What's wrong with this picture

[kallend 1,643]

A man deliberately fires 10 shots into a car containing unarmed teenagers and kills one, yet a Florida jury only convicts him of attempted murder?

www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/16/fla-man-guilty-of-lesser-charges-in-loud-music-trial/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

So, to get out of a murder change just say that you felt that your life was in danger

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[tkhayes 140]

well at least he will get 50 + years likely for those charges.

In Florida it's Ok to kill them, you just can't 'try' to kill them.

[PiLFy 0]

shropshire

So, to get out of a murder change just say that you felt that your life was in danger

Hardly. This Guy opened fire on them simply because he didn't like them. He felt so upset & endangered by the shooting, that he drove back to the B&B, & ordered a pizza... He never even bothered calling the police. I don't think you'll find anyone, aside from his paid lawyer, willing to defend his actions.

Perhaps the Lawyers here could chime in. Who dropped the ball in this case? First Degree is premeditated, correct? Didn't the Jury also have the option of convicting this sack of 2nd degree, instead? He fired on the vehicle, killing someone. How the f#*& is He NOT guilty of murder ???

[BIGUN 1,068]

PiLFy

***So, to get out of a murder change just say that you felt that your life was in danger

Hardly. This Guy opened fire on them simply because he didn't like them. He felt so upset & endangered by the shooting, that he drove back to the B&B, & ordered a pizza... He never even bothered calling the police. I don't think you'll find anyone, aside from his paid lawyer, willing to defend his actions.

Perhaps the Lawyers here could chime in. Who dropped the ball in this case? First Degree is premeditated, correct? Didn't the Jury also have the option of convicting this sack of 2nd degree, instead? He fired on the vehicle, killing someone. How the f#*& is He NOT guilty of murder ???

Here again, we don't know what the Judge's instruction's were. After serving as the foreperson in a murder trial last year; I'll never make the mistake of judging a jury again.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[PiLFy 0]

I'm not judging the jury. I'm asking if the DA limited them too much in possible conviction options.

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

PiLFy

I'm not judging the jury. I'm asking if the DA limited them too much in possible conviction options.

From the story I read, it was a hung jury on the murder charge. The judge sent them back to deliberate on a lesser (2nd) charge, but they still came back "hung."
So he wasn't acquitted on the murder charge, it was a mistrial.
And the prosecutor plans on retrying it.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[PiLFy 0]

wolfriverjoe

***I'm not judging the jury. I'm asking if the DA limited them too much in possible conviction options.

From the story I read, it was a hung jury on the murder charge. The judge sent them back to deliberate on a lesser (2nd) charge, but they still came back "hung."
So he wasn't acquitted on the murder charge, it was a mistrial.
And the prosecutor plans on retrying it.

I saw that too, but still don't get it. Second Degree = not premeditated, right? Is that not what this Guy did? How can Someone be convicted of attempted murder for firing on people, but not guilty for the one person he actually hit ?? Was an option of Manslaughter what was needed by the jury?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

PiLFy

******I'm not judging the jury. I'm asking if the DA limited them too much in possible conviction options.

From the story I read, it was a hung jury on the murder charge. The judge sent them back to deliberate on a lesser (2nd) charge, but they still came back "hung."
So he wasn't acquitted on the murder charge, it was a mistrial.
And the prosecutor plans on retrying it.

I saw that too, but still don't get it. Second Degree = not premeditated, right? Is that not what this Guy did? How can Someone be convicted of attempted murder for firing on people, but not guilty for the one person he actually hit ?? Was an option of Manslaughter what was needed by the jury?I agree the verdict seems confusing. Maybe we can think of it this way, though. Imagine you get into an argument with one person, who is in a group with several other people who are just standing around. The person you are arguing with does something you interpret as a threat, so you shoot him. Can you also shoot at all the other people in the group "just in case", even if they have done nothing to threaten you?

I'm curious to learn how many jurors were for and how many against conviction. The only contentious issue I can image at play would be the allegation that the kids had a gun and got rid of it. There was testimony that the kids drove off as Dunn was shooting at them, but never left the area and returned to the service station to get help within 2-3 minutes when they realized Davis had been shot. Not much time to drive around, find a dumpster, dump a shotgun no one else saw, and drive back to the gas station. The defense castigated the police for not immediately searching the area for a shotgun, but why would they have? No mention was made of the alleged shotgun (or pipe, or piece of licorice or whatever the hell else it was Dunn "thought" he saw) until days after the shooting, and the fault for that lies entirely with Dunn who fled the scene. Had he stuck around and made his case to the police immediately, they would have searched the area immediately.

This case is yet another that makes me wonder what the hell is going on in people's heads. Imagine a situation where I am unarmed, standing in line to get movie tickets. Some guy tries to cut in line in front of me, and I object, and he gets belligerent and threatens me. Lets suppose I pull my cell phone out of my pocket to call 911, and the guy pulls a gun and starts shooting. What am I supposed to do (assuming he's a poor shot and hasn't hit me yet). If I stand there he'll kill me. If I run he'll claim my cell phone was a gun, and I must have ditched it when I ran. Either way I lose, so on balance I'd run, but it seems in Florida by running I'll absolve the guy of any legal responsibility for his actions.

Is this the way it's supposed to work? Is this the intent of SYG? The guy with the gun always wins?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[quade 3]

GeorgiaDon

Is this the way it's supposed to work? Is this the intent of SYG? The guy with the gun always wins?

From the proponents of the law, the NRA, yes.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[bakerjan 0]

PiLFy

******I'm not judging the jury. I'm asking if the DA limited them too much in possible conviction options.

From the story I read, it was a hung jury on the murder charge. The judge sent them back to deliberate on a lesser (2nd) charge, but they still came back "hung."
So he wasn't acquitted on the murder charge, it was a mistrial.
And the prosecutor plans on retrying it.

I saw that too, but still don't get it. Second Degree = not premeditated, right? Is that not what this Guy did? How can Someone be convicted of attempted murder for firing on people, but not guilty for the one person he actually hit ?? Was an option of Manslaughter what was needed by the jury?

some of the posters above touched on this, if the DA didn't file 2d degree murder or manslaughter the jury cant consider those even if they fit, similar thing happened with Zimmerman, same idiot DA too, she also put away a black woman for 20 years for shooting her husband when he tried to kill her, the DA is the big problem here, trying to crush people with wrong charges. I didn't follow this case but sounds like pretty simple murder 2 but idiot DA went for murder 1 to make a statement like she did with Zimmerman, the jury kicked her in the teeth this time too, but the families lose, not her.

Jan

[PiLFy 0]

Sorry Don, but I view your scenarios as being a million miles off. The insecure, fat Sack in Florida opened fire simply because he didn't like the look/sound of those kids. He didn't have the right to brandish, let alone shoot. I'm glad he was convicted. I'm only trying to understand the mistrial where there's 100% proof that he shot the kid.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

if the DA didn't file 2d degree murder or manslaughter the jury cant consider those even if they fit

You are wrong. 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, and aggravated assault are all included as "lesser included offenses" under the charge of first degree murder, and the jury is instructed to this effect. The DA does not have to file such charges, they are automatically included under the first degree murder charge, because all of the elements of those charges also are included in first degree murder. For example, 2nd degree murder consists of intentional murder, without the need to prove premeditation. Manslaughter consists of an action that could reasonably be expected to result in death, even if killing was not the specific intent of the action. First degree murder necessarily involves some action that could reasonably be expected to result in death (=manslaughter), done with an intent to kill (=2nd degree murder), and with the additional factor of premeditation (makes it 1st degree). If you are guilty of 1st degree murder, you have also met the criteria for 2nd degree and manslaughter. This is why the prosecution always charges the most serious crime they think they can prove. On the other hand, if the charge is 2nd degree murder the jury cannot consider 1st degree, even if they think it fits, because they can only go down the list to lesser charges.

People with decent memories may recall that, during the reading of the Zimmerman verdict, he was found not guilty of manslaughter as well as 2nd degree murder.

The alternative, of course, would be that the prosecution could charge someone with 1st degree murder, and if they were acquitted they could be retried for 2nd degree, and if still acquitted they could be charged with manslaughter, and on to aggravated assault, common assault, littering, and on and on. Not only would this be incredibly wasteful of court resources, it would effectively allow the prosecution many "bites at the apple", a violation of the spirit (but not the letter) of the law against double jeopardy.

Had the jury found Dunn "not guilty" of first degree murder, they would have then had to consider 2nd degree, and on down the list (but not really for littering), and specifically stated "not guilty" until they hit "guilty" or exhausted the list. Since they did not reach a verdict on the 1st degree murder charge, they could not move on to consider the lesser included offenses.

bakerjan, your information sources in this topic are as bad as your sources in the creation/evolution thread.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jclalor 12]

kallend

A man deliberately fires 10 shots into a car containing unarmed teenagers and kills one, yet a Florida jury only convicts him of attempted murder?

www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/16/fla-man-guilty-of-lesser-charges-in-loud-music-trial/

Perhaps, some in the jury could not decide if in fact the deceased was armed and posing a lethal threat to the defendant. And then perhaps they then concluded that firing into a loaded vehicle with three others, with no evidence to suggest that they were a lethal threat to the defendant, was paramount to attempted murder of those three.

Just an idea.

[jclalor 12]

Perhaps someone can answer this question: Can he be sentenced on the attempted murder convictions and then still be retried on the hung murder charge?

[GeorgiaDon 340]

The answer is yes, in fact that is just what is going to happen.

He could get 20 years for each attempted murder conviction, plus 15 years on the firearm charge. In theory the sentences could be consecutive, which would keep him locked up essentially for life.

In Florida, is it the judge or the jury who decides on the sentence?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[PiLFy 0]

Are You sure that's the case in Florida, too? Different States have different rules & procedures.

[BIGUN 1,068]

Quote

You are wrong. 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, and aggravated assault are all included as "lesser included offenses" under the charge of first degree murder, and the jury is instructed to this effect.

So not true. Our only choice on the jury was First Degree murder with UP TO 30 years, but not less than 10. Those were the Judge's instructions. Let me correct that. That was the only choice provided by the DA and we had to follow the Judge's instructions about what that meant.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

PiLFy

Are You sure that's the case in Florida, too? Different States have different rules & procedures.

Yes, I'm sure that's the case in Florida. I could link to some legal pdfs but they are very long (the Florida statutory "instructions to jurors" pdf is over 700 pages as it discusses all crimes, not just murder). Rather, I'll link to this article that discusses lesser included offenses with regard to the Zimmerman case, but is relevant to the Dunn case as it discusses Florida law specifically.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[BIGUN 1,068]

quade

***Is this the way it's supposed to work? Is this the intent of SYG? The guy with the gun always wins?

From the proponents of the law, the NRA, yes.

Even in my less than progressive state than the sun-setting anointment on California for all things that should be done by the rest of the country... We do not have SYG here. He would have went to prison. Arguing means you walk away if you have a CCP. It's happened on more than one occasion where someone was in a confrontation and pulled their gun. I felt threatened by his/her loud threats and not walking away so I shot them - is not self-defense.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

BIGUN

Quote

You are wrong. 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, and aggravated assault are all included as "lesser included offenses" under the charge of first degree murder, and the jury is instructed to this effect.

Not so true. Our only choice on the jury was First Degree murder with UP TO 30 years, but not less than 10. Those were the Judge's instructions. Let me correct that. That was the only choice provided by the DA and we had to follow the Judge's instructions about what that meant.

So true. Current Florida Supreme Court issued "Standard Jury Instructions" for homicide are linked here.

Instructions provided to specific juries in specific trials are agreed to by the prosecution and defense in consultation with the judge. Perhaps you were not instructed about lesser included offenses for some reason, though I can't imagine why. However, if you did not convict on the first degree murder charge you should have been able to consider 2nd degree and on down.

Are you saying that you were instructed that, if you found that the prosecution proved the defendant killed the victim, but did not prove premeditation, then you had to acquit and not discuss 2nd degree murder?

Edited to add: The above was posted before I saw your correction to your post. My understanding* is that the DA does not have to list all the lesser included offenses. They are automatically included as a matter of law. The judges instructions should have covered this, it seems to me.

*Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and do not claim to practice law in Florida or anywhere else. I am only able to use Google, to read English (even lawglish to a considerable extent), and I have a decent memory for generally useless trivia. Hopefully Andy, Lawrocket, or one of our other legal eagles will chime in to provide the definitive word.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[champu 1]

kallend

A man deliberately fires 10 shots into a car containing unarmed teenagers and kills one, yet a Florida jury only convicts him of attempted murder?

www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/16/fla-man-guilty-of-lesser-charges-in-loud-music-trial/

They convicted him of what they felt they could be sure he was guilty of which may (and hopefully will, imo) cumulatively result in a life sentence. They neither convicted nor acquitted him of that on which they could not agree regarding his guilt.

As was already mentioned, he'll go to jail and be retried in some fashion for the homicide.

So... what are your thoughts on your own question in the thread title?

[D22369 0]

the lack of a manslaughter or murder charge makes no sense to me at all.

he fired on a car load of people who were not an immediate threat to his life... killing one
he instigated this confrontation!

I am a "gun nut" I always carry concealed and own many different weapons but I cannot fathom any reason this should have ended in a shooting - he should pay for the life he took.

Roy

They say I suffer from insanity.... But I actually enjoy it.

[toolbox 0]

>From the proponents of the law,the NRA,yes.

Total bullshit! The NRA is not promoting the murder of people sitting in cars listening to loud music,or the murder of anyone for that matter.
Walking up to a car full of people and shooting into it even as it is driving away is not standing your ground.
Now if a legal gun owner were in that car, and shot this racist prick ,then that would be standing your ground.

[quade 3]

toolbox

>From the proponents of the law,the NRA,yes.

Total bullshit! The NRA is not promoting the murder of people sitting in cars listening to loud music,or the murder of anyone for that matter.
Walking up to a car full of people and shooting into it even as it is driving away is not standing your ground.
Now if a legal gun owner were in that car, and shot this racist prick ,then that would be standing your ground.

What the proponents of Stand Your Ground laws (the NRA in particular) fail to acknowledge is that humans as a whole are terribly flawed.

Humans get upset at stupid things and when they do arguments happen and when arguments happen they tend to escalate and when they escalate, at some point, people tend to reach for a a bigger weapon than whoever they're arguing with. If a person has a gun, they are more likely to use it during one of these stupid minor arguments than if they didn't have a gun and whereas if they didn't have a gun they probably can't kill somebody, with a gun that's pretty easy.

This "loud" teenager case isn't the only recent example. There is also the "movie theater texting" case.

So what SYG essentially says is it's okay to pick random fights with strangers because if worse comes to worse and you "feel threatened," you can always just shoot them.

I can nearly guarantee a sane, lone, unarmed guy is not going to confront a car load of teenagers and risk getting his ass beaten. At the very least, when a sane, unarmed, person is "threatened" he'd back off.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver