Michael Dunn trial: Man accused of shooting teen over music

BayNews9 ^ | February 2, 2014 | Tamara Lush / AP

[Uncle Chip]

A man with a gun. A black teen, shot dead.

Was it murder or self-defense?

Jury selection is scheduled to begin Monday in Florida in the trial of 47-year-old Michael Dunn, a Satellite Beach software developer charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder in the November 2012 shooting of 17-year-old Jordan Davis outside a Jacksonville convenience store.

Authorities say an argument over loud music led to the shooting. Davis was parked in a vehicle with three friends outside the store. Dunn and his fiance had just left a wedding reception and were heading back home when they stopped at the store and pulled up next to the sport utility vehicle that Davis was sitting in.

An argument began after Dunn told them to turn the music down, police said. One of Davis' friends turned the music down, but Davis then told him to turn it back up.

According to authorities, Dunn became enraged and he and Davis began arguing. One person walking out of the convenience store said he heard Dunn say, "You are not going to talk to me like that."

Dunn, who had a concealed weapons permit, pulled a 9 mm handgun from the glove compartment, according to an affidavit, and fired multiple shots into the SUV, striking Davis in the back and groin.

Dunn later told police he felt threatened. His attorney has said Dunn saw a gun and shot in self-defense, perhaps laying the ground work for a case under Florida's "stand your ground" law.

If the case sounds familiar, that's because it has echoes of a trial that received wide attention and happened only two hours away.....

[William Tell]

AEMILIUS PAULUS said: Are you in favor of the "right" to carry firearms into a bar?

I'll give you an answer; unequivocally, YES!

There is no presumption that visiting a bar makes one less able to responsibly carry a firearm.

Are you in favor of outlawing the driving of a car to or from a bar?

How about liquor stores? How about restaurants that serve liquor?

Are you also in favor of the infringement of the right to carry within a 1000 feet of a school? Do you presume that no one would ever approach a school with a firearm unless they intended to murder children?

I presume you see no "slippery slope". Just how far down have you slid?

[Moonman62]

An argument with Phil Spector about stereo would likely to result in a shooting.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Alcohol and guns exactly what is needed. One can only hope that if such insanity prevails, which will likely happen in our increasingly ungovernable society, that the people who advocate the mixture of guns and alcohol get to live that mixture first hand.

Absolutely no unrestricted carrying of firearms, demonstrable necessity before one is given a permit. No guns in bars, no carrying on the streets. Sanity must prevail.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Crime rates go up and down over time. We are currently in a down phase(assuming police departments are being truthful in reporting statistics, a debatable presumption see the police of Atlanta, Georgia.)-besides association is not causation.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Your post actually support my thesis-no carrying of firearms in public-the cities you name demonstrate the results of unrestricted carrying of firearms, and don’t give me that cr*p about the cities you named having restrictive gun laws. The idiots in charge of those cities are unwilling to enforce the existing laws for racial reasons.

[SZonian]

“I am just saying no carrying absent good reason.”

With all due respect, BS.

An attack on my person can happen at any time, any place...you sure you didn’t forget a sarcasm tag or something because the bulk of your comment sounds like it was lifted straight out of the Brady campaign.

[Dr. Sivana]

and don’t give me that cr*p about the cities you named having restrictive gun laws. The idiots in charge of those cities are unwilling to enforce the existing laws for racial reasons.

Yes, I will give you that crap. I appreciate that you have doggedly stuck by your position, knowing that it is not a popular one around here. But, if you are going to paint a hell for us to avoid, don't pick one milder than the one many of us have already been/lived in.

[William Tell]

AEMILIUS PAULUS said: "Absolutely no unrestricted carrying of firearms, demonstrable necessity before one is given a permit. No guns in bars, no carrying on the streets."

You are describing the situation in most of Kalifornia. Perhaps now you can supply the evidence that Kalifornia is benefitting from such infringements.

You seem to be among those who believe that if you outlaw the carrying of arms, the outlaws won't do it.

[Wolfie]

Dr. Miguelito Loveless. Man, I miss that show show. Dude died young back in ‘73.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

California's crime rate is down as is most of America's. It is not due to some states allowing the open carrying of firearms. The decline in crime rate is due to harsher sentencing laws in California-Three Strikes."

California has and has had a more restrictive attitude towards firearms than many states.( California is not as bad as New York.)I have lived here in California for 76 years and have carried my fire arms as prescribed by law. I have been stopped and searched over the years all while carrying firearms and no police officer ever complained about my guns and shooting. They merely looked and said "ok go on." The gun was in the trunk and the ammunition in the glove box as state law commanded.

Open unrestricted carrying of firearms is a recipe for disaster. My wife informed me this morning that some imbecile shot some poor soul in a movie theater because the victim was texting. There was a shooting outside a bar-I actually had one one imbecilic poster on this forum say he approved of people carrying guns into bars. The advocacy of the mixing of liquor and loaded guns-God Help Us! These types of attitudes will be the foundation for people to take away all gun rights. We will all lose.

No right is unrestricted. I totally approve of a man's right to own and possess firearms in his home and place of business, and to use them in defense of his and his families health, well being and property. A man can carry firearms if he has a specific purpose such as carrying jewels and/or sums of money or is required to go into dangerous areas. A man can carry when he goes hunting or target shooting and then guns in the trunk and ammo in the glove box are appropriate.

Not one open carry nut on this forum ever answered my question as to: why did the citizens of 19th century western American towns overwhelmingly vote against the unrestricted carrying of firearms with town limits? Answer the question! You can't because human experience dictates that not everyone should carry as he pleases and those people experienced "Open Unrestricted Carry" and rejected it as would any sane people with a minimum knowledge of human frailties-SHOOTING A MAN FOR TEXTING IN A THEATER! Lord

[William Tell]

AEMILIUS PAULUS said: " A man can carry firearms if he has a specific purpose such as carrying jewels and/or sums of money or is required to go into dangerous areas. "

So, according to your counter-revolutionary thinking, the government was fully justified in sending the army to confiscate arms in and around Boston in 1775?

Where did this notion come from that a person's jewels or money are more important than a person's life or the lives of his loved ones?

Ask your wife whether or not the "texter" she mentioned assaulted the shooter prior to the shooting.

[William Tell]

AEMILIUS PAULUS said: "Open unrestricted carrying of firearms is a recipe for disaster."

Unrestricted driving on our roads is a recipe for disaster. Why just the other day a driver ran a stop sign and killed a family of four. Driving should be outlawed. "For the children".

Kalifornia had open carry of firearms and ended it because BLACK MEN carried arms and frightened the legislature, not because of shootouts in the streets.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Did the shooter yell "DRAW HOSS" before he shot the poor soul. After all we have to have some ethics when we shoot our neighbor. Let us see! We can shoot our fellow drivers on the streets whenever they cut us off. A minor accident at the inter section can lead to the famous shoot out known throughout history and myth as "The Gun Fight at Willow and Pine." Some one picks a flower in your yard you of course can defend your property by shooting the poor 70 year old woman who offended the laws against theft. And of course we must not forget we can encourage the drunken screaming and shouting in the neighborhood bar just before "Ole Hoss" says to "One Eyed Charlie" "DRAW you S.O.B.

Open carry at will is a recipe for living in a lunatic asylum with the nuts well armed. No thanks. By extreme demands to carry at will eventually the abuses will become so bad that we will all lose our rights to own and possess firearms.

Once again why did the citizens of 19th century western American towns overwhelmingly forbid the open carrying of firearms within their town limits? Please answer the question.No open carry nut ever does answer my question. The answer is simple The people of those days experienced the fruits of unrestricted open carry and rejected the doctrine.

[saleman]

“Once again why did the citizens of 19th century western American towns overwhelmingly forbid the open carrying of firearms within their town limits? Please answer the question.No open carry nut ever does answer my question. The answer is simple The people of those days experienced the fruits of unrestricted open carry and rejected the doctrine.”

Ok I’ll give it a shot. They didn’t?

Sure, some towns did. Some didn’t. How was this so called ban on firearms in town limits enforced then?

[William Tell]

AEMILIUS PAULUS said: "Once again why did the citizens of 19th century western American towns overwhelmingly forbid the open carrying of firearms within their town limits?"

You keep claiming that. There was no restriction on open carry when I was young in 1968 Kalifornia. This was in Redwood City and neighboring towns. When did those towns repeal the restriction you claim existed?

Also, why do you focus on the shooting of the "texter"? The shooter was carrying concealed which you seem to believe will eliminate such shootings. Or are you in fact against any carry at all?

[Lurker]

In 1876 Dodge City had one murder. I’ll take open carry any day of the week over what we have now.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

I am a native of California and have lived here continuously since the 1930's and have owned and shot firearms since 1950. State law on the carrying of firearms in a car has always been gun in the trunk and ammunition in the glove box, carrying in a town was and is left to the local authorities, who were properly quite stingy in giving permits. People known to me who carried jewels and large sums of money were given permits to carry. I doubt your understanding of what you claim was happening in Redwood City in 1968. The laws were the same then as today and yesterday- Redwood City may have had a liberal Sheriff or Police Chief. Remember it was local.

As far as the phony statistic of 1 death in Dodge I ask the question when did they pass their gun laws? I use wild west towns as a symbol. I am not doing a statistical analysis which could not be accurate anyway. Statistics are questionable even today; i.e. are they truly accurate? Further, statistical association is not causation.p> However, back to my main point nobody ever answers the question: why did 19th century western America towns pass laws restricting the carrying of guns at will? Answer the question! Nobody ever directly answers a question now days. The disease of dodging the question has spread from our degenerate politicians to the public in general. ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!! IN THE 19TH CENTURY WHY DID THE CITIZENS FORBID OPEN CARRY AT WILL IN WESTERN AMERICAN TOWNS?

I am against the unrestricted carrying of firearms in public at the will of the individual. That is all. A person can carry if he demonstrates a need or "good cause" i.e. carrying jewels and/or large sums of money or need to enter into a dangerous part of town. A person can transport a firearm in a car if he puts the gun in a trunk and ammunition in the glove box(or other locked box.)

I warn you extreme gun nuts. You are going to cost us all i.e. our right to keep and bear arms. People will get sick of the resulting carnage-(which is already starting i.e shooting a person for texting)-and repeal the Second Amendment. Then we will be screwed. Accept the doctrine that there are no unlimited RIGHTS." To cite a cliche "No man has the right to yell fire in a crowded theater." So much for unrestricted free speech. Elect people who will be reasonable in the granting of permits to carry.

[saleman]

“ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!! IN THE 19TH CENTURY WHY DID THE CITIZENS FORBID OPEN CARRY AT WILL IN WESTERN AMERICAN TOWNS?”

I thought I did. So, according to you, all “western american towns” forbid open carry? And why would open carry be any more dangerous than concealed carry? If so, why is concealed carry more regulated than open carry in many jurisdictions?

And why should a gun and ammunition be kept separately when traveling in a vehicle?

And why should I be required to get a permit for a right that is guaranteed by the Constitution?

And why should my right to defend myself be subject to the whims of politicians?

I could go on and on. But the main question is, why should my right to defend me and my family be restricted by folks like you? Hopefully the Crips and Bloods of this world will listen to you. But I doubt it.

[William Tell]

AEMILIUS PAULUS said: "IN THE 19TH CENTURY WHY DID THE CITIZENS FORBID OPEN CARRY AT WILL IN WESTERN AMERICAN TOWNS?"

For the same reason that open carry of firearms is illegal today in Kalifornia. Because ignorant, liberal cowards believe that it is better to live on their knees than die on their feet. They give up "bad neighborhoods" to bad people and sentence the innocent to live in fear. They endow those who have money or expensive jewelry with a special regard for their special lives.

As for your ridiculous claim, "You are going to cost us all i.e. our right to keep and bear arms",what nonsense. You claim the government has the authority to outlaw the bearing of arms, thus proving that you do not believe that there is such a right at all.

I waited patiently for the Heller and McDonald decisions. I wait patiently for the Ninth Circuit to do their job and protect my rights. I have no patience for those who suggest that I simply give up my rights.

Where in the Second Amendment do you find this "good cause" requirement to bear arms? I don't see it.

Is there any logic to the argument that our Founders, who had to steal the cannons with which they ended the occupation of Boston, would then enshrine a protection for keeping and bearing of arms which permits the government to decide who shall exercise such right? It's preposterous.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

You obviously did not read what I did say. In California carrying is local option the last time I looked. Secondly, I stated people will become disgusted by the carnage open unlimited carrying will bring on us so as to REPEAL THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!!!!!!!! The Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms. IT DOES NOT GIVE AN ABSOLUTE unrestricted RIGHT to work whatever the individual wills. No constitutional principle gives an unrestricted right. To quote the cliche "No man has the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater."

It is the gun nut lunacy that will ultimately cost us our right to keep and bear arms in a sane and rational manner.