Skip to comments.Passenger in vehicle with Jordan Davis was adult convicted of burglary in 2011
Posted on 12/05/2012 6:41:04 PM PST by marktwain
One of the passengers in the Durango that was fired on by Michael Dunn was an adult convicted of burglary in 2011. Tommie Stornes was on probation at the time of the shooting.
It is not known if the Dodge Durango involved in the shooting was the same Dodge Durango that was used in the burglary.
This is old news for anyone that paid attention the first few days.
Another Shooting May Test Florida Law(Jordan, Dunn)
Sorry if I missed you posting it. I can use all the help I can get.
You need help for what, and why did you leap to the conclusion that I had posted something that you missed?
I merely pointed out that this was something that people who have kept an eye on the case were aware of, and had been since since close to the beginning of the news coverage, once the killer had been caught by police.
I did not see it posted on freerepublic. As you knew of it, and there had been some interest here, and you said that people who followed the case were aware of it, It would have been reasonable to believe that you could have posted it on freerepublic for people who were following the case.
I post a lot of these stories on freerepublic, about 40 percent of the stories on the banglist, and I always encourage other people to post as well. I have said to many that I always appreciate any help from others to post on the banglist.
Or would police still be looking for a suspect in the case?
Attorney Phillips asked if this is truly a Stand Your Ground case, why did he, Dunn, not stand his ground and wait for police?
If the kids had had a shotgun and been fired upon as many times as they were by Dunn did, would they have been justified in firing back in self defense???
Have they ever found the shotgun or even the remotest evidence thereof, or is that still a figment of Dunn's imagination????
It would not take but a second or two to get rid of the gun.
Why would they tell the police where it was.
Many articles and stories posted are claraified with posting from more then one.
Don't those kids have the same right to self defense as the person shooting at them??? and yet they fired no shots.
Were they just showing that they had more sense than Dunn??? or were they without anything to defend themselves with???
either way Dunn is toast.
Intimidation and domination. Fear of death, lack of training, never believing that someone would stand up to them, and being totally surprised when someone does.
Many armed felons do not even have their gun loaded.
It is not uncommon for armed felons not to fire back.
It happens many times in defenses against crime. After all, that is the purpose of defending yourself, to stop the other person from firing back.
In addition, according to Dunn's version, which may or may not be true, the shotgun was in the back seat, and the driver was trying to get away. This makes it more difficult to use the shotgun.
"Don't those kids have the same right to self defense as the person shooting at them??? and yet they fired no shots."
They have the same rights to self defense. If Dunn had told them that he was going to kill them, and had then pulled out a gun, they would be justified at shooting at him to prevent him from killing them.
Three things have to be present to justify the use of deadly force:
Ability: The person has to reasonably believe that his attacker(s) have the ability to kill or severely injure them.
Opportunity: The person has to reasonably believe that his attacker(s) have the opportunity to employ the ability to kill or severely injure them.
Jeopardy: The person has to reasonably believe that his attacker(s) are willing to use that ability and opportunity to put his life or bodily integrity in jeopardy.
So then if the kids in the Durango had seen Dunn reach into his glovebox and take out his gun and load it, they would have been justified at that point in firing at him in self defense????
A lot of criminals show and never use their weapon.
Just having a gun is not enough. It meets the ability and opportunity requirements, but may not meet the jeopardy requirements.
To be justified, the Durango party would have to be able to show that a reasonable person in their situation would believe that Dunn would use the gun to place their lives or bodily integrity in jeopardy.
Dunn's account meets this requirement by stating that a person or persons in the Durango repeatedly verbally threatened his life.
For the people in the Durango to meet the requirement, they would have to show something to the same effect.
Note that sequence matters. You cannot be the first to introduce threats, and then claim self defense, unless you attempt to remove yourself from the situation, say by apologizing and/or physically moving away.
It doesn't meet that reauirement just because he says so. Dunn's account defies credibility because his complaint with the Durango was that the music was too loud. He couldn't hear a threat even if there was one.
Note that sequence matters. You cannot be the first to introduce threats, and then claim self defense,
like Dunn done did here!!!
unless you attempt to remove yourself from the situation, say by ... physically moving away.
kind of like what the kids in the Durango did here.
This case just proves that just because a shooter has a CCW license, it doesn't mean that [s]he used the gun lawfully.
Yep, and many times a poster is thoughtful enough to johnny come latelys, that he lets them know that it is already widely known information.
You say that Dunn has not proved his account simply because he says so (I agree), but then you claim that the party in the Durango has proved an account that I have not even seen made, that Dunn made verbal threats!
We do not know how this will come out. Dunn is in a bad spot even if everything he has said is the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.