kill. There is no shooting to wound. If all you do is wound then you stand a chance of the other person taking your gun and using it on you.

It's real simple - guns do not kill people. People kill people. All this bitching over guns when guns are not the problem. We humans are the problem.

To paraphrase Chris Rock, "Guns help."

If you stick two people in a room, give one of them a gun, and let the other guy point his finger and go 'bang' then the outcome is going to be pretty obvious.

People kill people, and guns make it easy for potentially anyone to kill anyone else even by accident. Look at it this way, if you hand a psychotic killer a knife and put them in a crowded room, their potential to commit mass murder is less than that of a 6 year old with an loaded handgun in the same situation.

[Oniya]

Training, licensing, and more importantly, renewal licensing (i.e., a license that has to be requalified for, much like licenses for driving, piloting, or performing CPR) would be things I could get behind to deal with the concerns you bring up.  In order to own a gun, one should have training in how to use it as an effective defense, and should have the responsibility to care for, use, and keep the weapon safely.

[chaoslord29]

Training, licensing, and more importantly, renewal licensing (i.e., a license that has to be requalified for, much like licenses for driving, piloting, or performing CPR) would be things I could get behind to deal with the concerns you bring up.  In order to own a gun, one should have training in how to use it as an effective defense, and should have the responsibility to care for, use, and keep the weapon safely.

I agree completely, but in the strictest sense, those measures can be construed as a violation of the second amendment, and that is unfortunately the hard line stance supported by the overwhelming majority of the gun-right interest groups (if not gun owners).

Alternatively, the second amendment does not protect the rights of people to use their firearms indiscriminately, and given that a gun is a tool specifically designed to end human life, to my mind, the use of any gun (with the exception of certain small caliber sporting weapons) in proximity to human beings is tantamount to reckless endangerment, and even the use of a gun "in self-defense" requires murderous intent.

[Iniquitous]

And you are missing the point. It doesn't matter what weapon you give someone, if they want to kill someone... they will. Bare handed, knives, baseball bats, guns, car, hair dryer, tv. This focus on guns is ridiculous. Try doing a little research, there have been cases of someone killing and injuring a fairly large number of people with knives in a crowded setting.

14 wounded here

4 here

22 wounded here

36 here

Do I need to keep going?

[Oniya]

I agree completely, but in the strictest sense, those measures can be construed as a violation of the second amendment, and that is unfortunately the hard line stance supported by the overwhelming majority of the gun-right interest groups (if not gun owners).

Alternatively, the second amendment does not protect the rights of people to use their firearms indiscriminately, and given that a gun is a tool specifically designed to end human life, to my mind, the use of any gun (with the exception of certain small caliber sporting weapons) in proximity to human beings is tantamount to reckless endangerment, and even the use of a gun "in self-defense" requires murderous intent.

The words that the 'hard liners' forget is 'To ensure a well-regulated militia'.  That implies regulations right there.

[Iniquitous]

"...... and even the use of a gun "in self-defense" requires murderous intent."

If I am having to defend myself against someone you better believe there is murderous intent. I will do all I can to ensure that I survive and my assailant does not. That is the whole point of self defense.

[chaoslord29]

And you are missing the point. It doesn't matter what weapon you give someone, if they want to kill someone... they will. Bare handed, knives, baseball bats, guns, car, hair dryer, tv. This focus on guns is ridiculous. Try doing a little research, there have been cases of someone killing and injuring a fairly large number of people with knives in a crowded setting.

14 wounded here

4 here

22 wounded here

36 here

Do I need to keep going?

Yes, because I find this anecdotal evidence not to be convincing. That's four cases out of how many incidents of similar injuries and death? I've no doubt that given enough time you could find sufficient data to support your point, but that's part of the problem. Gun violence is such a partisan issue it's nearly impossible to find objective data and analysis in how guns factor into violent crime and death, or more accurately, it is easy enough to find any data to support any position on either side of the debate.

The idea though that people intent on violence and death will find a way to commit such action is a misnomer though. Statistically, we've found exactly the opposite, that the more difficult you make it to commit violence, crimes (and especially suicide), the less people actually commit those crimes. Knives, bats, improvised weapons and just about anything make those crimes possible, but guns go above and beyond the call of duty in that regard.

That's what my point is, that guns magnify and amplify the ability for anyone to commit violent action, particularly lethal violence, and it does not discriminate as to who is handling the gun. A 9 year old holding knife does not represent the potential for mass murder that a 9 year old holding a semi-automatic handgun does (let alone a fully automatic weapon).

Now look, I'm a gun owner too, and I fully support the right of everyone to potentially own a gun, I'm just saying that their is a particular moral responsibility related to gun ownership which should translate into harsher legal ramifications.

If I am having to defend myself against someone you better believe there is murderous intent. I will do all I can to ensure that I survive and my assailant does not. That is the whole point of self defense.

Right, I fully support that. So you should be able to be tried and convicted of murder then too right? In self-defense?

[Iniquitous]

I think you need to learn to differentiate between the varying degrees of murder. I have every right to defend my life, the lives of my children, my home and if I kill someone in the process of doing so it is not the same as me picking up a gun and killing every asshole that calls into my job and pisses me off.

And if you are going to say self defense is murder and thus should be tried in court... well... I guess every military person who has ever killed an enemy combatant should be tried. As well as every cop who has ever had to kill someone in the line of duty.

You're thought pattern on this is ridiculous.

[Valthazar]

In short, my stance is that murder in self defense is every bit as reprehensible as murder (aggravated, premeditated, or otherwise).

So if someone is pointing a gun at me, readying to shoot, and I pull out my gun and kill them, you want to charge me for murder?

[Retribution]

Okay anyone who has read me much knows the mere implication of gun control robs me of all reason. I was a long time voting  member of the NRA before I let the membership lapse and I utterly loath most any stance supporting gun control. The simple reason I take this stance is my belief the government will screw up anything it touches, and yes I work for the government. There are many common sense gun control measures I could, would, and do support with the exception of the fact that I have utterly no faith in government to get it right. I think you will find many hard line gun control opponents are like me in that the reason we are hard line is that we do not feel it will be gotten right.

Let me give you a little example of idiocy I have experienced personally. As an avid outdoorsman I often buy raffle tickets for guns to support various conservation causes. A few years back I happened to win one. Lucky me! I went to pick up the gun I won with the purchase of a $1 raffle ticket from Ducks Unlimited. I had to go through a three day waiting period, a background check, and jump through various other hoops because I won said gun. Now excuse me but I am not so sure that someone planning a mass killing would go buy a freaking raffle ticket to do said killing. This was a minor inconvenience to me but I use it to illustrate the idiocy of how the laws often work out and why I oppose more that could lead to more serious rights infringements due to idiocy. And I am sorry to those who stand on the well regulated militia portion of the second amendment, but if you review the court records in recent years including decisions from the Supreme Court in cases versus District of Columbia and City of Chicago you will find the Court stood with Second Amendment advocates. In fact the State of Illinois was recently ordered to implement a concealed carry law because it was the only state in the union that did not have one. Google it and read up on it at the news source of your choosing so my sources are not impeached, it is a simple judicial fact.

Having said that the linked article describes a fellow being dumb. He should go to jail assuming the facts are as laid out in the article. Or possibly be executed for murder. But it fits into a point I wish to make in closing. All gun cases are not equal or covered by the same facts.  The article I am about to link describes my feelings on the whole matter much better than my poor word smithing ever could. I have been saving this link for many months since I felt it was so good and I knew the topic of gun control would at some point raise it's evil head again.

Here is the article http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/index.html?eref=igoogledmn_topstories

[Oniya]

I had no idea that Illinois was the only state without such a law.  For some reason, I thought New York's gun laws were the strictest in the country.

[chaoslord29]

I think you need to learn to differentiate between the varying degrees of murder. I have every right to defend my life, the lives of my children, my home and if I kill someone in the process of doing so it is not the same as me picking up a gun and killing every asshole that calls into my job and pisses me off.

And if you are going to say self defense is murder and thus should be tried in court... well... I guess every military person who has ever killed an enemy combatant should be tried. As well as every cop who has ever had to kill someone in the line of duty.

You're thought pattern on this is ridiculous.

So if someone is pointing a gun at me, readying to shoot, and I pull out my gun and kill them, you want to charge me for murder?

Oh, I see the need for a legal distinction between varying degrees of murder. Obviously, it would be impractical to try and try every single soldier who has killed enemy combatants in a time of war, or police officers who use firearms in the line of duty.

I'm saying that the reason these legal distinctions exist is a matter of judicial expedience, and that morally there is little to know distinction between "types" of murder. The point is that civilians are just that, civilians. The reason we don't charge soldiers with murder or police officers is that they are explicitly authorized by the government to utilize firearms in the defense of the American people, with the full knowledge that this means people will be killed (and sometimes the wrong people). When civilians are similarly authorized to utilize guns around and against other civilians, the same mentality applies, except that because civilians are not specially trained or authorized to act in the defense of the nation or community as a whole, the same allowances cannot be made.

Granted, I think that certain legal allowances can still be made for murder in self-defense, you should be able to definitively prove that it was your life or their's before you expect anything resembling leniency.

For this specific case, that certainly doesn't seem to apply.

[Retribution]

I live in Illinois Oniya and we now have a concealed carry law, but yes we were the last state that did not have one. I am waiting to apply for mine because the system has been made -really- cumbersome so as to have conceal carry in name only and it is being further tested in the courts. But yes Chicago is more stringent in many ways than NYC when it comes to gun control. Ironic then that last year it lead the nation in murders. Of course the city blames those murders on those of us who live in the rest of the state because we have guns so we must be sneaking into Chicago at night and killing people. That was sarcasm of course, but yeah all part of why I take such a hard line stance.

[Valthazar]

I'm saying that the reason these legal distinctions exist is a matter of judicial expedience, and that morally there is little to know distinction between "types" of murder. The point is that civilians are just that, civilians. The reason we don't charge soldiers with murder or police officers is that they are explicitly authorized by the government to utilize firearms in the defense of the American people, with the full knowledge that this means people will be killed (and sometimes the wrong people). When civilians are similarly authorized to utilize guns around and against other civilians, the same mentality applies, except that because civilians are not specially trained or authorized to act in the defense of the nation or community as a whole, the same allowances cannot be made.

It is because of the underlined and bolded portions quoted that people like yourself will always disagree with people like IO, Retribution, and myself.

We hold different interpretations of the Constitution.  Personally, I feel that the government has never authorized me the permission to do anything.  I'm a free man, and we as a society, simply have laws that serve to modestly decrease this limit of freedom within reason to prevent acts that we deem morally wrong.

We can debate this forever, but until we discuss that underlying principle, this discussion will go nowhere.

[chaoslord29]

I had no idea that Illinois was the only state without such a law.  For some reason, I thought New York's gun laws were the strictest in the country.

New York City probably has the strictest gun control laws anywhere, but New York State definitely rates looser than plenty of others.

*snip*

I sympathize with the situation, but I'm afraid it rings pretty hollow with me as a productive line of reasoning.

I mean, if your position is that the government is incapable of running anything as important as gun control effectively, then why should we trust the government with something even more important like, say, national security? Military action at home and abroad? Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties?

The government is an institution created and maintained by human beings as capable of error as any. In other words, we can't absolutely trust the government to do everything right all the time. We resort to government regulation out of necessity, and the necessity for the regulation of firearms I think should be self-evident. To my mind, that's why the second amendment exists, to make sure that the government can't fuck up gun-control too badly even by accident. You can always appeal to the second amendment to make sure that no one is being unduly robbed of their rights, but the hard line stance that there should be no regulation of gun control, ever, because the government can't be trusted in all cases all of the time blocks any kind of progress.

There has to be give and take on both sides of the debate in acknowledgement that neither side is any more infallible than the other.

[Retribution]

Like Val said the constitution protects us from the government it does not give the government authority over us. As for self defense I have close family in both military and law enforcement. Hell, I work in pseudo law enforcement. Also, between my teen age children and myself I have no real clue how many firearms there are in my house. They each have a differing use like different kinds of screw drivers.

I also think I am a moral man, but if someone breaks into my family's home while we are present the prudent thing to do is to call the coroner and cut out the middle man because that intruder is as good as dead I am morally just fine with that.

[Iniquitous]

Oh, I see the need for a legal distinction between varying degrees of murder. Obviously, it would be impractical to try and try every single soldier who has killed enemy combatants in a time of war, or police officers who use firearms in the line of duty.

I'm saying that the reason these legal distinctions exist is a matter of judicial expedience, and that morally there is little to know distinction between "types" of murder. The point is that civilians are just that, civilians. The reason we don't charge soldiers with murder or police officers is that they are explicitly authorized by the government to utilize firearms in the defense of the American people, with the full knowledge that this means people will be killed (and sometimes the wrong people). When civilians are similarly authorized to utilize guns around and against other civilians, the same mentality applies, except that because civilians are not specially trained or authorized to act in the defense of the nation or community as a whole, the same allowances cannot be made.

Granted, I think that certain legal allowances can still be made for murder in self-defense, you should be able to definitively prove that it was your life or their's before you expect anything resembling leniency.

For this specific case, that certainly doesn't seem to apply.

I abhor knee jerk reactions. This case is not indicative of every single case of murder by the use of a gun and it should not be used as such.

And again, one of the nice things about living in this country is the Second Amendment - I think you need to read it. If you are going to say "oh sure, you have the right to self defense" but then remove the ability to defend one's self with a gun then you've rendered self defense moot. Oh, and you know how you think it is the cops' job to come to your house and defend you? Wrong. They are not on the job to defend you. They are on the job to make sure the laws of the city, county, state are upheld.  And honestly, I'd not trust a cop to get to my house in time to defend me.  When it can take forty five minutes to an hour and a half for a cop to show up, I think it better that I be in charge of my own self defense.

Now, I am guessing that you've never actually bothered to do any research and you are basing your opinions off what you think is the case or what you've heard other people say. If that's the case, let me shed a little light.

If you kill someone in self defense, you have to prove that it was self defense. In the state I live in, if someone is trying to break into my house, I cannot shoot them until they come INTO my house. If I get trigger happy and shoot them before they cross the threshold, I am, at the very least, liable.

There is no state that allows you to just willy nilly kill someone and say "oh, it was self defense" without giving some proof that it was. You can be indited and put before the Grand Jury if the DA thinks you did not satisfy the 'self defense' claim.

BTW, find yourself in a situation where you have to defend yourself and talk to me again about this topic. It's amazing how much opinions change when people experience the opposite side of the argument.

[Retribution]

I mean, if your position is that the government is incapable of running anything as important as gun control effectively, then why should we trust the government with something even more important like, say, national security? Military action at home and abroad? Criminal Justice and Civil Liberties?

I do the government's business day to day. It outs butter on my biscuit and beer on the table to quote a song. And I feel what I do is important otherwise I would not do it, but the implementation and management there of is screwed up daily. I feel there are indeed certain things the government needs to do, but they micro manage into infinity and tend to really screw it up.

Take a look at the whole health care thing. There are real issues aside from the computer glitches and I use that as yet another example as to how our political process takes a good idea and screws it up. Hell, look at how prohibition failed and gave rise to crime back in the 20s. So there are certain rights one really does not want our incompotent leadership touching.

[chaoslord29]

It is because of the underlined and bolded portions quoted that people like yourself will always disagree with people like IO, Retribution, and myself.

We hold different interpretations of the Constitution.  Personally, I feel that the government has never authorized me the permission to do anything.  I'm a free man, and we as a society, simply have laws that serve to modestly decrease this limit of freedom within reason to prevent acts that we deem morally wrong.

We can debate this forever, but until we discuss that underlying principle, this discussion will go nowhere.

I'm afraid you've misconstrued the particular principle to which I am appealing. It's not that I feel the government must explicitly authorize people to own and use firearms (that I think we can agree would be a violation of the second amendment) but the fact that they don't has different implications.

The government explicitly authorizes the police and soldiers to use guns to kill other people because it is expedient and necessary for them to do so. Civilians own guns because it is their personal choice to do so, and while it is not the government's responsibility to make sure that everyone who owns a gun is as qualified and authorized as a police officer or soldier in the use of that gun, it is their role to make sure that civilians who use that gun are made culpable (morally/legally) for their actions.

[Valthazar]

We resort to government regulation out of necessity, and the necessity for the regulation of firearms I think should be self-evident.

How is it self-evident?  Are you referring to mass shootings in recent years?  Understand the statistics before making these sweeping assumptions.  The US murder rate has not altered that much since the availability of automatic weapons.  In fact, our overall murder rates are at their lowest levels since the 1960s.  Source

Are you also advocating gun control for semi-automatics, another leading cause of crime and murder?

To my mind, that's why the second amendment exists, to make sure that the government can't fuck up gun-control too badly even by accident. You can always appeal to the second amendment to make sure that no one is being unduly robbed of their rights, but the hard line stance that there should be no regulation of gun control, ever, because the government can't be trusted in all cases all of the time blocks any kind of progress.

If yes to the above question, then how does this agree with this statement regarding our second amendment rights?  I think most reasonable wouldn't start advocating bans on semi-automatics - I would hope.