Michael Dunn

The New York Times Says 'Florida's Contentious Self-Defense Law' Must Have Tripped Up Jurors in Michael Dunn's Murder Trial

|

WOFL

Yesterday I asked whether the failure of jurors to agree on the murder charge against Michael Dunn in connection with his shooting of Jordan Davis had anything to do with Florida's recognition of a right to "stand your ground" when you are attacked outside your home. The short answer: maybe, but at this point there is no evidence to support that theory. The editors of The New York Times nevertheless really want to believe it's true, to the point that they are just making stuff up. Today's paper includes a "news analysis" by Lizette Alvarez under the headline "Self-Defense Law Hung Over Florida Jury." Someone at the Times must have noticed that there is no basis for that headline, because in the online version it has been changed to "Florida Self-Defense Law Complicated Jury's Job in Michael Dunn Trial." In truth, there is no basis for that asserion either, assuming it means that some special feature of Florida law prevented the jurors from reaching a verdict on the murder charge. Alvarez's lead is more tentative:

In failing to acquit or convict Michael Dunn on the most significant charge—the premeditated murder of a teenager in a dispute over loud music—a jury on Saturday may have run headlong into the breadth and reach of Florida's contentious self-defense law.

Like I said, maybe. But Alvarez offers no evidence whatsoever to back up that speculation. Instead she focuses on the question of whether Dunn reasonably believed Davis posed a deadly threat that could be neutralized only by shooting him. If Davis had a shotgun and threatened to kill Dunn, as Dunn claims, the shooting was justified. If Davis had no weapon and made no threats, the shooting was not justified. If Davis threatened Dunn (or merely shouted curses at him) and was holding something that Dunn mistook for a shotgun, the question is fuzzier: In the circumstances, was it reasonable for Dunn to believe Davis had a gun and intended to use it? But the question of what Dunn reasonably believed has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a duty to retreat.

Alvarez implies that the reasonable-belief standard is a special feature of "stand your ground" laws like Florida's, and the New York Times editorial board has explicitly said the same thing. But that is not true. This standard was part of Florida's law before the legislature eliminated the duty to retreat in 2005, and it is part of self-defense laws in states that New York Times editors no doubt consider more enlightened, such as New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The reasonable-belief standard is not some crazy idea invented by Florida gun nuts; it is the "conventional" approach in the United States, as Boston University law professor Kenneth W. Simons explains in a 2008 law review article:

In self-defense…it is conventional to ask whether the actor believes, and whether a reasonable person would believe, each of the following facts: (a) an aggressor was threatening him with harm, (b) that harm would be of a particular level of gravity, (c) his use of force in response would prevent that harm, (d) the level of responsive force he expects to employ would be of a similar level of gravity, (e) if the force was not used, the threatened harm would occur immediately, and (f) no nonviolent or less forceful alternatives were available whereby the threat could be avoided. United States law typically requires an affirmative answer to each of these questions. 

Factor (f) implicates the duty to retreat when it is possible to do so safely, which in Dunn's case (if you buy his story) may or may not have been true. That is why I say Florida's "stand your ground" provision might have affected the outcome, assuming the holdout juror or jurors thought Dunn could have avoided danger simply by driving away. But the rest of the analysis, the issues that were the focus of Dunn's trial, would be the same with or without a duty to retreat.

Alvarez's effort to draw a logical connection between the Dunn trial and criticism of Florida's self-defense law is totally unpersuasive:

Until a juror speaks publicly about the deliberations, no one outside the 12 can know precisely what happened in the jury room. But agreeing on what constitutes a "justified" shooting—an ambiguous definition—could have been one problem, legal experts said.

This is why the Davis family and the parents of Trayvon Martin say they are joining forces with lawmakers to continue to fight to change Florida's so-called Stand Your Ground law. George Zimmerman, who claimed self-defense, was acquitted in July of Mr. Martin's shooting death. Under Florida self-defense laws, people can use lethal force and do not have to retreat if they "reasonably believe" it is "necessary" to save their lives or avoid great harm. The jury must, in essence, decide what a "reasonable person" would have done under similar circumstances. "The law takes the position that you have to step into the shoes of the defendant," said Michael Band, a Miami criminal defense lawyer who was a longtime prosecutor in the city….

The problem, [University of Miami law professor Mary Anne Franks] said, lies, in part, with the term reasonable, which is "squishy." One person's reasonable is another person's overreaction. Getting 12 jurors with contrasting world views to agree on that is not a simple task.

No doubt that is true, but jurors across the country face this same challenge of deciding whether a homicide was justified based on the reasonable-belief standard, regardless of whether their state imposes a duty to retreat. To say "that is why" critics want to change Florida's law is a non sequitur.

NEXT: Judge Napolitano on Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt; Amity Shlaes on Coolidge and FDR

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Or, and this is the answer I like:

    Angela Corey is an incompetent prosecutor.

    The jury clearly didn’t go for self-defense because they convicted him on three counts of attempted murder and one of discharging a weapon into an occupied vehicle (or whatever FL calls it).

    But the actual murder charge was hung because…the prosecutor failed to establish the necessary mental state to sustain a murder conviction.

    Sure he’ll spend the rest of his natural life in prison, but that doesn’t satisfy the racists who insist on Dunn paying his pound of flesh and George Zimmerman’s.

    1. The jury clearly didn’t go for self-defense because they convicted him on three counts of attempted murder and one of discharging a weapon into an occupied vehicle (or whatever FL calls it).

      I wouldn’t go for the “clearly” here — trying to get inside the heads of 12 strangers in a jury room grappling with a less than clear cut situation. For example, some might have thought the defendant genuinely thought he was acting in self-defense, but they also thought that a more reasonable person would likely not have reached the same conclusion, and so they decided to hold him accountable by going for the lesser charges but not the top charge.

      1. Or that self-defense covered the kid with the phantom shotgun, but it was still attempted murder to pump an additional 7 rounds into a fleeing vehicle with three other people who were not threatening him.

        1. I don’t understand this pussy talk about holding fire just because the driver moved the vehicle.

          1. The van drove off, not merely moved. Dunn had to get out of his car to keep firing at them.

            1. It would be difficult if not impossible to predict where the van was moving to or the intentions of the backseat passenger while the van was moving.

              1. Considering there is no evidence to support his initial self-defense claim, continuing to fire at the van is why he was charged for attempted murder on all three. Especially when the evidence contradicted him over and over (Davis was shot in the van, not outside the door or getting out as he claimed. Not mentioning the shotgun until arrested, despite giving a fake blow-by-blow to the girlfriend as they fled the scene, etc.)

                1. No doubt SF, Dunn was probably lying. I’m not convinced he was lying but the limited evidence we have suggests he was lying. Sucks we’ll never know the truth.

                2. No doubt SF, Dunn was probably lying. I’m not convinced he was lying but the limited evidence we have suggests he was lying. Sucks we’ll never know the truth.

        2. Or that self-defense covered the kid with the phantom shotgun, but it was still attempted murder to pump an additional 7 rounds into a fleeing vehicle with three other people who were not threatening him.

          This. It sounds like the jury did a reasonably good job of sorting through the facts and uncertainties and trying to come up with a just verdict.

          1. This. It sounds like the jury did a reasonably good job of sorting through the facts and uncertainties and trying to come up with a just verdict.

            Yep.

            But then again you’re just a racist.

      2. If the police had somehow produced the shotgun that led to the shooting, the outcome might still be the same. The law generally takes a dim view of shooting a person while they are trying to escape.

        1. Except when the cops do it. Then it’s peachy.

          1. It’s also peachy if you’re fleeing town after robbing a bank on a Bonanza episode.

            1. Only if you’re a Cartwright.

              1. Or a Barkely

                1. Charles Barkely was on Bonanza? No wonder he looks so old!

                  1. Barkelys were Big Valley which was a rip off of Bonanza.

                    1. What do you have against Barbara Stanwyck? 😉

                    2. It was a terrible wig. That’s what.

                    3. I would have totally done a Barbara Stanwyck/Linda Evans threesome:) it was a rip off though:)

                    4. Audra Lindley was in the LA Times crossword yesterday.

    2. They probably hung on degree, some wanted 2nd some 1st, not on guilt or innocence. BTW he can be retried.

  2. Since when does the truth matter to the New York Times?

    1. “All the news that’s made to fit the narrative.”

  3. Contentious law. To who, NY Times? You? Your political allies? Why isn’t that word applied to laws that you favor? Many of them are truly contentious. Hell, the ACA is a whole lot more so and yet I never see it described that way in your paper. It’s almost like there is an agenda at work, but I’m sure that’s unpossible for such a noble endeavor like your own.

    1. Hell, the ACA is a whole lot more so and yet I never see it described that way in your paper.

      Because there are no racists at the Times.

  4. How repulsive are people like this writer? They live for stories like this. It’s what gets them up in the morning. Even when it’s not exactly what they want (and wanting stories like this is completely fucked in the first place), they distort it into their dream crime of racism, pervert it into weird hatred towards self defense, and overall transform the story into a funhouse mirror version of their own fucked minds.

    Every time you get this case or a Zimmerman, all the twisted fucks emerge from the woodwork and let us know exactly how fucking twisted they are. It’s disturbing.

    1. Yesterday I linked a Salon article that I’m positive was written before the actual verdict because the author (a law professor that isn’t licensed to actually practice law) acted like Dunn had been acquitted and that Florida was sending a message that a white man with a gun has a license to kill anyone.

      They aren’t even trying to appear intellectually coherent and honest. They’re as incisive as the homeless guy ranting on the street corner.

      1. Intellectual dishonesty from Salon? Say it ain’t so!

      2. But it’s worse than that. The feeling that comes off these stories in waves is that they’re thrilled that they have (in their minds) an example (even if they have to modify it) of the boogeyman in their heads. They’re overjoyed that the bad guy is out there and that they have an example of it. It’s like this weird creepy religious reinforcement of evil; like they needed proof of Satan to justify all their beliefs. They actively want to see bad things happen because then it proves that they are right to hate certain people.

        It’s disturbing as hell, to be honest. I wouldn’t want to be within 50 feet of people like this. They have severe problems.

        1. They’re overjoyed because they know 99% of their readers have no knowledge of the facts of the case, so they’re free to shape that with whatever bullshit they dream up. They also know if they repeat it often enough it’ll become the dominant narrative, and anyone who says otherwise must be a conspiracy nut. Yellow journalism hasn’t changed much.

          1. Salon is especially funny like this because someone I could completely know and trust would recommend something to me from Salon and I’d say “nope”. Like, God Himself could descend bodily from Heaven and say, “no, really, this piece on race is good”, and I’d be like “Bullshit, no way. Not reading”

          2. It’s more than that, though. Yellow journalism is just getting your readers worked up. These “journalists” clearly want more than that, though. They desperately want their fantasy to be real, and they seem to think that if they just lie enough, it will be. There is an ultra-creepy longing for something terrible in their writing that is disturbing as hell.

            1. It’s more than that, though. Yellow journalism is just getting your readers worked up. These “journalists” clearly want more than that, though. They desperately want their fantasy to be real, and they seem to think that if they just lie enough, it will be. There is an ultra-creepy longing for something terrible in their writing that is disturbing as hell.

              That’s the thing about excluding objectivity from the narrative. If you can get enough people to believe something, it is real.

  5. I think it’s quite likely that the jury had a problem being convinced that there was any premeditation.

    If Corey wants a conviction she needs to change the information to second-degree murder on the retrial. Which, of course, is what she should have done the first time.

    1. If they were instructed on 2nd degree, then she cannot retry him.

      1. They were instructed on 1st, 2nd, and manslaughter. No one knows if they hung on self-defense or disagreed between charges.

      2. There was a mistrial so he CAN be retired.

    2. Agreed. I suspect that they got hung up on the premeditation element. Honestly, from what little I know of the facts of the case, I would probably go with 1st. To my mind, chambering a round indicates premeditation in this context. Dunn had a CCW, implying (perhaps falsely) that he had some degree of training. Common wisdom is to always carry with a round in the chamber if your purpose is self-defense; it takes time to rack a round, and there’s the risk that the gun might jam.

      Plus, it’s tough to find accurate accounts of the events past all the stupid crap about race and Trayvon and all, but my impression is that he had to open his door to begin firing in the first place. Like he got out to start firing, and then continued as the car drove off. That’s straight up premeditation.

      My “reasonable” expectation if the guy’s story is absolutely truthful would be for him to have drawn his weapon and aimed at the assailant, but not to have fired until it became clear that the assailant was going to fire. If someone’s just holding a shotgun by the barrel (as Dunn’s story implies) that’s not a “ready to fire” position, and I’d say that aiming a pistol at said person is proportionate and effective both as a warning and as a step to prepare to defend yourself if necessary.

    3. The jury had the option to to convict on 2nd degree.

      Without any evidence that the teens were armed or threatened the defendant I think most juries would have found the man guilty of 2nd degree murder.

      I’m pretty sure the mistrial was caused by stupidity on the jury’s part, but we’ll never know for sure the exact reason.

  6. I, Mulattodamus, have seen the future and it goes like this:

    June 2015: Under pressure by shrill, screeching Progressives, the Florida state legislature amend their self-defense laws so that justified lethal self-defense is impossible.

    Winter 2017: In Florida, a Black or Hispanic man is cornered in an alleyway by a gang of skinhead punks intent on ending his life. The man uses a firearm to protect himself and kills one of his attackers. He is then arrested and charged with murder by a state prosecutor who argues the man could have retreated by jumping onto a fire escape. Online commentators take to calling it the “Batman argument”; however, this story appears nowhere in the NYT or other “mainstream media”.

    Spring 2018: The man is charged with first-degree murder and sentence to die. The story still appears nowhere in the NYT. Adam Weinstein of Gawker continues to regularly masturbate into Trayvon Martin’s hoodie, which he purchased at an underground auction.

    1. Looked Weinstein up. Talk about truth in advertising:

      http://adamweinsteinwriter.com/

      1. He may be the first verifiable case of hysteria in a man. His womb is literally moving around his body and heating the blood to the point of madness.

        1. Someone with chins to spare shouldn’t be whining about how tough the economy is.

          1. He looks like a giant baby.

            1. He is the Platonic ideal of ugliness made manifest in a physical avatar of flesh and blood.

              1. We already awarded that title to Henry “The Moleman” Waxman. Sorry

            2. So, you’re going to print out his picture and masturbate to it, then?

              1. I told you about my mole fetish in confidence!

      2. Last weekend my baby had a fever, and we contemplated taking him to the ER, and my first thought was – had to be – “Oh God, that could wipe out our savings!

        You were going to the ER because the kid had a fever?

        See:

        To all of you people who keep sharing that Huff Po stick-figure thing about how Gen Y is unhappy because they’re unrealistic delusional ingrates:

        1. Oh God, that could wipe out our savings!

          Or, you know, don’t have a kid you can’t afford.

          1. I hear children’s advil also works for fevers.

            1. Tylenol, but yeah.

              You are supposed to go the ER is s/he has a fever *above a certain temperature*.

              And if you’re not willing to wipe out your savings to save your child’s life, then what the fuck does that say about you as a parent?

              1. I’ve found that the infant’s advil works faster and longer with my son.

                Anyway, aside from the guy getting freaked out over a fever he’s an asshole for that comment.

              2. You are supposed to go the ER is s/he has a fever *above a certain temperature*.

                And that temperature in young children is much higher than in adults. A 102 fever in adults is really high, but in children it’s not too bad.

            2. Growing up, ginger ale and candy canes were sovereign remedies for virtually every ailment. Of course, I was raised by Scottish and Irish grandparents who weathered the Depression in Philly, so maybe there’s a different standard of acceptable medical risk involved there…

              1. That far back nobody had to go to the emergency room for a fever, but the doctor did come to the house. And they paid him maybe $5.

          2. Or, you know, get a grip and realize that people get fevers and then get over them. Why wouldn’t he just make a damn appointment with the family doctor, or just wait the fever out?

            1. Or get a better job than pisspot for Nick Denton.

            2. The problem I have here is that there must be *something* for which people are willing to trade everything they have in exchange. I would guess this guy thinks no one should ever have to make that choice, but then he wouldn’t be residing in reality.

          3. Or, you know, don’t have a kid you can’t afford.

            This is why it takes a village to raise a child. If your kid gets a fever that will cost 70 or 80 grand, you should be able to rely on your neighbors to pay their fair share.

          4. Or, you know, don’t have a kid you can’t afford.

            This is why it takes a village to raise a child. If your kid gets a fever that will cost 70 or 80 grand, you should be able to rely on your neighbors to pay their fair share.

            1. Fucking squirrels have a sense of humor today. I only pressed “submit” once! I swear!

              1. another victim of the 3pm skwrlz.

        2. Don’t even start. My buddy’s wife does this. Knowing that they will do nothing at $500/visit. On the gripping hand, he treats himself (and me) to a night’s worth of beers after it happens. I don’t condone the punitive retribution model of marital spending, but I understand it.

      3. His pedigree includes the Tallahassee Democrat. A rag of a paper that doesn’t even rise to the level of a weekly alternative paper with ads for chakra cleansing and yiff-sex.

        1. Wait, was he on FSU sports beat? Because that’s a respectable by-line for that paper.

          1. According to his linkedin, in was a copy editor for the business, local, and front page sections, so propbably not. It appears he is a Nole.

            1. It appears he is a Nole.

              I think I see the problem…

    2. What shade is the Hispanic guy?

    3. I think you’re giving the NYT too much credit.

      I have no doubt that they would call the prosection and conviction of the black guy (or Hispanic guy if he was dark skinned like Roberto Clemente) racist by comparing it to Zimmerman getting off, regardless of the change in law.

    4. Uh, you don’t know our legislature very well. They day the let some New York Lib’ral (who doesn’t live and vote in West Palm Beach) dictate their laws, it’ll be a cold day in My-ah-muh.

  7. The editors of The New York Times nevertheless really want to believe it’s true, to the point that they are just making stuff up.

    The paper of Walter Duranty, making shit up?

    Say it ain’t so, Shoeless! Say it ain’t soooooo!

  8. But it’s Florida. A southern state. Thus they are full of white bigots who deserve to go to jail. So says the New York liberal elite.

    1. A court of appeals can overturn an acquittal. I thank my dead ancestors for leaving that shit hole.

      1. We’re more advanced: if someone is acquitted of a crime the government really wants in prison, we just try him again on federal civil right charges.

    1. Thar’s some good crazy in them comments:

      Stephan Pickering / Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham 4 days ago
      Shalom & Erev tov…Ms Temple’s studio sued because of the personal insinuation, viz. that she was a sexual girl toy for Horrorwood studio heads already betraying themselves by collaborating with Germanazi film distributors who, in fact, often bedded down young girls…Shirley Temple wasn’t, of course; otherwise, her autobiography, which she DID write, would have named names, and the 1930s press surely would have caught wind of any molestation of her, as she was Fox Studio’s multi-valenced money machine…but what Mr Green was clearly alluding to is something anyone who grew up in Horrorwood knew then, and knows now: even the ‘baby burlesks’ were insidious sexualised exploitations…and, while Ms Temple was not a bed mate for studio employers, many young women were (the scene in the book / film The Godfather of a little girl being a wet harbor for an aging penis was NOT a distortion). Ms Temple was well aware of Horrorwood predators, and these paedophiles often phantasised about her untouched hymen…and it has always saddened me that, indeed, ‘Shirley Temple’ was a manufactured image…but which could not hide the fact that she WAS a brilliant dancer, far more intelligent than many realised…

      1. and the personal friendship between her and Bill ‘Bojangles’ Robinson was NOT an act…for years, she would never talk of her early films, but ALWAYS would speak lovingly and admiringly of Bill Robinson (in their 5th film together, ‘Dimples’, he did not appear onscreen, but was her personal choreographer). I refer one to Kristen Hatch’s 2012 overview of Shirley Temple in Camera Obscura # 79 (‘Discipline and pleasure: Shirley Temple and the spectacle of child loving’). The personal friendship between Ms Temple and Mr Robinson was REAL…but so, too, was the Horrorwood racialism in making Mr Robinson’s urban sophisticated characters acceptably domesticated. Shirley Temple was not responsible for this, and Mr Robinson knew it…as did the children of both actors.

        STEPHAN PICKERING / ??? ?”? ?? ?????
        Torah ????? Yehu’di Apikores / Philologia Kabbalistica Speculativa Researcher ????? ??? ?? ??????

        THE KABBALAH FRACTALS PROJECT

      2. “Horrorwood” and “Germanazi” are priceless.

        I’d bet a ton of money that the guy who wrote this comment has a fuckton of child porn on his computer. He’s way too obsessed with it for anything else.

  9. To expand on what Episiarch etc. said above, one odd thing about all this is that the media loves to jump on these man-bites-dog stories as somehow emblematic of racism, as if white people are regularly gunning down innocent black people. Of course this is extremely rare, and far rarer than the reverse. But harping on the rare cases is anti-racism, while bringing up the more common instances might be racism.

    And as I said earlier, Angela Corey blew it again. Clearly the over-charging is political, as it was with Zimmerman. A murder 1 charge makes the race activists happy, because it’s the most serious charge. If they convict, great! A victory for social justice.

    But if they lose, even better! “More proof of racial injustice! Call our trusted media mouthpieces! Alert the tear-squeezers! Unleash the donation requests! Let’s have an angry demonstration! We must end the scourge of white-on-black crime, which greatly upsets us (although we’re not too upset with black-on-black or black-on-white crime)!”

  10. “Duty to retreat,” unless you’re a cop of course. Then you can go to town on anybody who so much as clicks a pen.

    1. ^^^This. If I were a black male, I’d be much more worried about being shot by a cop than some white guy who didn’t like loud music.

      1. What about a black “leader” who is a shill for the dnc and therfore a pawn of the left?

  11. The progs are getting dangerously close to just coming out and saying that self-defense should be outlawed. I wonder if even that will be enough to wake people up.

    1. No, it won’t. When people just come out and admit how horrible they are, their sympathizers claim they don’t really mean it. “They’re just using hyperbole to make a point.”

    2. Why I don’t doubt it, they are hamstrung by the poor choice of cases to hang their argument on. There’s very little evidence this was self-defense and the Zimmerman/Martin case was a very complicated case with blown forensics and unanswerable questions about the sequence of events.

      Trying to get rid of a common law legal principle is going to take more than this. We aren’t the UK, after all.

      1. Trying to get rid of a common law legal principle is going to take more than this. We aren’t the UK, after all yet.

        It’s really just a matter of time.

        1. The ghost of King George is laughing, laughing ….

        2. Fuck, I should have refreshed before posting my comment below. Oh well, it bore repeating anyway.

      2. “?Zimmerman/Martin case was a very complicated case with blown forensics and unanswerable questions about the sequence of events?”
        Git yer answurs right here! Coming right up!
        The OTHER part of the truth (Martin threw away the sword and the pistol by his side, before he died, and the cops never found it, bumbling fools that they were), but here is the REAL truth:
        Martin went a fartin’,
        And he did ride,
        With a sword and a pistol
        By his side,
        Lookin’ for a “creepy ass cracker”
        To help him eat his skittles,
        So when he couldn’t find his spittoon,
        He spit instead in his shittooon,
        And shit instead in his spittoon,
        While the cow jumped over the moon,
        And the dish snorted coke with a spoon,
        And we’ll all know the truth real soon!

        1. He says that it sounded like my hobbit that turns the crank case is depressed and needs therapy. We need us?get us a new hobbit. They’s from the land beyond time. Land beyond time is also gonna hook us up with a unicorn for the radiator. I ain’t even gonna tell ya about that haunted air conditioner. Plus, the air filter? That’s made of plutonium. That’s gonna involve Superman, so?ya know, plus shipping from Krypton. And the cow..jumped over the moon.

          1. Dear Kochtopus Dude-Sir, Ah regretfully haz to infirm yew, yew is probabably payin’ WAY-way too much fer yer auto repairs! Why, me, me haz a plutonium air filter, TooOOOoo, and AH don’t haz ta call no Super-man! Ah has an uber-organically-grown-fibers-made sun visor, too, all plutonium and GMO and chemicals-free! Organically grown fibers stretched over plastics that waz made from petrol made from ORGANICALLY raised dinosaurs, I am told! And the steel frame for the plastics for the fibers? Glad you asked! Made from steel and coal-energy, with the coal and iron ore, fetched from Mother Earth by donkey-drawn carts, with the donkeys fed NOTHING but pure, organically raised hay! But Ah digress? Whut Ah WAZ sayin’ is, NO need fer Super-man fer yer car repairs? Me, Ah haz a VERY sympathetic, understanding, locally-organically-raised shade-tree mechanic, he unnerstans ALL about my “special needs”, my plutonium air filter v/s my uber-organic sun visor. So fer a mere $579, he just now did me a rear-view-mirror alignment and synchronization, an oil-pan de-gaussing, a front-bumper modulation, mooned my moon-roof, AND tuned the harmonics of my floor rugs! To top it all off, he delicately dusted my uber-organic sun visor, for FREE!!! ? So, shop AROUND, dude, is whut Ah am sayin’? Find yerself yer own locally-organically-raised shade-tree mechanic?

      3. We aren’t the UK, after all.

        Yet.

    3. Wasn’t there some man or woman from the left who basically said lie back and get raped rather than defend yourself? We’re already there, man.

      1. It was a hoax put out to look like a PSA from the Brady Campaign.

        It’s always better to kill nonsense with its own words.

          1. “It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles.”

            It’s why we have recall elections.

            1. Ooooh, safe zones! Yes, those are always so safe. No need for concealed carry there!

              1. Are those like “bases” in tag? Like you can’t stab me and take my phone because I’m touching this flagpole?

          2. My apologies for thinking those idiots couldn’t live up to the outlandish satire produced about them. WTF?

            1. That’s NutraSweet for you, always underestimating people’s stupidity, especially his own.

              1. Uh, durr.

      2. Not completely. I believe you can still attempt to move your bowels or to vomit.

        1. *may*, dammit!

      3. Since government = force backed by violence, you can’t be a pacifist without being an anarchist.

    4. Oh, plenty of them believe and openly say exactly that.

  12. Today’s paper includes a “news analysis” by Lizette Alvarez under the headline “Self-Defense Law Hung Over Florida Jury.”

    Regardless of any “analysis” or “basis”, that is one piss-poor headline.

    1. Had the jury been drinking?

      1. Everyone knows drinking makes you smarter via the buffalo theory.

  13. If the NYT is advocating that we abolish all laws and regulations that might be confusing or trip someone up than I might have to give that some consideration.

  14. This is not a difficult case. The prosecution just over charged when they went for murder one. The defense then rolled the dice and didn’t ask for instructions for a lesser included offense. That gamble paid off. Had the prosecution not been playing politics and charged this case properly as murder 2, the jury likely would have come back guilty. This case stands for the proposition that murder 1, since it requires proof of premeditation is really hard to prove in cases of mutual combat or mutual dispute. That is it. Shame on the idiotic race baiters for trying to claim it means anything else.

    1. I thought the prosecution offered instructions (if not proof) on Murder 1, Murder 2, and manslaughter. Am I misunderstanding?

      1. If they did, then the case stands for the proposition that some juries are nuts. The convicted him on attempted murder. If they couldn’t agree on murder 1 or murder 2, I find it difficult to believe the murder one side wouldn’t have finally agreed just to resolve the case. It wasn’t a capital case and it is not like he is every getting out of jail if they get him for murder 2. If some thought he were innocent, then how are they voting to convict of attempt?

        1. I think murder two in this case by all the evidence should have been a pretty easy conviction.

    2. Prosecution gave the option of murder one, two and manslaughter.

      I’m pretty sure the jury is full of morons and idiots who can’t count.

  15. According to reuters, the speculation based on questions from the jury is that he may have been justified in shooting the teen who allegedly threatened him, or at the very least they didn’t have enough evidence to say otherwise.

    It was the three additional shots at a fleeing vehicle that were “second degree attempted murder.”

    Given that scenario, then yes, I can see the argument that “stand your ground” was relevant to him being “not yet convicted” of the actual killing.

    1. He initiated the conflict though. Also there is no evidence he was threatened, so I’m not sure how any reasonable person could think he was innocent of murder two.

  16. Obamacare: Preach!

    As Democrats approach the 2014 midterm elections, they are grappling with an awkward reality: Their president’s health care law ? passed with no Republican votes ? remains a political liability in many states, threatening their ability to hold on to seats in the Senate and the House.

    “Part of what we learned in 2010 is that this is a real issue of concern to voters and you can’t dodge it, you have to take it on, and I think Democrats are much more ready and willing to do that in 2014,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic pollster who has done surveys for Democrats on the law. “We certainly have enough evidence now that this is not a fight you can win if you are in a defensive crouch.”

    [. . .]

    Not all Democrats say an attack on the law is advisable. “Democrats have been way too defensive about the health care bill, and as the website becomes fully operational and the cost savings numbers continue to mount, I think we should essentially be letting our guard down and start talking about the fact that this is working[.]”

    Obamacare is working?

    1. … the cost savings numbers continue to mount…

      Continue? to mount? Savings to whom?

      1. The free-shit crowd, who else?

      2. The numbers are tortured by administration flunkies until they mount.

    2. More dumbassery:

      Democrats will need plenty of offense as they face a multimillion-dollar advertising assault from Republican-aligned interest groups and candidates that want to make the midterm elections a referendum on the Affordable Care Act, using the law as an exemplar of the government’s ineptitude in managing a vast national program.

      I believe that Democrats passing Obamacare without a single Team RED vote, then fucked up the roll out so badly is what’s making Team BLUE look so bad, not bad messaging or anything Team RED is doing.

  17. Yeppers, sometimes you jsut have to roll with the punches.

    http://www.RealAnon.tk

  18. If Corey wants a conviction she needs to change the information to second-degree murder on the retrial. Which, of course, is what she should have done the first time.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.