The "facts" as given on the account of the trial in the link above, would say that had the teen been waving a gun, he deserved to be shot at, hence the axiom "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".
However...
Looking into other facts surrounding the case, you would have to question the defendants state of mind at the time of the incident:
Rouer told jurors that she had two rum and colas and Dunn had “maybe three or four” at the 2012 wedding of Dunn's son prior to pulling into the parking lot of a Jacksonville gas station beside a red Dodge Durango blaring loud music.
“I hate that thug music,” Rouer testified Dunn told her. Rouer replied “Yes, I know,” and then exited the vehicle.
Rouer went inside the gas station to get a bottle of wine and a bag of potato chips. Moments later, Rouer told jurors, “I heard pop, pop, pop.”
Rouer then said she heard a second set of “pop, pop, pop,” and turned around and saw Dunn outside. After Rouer exited the store, she told jurors Dunn told her to get in the vehicle. When Rouer got back in the car, she testified seeing Dunn put a gun back in the glovebox.
Rouer said they went back to the hotel, where Dunn ordered a pizza. She testified Dunn ordered the pizza because he thought it would make her feel better. She also said Dunn fixed a rum and cola for both of them in the hotel room.
The next morning, Rouer woke up and saw reports on TV about the shooting at the gas station. She testified that she told Dunn that she wanted to go home right away, despite having prior plans. They returned to his home where he was later arrested.
* * * * *
Rouer testified she wasn't concerned about Dunn's well-being or being behind the wheel, despite drinking at the wedding.
The "facts" as given on the account of the trial in the link above, would say that had the teen been waving a gun, he deserved to be shot at, hence the axiom "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".
However...
Looking into other facts surrounding the case, you would have to question the defendants state of mind at the time of the incident:
Rouer told jurors that she had two rum and colas and Dunn had “maybe three or four” at the 2012 wedding of Dunn's son prior to pulling into the parking lot of a Jacksonville gas station beside a red Dodge Durango blaring loud music.
“I hate that thug music,” Rouer testified Dunn told her. Rouer replied “Yes, I know,” and then exited the vehicle.
Rouer went inside the gas station to get a bottle of wine and a bag of potato chips. Moments later, Rouer told jurors, “I heard pop, pop, pop.”
Rouer then said she heard a second set of “pop, pop, pop,” and turned around and saw Dunn outside. After Rouer exited the store, she told jurors Dunn told her to get in the vehicle. When Rouer got back in the car, she testified seeing Dunn put a gun back in the glovebox.
Rouer said they went back to the hotel, where Dunn ordered a pizza. She testified Dunn ordered the pizza because he thought it would make her feel better. She also said Dunn fixed a rum and cola for both of them in the hotel room.
The next morning, Rouer woke up and saw reports on TV about the shooting at the gas station. She testified that she told Dunn that she wanted to go home right away, despite having prior plans. They returned to his home where he was later arrested.
* * * * *
Rouer testified she wasn't concerned about Dunn's well-being or being behind the wheel, despite drinking at the wedding.
MrDwhitey wrote: Police found no evidence of a gun being in the teens vehicle.
And someone posting it was removed before inspection in...
The handling of the crime scene was terrible, as was the investigation. But I still contend that alcohol may have attributed to the shooter "thinking" that the teen was armed.
Spacemanvic wrote: The "facts" as given on the account of the trial in the link above, would say that had the teen been waving a gun, he deserved to be shot at, hence the axiom "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"
So, honest question. Did you know when you posted that there there wasn't actually a gun in the (teenager's) car?
Here's another story for you guys to read, it's got his side of the story, such as it is.
Florida man Michael Dunn thought he saw a gun when he shot, killed teen over loud music
Dunn, 47, fired 10 shots, 9 of which hit the SUV Jordan Davis, 17 was sitting in at a Jacksonville store. Dunn said in court Tuesday he was threatened by the black teens, who were unarmed during the fatal 2012
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — The Florida man charged with fatally shooting a 17-year-old boy after an argument over loud music testified Tuesday that he thought he saw the barrel of a gun from a neighboring vehicle pointed at him and that he feared for his life before firing his weapon.
Michael Dunn said he tried to calm down the confrontation with three teens in a neighboring SUV outside a Jacksonville convenience store in November 2012.
“I couldn’t believe what I was seeing and hearing,” the 47-year-old said.
Dunn is charged with first-degree murder. He has pleaded not guilty and says he acted in self-defense when he fatally shot 17-year-old Jordan Davis of Marietta, Ga., outside a Jacksonville convenience store in 2012.
The defense rested its case Tuesday, and then prosecutors called Dunn’s fiancee back to the witness stand. Rhonda Rouer contradicted Dunn’s assertion that he had told her he had seen a gun in the teens’ SUV. Closing arguments were expected Wednesday.
Prosecutors also played a video of Dunn’s jailhouse interview in which he couldn’t explain why he didn’t call police after the shooting. Also in it, detectives picked apart Dunn’s story that he was threatened with a gun, saying no weapon was found on the teen and witnesses never described Davis making threats.
Dunn said he would not have done anything to get himself in trouble.
“I got a place on the beach. I got a great house. I got a great girl. We just got a new puppy,” Dunn said. “There is no reason for me to jeopardize that.”
In his testimony, Dunn told jurors he was in Jacksonville with Rouer to attend his son’s wedding. He had brought along on the trip his 7-month-old dog, and at one point in testimony, he wiped away tears when talking about his fiancee and dog.
Dunn said he and Rouer went to the convenience store for wine and chips. He said he pulled into a spot next to an SUV where music with a “thumping” bass was playing.
“It got really loud,” Dunn said. “My rear view mirror was shaking. My eardrums were vibrating. It was ridiculously loud.”
Dunn said he asked the three men in the SUV to turn down the music and they turned it off. “I said, ‘Thank you,”’ Dunn said. But soon afterward, Dunn said he heard someone in the SUV shouting expletives and the word “cracker” at him. Dunn is white, and the teens in the SUV were black. Cracker is a derogatory term for white people.
The music was turned back on, and Dunn testified, “I wasn’t going to ask for favors anymore.”
Dunn said the men in the SUV had “menacing expressions,” and he asked the teens whether they were talking about him. He said he wanted to calm down the situation but saw a teen in the backseat reach down for something which he slammed into the car door. Dunn said it looked as if the barrel of a shotgun was sticking out the window.
Lucia McBath, left and Ronald Davis, right, parents of Jordan Davis, walk out of the courtroom during the trial of Michael Dunn in Jacksonville, Fla., Tuesday Feb. 11, 2014.
One of the teens stepped out of the SUV, Dunn said, and he felt “this was a clear and present danger.” He reached for his pistol in a glove box.
Dunn, who had a concealed weapons permit, fired nine shots into the car, according to an affidavit. Once his fiancee returned to the car, he drove off out of fear of the SUV returning, he said.
He described having “tunnel vision,” with everything focused on his target.
No weapons were found in the SUV.
Dunn said he told Rouer on the drive back to the hotel that he had shot in self-defense.
“I didn’t do anything wrong,” Dunn said he told her.
Dunn and Rouer drove back to their hotel and Dunn said he didn’t call the police because his focus was on the well-being of Rouer, whom he described as in hysterics. The next morning, Dunn said, Rouer insisted she wanted to go home and they drove back to their home in Brevard County, 175 miles away. There, Dunn said he contacted a neighbor who is in law enforcement for advice on how to turn himself in to authorities.
During cross-examination, prosecutor John Guy challenged Dunn’s assertion that he had told Rouer after the shooting that he thought one of the teens had a gun.
“You never told the love of your life that those guys had a gun,” Guy said. “Did you?”
Dunn responded, “You were not there.”
Guy challenged Dunn on other parts of his story, citing letters Dunn had written from jail and interviews with investigators. The prosecutor said Dunn had told detectives the day after the shooting that it could have been a stick he saw pointing from the vehicle. But Dunn countered he was just suggesting a far-fetched possibility.
Guy also suggested that Dunn was angry because he was being disrespected by a young black man. Dunn responded, “I was being threatened, not disrespected.”
The prosecutor also said Dunn had stated in a jailhouse letter that his car was parked so close to the SUV that it would have been hard for him to exit. Guy said that mean Davis also would have had a hard time getting out of the SUV.
“Jordan Davis was never a threat to you, was he, Mr. Dunn?” Guy said.
Spacemanvic wrote: The "facts" as given on the account of the trial in the link above, would say that had the teen been waving a gun, he deserved to be shot at, hence the axiom "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"
So, honest question. Did you know when you posted that there there wasn't actually a gun in the car?
Did I post after I read the above linked court room testimony that stated the defendant thought he saw a weapon and then opened fire? Yes.
But the reality is, because of the mishandling of the investigation by the police, we may never truly know IF a firearm was ever in the hands of the individual shot. This does not absolve the shooter, as I think alcohol may very well have impaired his judgement.
The music was turned back on, and Dunn testified, “I wasn’t going to ask for favors anymore.”
And that's, I think, done in one for me.
Spacemanvic wrote: But the reality is, because of the mishandling of the investigation by the police, we may never truly know IF a firearm was ever in the hands of the individual shot.
He also testified that it could have been a stick. He doesn't know what he saw. Good enough for shooting in Florida, I guess.
The music was turned back on, and Dunn testified, “I wasn’t going to ask for favors anymore.”
And that's, I think, done in one for me.
Spacemanvic wrote: But the reality is, because of the mishandling of the investigation by the police, we may never truly know IF a firearm was ever in the hands of the individual shot.
He also testified that it could have been a stick. He doesn't know what he saw. Good enough for shooting in Florida, I guess.
You should give the entire context to that:
“It got really loud,” Dunn said. “My rear view mirror was shaking. My eardrums were vibrating. It was ridiculously loud.”
Dunn said he asked the three men in the SUV to turn down the music and they turned it off. “I said, ‘Thank you,”’ Dunn said. But soon afterward, Dunn said he heard someone in the SUV shouting expletives and the word “cracker” at him. Dunn is white, and the teens in the SUV were black. Cracker is a derogatory term for white people.
The music was turned back on, and Dunn testified, “I wasn’t going to ask for favors anymore.”
Dunn said the men in the SUV had “menacing expressions,” and he asked the teens whether they were talking about him. He said he wanted to calm down the situation but saw a teen in the backseat reach down for something which he slammed into the car door. Dunn said it looked as if the barrel of a shotgun was sticking out the window.
The teens were acting belligerent/threatening. It would be no different if it was a car full of white kids yelling "n****r" and the black man responding to the word/action as a threat. But i feel alcohol impaired this man's judgement. He perceived the teens had a weapon and responded in kind. Its no different than a police man perceiving someone in a vehicle having a weapon and filling the vehicle with holes, only to find out it contained two middle aged women delivering newspapers. Alcohol altered his judgment, he should be handled like a drunk behind the wheel.
The music was turned back on, and Dunn testified, “I wasn’t going to ask for favors anymore.”
And that's, I think, done in one for me.
Spacemanvic wrote: But the reality is, because of the mishandling of the investigation by the police, we may never truly know IF a firearm was ever in the hands of the individual shot.
He also testified that it could have been a stick. He doesn't know what he saw. Good enough for shooting in Florida, I guess.
Have you heard the expression "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me"? Speaking of, if the music was so loud his eardrums were painfully vibrating, how did he hear what someone said in the backseat of that car? I mean, that's some Superman gak right there, right?
Seriously, you appear to be justifying that if you seem some young black men in a car, and you get scared, it's OK to light the car up and murder one of them. Maybe one of them had a gun or a stick or something, you're not sure, and yeah, no one else saw one and there were witnesses but hey who knows?. And sure, ballistics show that the kid that got killed was still sitting when it happened and the doors were closed (despite you claiming that the door was opening), but hey, maybe they were thinking about opening the door, right? I mean, the important part to this story is they were black kids and they looked scary.
The teens were acting belligerent/threatening. It would be no different if it was a car full of white kids yelling "n****r" and the black man responding to the word/action as a threat. But i feel alcohol impaired this man's judgement. He perceived the teens had a weapon and responded in kind. Its no different than a police man perceiving someone in a vehicle having a weapon and filling the vehicle with holes, only to find out it contained two middle aged women delivering newspapers. Alcohol altered his judgment, he should be handled like a drunk behind the wheel.
Oklahoma has extra felony charges if you are carrying after you were drinking. I would hope that the same applies there.
"Making the conscious decision to carry a weapon after you drink or drink while carrying a weapon should be handled like a DUI" is probably a finalist for dumbest statement on Dakka for the week.
At worst he should be handled like a police officer that decided to get drunk on duty and then report to a crime where he decided to unload his gun in a drunken stupor.
d-usa wrote: "Making the conscious decision to carry a weapon after you drink or drink while carrying a weapon should be handled like a DUI" is probably a finalist for dumbest statement on Dakka for the week.
Murder a teenager because he looked at you "belligerently" while possibly being intoxicated? Off to driving school, my man!
Ouze wrote: Have you heard the expression "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me"? Speaking of, if the music was so loud his eardrums were painfully vibrating, how did he hear what someone said in the backseat of that car? I mean, that's some Superman gak right there, right?
Seriously, you appear to be justifying that if you seem some young black men in a car, and you get scared, it's OK to light the car up and murder one of them. Maybe one of them had a gun or a stick or something, you're not sure, and yeah, no one else saw one and there were witnesses but hey who knows?. And sure, ballistics show that the kid that got killed was still sitting when it happened and the doors were closed (despite you claiming that the door was opening), but hey, maybe they were thinking about opening the door, right? I mean, the important part to this story is they were black kids and they looked scary.
The teens were acting belligerent/threatening. It would be no different if it was a car full of white kids yelling "n****r" and the black man responding to the word/action as a threat. But i feel alcohol impaired this man's judgement. He perceived the teens had a weapon and responded in kind. Its no different than a police man perceiving someone in a vehicle having a weapon and filling the vehicle with holes, only to find out it contained two middle aged women delivering newspapers. Alcohol altered his judgment, he should be handled like a drunk behind the wheel.
Oklahoma has extra felony charges if you are carrying after you were drinking. I would hope that the same applies there.
"Making the conscious decision to carry a weapon after you drink or drink while carrying a weapon should be handled like a DUI" is probably a finalist for dumbest statement on Dakka for the week.
At worst he should be handled like a police officer that decided to get drunk on duty and then report to a crime where he decided to unload his gun in a drunken stupor.
Absolutely right, you should never have made that statement.
Not the self-inflicted, culpability-mitigating version of it you appear to be pushing, no.
I'd really like to explore this idea you had that it should have been treated like a DUI - as you say, " Alcohol altered his judgment, he should be handled like a drunk behind the wheel." If you drink so much you imagine someone has a gun (or maybe a stick) and then shoot them, and kill them, what should the being-in-a-car modifier be here? Points off the license? Where was this idea going? There's obviously something I'm not getting with that.
He also testified that it could have been a stick. He doesn't know what he saw. Good enough for shooting in Florida, I guess.
If it were good enough for Florida, there wouldn't be a trial. But there is, and he's toast.
1. To be correct, there was no evidence submitted so far that there was a shotgun or even a stick.
2. Its my understanding that he didn't call the Po Po but instead went off to eat.
That means he's toast. No evidence for reasonable doubt of self defense or even guilt.
The teens were acting belligerent/threatening. It would be no different if it was a car full of white kids yelling "n****r" and the black man responding to the word/action as a threat. But i feel alcohol impaired this man's judgement. He perceived the teens had a weapon and responded in kind. Its no different than a police man perceiving someone in a vehicle having a weapon and filling the vehicle with holes, only to find out it contained two middle aged women delivering newspapers. Alcohol altered his judgment, he should be handled like a drunk behind the wheel.
Oklahoma has extra felony charges if you are carrying after you were drinking. I would hope that the same applies there.
"Making the conscious decision to carry a weapon after you drink or drink while carrying a weapon should be handled like a DUI" is probably a finalist for dumbest statement on Dakka for the week.
At worst he should be handled like a police officer that decided to get drunk on duty and then report to a crime where he decided to unload his gun in a drunken stupor.
He'd been drinking too? Wow he's like the poster boy for what not to do with a CHL (if he had one). Yep burnt toast.
Impaired judgement isn't a justification, evident by how you can be sent to jail for drunk driving that results in death, or for raping a girl while drunk, or starting a bar fight, while drunk. It's called depraved indifference.
I find it interesting that Space joined in accusing me of being an oath breaker and that I'm trolling because I dare question the morality of giving a document credit for the work of a nation.
And now Space is literally defending a racist murder, thanks glad to know were you stand morally Space.
Questioning rampant lipservice of a document: Deportment and removal of hard earned scholarship
Murdering a Black teen over loud music: Totally okay and worth defending on a internet forum
Ouze 579603 6535710 c658660cfb8680ff4e93f8a1223cc33e wrote:Speaking of, if the music was so loud his eardrums were painfully vibrating, how did he hear what someone said in the backseat of that car? I mean, that's some Superman gak right there, right?
The Article You Didn't Read Well wrote:Dunn said he asked the three men in the SUV to turn down the music and they turned it off. “I said, ‘Thank you,”’ Dunn said. But soon afterward, Dunn said he heard someone in the SUV shouting expletives and the word “cracker” at him. Dunn is white, and the teens in the SUV were black. Cracker is a derogatory term for white people.
The teens were acting belligerent/threatening. It would be no different if it was a car full of white kids yelling "n****r" and the black man responding to the word/action as a threat. l
WRONG. NOT THE SAME AT ALL.
Cracker is a term for calling out someone abusing his white privilege in an unreasonable way... like a 'slave master cracking his whip' or a racist ass 'honking' his horn at civil rights protestors. It is not anywhere close to a racial slur or a term of threatening violence.
N-word is a threatening action degrading a person to 'less than human' levels and is to intimidate and threaten.
'playing thug music' is not being threatening and they have every right to be belligerent when confronted by a bigot. 'Thug' is the new N-word for bigots, especially since white people have co-oped rap, it is hardly 'thug' music now, it is pretty mainstream.
Their crime was being black in Florida and not cowering before their white masters.
Dunn is a textbook 'cracker' performing the very definition of the term... they used the term exactly right in every way. And guess what? They have every right to call him that as much as they want and in no way should expect to be shot.
no. cracker is a racist term. I heard it especially when I was jumped once in a mall. Protip, don't use two guys to jump one guy when four of his friends are in the store he's standing in front of...
Frazzled wrote: no. cracker is a racist term. I heard it especially when I was jumped once in a mall. Protip, don't use two guys to jump one guy when four of his friends are in the store he's standing in front of...
It is no where close to the N-word, and doesn't have close to the same history or innate threat level ingrained to it.
Maybe they should have simply used BIGOT instead, but his actions were exactly the actions which the terms were coined from.
Frazzled wrote: no. cracker is a racist term. I heard it especially when I was jumped once in a mall. Protip, don't use two guys to jump one guy when four of his friends are in the store he's standing in front of...
It is no where close to the N-word, and doesn't have close to the same history or innate threat level ingrained to it.
Maybe they should have simply used BIGOT instead, but his actions were exactly the actions which the terms were coined from.
uh... nkelsch, it's either racist, or it's not.
(after reading what Dunn did... I think he's toast)
Impaired judgement isn't a justification, evident by how you can be sent to jail for drunk driving that results in death, or for raping a girl while drunk, or starting a bar fight, while drunk. It's called depraved indifference.
You are late to a party that really doesnt exist.
Not once did I say that impaired judgement was a justification.
The man was impaired IMHO, and murdered a young man whose only crime was to act like a dumb young man which an inebriated man took as a threat.
At no time in any of the coverage Ive read, did the boys get out of the vehicle and approach the shooter. The shooter claims that he "heard" what he perceived to be a barrel thump against the door of the car. How so, if the music was loud enough to vibrate the vehicle?
Not once, despite the desperate machinations of some posters, did I offer a defense of the shooter.
As Ive stated before, this does not look like a clean shoot. And as others have stated, the man is (or should be) rightly toast.
So you know how in so many of the gun threads I've tried making the point that heated situations are so much more dangerous when there's a gun, well... yeah.
I mean, consider this situation, a heated exchange between two sides, in which one is armed and suddenly thinks that the other side might also be armed and about to use it. You end up with a dead kid and someone on trial. Two lives ruined.
Then consider the same heated exchange, in a place where no-one has a gun and also has no reason to think the other side might have a gun. There may still be an escalation to violence, but it is less likely, and it's even less likely that such violence will be deadly.
whembly wrote: uh... nkelsch, it's either racist, or it's not.
Sort of. I mean, if someone called me a cracker I wouldn't take it as a racist insult. But that's just me, I'm not going to tell someone else that they can't take the word in a racist fashion. I mean, say a hypothetical kid that went to a school with really bad race relations who got called a cracker every day, and was in genuine fear that he might have the crap beat out of him... yeah I can see how that kid might take the word cracker differently.
But the point being, what matters is the experiences of the person, and how they genuinely feel about the word.
This is quite different to the argument you often hear trotted out, that cracker is just the same as the n-word, so if we can't say that, then they don't get to say cracker, otherwise it's not fair. That argument is just 300 kinds of bs.
The teens were acting belligerent/threatening. It would be no different if it was a car full of white kids yelling "n****r" and the black man responding to the word/action as a threat. l
WRONG. NOT THE SAME AT ALL.
Cracker is a term for calling out someone abusing his white privilege in an unreasonable way... like a 'slave master cracking his whip' or a racist ass 'honking' his horn at civil rights protestors. It is not anywhere close to a racial slur or a term of threatening violence.
N-word is a threatening action degrading a person to 'less than human' levels and is to intimidate and threaten.
'playing thug music' is not being threatening and they have every right to be belligerent when confronted by a bigot. 'Thug' is the new N-word for bigots, especially since white people have co-oped rap, it is hardly 'thug' music now, it is pretty mainstream.
Their crime was being black in Florida and not cowering before their white masters.
Dunn is a textbook 'cracker' performing the very definition of the term... they used the term exactly right in every way. And guess what? They have every right to call him that as much as they want and in no way should expect to be shot.
So you are saying Cracker isn't a racist term? Your definition of what a cracker is seems to disagree, primarily because of this: "calling out someone abusing his white privilege". While it is not on the same level of the N word, it is most certainly a racist term for white people. Same with the term Honky, also a racist term for white people. The N word, while absolutely racist, is also not always threatening as you say either, there are people who use it as an adjective when pointing someone out etc (racist folks but that's besides the point). My point is that what your saying about these terms is wrong.
Technically, this statement: "Dunn is a textbook 'cracker' performing the very definition of the term..." is extremely racist, don't believe me, replace "cracker" with any other racist, classist, ageist term used for any other group (really doesn't matter) and you will see what I mean.
As a side note edit to expand on what Fraz is saying: I grew up in South Texas, if the word cracker was being thrown around it was never good for the party involved who was being called that, maybe for you it doesn't hold the same meaning, but as a white person, who grew up around a lot of racial tension, it may hold different meaning to me than to you.
I think we can safely say though that Dunn was a jackass of the Eighth level. Sebster is right in this one instance. That fool should never have had access to a gun.
Frazzled wrote: I think we can safely say though that Dunn was a jackass of the Eighth level. Sebster is right in this one instance. That fool should never have had access to a gun.
Yep, this guy is, if I may borrow your term, Toast.
whembly wrote: uh... nkelsch, it's either racist, or it's not.
Sort of. I mean, if someone called me a cracker I wouldn't take it as a racist insult. But that's just me, I'm not going to tell someone else that they can't take the word in a racist fashion. I mean, say a hypothetical kid that went to a school with really bad race relations who got called a cracker every day, and was in genuine fear that he might have the crap beat out of him... yeah I can see how that kid might take the word cracker differently.
But the point being, what matters is the experiences of the person, and how they genuinely feel about the word.
This is quite different to the argument you often hear trotted out, that cracker is just the same as the n-word, so if we can't say that, then they don't get to say cracker, otherwise it's not fair. That argument is just 300 kinds of bs.
To be fair context is important even with taboo words like there's ways of using the word [see forum posting rules] where the word isn't being used to target black people like quoting a historical document to show how race relations have changed from the past, giving someone a definition so they understand
the meaning of the word, using it in a joke in order to degrade the harshness of the word, etc.
whembly wrote: uh... nkelsch, it's either racist, or it's not.
Sort of. I mean, if someone called me a cracker I wouldn't take it as a racist insult. But that's just me, I'm not going to tell someone else that they can't take the word in a racist fashion. I mean, say a hypothetical kid that went to a school with really bad race relations who got called a cracker every day, and was in genuine fear that he might have the crap beat out of him... yeah I can see how that kid might take the word cracker differently.
But the point being, what matters is the experiences of the person, and how they genuinely feel about the word.
This is quite different to the argument you often hear trotted out, that cracker is just the same as the n-word, so if we can't say that, then they don't get to say cracker, otherwise it's not fair. That argument is just 300 kinds of bs.
eh... sort of right.
I live in St. Louis, MO... grew up going to Magnet School in the City where *I* was the minority.
Funny thing is that my African American peers at school were brutally honest about race relations such that left an impression in my life. I think that the city-life made them more pragmatic about their outlook in life.
It's this: Using any words with racial overtones is equally bad. Because the moment you start saying one word in context is worse than the other, it's easier to fall into the reverse-racism trap.
Technically, this statement: "Dunn is a textbook 'cracker' performing the very definition of the term..." is extremely racist, don't believe me, replace "cracker" with any other racist, classist, ageist term used for any other group (really doesn't matter) and you will see what I mean.
No... Because the term is not the same. Cracker and Honkey have very clear origins based upon people's 'ACTIONS', usually based around one race abusing or belittling another. Other terms like the N-word have very clear origins based around blindly dehumanizing someone simply because of their race and not because of his actions. At 'WORST' you are being singled out by the term for being associated by race with people who have unfairly harmed minorities... not being lumped together as a race for being genetically inferior or sub-human for hundreds of years... It is being called 'a douche for being white' opposed to 'a subhuman animal for being black'. If you think it is all 'equal' then that is a problem.
Even when you call someone a 'cracker' it is still dehumanizing to minorities because that is what the 'cracker/Honkey' term is referring to. Someone who is white abusing or being abusive to minorities. Do some people use it as a generic term for all white people? Is it anywhere close to dehumanizing and insulting? Never in a million years...
whembly wrote: uh... nkelsch, it's either racist, or it's not.
Sort of. I mean, if someone called me a cracker I wouldn't take it as a racist insult. But that's just me, I'm not going to tell someone else that they can't take the word in a racist fashion. I mean, say a hypothetical kid that went to a school with really bad race relations who got called a cracker every day, and was in genuine fear that he might have the crap beat out of him... yeah I can see how that kid might take the word cracker differently.
But the point being, what matters is the experiences of the person, and how they genuinely feel about the word.
This is quite different to the argument you often hear trotted out, that cracker is just the same as the n-word, so if we can't say that, then they don't get to say cracker, otherwise it's not fair. That argument is just 300 kinds of bs.
To be fair context is important even with taboo words like there's ways of using the word [see forum posting rules] where the word isn't being used to target black people like quoting a historical document to show how race relations have changed from the past, giving someone a definition so they understand
the meaning of the word, using it in a joke in order to degrade the harshness of the word, etc.
They recently fired a principal here in Port Orchard, Washington for using the term while explaining what the difference of the N word and the word Negro in a history class where the student was offended by the term Negro. Regardless of the context its one of those words that is best left unsaid (IMO)
Honestly I don't feel really anything when called "cracker" (in fact I would probably laugh), "white devil" sounds much harsher to me but still not as bad as (imo) "[see forum posting rules]" which is probably the A-bomb of racial slurs.
whembly wrote: uh... nkelsch, it's either racist, or it's not.
Sort of. I mean, if someone called me a cracker I wouldn't take it as a racist insult. But that's just me, I'm not going to tell someone else that they can't take the word in a racist fashion. I mean, say a hypothetical kid that went to a school with really bad race relations who got called a cracker every day, and was in genuine fear that he might have the crap beat out of him... yeah I can see how that kid might take the word cracker differently.
But the point being, what matters is the experiences of the person, and how they genuinely feel about the word.
This is quite different to the argument you often hear trotted out, that cracker is just the same as the n-word, so if we can't say that, then they don't get to say cracker, otherwise it's not fair. That argument is just 300 kinds of bs.
To be fair context is important even with taboo words like there's ways of using the word [see forum posting rules] where the word isn't being used to target black people like quoting a historical document to show how race relations have changed from the past, giving someone a definition so they understand
the meaning of the word, using it in a joke in order to degrade the harshness of the word, etc.
They recently fired a principal here in Port Orchard, Washington for using the term while explaining what the difference of the N word and the word Negro in a history class where the student was offended by the term Negro. Regardless of the context its one of those words that is best left unsaid (IMO)
I think Louis CK explains it well how pointless "N-word" as it's not an effective way of censoring a word as you still know they're describing the word "[see forum posting rules]". Anyways that's sad to hear about principle by censoring history you're not getting an accurate representation of the time period
plus that could be used as an opportunity to teach students the difference between modern and past interpretations of race.
Spacemanvic wrote: Not once, despite the desperate machinations of some posters, did I offer a defense of the shooter.
As Ive stated before, this does not look like a clean shoot. And as others have stated, the man is (or should be) rightly toast.
You're right, you didn't offer a defense. What you did do was offer justification after justification for the shooting after opening with blaming the victim. I mean, you want to walk all that back now, that's OK, but lets not try and rewrite history one page later.
Spacemanvic wrote: Not once, despite the desperate machinations of some posters, did I offer a defense of the shooter.
As Ive stated before, this does not look like a clean shoot. And as others have stated, the man is (or should be) rightly toast.
You're right, you didn't offer a defense. What you did do was offer justification after justification for the shooting after opening with blaming the victim. I mean, you want to walk all that back now, that's OK, but lets not try and rewrite history one page later.
You are pretty inept at attempting to shoe-horn this. Keep flailing though
I think the last 2 pages are self evident, and that's all I have to say.
Anyway, you know what the weirdest thing about this is? I bet if he had called the cops right away he might have skated, depending on his BAC. I think the waiting until the next day is what hurt him the most, if he is convicted.
Frazzled wrote: Also cracker has very strong undertones in the South that others may not get. You just don't understaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnddddddddddd....
That's my point. That the word will have a very different meaning to different people based on how the culture they were raised in, and their personal experiences.
Frazzled wrote: Also cracker has very strong undertones in the South that others may not get. You just don't understaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnddddddddddd....
That's my point. That the word will have a very different meaning to different people based on how the culture they were raised in, and their personal experiences.
Cheesecat wrote: To be fair context is important even with taboo words like there's ways of using the word [see forum posting rules] where the word isn't being used to target black people like quoting a historical document to show how race relations have changed from the past, giving someone a definition so they understand
the meaning of the word, using it in a joke in order to degrade the harshness of the word, etc.
I live in St. Louis, MO... grew up going to Magnet School in the City where *I* was the minority.
Funny thing is that my African American peers at school were brutally honest about race relations such that left an impression in my life. I think that the city-life made them more pragmatic about their outlook in life.
It's this: Using any words with racial overtones is equally bad. Because the moment you start saying one word in context is worse than the other, it's easier to fall into the reverse-racism trap.
It isn't that simple, because words with racial meanings are used all the time in non-racist contexts, and simply refusing to be part can actually end up looking racist.
I'll give you an example, in the country I used to play in a cricket team with a pretty strong aboriginal contingent, and they'd throw around all sorts of terms that I would never have used when I lived in the city. One time after I'd just shared a good laugh with one guy, he grabbed me around the shoulders and said 'this guy is my boong brother'... and I said 'yeah, we're boong brothers'. Now boong is just like the n-word, and there's no way in hell I'd just say it in regular conversation (I actually feel a bit odd typing it...) but in that situation it would have been weird and kind of racist for me to say 'actually I don't like that word and I won't say'.
It's all in the context of the situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: Honestly I don't feel really anything when called "cracker" (in fact I would probably laugh), "white devil" sounds much harsher to me but still not as bad as (imo) "[see forum posting rules]" which is probably the A-bomb of racial slurs.
White devil makes me think of Commando comics and really terrible movies made in the '40s that were racist but so camp it is hard to get bothered. Do people really get worked up about 'white devil'? Does anyone even say it?
Would this story have been totally different if the kid had called him a 'white devil'?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
IronWarLeg wrote: They recently fired a principal here in Port Orchard, Washington for using the term while explaining what the difference of the N word and the word Negro in a history class where the student was offended by the term Negro. Regardless of the context its one of those words that is best left unsaid (IMO)
Hey, just to clarify, I'm not saying any of these words are okay in public forums. Not at all, because the speaker simply can't know the sensitivities of his entire audience. I am saying that context matters, and just claiming some words are okay and other words are never okay is just too simplistic for how life is actually lived.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: We're in agreement. Hold me, I'm so scared....
We're also both dog people. And have daughters. And have third nipples.
I think the Riley cooper situation this past summer is a really good example of how that context changes things a great deal. Still think it was a poor decision for him to say on camera, but there certainly wasn't any racist intent.
FWIW, while I agree that racism is racism and bigotry is bigotry, being called a cracker or a honkey doesn't really bother me. I actually think they're both kinda funny. As a full blooded American Irishman, I'm not really offended when I've been called a Mick before either.
I live in St. Louis, MO... grew up going to Magnet School in the City where *I* was the minority.
Funny thing is that my African American peers at school were brutally honest about race relations such that left an impression in my life. I think that the city-life made them more pragmatic about their outlook in life.
It's this: Using any words with racial overtones is equally bad. Because the moment you start saying one word in context is worse than the other, it's easier to fall into the reverse-racism trap.
It isn't that simple, because words with racial meanings are used all the time in non-racist contexts, and simply refusing to be part can actually end up looking racist.
I'll give you an example, in the country I used to play in a cricket team with a pretty strong aboriginal contingent, and they'd throw around all sorts of terms that I would never have used when I lived in the city. One time after I'd just shared a good laugh with one guy, he grabbed me around the shoulders and said 'this guy is my boong brother'... and I said 'yeah, we're boong brothers'. Now boong is just like the n-word, and there's no way in hell I'd just say it in regular conversation (I actually feel a bit odd typing it...) but in that situation it would have been weird and kind of racist for me to say 'actually I don't like that word and I won't say'.
It's all in the context of the situation.
Eh...
At the end of the day, all that really matters is how the recipient takes it. All I'm saying is that racism... is racism.
I'm not talking about folks who knows each other and calls each other names in jest.
There's a lot of different types of racism too like institutional, personal, economic, symbolic, etc it's not as simple as just saying or doing hateful things to other races (and ethnicities depending on your definition) it can be quite subtle.
cincydooley wrote: I think the Riley cooper situation this past summer is a really good example of how that context changes things a great deal. Still think it was a poor decision for him to say on camera, but there certainly wasn't any racist intent.
FWIW, while I agree that racism is racism and bigotry is bigotry, being called a cracker or a honkey doesn't really bother me. I actually think they're both kinda funny. As a full blooded American Irishman, I'm not really offended when I've been called a Mick before either.
But that's just me.
Yeah, it wouldn't bother me either, but I still respect that it might bother someone else.
The Irish reference reminds me of another story from a poker night I was at a few weeks ago. One fellow there was wearing a green Ireland shirt, in recognition of his proud Irish heritage, from about six generations ago, from a country he'd never actually visited. One of his mates picked up on this, and joked about how he might feel a little ridiculous considering there was a couple guys here playing poker who were actually from Ireland, and they didn't feel the need to wear bright green shirts with Ireland on them. The guy got annoyed at this, and so everyone took to calling him 'paddie', including the actual Irish people. He was offended
Which has a point, I guess, that some times offending someone isn't actually a bad thing. Sometimes what people claim as offence is actually just people showing them how silly they're being. So 'offence' alone isn't enough of a guideline, making the whole thing even more complicated
At the end of the day, all that really matters is how the recipient takes it.
Yep, I agree entirely about that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: There's a lot of different types of racism too like institutional, personal, economic, symbolic, etc it's not as simple as just saying or doing hateful things to other races (and ethnicities depending on your definition) it can be quite subtle.
Yes, really good point. And in the scope of problems about race, people being offended about racial words being used is way, way down the bottom of the list.
I think it's hard for a lot of us white folks to really understand, too, because so few of us have really felt racism in our lives. It's a fact that comes up all the time when I'm talking with my black friends.
It's actually a big reason why I think it's important for white folks like me to have some minority friends they are willing to address some of our ignorances about race in general. We had a big old discussion about it regarding the Marcus Smart incident (which I'm surprised didn't make it into this section of dakka).
cincydooley wrote: It's actually a big reason why I think it's important for white folks like me to have some minority friends they are willing to address some of our ignorances about race in general.
A certain number, would you say? Or 'quota,' if you will?
I mean, I'd lean towards token ;P. But that's just me.
But seriously, I really did word that strangely. Let me try to rephrase:
I'm glad I have some friends of color to educate me on some of the issues they face that, as a suburban white dude, I can't understand from first hand experiences.
When people say stuff like "it's not possible to be racist against white people" IME they're using a social justice definition of racism where racism = power + prejudice. Under that definition you can't be racist against whitey because whitey has the institutional power. You can be prejudiced against whitey, but that's different - and that's the point of the distinction.
I live in St. Louis, MO... grew up going to Magnet School in the City where *I* was the minority.
Funny thing is that my African American peers at school were brutally honest about race relations such that left an impression in my life. I think that the city-life made them more pragmatic about their outlook in life.
It's this: Using any words with racial overtones is equally bad. Because the moment you start saying one word in context is worse than the other, it's easier to fall into the reverse-racism trap.
It isn't that simple, because words with racial meanings are used all the time in non-racist contexts, and simply refusing to be part can actually end up looking racist.
I'll give you an example, in the country I used to play in a cricket team with a pretty strong aboriginal contingent, and they'd throw around all sorts of terms that I would never have used when I lived in the city. One time after I'd just shared a good laugh with one guy, he grabbed me around the shoulders and said 'this guy is my boong brother'... and I said 'yeah, we're boong brothers'. Now boong is just like the n-word, and there's no way in hell I'd just say it in regular conversation (I actually feel a bit odd typing it...) but in that situation it would have been weird and kind of racist for me to say 'actually I don't like that word and I won't say'.
It's all in the context of the situation.
Eh...
At the end of the day, all that really matters is how the recipient takes it. All I'm saying is that racism... is racism.
I'm not talking about folks who knows each other and calls each other names in jest.
Racism is more than a offensive word, if the only thing white people have to worry about in this country is being called a cracker then we have gotten off lucky compared to how some are treated.
Worst case of racism Iv personally witnessed is when a group of kids in my area beat a "Arab looking kid" half to death and they said they only did it because they thought he was a Muslim terrorist.
Except the kid was from Morocco and was christian.
cincydooley wrote: I think it's hard for a lot of us white folks to really understand, too, because so few of us have really felt racism in our lives. It's a fact that comes up all the time when I'm talking with my black friends.
Definitely. There were a couple of asian kids in my primary school, but the first time I saw a black person I was 11. I actually remember the day it happened. Seriously, that's how white my upbringing was.
The end result is that while I wasn't racist when I was younger, I was really, really clueless about a lot of race issues. When I went out and lived in the country, I learnt a hell of a lot, really quickly.
cincydooley wrote: I think it's hard for a lot of us white folks to really understand, too, because so few of us have really felt racism in our lives. It's a fact that comes up all the time when I'm talking with my black friends.
It's actually a big reason why I think it's important for white folks like me to have some minority friends they are willing to address some of our ignorances about race in general. We had a big old discussion about it regarding the Marcus Smart incident (which I'm surprised didn't make it into this section of dakka).
I thought like that. Then I moved to LA. My thinking is different now.
"Get Off My Lawn!" knows no color, race, or creed.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: When people say stuff like "it's not possible to be racist against white people" IME they're using a social justice definition of racism where racism = power + prejudice. Under that definition you can't be racist against whitey because whitey has the institutional power. You can be prejudiced against whitey, but that's different - and that's the point of the distinction.
Anyway, this whole story is demonstrably false. I was assured after Zimmerman that any white guy shooting a black guy in Florida would never again face trial due to the breakdown of all that is right and just in society. The people who said this aren't the type to lie or exaggerate to make a bad political point, so it stands to reason that at least some of the facts are wrong.
Seaward wrote: Anyway, this whole story is demonstrably false. I was assured after Zimmerman that any white guy shooting a black guy in Florida would never again face trial due to the breakdown of all that is right and just in society. The people who said this aren't the type to lie or exaggerate to make a bad political point, so it stands to reason that at least some of the facts are wrong.
That not what I said. That's what you and others kept saying I said, but its not what I said.
LordofHats wrote: That not what I said. That's what you and others kept saying I said, but its not what I said.
I was talking about TV and newspaper pundits (and the entirety of MSNBC), but the quick leap to the defensive is curious.
Its pretty much verbadum the same thing you and others said to me back in the big ol Zimmerman thread from like. Anyway, you even linked this case back to me as a response to the faux argument in the thread. It was awhile ago so maybe I'm the only person who remembers.
Forgive me for for thinking that words are being twisted. Dunn case is definitely being effected by the Zimmerman case. The only reason Dunn even made news is because the shooting happened in the middle of the Zimmerman trial. It bodes ill when a jury takes this long on such a straight forward case.They have already been shown the footage during trial, which showed that Davis had no weapon (rather plainly too). It's not hard to imagine they're drawing a line between Dunn and Zimmerman.
Of course, somehow the police get handed a conviction on a platter and they still manage to mess it up. Gotta wonder what their spending their money on, cause it doesn't seem to be trained officers.
Yeah the facts really don't seem in favour of the shooter in this case. I am all for responsible gun ownership, but being under the influence and deciding to draw in the circumstances as outlined do not strike me as the actions of a responsible person.
sebster wrote: Yeah, it wouldn't bother me either, but I still respect that it might bother someone else.
The Irish reference reminds me of another story from a poker night I was at a few weeks ago. One fellow there was wearing a green Ireland shirt, in recognition of his proud Irish heritage, from about six generations ago, from a country he'd never actually visited. One of his mates picked up on this, and joked about how he might feel a little ridiculous considering there was a couple guys here playing poker who were actually from Ireland, and they didn't feel the need to wear bright green shirts with Ireland on them. The guy got annoyed at this, and so everyone took to calling him 'paddie', including the actual Irish people. He was offended
Which has a point, I guess, that some times offending someone isn't actually a bad thing. Sometimes what people claim as offence is actually just people showing them how silly they're being. So 'offence' alone isn't enough of a guideline, making the whole thing even more complicated
sebster wrote: Yeah, it wouldn't bother me either, but I still respect that it might bother someone else.
The Irish reference reminds me of another story from a poker night I was at a few weeks ago. One fellow there was wearing a green Ireland shirt, in recognition of his proud Irish heritage, from about six generations ago, from a country he'd never actually visited. One of his mates picked up on this, and joked about how he might feel a little ridiculous considering there was a couple guys here playing poker who were actually from Ireland, and they didn't feel the need to wear bright green shirts with Ireland on them. The guy got annoyed at this, and so everyone took to calling him 'paddie', including the actual Irish people. He was offended
Which has a point, I guess, that some times offending someone isn't actually a bad thing. Sometimes what people claim as offence is actually just people showing them how silly they're being. So 'offence' alone isn't enough of a guideline, making the whole thing even more complicated
We tend to call people like that a Plastic Paddy
How much of a heritage do you need to have in order to be interested in it?
daedalus wrote: How much of a heritage do you need to have in order to be interested in it?
There is a significant difference between being interested in your heritage, and trying to out do the natives
So, along this same vein of thought: I've been thinking about getting a kilt, not because I'm Scottish, or think I'm Scottish, but because they look comfortable as all hell. Now, my family actually IS significantly Scottish on my dad's side. Were I to get the family plaid instead of a random one, would I be a Plastic Paddy (or in this case, I fear I'd be "No True Scotsman"). Further, for that matter, would any sort of kilt be the mark of a Plastic Paddy?
daedalus wrote: So, along this same vein of thought: I've been thinking about getting a kilt, not because I'm Scottish, or think I'm Scottish, but because they look comfortable as all hell. Now, my family actually IS significantly Scottish on my dad's side. Were I to get the family plaid instead of a random one, would I be a Plastic Paddy (or in this case, I fear I'd be "No True Scotsman"). Further, for that matter, would any sort of kilt be the mark of a Plastic Paddy?
Not unless you run around trying to be Braveheart to ingratiate yourself with the locals
UPDATE: 1:20PM Jury asks if they can be provided with the “trajectory-rod dummy.” Problem is, dummy is demonstrative evidence only, normally would not go back to jury room. State has no objection. Strolla and Dunn discuss briefly in separate room, return and say they also have no objection. Healey, in abundance of caution, recesses for 15 minutes so case law can be reviewed, ensure they don’t inadvertently make a move that could result in reversal.
UPDATE: 1:20PM Jury asks if they can be provided with the “trajectory-rod dummy.” Problem is, dummy is demonstrative evidence only, normally would not go back to jury room. State has no objection. Strolla and Dunn discuss briefly in separate room, return and say they also have no objection. Healey, in abundance of caution, recesses for 15 minutes so case law can be reviewed, ensure they don’t inadvertently make a move that could result in reversal.
Now this is kinda bizzare...
Lets see..
If it looks like the GG was shot at an angle correspionding to sitting down in the car no good for BG.
Same to same if the GG is in a position different from where the BG said he saw a shotgun, stick, or whatever he was blathering about.
If the pattern could resemble however the GG leaning out of his vehicle, then that helps the BG's case.
The jury may just be being methodical. Or someone has a mandoll crush.
I live in St. Louis, MO... grew up going to Magnet School in the City where *I* was the minority.
Funny thing is that my African American peers at school were brutally honest about race relations such that left an impression in my life. I think that the city-life made them more pragmatic about their outlook in life.
It's this: Using any words with racial overtones is equally bad. Because the moment you start saying one word in context is worse than the other, it's easier to fall into the reverse-racism trap.
It isn't that simple, because words with racial meanings are used all the time in non-racist contexts, and simply refusing to be part can actually end up looking racist.
I'll give you an example, in the country I used to play in a cricket team with a pretty strong aboriginal contingent, and they'd throw around all sorts of terms that I would never have used when I lived in the city. One time after I'd just shared a good laugh with one guy, he grabbed me around the shoulders and said 'this guy is my boong brother'... and I said 'yeah, we're boong brothers'. Now boong is just like the n-word, and there's no way in hell I'd just say it in regular conversation (I actually feel a bit odd typing it...) but in that situation it would have been weird and kind of racist for me to say 'actually I don't like that word and I won't say'.
It's all in the context of the situation.
Eh...
At the end of the day, all that really matters is how the recipient takes it. All I'm saying is that racism... is racism.
I'm not talking about folks who knows each other and calls each other names in jest.
Racism is more than a offensive word, if the only thing white people have to worry about in this country is being called a cracker then we have gotten off lucky compared to how some are treated.
Worst case of racism Iv personally witnessed is when a group of kids in my area beat a "Arab looking kid" half to death and they said they only did it because they thought he was a Muslim terrorist.
Except the kid was from Morocco and was christian.
You act like we're a protected species. Spend some time in some non-touristy areas in Hawaii. Walk through E. St. Louis, Detroit, Philly, etc... Racism against whites is very real out there. It's just more "accepted".
Perhaps they jury wants to see a recreation of the scene at the time of the shooting, and see which scenario is the most likely based on the facts as reported.
UPDATE: 2:25PM Jury reports that one set of jury instructions is missing pages 32-41. (Holy cow, that’s a lot of instructions.) Weighing the evidence, defendant’s statements, rules for deliberations, cautionary instructions, verdict, submitting case to the jury, not substantive discussions. We didn’t change any of these from the model instructions. Just sending back the missing pages. No objections from State or defense. Jurors also requested a dry easel or large paper, which will be sent back to them. Back in recess.
UPDATE: 2:25PM Jury reports that one set of jury instructions is missing pages 32-41. (Holy cow, that’s a lot of instructions.) Weighing the evidence, defendant’s statements, rules for deliberations, cautionary instructions, verdict, submitting case to the jury, not substantive discussions. We didn’t change any of these from the model instructions. Just sending back the missing pages. No objections from State or defense. Jurors also requested a dry easel or large paper, which will be sent back to them. Back in recess.
Holy crap thats a big one...
Dude its a simple case. the charge and self defense scheme are simple to. Whats the dealio? That may include a lot of other things like Bob's Rules of Barbeque and Evidence or something.
UPDATE: 4:30 Court back in session. Jury asking when letter exhibit #201 written? One of Dunn’s jail house letters. Court looks through transcript, identifies as June 2013. This is the “Black Friday” letter, though obviously not written that date. Jury now retiring back to jury room. Healey tells all four alternates they’ll be held overnight tonight, but tomorrow can be sequestered in hotel room rather than in court house, more comfortable for them.
Yes. People acting negatively towards others based on nothing but race is racism. Some people call that xenophobia, not to diminish it but to focus the discussion on institutional racism... and other people don't like the idea of changing what it's called. But ultimately that's just pointless word games.
What matters is that we acknowledge that racism between individuals happens, and everyone can suffer that, and that institutional racism happens, and is an extremely powerful force in some people's lives, and those people are almost never white.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I was talking about TV and newspaper pundits (and the entirety of MSNBC), but the quick leap to the defensive is curious.
You know just picking on the nonsense spouted on MSNBC is as interesting and useful as leftwingers just picking on the crap spouted on FOX news, yeah?
daedalus wrote: How much of a heritage do you need to have in order to be interested in it?
In order to be interested in it? Zero. I can read books about Vikings if I want, despite having (as far as I know) absolutely no scandanavian heritage.
In order to claim the heritage? Something, anything that's actually more than a surname. Family that still speaks the language, enough that you're somewhat familiar with it. Family who still live in that country that you stay in close contact with, including travelling to see them when you can. That kind of thing, something that means it's actually a heritage you were born in to, not something you decided to claim because you didn't want to accept you're really just another guy with the same US heritage as most people you know.
Spaceman earlier referenced the poorly handled police investigation as far as securing the crime scene. Though we didn't agree on some other stuff, I do agree that it certainly planted a seed of doubt: that perhaps there was a weapon that was disposed of. It doesn't help a witness literally said that he though maybe someone stashed something, and then under further questioning recanted that - who remembers the part where he walked that statement back, especially if your mind was set at that point? People always remember the accusation, never the reversal - it's human nature I think.
I think it's a little hard to swallow that there was possibly a gun there (that wasn't used when the car started getting shot up, c'mon) that was stashed before returning to the scene - in my mind that is kind of truthery contorting of possibilities to justify what you already want to believe. But will a jury have some doubt, some reasonable doubt? Maybe...
5:00PM Two questions from the jury. First question involves getting a 30 minute break, Healey of course says yes. Second question more substantive: Is it permissible for them to agree on several on the charges, but not on another of the charges. Answer is also yes. Verdicts would be rendered on the ones where unanimous agreement, the last would be hung jury, and State could re-prosecute on that hung charge at their discretion. (As a reminder, there are five indicted charges–Murder 1, three counts of attempted Murder 1, and hurling missiles. Also the jury is free to consider all lesser included charges.)
Yeah. I was thinking the same dogma. Why are they going for murder 1? I feel like that requires more premeditation than this act has justification for.
cincydooley wrote: Yeah. I was thinking the same dogma. Why are they going for murder 1? I feel like that requires more premeditation than this act has justification for.
Why not? The jury can always convict on a lesser charge.
cincydooley wrote: Yeah. I was thinking the same dogma. Why are they going for murder 1? I feel like that requires more premeditation than this act has justification for.
Why not? The jury can always convict on a lesser charge.
cincydooley wrote: Just found it Ouze. You're right. I bet that's why they're taking longer. 1st degree murder seems like a huge stretch to begin with.
I'd agree with that. Premeditation seems like a road too far.
cincydooley wrote: Just found it Ouze. You're right. I bet that's why they're taking longer. 1st degree murder seems like a huge stretch to begin with.
I'd agree with that. Premeditation seems like a road too far.
Yeah, this was definitely 2nd degree. Still murder, and he should go to jail for a long time, but it wasn't 1st degree.
whembly wrote: Jeeze... the jury is still deliberating...
To me, this definitely points to a hung jury.
I thought the Prosecution had a solid case here. o.O
A prosecution can have a rock solid case and still have a very tough time selling the facts of the case to a jury.
Yeah... go figure.
Update:
6:50pm Jury requests to be dismissed for the night, saying they have “hit a wall for tonight.” Judge allows, no objection. He thanks jury, says he’ll let THEM decide what time to start tomorrow. Healey suggests, 9:00, 9:30, and one juror responds, “7:00″. The court room breaks into laughter. Healey decides jury can arrive when they wish, he’ll be there but rest of court need not, at 9:00AM he’ll call court into session and announce what time the jury actually started, just so everyone knows. That’s it for tonight.
d-usa wrote: Also guilty of one count if "shooting" I think.
Sounds like they all agreed that he was quilty on the first count, but couldn't agree to the actual degree of the charge.
Yeah, not great, but 'better than nothing'. And unreasonable racist trigger-happy man is off the street at least. Florida needs to change some laws... I have heard there has been big pushes to hurt the tourism trade until issues are addressed... Will it matter? Will a 'don't vacation in Florida' Boycott work? maybe...
d-usa wrote: Also guilty of one count if "shooting" I think.
Sounds like they all agreed that he was quilty on the first count, but couldn't agree to the actual degree of the charge.
Yeah, not great, but 'better than nothing'. And unreasonable racist trigger-happy man is off the street at least. Florida needs to change some laws... I have heard there has been big pushes to hurt the tourism trade until issues are addressed... Will it matter? Will a 'don't vacation in Florida' Boycott work? maybe...
Where are the snow birds gonna go? California? We're talking retirees here, they don't have that kind of money.
d-usa wrote: Also guilty of one count if "shooting" I think.
Sounds like they all agreed that he was quilty on the first count, but couldn't agree to the actual degree of the charge.
Yeah, not great, but 'better than nothing'. And unreasonable racist trigger-happy man is off the street at least. Florida needs to change some laws... I have heard there has been big pushes to hurt the tourism trade until issues are addressed... Will it matter? Will a 'don't vacation in Florida' Boycott work? maybe...
Where are the snow birds gonna go? California? We're talking retirees here, they don't have that kind of money.
What are the biggest tourist draws in Florida?
You got the snowbirds, the summer coastal crowd, and the Theme Park families; is there anybody else?
nkelsch wrote: Florida needs to change some laws... I have heard there has been big pushes to hurt the tourism trade until issues are addressed... Will it matter? Will a 'don't vacation in Florida' Boycott work? maybe...
What laws do they need to change? The guy is going to prison.
cincydooley wrote: They can retry for the murder and charge it as murder 2 correct?
Well, Murder 2 was already included in the Murder 1 charge. But maybe removing the higher charge would make it less likely that the jury would hang on two different charges again.
It would also seem consistent with the fact that every other kid in the car was "attempted Murder 2".
Anyone know why this wasn't charged as a hate crime? I mean, the "hate thug music" part would seem to indicate they'd have a pretty solid leg to stand on.
10-20-Life I believe is the penalty in Florida, so he's looking at a minimum of 30 years. 77 years old at the end of that. We're most likely talking life here.
nkelsch wrote: Florida needs to change some laws... I have heard there has been big pushes to hurt the tourism trade until issues are addressed... Will it matter? Will a 'don't vacation in Florida' Boycott work? maybe...
What laws do they need to change? The guy is going to prison.
cincydooley wrote: Anyone know why this wasn't charged as a hate crime? I mean, the "hate thug music" part would seem to indicate they'd have a pretty solid leg to stand on.
I don't think hating Thugs really qualifies as a hate crime. Unless we equate Thugs with a specific Race, and that is a rabbit hole you don't want to go down.
All in all this feels pretty justice-y for me, even with the mistrial on murder 1 - which was almost certainly an overreach anyway and it will be re-done.
cincydooley wrote: Just found it Ouze. You're right. I bet that's why they're taking longer. 1st degree murder seems like a huge stretch to begin with.
The prosecution argued that the close grouping of rounds meant the shooter must have had time to aim and control his fire, which means pre-meditation. Which is just fething bonkers, if you ask me.
I mean, on first degree murder I have no idea if it applies, because I don't know the standard for first degree in Florida. But the idea that you can look at bullet groupings and use that to speculate on the state of mind of the shooter seems fairly ridiculous.
sebster wrote: The prosecution argued that the close grouping of rounds meant the shooter must have had time to aim and control his fire, which means pre-meditation. Which is just fething bonkers, if you ask me.
I mean, on first degree murder I have no idea if it applies, because I don't know the standard for first degree in Florida. But the idea that you can look at bullet groupings and use that to speculate on the state of mind of the shooter seems fairly ridiculous.
Was that the same prosecutor that said in the Zimmermann trial that by having a round chambered in a CCW meant that you were intent on killing someone?
Murder One was a stupid charge. It was stupid in the Zimmerman case (and likely why he got off... Manslaughter would've been a much easier sell) and it was stupid in this case.
Most prosecutors, the ones with brains in their heads anyway, don't push for Murder One charges. It is the hardest murder charge to convict on because the premeditation component is so difficult to prove. Unless the killer used poison (which, due to the difficulty in administering to a victim automatically shows premeditation) or unless the prosecution has a stack of detailed notes in the defendant's handwriting which detail all of the steps of the crime, Murder Two is typically the best a sane prosecutor will push for. Even if they know in their heart that the case is Murder One, if they can't prove murder one, they will go for Murder Two, and try to get the judge to impose the maximum allowable sentence (which can still be a fair stretch of time, especially if parole is denied).
Clearly, the prosecutors in Florida need to go back to law school and learn this stuff over again.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Was that the same prosecutor that said in the Zimmermann trial that by having a round chambered in a CCW meant that you were intent on killing someone?
And I thought we were all doing such a good job of not mentioning the Zimmerman trial...
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Was that the same prosecutor that said in the Zimmermann trial that by having a round chambered in a CCW meant that you were intent on killing someone?
And I thought we were all doing such a good job of not mentioning the Zimmerman trial...
Sadly, seb, a lot of my minority friends on FB don't see this guy, or this situation, any differently than the Zimmerman case.
I'm correct in that the DA has stated intent to retry on murder correct?
In teresting discussion last night on MSNBC (yes sometimes one likes to spy on Mordor) and there was discussion that charging with 1st degree doesn't work here based on the specific requirements for 1st degree, but that 2nd degree is appropriate and should be the charge (aka DA keeps overcharging and juries are pouring out). Sounds like premediation may be a requirement for 1st degree there, which could not be met.
Frazzled wrote: I'm correct in that the DA has stated intent to retry on murder correct?
In teresting discussion last night on MSNBC (yes sometimes one likes to spy on Mordor) and there was discussion that charging with 1st degree doesn't work here based on the specific requirements for 1st degree, but that 2nd degree is appropriate and should be the charge (aka DA keeps overcharging and juries are pouring out). Sounds like premediation may be a requirement for 1st degree there, which could not be met.
Yeah, I said the same thing a few posts earlier. The DA in this case keeps pushing the charges too far, and should probably be replaced. First Degree murder is much harder to convict on than it is on TV, because of the difficulty in proving the premeditation component.
Jacksonville, Florida (CNN) -- Jurors found Michael Dunn guilty of first-degree murder Wednesday in the 2012 shooting death 17-year-old Jordan Davis.
Dunn's parents were in the courtroom for the verdict. Davis' parents, Ron Davis and Lucia MacBath, both let out a quiet gasp upon hearing the jury forewoman's words and then hung their heads and cried. Dunn did not appear to have an immediate reaction, but later, he turned around and somberly shook his head toward his father.
Duval County Judge Russell Healey set a tentative sentencing hearing for October 17 but said he would wait until Tuesday to ensure the date worked for Dunn's defense attorneys.
"This has been going on for two years, and everyone has acted graciously. I ask that you continue to do that," Healey said before the verdict was read. "Remember, we must respect the verdict of the jury. They did not volunteer to do this."
Dunn, 47, was charged with murder after shooting into an SUV full of teenagers at a Jacksonville, Florida, gas station following a squabble over the music emanating from the teens' vehicle.
Dunn has said he shot at the vehicle because he thought Davis had a weapon and feared for his life, but the prosecution has alleged Dunn was the aggressor and pointed out he kept firing even after the teens fled.
Three of the 10 shots that Dunn fired struck Davis, one of them cutting through his liver, a lung and his aorta.
Investigators say Davis never had a weapon, nor was one found in the teens' SUV or the surrounding area.
A jury found Dunn guilty of four charges in February, commanding at least 60 years in prison, but the jury was hung on the murder charge related to Davis' November 2012 death.
Jurors began deliberating on the new charges just before 10 a.m. ET on Wednesday, after Healey dismissed two of the three alternates and provided instructions for the charges jurors were to consider.
The first charge to consider, Healey said, was first-degree murder, which would require that Dunn premeditated killing Davis.
If the jury didn't feel the state proved first-degree murder, it was instructed to move on to second-degree, which would mean Dunn killed Davis via a criminal or depraved act.
The third charge was manslaughter, which would require a finding that Dunn unlawfully caused Davis' death.
Killing Davis was lawful, Healey told the jury, if Dunn acted in the heat of passion or if he unintentionally caused Davis' death. The jury could also find Dunn not guilty if he was in danger, acted in self-defense and exacted a justifiable use of force, the judge instructed.
Dunn was convicted in February on one count of shooting into a vehicle and three counts of attempted second-degree murder -- one each for Davis' friends, Leland Brunson, Tommie Stornes and Tevin Thompson, who were in the Dodge Durango with Davis that day.
The Satellite Beach, Florida, man hasn't been sentenced on those charges, but prosecutor Eric Wolfson said at the time of the conviction that each attempted second-degree murder charge carries a minimum sentence of at least 20 years. There's also a 15-year sentence possible on the conviction for shooting at the teenager's vehicle, Wolfson said.
I'm glad he's going away. He deserves it. But there was an INCREDIBLY stupid post that I laughed at, and I hope the poster matured as a human being since making that. If I'm gonna risk a triangle of friendship, I want it to be worthwhile.
It isn't that simple, because words with racial meanings are used all the time in non-racist contexts, and simply refusing to be part can actually end up looking racist.
I'll give you an example, in the country I used to play in a cricket team with a pretty strong aboriginal contingent, and they'd throw around all sorts of terms that I would never have used when I lived in the city. One time after I'd just shared a good laugh with one guy, he grabbed me around the shoulders and said 'this guy is my boong brother'... and I said 'yeah, we're boong brothers'. Now boong is just like the n-word, and there's no way in hell I'd just say it in regular conversation (I actually feel a bit odd typing it...) but in that situation it would have been weird and kind of racist for me to say 'actually I don't like that word and I won't say'.
It's all in the context of the situation.
I agree with this in sentiment, however in reality, in the US it just isn't that simple.... The rugby club I play for now has a decent percentage of Islanders. If you know much about their culture, they in essence view themselves as being "black" so their good buddy becomes "my [the N-word, but I won't type it here, because it'll be censored anyhow ]" now, if in that same situation as Seb, my rugby teammates put their arm around me and say "this here is my N---" I most definitely cannot respond with the same.
As for the OP, I find that there's so much wrong with the whole situation here... Start with a guy drinking and driving (with a woman who was also drinking, so she was obviously no better for driving). Add in that some idiot kids were playing their "music" too loud, if Dunn's account is at all accurate, and his mirrors were vibrating from the volume of the music, then he had every right to ask them to turn it down. I know that I've done so a few times since my kids have been born. From there, the idiocy just seems to ramp up, and we'll probably ultimately never know WHY. Did Dunn "ask" the teens to turn down their music in such a way as to engender hostile actions/feelings from them? Did they REALLY say some stupid stuff after turning off their music? From there, of course his having a firearm, whilst being under the influence of alcohol will most likely screw him over, combined with his actions at the scene, as well as him leaving and what he did later on.
Man gets life without parole for murdering Florida teen over loud music By Ray Sanchez, CNN
Michael Dunn is sentenced to life in prison without parole
He was convicted for the 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Jordan Davis
Death happened during an argument over loud music
Judge Russell Healey: "Mr. Dunn, your life is effectively over"
(CNN) -- A Florida judge Friday sentenced Michael Dunn to life in prison without parole for the 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Jordan Davis.
The sentence, imposed nearly two years after Dunn shot and killed Davis during an argument over loud music, also carries an additional 90 years for three convictions of attempted murder and firing a weapon into a vehicle.
"This case demonstrates that our justice system does work," Duval County Judge Russell Healey said moments before sentencing Dunn.
Dunn, 47, who is white, was convicted of first-degree murder this month for shooting into an SUV full of African-American teenagers at a Jacksonville, Florida, gas station after an argument over loud music from the teens' vehicle.
Jurors speak out on 'loud music' verdict Michael Dunn found guilty of murder
Prosecutors did not seek the death penalty in the racially-charged case, which drew comparisons to the shooting death of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman.
Zimmerman, who maintained that he acted in self-defense, was acquitted last year by a Florida jury.
Dunn claimed he acted in self-defense because he believed Davis was reaching for a gun. No weapon was found.
"Mr. Dunn, your life is effectively over," Healey said. "What is sad... is that this case exemplifies that our society seems to have lost its way."
Dunn, wearing an orange jumpsuit, showed no emotion.
Healey said Florida's controversial "stand your ground" law was widely misunderstood.
"We should remember there is nothing wrong with retreating and deescalating the situation," the judge said.
Outside court, Davis' father, Ron Davis, said the judge sent a strong message.
"We may have in this state 'stand your ground' laws but that doesn't allow you as a citizen, when you have a chance to diffuse a situation, for you to be so aggressive," he told CNN by phone on Friday. "It's basically saying to people, stop with the shoot first."
In a brief statement before sentencing, Dunn for the first time apologized to Davis' family.
"I want the Davis family to know I truly regret what happened," he said. "I'm sorry for their loss. If I could roll back time and do things differently, I would."
He feared for his life, he said.
"I did what I thought I had to do," Dunn said. "Still, I am mortified I took a life, whether it was justified or not."
Davis' parents, Davis and Lucia McBath, made emotional statements at the hearing, which was attended by some of the jurors who convicted Dunn.
Juror: 'Race was never a factor'
In tears, McBath remembered her son. She said she forgave Dunn.
"I miss his big, wide, toothy smile," she said. "For me, there will be no college graduation. There will be no daughter-in-law. For me, there will be no future generation."
She added, "I too must be willing to forgive. And so I choose to forgive you Mr. Dunn for taking my son's life. I pray that God has mercy on your soul."
Davis said he life was changed forever.
"My life as I had known it was shattered on November 23, 2012," he told the court. "I now call it Black Friday for a completely different reason. After the longest hour of my life, the hospital confirmed that Jordan Russell Davis was deceased in the emergency room. ... The old Ron
Davis died that night with Jordan."
Davis called Dunn's apology "paper thin."
"You can tell the defense attorney wrote that for him," he told CNN. "It was not heartfelt. There wasn't a tear in his eyes, no tremble in his voice. He had no remorse whatsoever."
Unlike McBath, Davis hasn't forgiven his son's killer.
"For me to forgive you, you have to have remorse," he said. "I leave it to God to forgive him. I pray that God does forgive him."
Juror: 'I believed he was guilty'
Dunn's family did not address the court.
Dunn has said he shot at the vehicle because he thought Davis had a weapon and feared for his life, but the prosecution said Dunn was the aggressor and pointed out that he kept firing even after the teens fled.
Three of the 10 shots that Dunn fired struck Davis, one of them cutting through his liver, a lung and his aorta.
Investigators say Davis never had a weapon, nor was one found in the teens' SUV or in the area.
A jury found Dunn guilty of four charges in February, commanding at least 60 years in prison, but the jury was hung on the murder charge related to Davis' November 2012 death.
Dunn was convicted in February on one count of shooting into a vehicle and three counts of attempted second-degree murder -- one each for Davis' friends, Leland Brunson, Tommie Stornes and Tevin Thompson, who were in the Dodge Durango with Davis.
After shooting Davis, prosecutors said, Dunn did not call police. He returned to his hotel, ordered pizza, walked his dog and went to sleep.
