Florida's stand your ground defense used to shoot SUV full of loud teens

[charl_huntress]

Wasn't the hotel like, 40 miles away, too?

I don't know...but once he got there he had a bit to eat. That's the weirdest thing in my book. You think he might not have an appetite after that. t:

 

[KalMart]

Some people eat when they're nervous.

 

[charl_huntress]

And after they fire off three rounds at a loaded car apparently...lol

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And some people enjoy a warm meal after they commit murder. Welcome to the human race.

 

[Hotwire]

I don't know...but once he got there he had a bit to eat. That's the weirdest thing in my book. You think he might not have an appetite after that. t:

Looked it up. The shooting was in Jacksonville and the hotel was in St. Augustine, about 40 miles south. Even if he was panicked, he had at least 40 minutes to calm down and clear his head.

And after they fire off three rounds at a loaded car apparently...lol

Six.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I thought he shot 10 times? Some while inside the car, and some when he got out to keep shooting as they attempted to get away from him?

 

[charl_huntress]

And some people enjoy a warm meal after they commit murder. Welcome to the human race.

Looked it up. The shooting was in Jacksonville and the hotel was in St. Augustine, about 40 miles south. Even if he was panicked, he had at least 40 minutes to calm down and clear his head. Six.

I thought he shot 10 times? Some while inside the car, and some when he got out to keep shooting as they attempted to get away from him?

That's crazy. I might have to read up on this again because that's almost like a whole clip depending on the gun.

 

[KalMart]

That's crazy. I might have to read up on this again because that's almost like a whole clip depending on the gun.

Some people (and some cops too) just keep squeezing the trigger until the gun is empty when firing in panic or under duress. In fact, it takes a lot training and/or usually some actual combat experience NOT to do that. So whether it's only six shots, or fifteen, it's the same act of just firing away without control. That sometimes gets lost in reports of actual shots fired in shootings....and can make even justifiable shootings seem deliberately brutal like they wanted to do more than just shoot. Not excusing it in every case, but once a single shot is fired it often opens up the floodgates.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The problem with that argument is he started shooting, then moved so he could continue to shoot at them as they got away.

 

[charl_huntress]

Some people (and some cops too) just keep squeezing the trigger until the gun is empty when firing in panic or under duress. In fact, it takes a lot training and/or usually some actual combat experience NOT to do that. So whether it's only six shots, or fifteen, it's the same act of just firing away without control. That sometimes gets lost in reports of actual shots fired in shootings....and can make even justifiable shootings seem deliberately brutal like they wanted to do more than just shoot. Not justifying it in every case, but once a single shot is fired it often opens up the floodgates.

The problem with that argument is he started shooting, then moved so he could continue to shoot at them as they got away.

He pulled a 9mm handgun from his glove compartment and fired four times. Then four more times. He picked up his girlfriend as she came out of the convenience store and fled the scene, not realizing one of his eight bullets had killed 17-year-old Jordan Davis, Dunn told police interrogators.

I can see a burst of four shots with 9mm. I can sort of see that, but the delay and then the burst of four more shots is a shoot out even if bullets aren't being returned. So...again...why didn't he call the cops?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

If you watch the video, it sounds like somewhere between 10-12 shots. There are three separate burst over about 10 seconds.

 

[charl_huntress]

There's a video of this?

 

[KalMart]

I can see a burst of four shots with 9mm. I can sort of see that, but the delay and then the burst of four more shots is a shoot out even if bullets aren't being returned. So...again...why didn't he call the cops?

Again...in that state of mind and panic, a person will keep going until the perceived threat or what have you has made them stop. There are also many reports of someone going into a state of almost immediate denial...like they just experienced a hallucination, because it is such an extreme shock. the mind can sometimes shut things out like that and go into an almost dream-like state where you're just going on with other things, not quite grasping that what just happened actually did happen. It can depend on the person...we don't always know how someone is going to handle extreme anger and stress until they're put to it.

Not in any way saying he was justified or that it's okay. But oftentimes we recount things as if they were a planned out movie or the like (like watching a sports replay in slow motion), when in reality they happened with no sense of order or control. Doesn't make him any less guilty of murder or manslaughter...but in some cases things may come down to if something was a calculated act of murder, or an extreme loss of control and reason as well as negligence. And it can be hard to truly understand the actions of a temporarily insane person by sane standards. Any way you look at it, this guy lost his marbles and unfortunately had a firearm handy. there could very well have been many signs in his 'normal' life that would make him someone who shouldn't be near guns, but no way to tell legally. Heck, look what road rage can do to some people even with no guns involved.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

There's a video of this?

There is surveillance video from inside the store. You can hear the shots.

 

[charl_huntress]

Again...in that state of mind and panic, a person will keep going until the perceived threat or what have you has made them stop. There are also many reports of someone going into a state of almost immediate denial...like they just experienced a hallucination, because it is such an extreme shock. the mind can sometimes shut things out like that and go into an almost dream-like state where you're just going on with other things.

That's certainly true of people with shock. I agree. My uncle was shot in an attempted carjacking while driving and he drove home instead of driving to a hospital. It was the person in the house who finally called an ambulance. So I certainly agree with that, but you would think the girlfriend who wasn't directly involved would have after questioning what happened. Did she know her companion had just been involved in a deadly shoot out? Something about this seems off.

Not in any way saying he was justified or that it's okay. But oftentimes we recount things as if they were a planned out movie or the like (like watching a sports replay in slow motion), when in reality they happened with no sense of order or control. Doesn't make him any less guilty of murder or manslaughter...but in some cases things may come down to if something was a calculated act of murder, or an extreme loss of control and reason as well as negligence. And it can be hard to truly understand the actions of a temporarily insane person by sane standards. Any way you look at it, this guy lost his marbles and unfortunately had a firearm handy.

No I understand what you are saying 100%, which is why I do question the occupants of the other vehicle. I'd like to know if there is any reason to believe they could have been capable of inspiring this man to fear for his life. Pushing aside allegations of racism and all that, could they have in someway presented themselves as a threat? We may never know the answer, but I hope everything is presented so the guy can get a fair trial.

 

[KalMart]

That's certainly true of people with shock. I agree. My uncle was shot in an attempted carjacking while driving and he drove home instead of driving to a hospital. It was the person in the house who finally called an ambulance. So I certainly agree with that, but you would think the girlfriend who wasn't directly involved would have after questioning what happened. Did she know her companion had just been involved in a deadly shoot out? Something about this seems off.

Who knows...he could have just seemed agitated or something. Who would ever have even the slightest of inklings that a friend or companion would have been in something like a shooting before meeting up with them?

No I understand what you are saying 100%, which is why I do question the occupants of the other vehicle. I'd like to know if there is any reason to believe they could have been capable of inspiring this man to fear for his life. Pushing aside allegations of racism and all that, could they have in someway presented themselves as a threat? We may never know the answer, but I hope everything is presented so the guy can get a fair trial.

Again, look what road rage can do to people even without guns. And i it was a bad day for the guy...experiencing marriage problems or at work, etc...people can just snap.

This goes for gun laws in general as well...but I think the more technologically advanced our society gets and the more dependent we are on technology for communication, the less capable we are of dealing with stressful situations without losing control. The loss of personal interaction can, I feel, affect confrontation as well as communion.

 

[Sun_Down]

It was a case of prosecution dropping the ball by trying him for murder instead of aggravated manslaughter. Zimmerman is a case of someone who is not a murderer by legal definition, but a very, VERY stupid person whose unwise and ultimately lethal actions were in a lot of ways facilitated by myopic self-defense laws.

Absolutely. And they did charge him with voluntary manslaughter as a lease included offense but literally made zero arguments about it. During deliberations the jury even asked the judge for more information about what the hell manslaughter even was. That's the moment I knew GZ would walk.

 

[KalMart]

Absolutely. And they did charge him with voluntary manslaughter as a lease included offense but literally made zero arguments about it. During deliberations the jury even asked the judge for more information about what the hell manslaughter even was. That's the moment I knew GZ would walk.

I knew it when it was released that they were actually going for a murder charge, because as far as I could tell you couldn't really 'bargain down' to a lesser charge...you either get them undoubtedly for murder, or they walk. But with it being such a racial and understandably emotional issue...they wanted to see him fry. Guy's an absolute moron though...and part of me almost wanted him to get murder for being one...but the law doesn't (or at least shouldn't) work that way. Prosecution should have known that, but they also had their own agendas as well.

 

[charl_huntress]

Again, look what road rage can do to people even without guns. And i it was a bad day for the guy...experiencing marriage problems or at work, etc...people can just snap.

So you're saying perhaps he got angry and fired in anger and there was no self defense? That is definitely a possibility, but I would think if he had difficulty in controlling his rage and reacted to such a degree in this instance there would be some pattern or history leading up to this event. Most things don't happen in a vacuum.

This does for gun laws in general as well...but I think the more technologically advanced our society gets and the more dependent we are on technology for communication, the less capable we are of dealing with stressful situations without losing control. The loss of personal interaction can, I feel, affect confrontation as well as communion.

So you're saying the fact we are able to communicate more has made us less able to communicate? t:

I'm joking...I do understand what you are saying. There may be some truth to this. Yet, this was an situation where he sought out the confrontation. I have and I'm sure many others have frequently come across kids with loud music. Kids and loud music kind of go together, but I don't engage them...unless I want to confront them. I wouldn't because 1) I was a kid who played her music obscenely loud. 2) It's not worth it because I'm likely about to drive away soon. 3) What would be the point?

You could certainly question if he did not have his gun would he have confronted them at all? That's probably my one issue with SYG out of the home. Is it empowering people to stand a ground they would have given up without the gun?

 

[charl_huntress]

Absolutely. And they did charge him with voluntary manslaughter as a lease included offense but literally made zero arguments about it. During deliberations the jury even asked the judge for more information about what the hell manslaughter even was. That's the moment I knew GZ would walk.

Question for you Sun_Down since you mentioned working in the legal field. Do you have to argue both? I'm asking because you often see the DA file these double charges of murder and manslaughter.

 

[KalMart]

So you're saying perhaps he got angry and fired in anger and there was no self defense? That is definitely a possibility, but I would think if he had difficulty in controlling his rage and reacted to such a degree in this instance there would be some pattern or history leading up to this event. Most things don't happen in a vacuum.

You never know...if someone is just pushed over the edge (or perceives to be), they could maybe justify 'self-defense' in their own twisted way....but it would have to be shown to be consistent with what anyone would think in the same situation. And as far as 'history' leading up...maybe this was the start of that history, and unfortunately he had a gun with him. You just don't know with some people, and you can have a very angry and unreasonable person with no medical or legal history citing it. So many things can add up to an outburst without outwardly raising red flags along the way.

So you're saying the fact we are able to communicate more has made us less able to communicate? t:

No....it's because we communicate less personably that we could be less able to really connect.

'm joking...I do understand what you are saying. There may be some truth to this. Yet, this was an situation where he sought out the confrontation. I have and I'm sure many others have frequently come across kids with loud music. Kids and loud music kind of go together, but I don't engage them...unless I want to confront them. I wouldn't because 1) I was a kid who played her music obscenely loud. 2) It's not worth it because I'm likely about to drive away soon. 3) What would be the point?

You could certainly question if he did not have his gun would he have confronted them at all? That's probably my one issue with SYG out of the home. Is it empowering people to stand a ground they would have given up without the gun?

Things might have been said and exchanged that just set someone off. It's probably doubtful that this man was actually out 'hunting' for kids to kill for the slightest of reasons, or the like. But it's also very possible that this person should have avoided confrontation in general because of an acute ineptitude at coping with it peacefully...with an easily accessible gun sadly providing an 'instrument' of expression in an extremely agitated state.

And yes, I do agree that guns can at times seemingly empower people beyond wiser judgment. Unfortunately, you often can't predict that nor, as mentioned, may not have preceding evidence for predicting it.

 

[charl_huntress]

You never know...if someone is just pushed over the edge (or perceives to be), they could maybe justify 'self-defense' in their own twisted way....but it would have to be shown to be consistent with what anyone would think in the same situation. And as far as 'history' leading up...maybe this was the start of that history, and unfortunately he had a gun with him. You just don't know with some people, and you can have a very angry and unreasonable person with no medical or legal history citing it. So many things can add up to an outburst without outwardly raising red flags along the way.

That may be true, but his need to seek out that confrontation to begin with when most would not is what I question. I kind of doubt that this is an isolated incident. Confrontational people don't develop in a vacuum either. This sort of manifestation may have been extreme, but there should be some history of this sort of behavior to a smaller degree. If I remember correctly this was a person who raised kids and held a job. There would have be some indications of his temperament. Again, not to the same degree or at such a level as to raise doubts about his sanity, but some idea of the type of person he was prior to this one incident. This also goes for the teenagers in that car.

No....it's because we communicate less personably that we could be less able to really connect.

You think? That's interesting... I don't know. It could be what you said and that the greater ease and availability to share and communicate has made people less open about who they really are. That would lead to episodes of a person breaking or snapping.

Things might have been said and exchanged that just set someone off. It's probably doubtful that this man was actually out 'hunting' for kids to kill for the slightest of reasons, or the like. But it's also very possible that this person should have avoided confrontation in general because of an acute ineptitude at coping with it peacefully...with an easily accessible gun sadly providing an 'instrument' of expression in an extremely agitated state. And yes, I do agree that guns can at times seemingly empower people beyond wiser judgment. Unfortunately, you often can't predict that nor, as mentioned, may not have preceding evidence for predicting it.

That again is why I don't think there won't be any history of confrontation in this man's past. That sort of nature cannot develop in a vacuum. But you bring up a good point about guns empowering people...that's what they are supposed to do, but in defense. That's why I'm not really fan of SYG when it's applied outside the home or residence. There will probably be a better alternative to ending a public dispute than with a gun. I have seen many gangbangers seek or start confrontations that they wouldn't have otherwise because they had a gun and would use it. So the conflict resolution scale was already skewed to begin and that could have been the case with this guy too.

 

[KalMart]

That may be true, but his need to seek out that confrontation to begin with when most would not is what I question. I kind of doubt that this is an isolated incident. Confrontational people don't develop in a vacuum either. This sort of manifestation may have been extreme, but there should be some history of this sort of behavior to a smaller degree. If I remember correctly this was a person who raised kids and held a job. There would have be some indications of his temperament. Again, not to the same degree or at such a level as to raise doubts about his sanity, but some idea of the type of person he was prior to this one incident. This also goes for the teenagers in that car.

It can be absolutely isolated in terms of the gun part...and there might be no way of knowing he was prone to tat even if he had a 'history' of being of choleric temper. You just can't predict how a lot of this stuff will go down.

You and I probably know people who are hot-tempered or what have you, but have no medical diagnosis or criminal record of it...so no way to legally indicate or prevent them from owning a firearm. And ever year there are acts of violence both gun-related and not b people who would not be expected of such by even those close to them. You can never know for sure...and you'd also have to account for all the ill-tempered people, both armed and not, who DON'T act out like this. How can we know that?

You think? That's interesting... I don't know. It could be what you said and that the greater ease and availability to share and communicate has made people less open about who they really are. That would lead to episodes of a person breaking or snapping.

It's 'communicating' but not necessarily connecting or interacting. THere's a bit of a 'safety blanket' when done from afar that we don't have when face to face. As a result, we could be less prepared for the actual face to face times.

That again is why I don't think there won't be any history of confrontation in this man's past. That sort of nature cannot develop in a vacuum. But you bring up a good point about guns empowering people...that's what they are supposed to do, but in defense. That's why I'm not really fan of SYG when it's applied outside the home or residence. There will probably be a better alternative to ending a public dispute than with a gun. I have seen many gangbangers seek or start confrontations that they wouldn't have otherwise because they had a gun and would use it. So the conflict resolution scale was already skewed to begin and that could have been the case with this guy too.

I think this idea of a 'vacuum' doesn't quite apply. Things add up differently for different people. And no, guns aren't supposed to empower people. They are, in a self-defense situation, the very last absolute emergency measure that may make a difference in surviving and dying. But you are responsible to do every thing you can in avoiding violence or even the implication of it just like you would if you were not armed. You should avoid confrontations just as much...moreso, even. The second you act more 'bold' or less responsibly solely because you are armed, you are abusing the right.

 

[DarkSentinel]

...can we just nuke Florida? Yeah, atomic winter is a b**** but it's worth it, I think.

Can you at least wait for me to get out first?

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Make it quick, trumbor or whoever the hell you are