On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 12:59:35 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:43:20 -0500, micky
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 14:32:16 -0500, micky
wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 08:05:49 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:
=20
If the sentence is set to run concurrently then he
=20
would be given 20 years... out in 13.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
Not in Florida. The gun charge itself is 25 to life and our law says
=20
you have to serve 85%. minimum
This is the most detailed analysis I've seen of the actual convictions and =
possible sentences:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/02...-dunn-guilty-=
of-most-charges/
"Detailed Charges on Which Dunn Found Guilty
=20
Among the charges of which he has been found guilty a
=20
Three counts of attempted murder in the second degree (FL =A7782.051) for s=
hooting at Kevin Thompson, Leland Brunson, and Tommy Storns, the three frie=
nds with Jordan Davis in Storns' SUV
The other boy in the front seat did turn down the radio when the guy
complained, according to him,
Now that I read here that the boy in the passenger seat was the one who
was killed, I guess it was someone else who said he turned the radio
down. Maybe it was the driver.
If it was a portable radio, not the car radio, it coudl have been
someone in the back seat who turned it down, and the other guy in the
back seat who turned it bck up.
The video of him saying that was taken
over his left shoulder, and it looked like he was sitting in the
passenger seat, but I suppose they all would be out of the car before
someone showed up to inteveriew them.
but the driver turned it up again.
But "someone else turned it up again", he said. I had assumed that was
the driver, but I should have said it was the driver.
AIUI, it appears the shooter had just driven into the parking place.
If he didn't like the noise, he could have backed out that spot and
parked somewhere else. Later, when they got into a yelling match,
and, he says, he thought he saw a shotgun, it would have probably taken
less time to start the car and back up than it took to lean over to the
glove box, get the gun, chamber a bullet and shoot. Plus, unless he
killed the guy with the alleged shotgun on the first shot, shooting at
him would be almost certain to get him to shoot back at you.
As I've pointed out a few times now, it's worse than that. He opened fire
on the guy in the passenger seat. That makes no sense. If you thought
someone in the back seat had a shotgun, then they are in a perfect
position to blow you away when you open fire on their buddy who's
in front. Also, you have the fact that you wouldn't think a
rational person would go up against a shotgun that hadn't been fired
with a pistol. And top it off with the fact that in the driver seat,
you're in a very difficult spot to deal with someone with a shotgun
in the back seat. What are you going to do? Turn, try to shoot over
your shoulder, car pillar possibly blocking you, etc.....
But just
backing up is much less likely to cause him to shoot and in a few
seconds, the driver would be too far back to get hit without the alleged
shotgun guy getting out of the car or shooting through his own rear
window.
I agree, from what I've read so far, that appears to have been
the best option. But it's not a real good one either, because
if the guy does have a shotgun, he can easily shoot you while
you're backing up.
One reporter from NBC suggested that the hung jury on murder occcurred
because at least one jurror believed that the shooter might have thought
there was a shotgun, but the three convictions for murder were based on
his shooting at the SUV as it was driving away. He plainly wasn't in
any danger then but he was still shooting!! So even the negatvie jury
votes on murder would agree on attempted murder for the other 3.
Maybe the NBC guy is right.
I would think he's very likely correct.
Maybe it was the one on the right he was referring to, who turned it up
again.
What do this case, Trayvon Martin, the shooting of the movie texter have
in common. All by someone carrying a gun. At least two of them
carrying the gun for no special reason.
And let's also look at all the cases where carrying a gun prevented
a violent crime from happening. Of course you won't hear about those
much because the lib media only wants to make a spectacle of cases
where it goes the other way.
During this same period there was another teenager accosted and he was
hit over the head with a cell phone. If there was a bruise, it was gone
in a couple days. Partly because his accoster was carrying only a cell
phone, not a gun.
It would be nice if all perps out to rape, loot, pillage or kill only
carreed a cell phone, but many choose to use a gun. If you run up
against one of those, a cell phone isn't going to do you much good.