MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
pax
Wednesday, August 20, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 62.0° F  A Few Clouds
Collapse Photo Bar

The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:00 pm

Ninja wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:Hopefully we can avoid a complete rehash of the Martin-Zimmerman case, but I'm curious as to what you believe would have provided Martin a reasonable basis to conclude that he was about to become the victim of a forcible felony? Because someone followed him? That's weak.

If the police or prosecutor asks me why I opened fire on someone, or punched them square in the face, I certainly would hope I'd have a lot more to say beyond "he was following me." If that's my response to their question, I would expect to go to jail and spend some more time there after a conviction. And rightfully so.


Because it's completely subjective and if I was a teenager confrtonted by a stranger in a strange neighborhood in the middle of the night I'd probably start fucking him up too. Why would he even step to me and start something if he wasn't at least arguably going to commit a forcible felony on me? Who the fuck is this guy?

That's the point of these laws. To remove any question from your right to defend yourself against anything that scares you. We've departed from hundreds of years of legal tradition to make this happen. I suspect that real goal of these laws was to insulate certain people from teenagers in hoodies, but the law is the law, and teenagers in hoodies can avail themselves of it as well.


In reference to Trayvon Martin, it was neither "the middle of the night" nor "a strange neighborhood."

Nothing in any law in any state allows a person to use physical violence against another person with impunity based purely upon what subjectively sacres that person. You're either just making that up or have a very flawed understanding of the law. My guess is the latter, since there is so much nonsense about self-defense laws fed to the public by agenda-driven liars.

If you bother to research it, you'll see that "stand your ground" has hundreds of years of legal tradition behind it.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Dangerousman » Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:04 pm

minicat wrote:Jesus Christ.

Zimmerman and Dunn KILLED. UNARMED. TEENAGERS. Everyone can bloviate from now until the end of time about "who started it," or whatever else involved in these cases. Does anyone really want to live in a world where a law exists that excuses what Zimmerman and Dunn did? Or Adam Kind in Slinger?

Seriously, people. Come the fuck on here.


Killed, yes. Unarmed and teenager really makes no difference, other than as an attempt to appeal to emotions. Unless you want to demonstrate that unarmed people and teenagers are, like fuzzy little baby bunnies, incapable of being a threat to anyone. I'll stand by while you do that.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Feb 25, 2014 3:56 pm

What exonerating evidence was introduced in the Dunn case? A gun in the car? Nope. A witness? Dunn's girlfriend said he never mentioned the shooting victim having a gun. Loud "thug" music (in Dunn's words), yes. No racist overtones there, hey? Did he report the shooting? No, instead he and his girlfriend had a pizza.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby snoqueen » Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:16 pm

I'm with minicat and ninja here. The kind of nation that lets these crimes slide is not the best we can do, and the big idea behind SYG was to create a wider class of cases in which somebody can kill a person with no punishment and even no liability. This is not an expansion of the rule of law, it is handing over the role of both law enforcement and the judiciary to random people with guns.

How does this make the US either better or safer than before? History (if it's even on the side of SYG) is not sufficient or even really relevant in evaluating its effects in today's social conditions.

The additional impression that race matters in both the commission and the disposition of these types of cases only reinforces the idea SYG is irreparably flawed in the same way capital punishment can be shown to be flawed.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11391
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:40 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:What exonerating evidence was introduced in the Dunn case? A gun in the car? Nope. A witness? Dunn's girlfriend said he never mentioned the shooting victim having a gun. Loud "thug" music (in Dunn's words), yes. No racist overtones there, hey? Did he report the shooting? No, instead he and his girlfriend had a pizza.


Who claimed there was any exonerating evidence? Did I? No, I said in my opinion the convictions seemed appropriate.

You're trying to make racist overtones out of it. Only you, and your ilk, claim that Dunn shot because of music, when that wasn't really what happened. Dunn wasn't a fan of the music, nor did he like the volume at which it was played, but nothing indicates he shot his gun because he didn't like the type of music or how loud it was. He shot, rightly or wrongly, because of the threat he felt in the hostile response he got from the occupants of the car. He claimed he had a gun pointed at him. I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to say all of that was true. It still wouldn't have justified him shooting at the car as it was leaving. He did. He was convicted for doing so. I have no problem with him being found guilty of that.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:52 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:What exonerating evidence was introduced in the Dunn case? A gun in the car? Nope. A witness? Dunn's girlfriend said he never mentioned the shooting victim having a gun. Loud "thug" music (in Dunn's words), yes. No racist overtones there, hey? Did he report the shooting? No, instead he and his girlfriend had a pizza.


Who claimed there was any exonerating evidence? Did I? No, I said in my opinion the convictions seemed appropriate.


Then why did you write this:
Dangerousman wrote:Foremost, you're statement relies on the unfounded, and untrue, assumption that "a shooter's testimony" will be the only evidence there is a "stand your ground" case. There are never other witnesses? There is no forensic evidence?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:13 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:What exonerating evidence was introduced in the Dunn case? A gun in the car? Nope. A witness? Dunn's girlfriend said he never mentioned the shooting victim having a gun. Loud "thug" music (in Dunn's words), yes. No racist overtones there, hey? Did he report the shooting? No, instead he and his girlfriend had a pizza.


Who claimed there was any exonerating evidence? Did I? No, I said in my opinion the convictions seemed appropriate.


Then why did you write this:
Dangerousman wrote:Foremost, you're statement relies on the unfounded, and untrue, assumption that "a shooter's testimony" will be the only evidence there is a "stand your ground" case. There are never other witnesses? There is no forensic evidence?


Because it's true. Do you know what the word "exonerating" means?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:22 pm

Yes, I know. That was why I ask my questions about the lack of such evidence. No gun, as Dunn claimed. Eye witness (his girlfriend) said he never mentioned the victim had one. Dunn feeling threatened by a guy inside a car after he challenged the occcupants to turn down their "thug" music. Then shoots and kills him, yet felt no need to call the cops.

Even still, you defend stand your ground laws like Florida has.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19704
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Dangerousman » Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:37 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:Yes, I know. That was why I ask my questions about the lack of such evidence. No gun, as Dunn claimed. Eye witness (his girlfriend) said he never mentioned the victim had one. Dunn feeling threatened by a guy inside a car after he challenged the occcupants to turn down their "thug" music. Then shoots and kills him, yet felt no need to call the cops.

Even still, you defend stand your ground laws like Florida has.


My point in the earlier post is that there is always more evidence than "just the word of the shooter" as was claimed. Now that evidence may be exonerating, or it may be incriminating or it may be neutral. In Dunn's case it was more incriminating than anything else. He was convicted. He's not a free man thanks to the "stand your ground law" is he?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Ninja » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:03 pm

minicat wrote:Jesus Christ.

Zimmerman and Dunn KILLED. UNARMED. TEENAGERS. Everyone can bloviate from now until the end of time about "who started it," or whatever else involved in these cases. Does anyone really want to live in a world where a law exists that excuses what Zimmerman and Dunn did? Or Adam Kind in Slinger?

Seriously, people. Come the fuck on here.


That's pretty much where I'm at. We know there are problems with this development in self-defense law because two unarmed teenagers who were minding their own business are now dead.

This is not an acceptable result under the law. Why do we keep trying to rationalize these tragedies instead of stepping back and considering how they happened, and how they can be avoided in the future?

This country is nuts.
Ninja
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:22 pm

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Ninja » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:17 pm

Dangerousman wrote:In reference to Trayvon Martin, it was neither "the middle of the night" nor "a strange neighborhood."

Nothing in any law in any state allows a person to use physical violence against another person with impunity based purely upon what subjectively sacres that person. You're either just making that up or have a very flawed understanding of the law. My guess is the latter, since there is so much nonsense about self-defense laws fed to the public by agenda-driven liars.

If you bother to research it, you'll see that "stand your ground" has hundreds of years of legal tradition behind it.


Okay, "middle of the night" and "strange neighborhood" may be a little pejorative, but it was nighttime, and it was not his regular neighborhood. That's relevant to his reaction to Zimmerman. Far more relevant than the fact that there had been a recent trend of burglaries in Zimmerman's neighborhood that left him sensitive to the presence of unfamiliar young people walking around at night, which was made into a major issue by the defense. How does that burglary trend have anything to do with anything, if not to speak to Zimmerman's subjective mindset and suggest that it made his decision to confront Martin more reasonable? That's not an objective standard, and that's a departure from tradition.

As for the rest, don't condescend to me. I understand this topic extremely well, and I do substantive research using statutes, case law, and law review articles, not talk radio and blogs.

The reasonableness standard in self-defense law is nowhere near as concrete as you claim, even in bench trials. It's always been a moving target, pardon the pun, and it got significantly more complicated when we started fucking around with the longstanding law over the last decade.

The fact that the recent changes to the law have been given a popular name that harkens back to a doctrine that's existed for a long time in self defense doesn't mean that those laws actually bear any real resemblence to that doctrine, nor does it mean that they're somehow immune from criticism because they're named after something different that withstood criticism for a long time.
Ninja
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:22 pm

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Ninja » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:20 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Killed, yes. Unarmed and teenager really makes no difference, other than as an attempt to appeal to emotions. Unless you want to demonstrate that unarmed people and teenagers are, like fuzzy little baby bunnies, incapable of being a threat to anyone. I'll stand by while you do that.


I'm starting to lose my respect for you, son.

I also encourage you to read "Self-defense and the Mistaken Racist," which I linked to and quoted from earlier, because it devotes a great deal of attention to the various theories of reasonableness in self-defense, and the implications of each.
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/ ... ext=facpub
Ninja
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:22 pm

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Ninja » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:30 pm

Dangerousman wrote:He shot, rightly or wrongly, because of the threat he felt in the hostile response he got from the occupants of the car. He claimed he had a gun pointed at him. I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to say all of that was true. It still wouldn't have justified him shooting at the car as it was leaving. He did. He was convicted for doing so. I have no problem with him being found guilty of that.


How big of you, to not find a threat warranting deadly force in a car of teenagers fleeing a parking lot with their murdered friend in their bullet-ridden (edit: I know better. "bullet-riddled." Of all the grammar, spelling and punctuation mistakes in my posts, that one annoyed me enough to edit it) vehicle. I agree, that seems fair.

But I'm troubled by the fact that he wasn't convicted of murder after pointing a gun at a kid and pulling the trigger because he says he felt threatened by something that no witnesses or physical evidence can corroborate. That's the objective standard that you're talking about? The one that boils down to what he says about what he felt? We might have different definitions of that word.

And I'm even more troubled by the fact that it will happen again, almost certainly, because we didn't learn a damn thing from it. In fact, a lot of people spend a lot of time justifying, rationalizing and diminishing it.
Last edited by Ninja on Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ninja
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:22 pm

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Ninja » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:40 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:Yes, I know. That was why I ask my questions about the lack of such evidence. No gun, as Dunn claimed. Eye witness (his girlfriend) said he never mentioned the victim had one. Dunn feeling threatened by a guy inside a car after he challenged the occcupants to turn down their "thug" music. Then shoots and kills him, yet felt no need to call the cops.

Even still, you defend stand your ground laws like Florida has.


My point in the earlier post is that there is always more evidence than "just the word of the shooter" as was claimed. Now that evidence may be exonerating, or it may be incriminating or it may be neutral. In Dunn's case it was more incriminating than anything else. He was convicted. He's not a free man thanks to the "stand your ground law" is he?


What evidence exists in that case that makes you comfortable with a failure to convict on murder, even for the sake of argument? What was presented, beyond Dunn's own testimony about his subjective viewpoint and his subjective feelings, would justify such a result?

The only reasonable doubt seems to come from his story. Everything else points in the opposite direction. So what specifically in this specific case are you referring to?
Ninja
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:22 pm

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Dangerousman » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:16 am

Ninja wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:Yes, I know. That was why I ask my questions about the lack of such evidence. No gun, as Dunn claimed. Eye witness (his girlfriend) said he never mentioned the victim had one. Dunn feeling threatened by a guy inside a car after he challenged the occcupants to turn down their "thug" music. Then shoots and kills him, yet felt no need to call the cops.

Even still, you defend stand your ground laws like Florida has.


My point in the earlier post is that there is always more evidence than "just the word of the shooter" as was claimed. Now that evidence may be exonerating, or it may be incriminating or it may be neutral. In Dunn's case it was more incriminating than anything else. He was convicted. He's not a free man thanks to the "stand your ground law" is he?


What evidence exists in that case that makes you comfortable with a failure to convict on murder, even for the sake of argument? What was presented, beyond Dunn's own testimony about his subjective viewpoint and his subjective feelings, would justify such a result?

The only reasonable doubt seems to come from his story. Everything else points in the opposite direction. So what specifically in this specific case are you referring to?


If you bothered to read what I wrote about it earlier you would know that I said I don't have knowledge of the reason for failure to convict him on that charge, and that maybe it was because the jury couldn't agree on some element of the crime-- premeditation, for example. That's not saying I agree or disagree with the non-conviction on that charge and there's no justification for you saying it means I'm comfortable with it. It only means I'm not going to form an opinion about something when I lack sufficient information. Maybe you ought to try that out yourself sometime.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar