Teen killed by Florida CHL'er

[anomie]

Not securing the parking lot down the street meant that if there was a gun tossed out of the red Durango, the evidence would've been lost because the cops waited 4 days before conducting the search of the parking lot down the street.

I agree with that completely. All I'm getting at is, based on the limited information I have, I can see situations in which it may be reasonable that the search of down the street and rooftops, etc, was delayed (shooting happened about where the SUV came back to, it takes time to get witness statements, when exactly did they know the suv left and came back, how much manpower did they have, etc). I can't say a four day delay was reasonable - but I can't say it wasn't, either.

Edit: Note the witness statement was literally "... It looked like they were pretty much just, I don't know if they were trying to stash something in the car, or look for something or what ..."
See http://www.news4jax.com/news/witness-sa ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for the full audio. The witness saying that they looked like they might be trying to stash something *in the car* and a statement that they didn't see them throw anything/stash anything away from/out of the car is actually consistent.

[WildBill]

Police officers testified Friday that a Georgia teen died almost immediately after a Florida man fired repeatedly into his vehicle following an argument over loud music outside a convenience store.

Officers Robert Holmes and Dawn Valentine of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said they found 17-year-old Jordan Davis slumped against another young man in the backseat of the SUV.

Blood was coming out of the back of the teen from Marietta, Ga., Holmes said.

Michael Dunn, 47, is on trial for Davis' death. He is pleading not guilty and says he shot Davis in self-defense.

Davis' friend, Tevin Thompson, who was sitting in the front passenger seat at the time of the shooting, testified that he and his friends were playing music loudly in their SUV while they waited for another friend to make a purchase inside the convenience store.

"It was pretty loud," Thompson said. "Jordan's window was a little down. My window was up."

Dunn pulled into the parking space next to theirs and a woman got out of his car and went into the convenience store. Dunn seemed upset, Thompson said.

Dunn shouted at them to "turn your music down. I can't hear myself think," Thompson said.

Thompson said he reached over and turned the volume down, but Davis said, "'Turn the music back.' He was talking to me," Thompson said.

Dunn and Davis started arguing, but Thompson testified he couldn't hear all their words. Thompson said he heard Davis cursing but didn't hear him make any threats.

The SUV's driver, Tommie Stornes, returned to the vehicle, and before getting into the driver's seat, he did a little dance to the music, Thompson said. Dunn and Davis continued arguing, and Thompson said he heard Dunn say, "'Are you talking to me?'"

Dunn then reached down to his right side, pulled out a silver pistol and fired into the SUV's door where Davis was, Thompson said.

Stornes backed the car out, and Dunn kept firing, Thompson said.

Stornes drove around to a nearby shopping plaza, and did a roll call. Everyone answered but Davis, who was gasping for air, Thompson said.

During opening statements Thursday, prosecutor John Guy told jurors that Davis posed no threat to Dunn and that there was no weapon in Davis' vehicle.

Dunn's attorney, Cory Strolla, told jurors Dunn felt threatened and fired in self-defense. Under Florida law, Dunn had every right not to be a victim, the defense attorney said.


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/witn ... c-22404652" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dori]

Defense rested today. Looks like closing arguments tomorrow. I think he'll be convicted of manslaughter.

[sparkyfender]

To me, it does not look good for the shooter.

And it is an Angela Corey case. Ouch! I am sure she has been waiting and watching for such an incident, as she needs to put a win in her column after the Zimmerman verdict, and needs to push her agenda of neutering Florida's self defense laws.

This guy has given her the perfect opportunity on a platter........

[03Lightningrocks]

I don't have my CHL yet, but from everything I have read(mostly from this forum), seems like the shooter instigated the matter. Yeah, it may have been annoying, a bunch of young kids rolling up with their loud music, I don't care for it either,but I'm not sure if i would say something if I was not carrying, though tempted to do so, but most certainly would NOT say anything to them if I was carrying. Don't "we" as CHL holders(when I get mine) have an obligation to avoid situations even more so than a non CHL holder? I know I have been guilty of "flipping" someone off after getting cut-off on the road, maybe honked and barked at them, then they flip me off, so I "replied back", but that cannot be the case once I(we) accepted the responsibilty of being a CHL holder. I am taking the approach that as a CHL holder, I am holding myself to be above the pettyness. I mean, if the guy just gets his gas, ignored the bunch of young kids(we were all kids at one time), goes about his business, the kid is still alive,and he is not being tried for the crime, all is good.....all over some loud music, this momentary laspe in reason effected many people, my 2¢.

Exactly the mentality I adopted when I made the decision (not very long ago) to get my CHL. And I believe that I'm the better for it. When I make the choice each day to leave my house as an armed citizen, I also take on the added responsibility of trying to do everything in my power to not have to employ the tool at my side. And yes, I believe myself to be held to a higher standard because of it. No more impatient honking at dipwads. No more 1/2 victory signs or cussing out nimrods (which actually can draw an obscenity charge, btw). And definitely no more playing swoop & brake with wingnuts on the freeway.

As with any of the articles that first get referenced on here & other forums, lots of facts seem to be missing/left out. Although I do find it "interesting" that the races of all of the participants seem to be clearly and prominently recorded. So given the few facts presented and being able to reflect from the relative safety & security of my computer keyboard, there are several issues that I'd call into question. Why pull up to a gas pump next to where someone is playing loud music if the music offends? If no other pumps are available, why not find another gas station or wait until the musicers leave? If one MUST pull up to a pump next to loud music, does it make a lot of sense to make an issue of the music when clearly outnumbered? A similar point could be made a bit later in the encounter if a polite request was made to turn the music down and that request was met with a disrespectful reply - it doesn't make sense to press the issue when clearly outnumbered.

... With both posts.

[C-dub]

Guilty of 4/5 counts. Hung on the murder charge.

[philip964]

Guilty of 4/5 counts. Hung on the murder charge.

http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article ... cmpid=hpbn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[03Lightningrocks]

The story said this guy plans to appeal. Appeal??? Lol.... He is going right where he belongs. Prison. Shananana, shananana ...hey hey hey... Good bye!

[jmra]

The story said this guy plans to appeal. Appeal??? Lol.... He is going right where he belongs. Prison. Shananana, shananana ...hey hey hey... Good bye!

[howdy]

I didn't watch the trial at all and I just heard the verdict. The jury was hung on the first degree murder charge, meaning at least one juror thought the defendant was somewhat justified in shooting the deceased teen. He was also found guilty of 3 cases of attempted murder which means ALL the jurors thought he had no justification to shoot the gun in the direction of the other 3 teens in the car. Does this mean in the future if you need to use self defence against one person in a group that you can be criminally charged because your actions threatened the other members of the group. ie...a group of gang bangers approach you and only one of the group trys to rob you. You pull your handgun and fire more than one round hitting and stopping the robber. Everyone agrees you were justified in doing this. The local DA wants a charge brought and files attemped murder of the "innocent" gang bangers.

What am I missing here?

[Keith B]

I didn't watch the trial at all and I just heard the verdict. The jury was hung on the first degree murder charge, meaning at least one juror thought the defendant was somewhat justified in shooting the deceased teen. He was also found guilty of 3 cases of attempted murder which means ALL the jurors thought he had no justification to shoot the gun in the direction of the other 3 teens in the car. Does this mean in the future if you need to use self defence against one person in a group that you can be criminally charged because your actions threatened the other members of the group. ie...a group of gang bangers approach you and only one of the group trys to rob you. You pull your handgun and fire more than one round hitting and stopping the robber. Everyone agrees you were justified in doing this. The local DA wants a charge brought and files attemped murder of the "innocent" gang bangers.

What am I missing here?

You're not missing anything. Without all the evidence presented to the jury and being inside their heads you can not really know what they were thinking. Sometimes you have that one juror that just holds out and instead of having to stay longer the others bow down to letting one charge float to get a consensual verdict on the others.

[howdy]

After serving on several jurys, I have come to believe that the trial is just a "game" to the lawyers involved...wins/loses...X's and O's. I know nothing about this case but it appears the DA filed as many charges against the defendant as she could dream up just hoping to get a win/guilty verdict on at least one charge. That way she wins. On one charge, he was found guilty of "firing a missle " into the car. I can just hear the Judge's instruction to the jury.."If you find that the Defendant did fire a missle into the car, then you must find him guilty." The deceased might have been a stellar individual, but the jury is not allowed to use the deceased past in making a determination of the Defendant telling the truth about the gun and the deceased actions leading up to the shoot. Was there any video showing the actual shoot or was this a case on believing what witness was more credible and who was telling the truth. It seems from the comments of the above forum members that they think he was guilty as sin. If he is (and a jury now says he was) guilty of attemping to murder 3 young teens, then he need to go to jail for a long time. The DA says she will re-try the 1st degree murder trial. According to the talking head lawyers on CNN, he will already be sentenced to serve the rest of his life in prison. Why waste taxpayer money on tacking on one more charge if the punishment will not increase. Oh I know..one more win.

[WildBill]

The legal system is designed to decide the law, not necessarily justice.

[gringo pistolero]

Was there any video showing the actual shoot or was this a case on believing what witness was more credible and who was telling the truth.

I think the only video was inside the convenience store, but I didn't follow the trial as much as caught bits in passing.

If they said, I also missed why a teenager from an Atlanta suburb was in a Florida town 350 miles away. I think it was a holiday weekend so there's plenty of good reasons, but when a lawyer (including a prosecutor) tries to paint teenagers as boys rather than men, my first thought is "where are their parents?" especially when the teens are hundreds of miles from home.

Having said that I, unlike some others in this thread, don't know what actually happened in the moments before the shooting.

[Right2Carry]

Didn't the car with the youths drive off? Is it possible that a gun was in the vehicle and was disposed of before the police were able to search the vehicle?