Florida Courts Proving How Great They Are, Again

[Acker79]

Michael Dunn was on trial for one count first degree murder, three counts attempted murder, one count firing a gun into a vehicle, the victim was an unarmed 17 year old, his reason was that e kid was playing his music too loud.

The jury found him guilty of firing a gun into a vehicle, guilty of three counts of attempted murder, but could not reach a decision on whether he was guilty of murder. How does that work? They believe he fired into a vehicle attempting to kill someone, but despite the kid in the car being dead as a result of this, he isn't guilty of murder? Well done, Florida.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...erdict-20140213,0,5446202.story#axzz2tPKOXDik

 

[pastafarian]

his reason was that e kid was playing his music too loud.

Except the reason he gave in court for shooting the bloke wasnt his music was too loud but was he believed the guy had a gun and he was therefore acting in self defence.(i have no opinion on what the jury heard)
Come on chap stop acting like Fox News.....you are better than that!It was an argument initially about loud music that escalated.

To the outsider this all seems bizarre,but this is Florida,when guns,laws and self defence clash Florida law is a minefield.

Throw into the mix the only reason people hear about this crime is because its white on black crime, and the press can have a field day,(they dont give a toss when its the daily black on black shootings) you then have a perfect shitstorm of court drama and a TV station`s wet dream.

Add to that parts of Florida are racist beyond most peoples comprehension (theme park world tourists)and you have a perfect recipe for absolute codswallop!

 

[Acker79]

The conflict started because the kid played the music too loud. His defence is that he thought the kid would shoot him.

But my issue isn't with that.

It's a ridiculous law that they have that if you claim you thought someone had a gun you can shoot them. I saw three or four articles on the results of the trial before I discovered the races involved, so would contest your point it's all about hat. That wasn't of interest to me, it's the stupid stand your ground law that makes it difficult to find someone guilty of murder when you can find them guilty of everything around it (attempting to kill, firing the gun that killed).

 

[AlbionPics&SouthCoastTwit]

The prosecutors are picked based on their conviction rates. It's much harder to get a judge to send someone to death row (also more costly to the state of Fla) then it is to get a man sent to prison for a lesser crime. The conviction rate stays good and the state's death row population doesn't look like Texas' death row.

 

[fat old seagull]

Whatever, he's going to be in a very bad place for some years to come. My guess is Michael Dunn will discover his late victim has more friends in his new home than he'll have.

 

[vegster]

The conflict started because the kid played the music too loud. His defence is that he thought the kid would shoot him.

But my issue isn't with that.

It's a ridiculous law that they have that if you claim you thought someone had a gun you can shoot them. I saw three or four articles on the results of the trial before I discovered the races involved, so would contest your point it's all about hat. That wasn't of interest to me, it's the stupid stand your ground law that makes it difficult to find someone guilty of murder when you can find them guilty of everything around it (attempting to kill, firing the gun that killed).

I do agree but, think back to Oscar Pistorious. He was proved to have fired a gun loaded with dum dum bullets through a door in to an enclosed space which contained who he thought was a burglar. He was only convicted of a low grade homicide when it's blindingly obvious that if you shoot at someone like that, if you hit them you kill them. Many laws are ridiculous.

 

[Shuggie]

The conflict started because the kid played the music too loud. His defence is that he thought the kid would shoot him.

But my issue isn't with that.

It's a ridiculous law that they have that if you claim you thought someone had a gun you can shoot them. I saw three or four articles on the results of the trial before I discovered the races involved, so would contest your point it's all about hat. That wasn't of interest to me, it's the stupid stand your ground law that makes it difficult to find someone guilty of murder when you can find them guilty of everything around it (attempting to kill, firing the gun that killed).

The Americans are well-known for believing they have the right to judge other countries. Are you by chance American?