• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Case where teenager was shot/killed over loud music starts Mon[W:841, 1051,1314,2133]

Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

That is an over simplification. I dont like SYG laws. SYG laws rejected hundreds of years of common law principals based on common sense and real world applications. Not surprisingly, SYG laws encourage idiots.

That aside, I am not "anti gun". In fact, I own a few of them.

who called you an anti-gun fan? not me lol

and theres nothing wrong with a well written SYG IMO, just has to be well written. Florida's is not IMO its very piss poor
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

who called you an anti-gun fan? not me lol

and theres nothing wrong with a well written SYG IMO, just has to be well written. Florida's is not IMO its very piss poor

Heard on the news this morning this woman - got pissed off and chased another woman with her car, right? She got out of the car, went up and shot the woman who was still sitting in her car, and now she's claiming self defense. I got $10 that says she claims SYG.
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

SYG laws rejected hundreds of years of common law principals based on common sense and real world applications.

That's right. SYG laws, based on common sense and real world applications, reject hundreds of years of common law principals.
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

That's right. SYG laws, based on common sense and real world applications, reject hundreds of years of common law principals.
SYG laws were based on belief that there are always good guys and bad guys, never grey guys and that one can always tell good from bad by the color of hats they wear. That is not real world.

Now, Texas has an SYG law that at least directly says one cannot provoke the other person. As a reuslt, the Texas law is far more real world than Floridas.
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

SYG laws were based on belief that there are always good guys and bad guys, never grey guys and that one can always tell good from bad by the color of hats they wear. That is not real world.

Now, Texas has an SYG law that at least directly says one cannot provoke the other person. As a reuslt, the Texas law is far more real world than Floridas.

Florida law also imposes a duty to retreat when one is the original aggressor. SYG laws are based on the idea that a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity should not be subject to the imposition by an assailant of an obligation to flee a place where he or she has a right to be.
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

Heard on the news this morning this woman - got pissed off and chased another woman with her car, right? She got out of the car, went up and shot the woman who was still sitting in her car, and now she's claiming self defense. I got $10 that says she claims SYG.

I've got $10 that says she goes down for murder. No way is SYG the same as chasing someone down and killing them.
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

Heard on the news this morning this woman - got pissed off and chased another woman with her car, right? She got out of the car, went up and shot the woman who was still sitting in her car, and now she's claiming self defense. I got $10 that says she claims SYG.
Can you post a link? I cant find it on the internet.
who called you an anti-gun fan? not me lol
and theres nothing wrong with a well written SYG IMO, just has to be well written. Florida's is not IMO its very piss poor
Sorry, I misunderstood your post. Though I would strongly prefer to keep the Common Law principals on self defense, I am doubly opposed to poorly written SYG laws such as Florida's.
 
Last edited:
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

Though I would strongly prefer to keep the Common Law principals on self defense, I am doubly opposed to poorly written SYG laws such as Florida's.

I'm a political traditionalist, so I get where you're coming from, but duty to retreat is bad law that needs to change, it's unjust since it gives assailants the power to impose an obligation (to retreat) on their victims.
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

I dont beleive you should have to retreat either, but I do beleive you should have to be "reasonable." If retreating is clearly the most prudent way to resolve the situation with no one getting killed, then you should. If retreat would not help without a doubt, or further worsen the situation no retreat should be required.
I'm a political traditionalist, so I get where you're coming from, but duty to retreat is bad law that needs to change, it's unjust since it gives assailants the power to impose an obligation (to retreat) on their victims.
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

I dont beleive you should have to retreat either, but I do beleive you should have to be "reasonable." If retreating is clearly the most prudent way to resolve the situation with no one getting killed, then you should. If retreat would not help without a doubt, or further worsen the situation no retreat should be required.

So do you support the duty to retreat (when safe to do so)?
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

I'm a political traditionalist, so I get where you're coming from, but duty to retreat is bad law that needs to change, it's unjust since it gives assailants the power to impose an obligation (to retreat) on their victims.

I agree with the unjust duty to retreat, but the Common Law evolved over hundreds of years with thousands of real case situations. At the end of the day, many shootings, stabings, clubbings and beatings are "Jerry Springer" grey area events. The Common Law acknowledged that and therefore imposed a general duty to retreat.

Of course, there are many ways to retreat:

A- Woman followed and grabbed while going to her car: Just needs to "retreat" by yelling No! or Stop!

B- Six foot 200 pound male choosing to engage in an alcohol fueled tavern uhmm..."discussion" in a recession wracked town over what football team does or does not "suck" and what team "intelligent" people do or do not support: Needs to make alot more of an effort to retreat.

The Common Law accepted that "B" type situations are very, very common...

I dont beleive you should have to retreat either, but I do beleive you should have to be "reasonable." If retreating is clearly the most prudent way to resolve the situation with no one getting killed, then you should. If retreat would not help without a doubt, or further worsen the situation no retreat should be required.

That is all that Common Law demanded- that one attempt to retreat if possible. Common Law was also very flexible as to what constituted an acceptable reteat (woman walking to her car and yelling No!) vs taven debater who willingly engages in a "they suck, you suck, no you suck" argument.

Both can defend themselves, but the "debater" needs to make more of an effort to retreat.

In effect, SYGs are a solution to a non existant problem. Of course, SYGs bring alot of problems- which is what happens when Common Law wisdom is junked.
 
Last edited:
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

I really support a duty not to be stupid and kill people you dont have to. but if you have to...you have to. This is difficult to articulate and see why SYG laws are important to simpler people. You should have a duty not to kill anyone you dont have to, but you should be able to defend yourself with no requirement to retreat, spit or say hi. I just think the way SYG is getting translated now is going to be more deadly to gun rights than anything, well except young black males.
So do you support the duty to retreat (when safe to do so)?
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

I really support a duty not to be stupid and kill people you dont have to. but if you have to...you have to. This is difficult to articulate and see why SYG laws are important to simpler people. You should have a duty not to kill anyone you dont have to, but you should be able to defend yourself with no requirement to retreat, spit or say hi. I just think the way SYG is getting translated now is going to be more deadly to gun rights than anything, well except young black males.

Common Law found a good balance by allowing the definition of "retreat" to fit the situation. The more somebody contributed to a "Jerry Springer" type confrontation, the more effort they needed to make a retreat. Meanwhile, another man or woman just needed to retreat by taking a step backwards, or saying No!

This allowed for alot of self defense, but also cut down on the " I"ll go "Jerry Springer", and then shoot my way out of it if I need to" or "I"ll set up a situation where I "need" to kill this man" type events.
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

makes a lot more sense to me.
Common Law found a good balance by allowing the definition of "retreat" to fit the situation. The more somebody contributed to a "Jerry Springer" type confrontation, the more effort they needed to make a retreat. Meanwhile, another man or woman just needed to retreat by taking a step backwards, or saying No!

This allowed for alot of self defense, but also cut down on the " I"ll go "Jerry Springer", and then shoot my way out of it if I need to" or "I"ll set up a situation where I "need" to kill this man" type situations.
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

Common Law found a good balance by allowing the definition of "retreat" to fit the situation. The more somebody contributed to a "Jerry Springer" type confrontation, the more effort they needed to make a retreat. Meanwhile, another man or woman just needed to retreat by taking a step backwards, or saying No!

This allowed for alot of self defense, but also cut down on the " I"ll go "Jerry Springer", and then shoot my way out of it if I need to" or "I"ll set up a situation where I "need" to kill this man" type events.

Imagine this type of scenario:

Back in the days of the old south, where racism abounded, an (openly) armed white man tells a (concealed carrying) black man to go home and leave the public place they're in, or he'd kill him. Under the duty to retreat, the black man must leave the place (or die), whereas SYG laws would allow the black man to defend himself. (This is why the old south never would have adopted SYG)

So should the black man be obliged to leave, or should he be able to defend himself?
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

As I understand it, if it were today, without stand your ground laws, the black man should be able to remain where he is and kill the white man at any point he truly feels threatened, which I think he is probably justified before/as the white man even reachs for his weapon. Forcing a man to lose his freedom of movement and civil rights are far different then loud music or unfounded suspesions.
Imagine this type of scenario:

Back in the days of the old south, where racism abounded, an (openly) armed white man tells a (concealed carrying) black man to go home and leave the public place they're in, or he'd kill him. Under the duty to retreat, the black man must leave the place (or die), whereas SYG laws would allow the black man to defend himself. (This is why the old south never would have adopted SYG)

So should the black man be obliged to leave, or should he be able to defend himself?
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

As I understand it, if it were today, without stand your ground laws, the black man should be able to remain where he is and kill the white man at any point he truly feels threatened, which I think he is probably justified before/as the white man even reachs for his weapon. Forcing a man to lose his freedom of movement and civil rights are far different then loud music or unfounded suspesions.

No. Duty to retreat says that since the black man can safely leave he's obliged to leave, regardless of how innocent of wrongdoing he is. SYG would allow him to stand his ground and defend himself. (In fact had SYG been passed back then, I'm sure we would be hearing about how "it's now legal in (insert state here) to shoot white people for no reason")
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

Imagine this type of scenario:

Back in the days of the old south, where racism abounded, an (openly) armed white man tells a (concealed carrying) black man to go home and leave the public place they're in, or he'd kill him. Under the duty to retreat, the black man must leave the place (or die), whereas SYG laws would allow the black man to defend himself. (This is why the old south never would have adopted SYG)

So should the black man be obliged to leave, or should he be able to defend himself?

I think the common law application would be:

- The black man is only obligated to retreat if possible.
-As the white guy is both armed and has made a threat, it is probably not possible for him to safely retreat (what if the aggressor still attacks him as he trys to leave?)

As a side note, the Common Law evolved while noting that while these cases do occur, they are vastly outnumbered by "F-you, no F-you" type encounters. Thats why there is the obligation to retreat if possible. This saves lives.
Sure - heard wrong, though. She shot and killed a man, not a woman.

Woman kills man in front of his children, claims self-defense
Yikes, this is insane and sickening. It also happened in Florida of all places. Any place else, she would be prime candidate for he death penalty or LWOP. But then again, given Florida's poorly written SYG Laws, she could say "I had a right to be there, I was not obligated to retreat, I felt threatned when...
 
Last edited:
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

I think the common law application would be:

- The black man is only obligated to retreat if possible.
-As the white guy is both armed and has made a threat, it is probably not possible for him to safely retreat (what if the aggressor still attacks him as he trys to leave?)

As a side note, the Common Law evolved while noting that while these cases do occur, they are vastly outnumbered by "F-you, no F-you" type encounters. Thats why there is the obligation to retreat if possible. This saves lives.

Yikes, this is insane and sickening. It also happened in Florida of all places. Any place else, she would be prime candidate for he death penalty or LWOP. But then again, given Florida's poorly written SYG Laws, she could say "I had a right to be there, I was not obligated to retreat, I felt threatned when...

The scenario was specifically made so that he has the opportunity to retreat. Should he have to?
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

The scenario was specifically made so that he has the opportunity to retreat. Should he have to?

Ok, lets say that the white guy was drunk and threatening, but did not have a weapon. This was probably a fairly common occurance. I think the common law would look at the totality in determining how far the black guy needed to retreat. In this case, the black guy:

-was merely on the street. He had not chosen to drink at a bar, attend a wild party, or engage in a loud argument
-Rather, he had been threatned simply for being there.

As such, his retreat could simply be a command: "dont come closer". All he needs to do to attempt to move away from the aggressor if it is safe to do so. That move can be a step around, or even a half step - depending on the situation. If a step is not practical, then a warning. He does not need to flee.

Yes, I know, this is not fair to the black man, but the Common Law is going for the over all safety of everyone in most situations. In the end, Jerry Springer situations simply out number these types of situations.
 
Last edited:
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

Ok, lets say that the white guy was drunk and threatening, but did not have a weapon. This was probably a fairly common occurance. I think the common law would look at the totality in determining how far the black guy needed to retreat. In this case, the black guy:

-was merely on the street. He had not chosen to drink at a bar, attend a wild party, or engage in a loud argument
-Rather, he had been threatned simply for being there.

As such, his retreat could simply be a command: "dont come closer". All he needs to do to attempt to move away from the aggressor if it is safe to do so. That move can be a step around, or even a half step - depending on the situation. If a step is not practical, then a warning. He does not need to flee.

Yes, I know, this is not fair to the black man, but the Common Law is going for the over all safety of everyone in most situations. In the end, Jerry Springer situations simply out number these types of situations.

That's not how duty to retreat works. Duty to retreat requires him to flee if possible (in my scenario anyway).
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

No, the black guy could carry on about his business until the white guy threatened him with imment harm, then the black guy could take the appropriate actions. Your analogy is incorrect.
No. Duty to retreat says that since the black man can safely leave he's obliged to leave, regardless of how innocent of wrongdoing he is. SYG would allow him to stand his ground and defend himself. (In fact had SYG been passed back then, I'm sure we would be hearing about how "it's now legal in (insert state here) to shoot white people for no reason")
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Monday[W:841, 1051

No, the black guy could carry on about his business until the white guy threatened him with imment harm, then the black guy could take the appropriate actions. Your analogy is incorrect.

Then lack guy has been threatened with imminent harm, he must either retreat, or restrict himself to using non-deadly force, under dtr laws.
 
Re: Case where teenager was shot and killed over loud music starts Mon[W:841, 1051,13

Doesnt seem like I can catch up on this thread from vacation but we saw the decisions in the news. But of course....I wouldnt want to leave you hanging lol.

The question in blue is what you falsely attributed to me saying.
I did not ask such a question, therefore it matters not.


YOu kept making up crap about the shotgun being 'in play.' (my words, not yours. I said it was drawn...you claimed in any other words that the shotgun could have been out ...of course it had to be to be seen, and yet not 'be drawn.' :lamo M'kay....if someone has a shotgun out....you can call it anything you want....so your attempt to 'not be wrong' fails again.


And my asserting your claim is ridiculousness, as it is, is not a personal insult.

No it and it only reflects back on you poorly really, since you are unable to prove or support it with anything BUT that word...so have at it. :mrgreen: Actually *proving me wrong* would prove it was ridiculous...not typing a word over and over. I am more than happy to continue to point out the fact that that word is "all you have" in your attempts to rebut my discussion :mrgreen:



First of all you provided no physics that has to be refuted.
His actions were faster than simply driving off. As demonstrated in Court. So all you have is nothing but another absurd ridiculous assertion.

And what you continual ignore is that you have no idea where his keys where at the moment in question. And that retrieving the keys from where ever they were starting that car and putting it into gear and then driving away all took precious time that would place in in danger of being shot and harmed. While getting the gun lessened that chance. But you want to ignore these things because you think you have some relevant point, when in reality, you do not.

Regardless, he demonstrated in Court how he did it, and it is certainly faster than driving off.
And the point about his not having to flee was stated from the get. It also makes anything you have said in regards to him not driving off ridiculous, as he did not have to drive off.

Again...total blankness coming from your keyboard. I never ever said "he had to drive off." And yet you repeatedly type that. Awwww....I'm sorry if that's all you have to prop up your argument. And I dont care what 'he' demonstrated...everything he does is in his own interests...has no bearing of FACT unless it's supported by evidence.

I LOVE that you finally had to address the physics of the situation by bringing in another possible scenario with the keys....I guess it's not such a ridiculous assertion after all :lamo
Not only that, it was obviously addressed in court, so again, not so ridiculous. Do you need a dictionary to define that word for you? You dont seem to understand its use at all.



As you have already been told, that claim is not in accord with the evidence.
A barrel resting on the edge of a window would not be a drawn weapon for that which we are discussing. As I stated your claim is not in accord with the evidence.

LOL again, you can re-define 'drawn' all you want...a shotgun pointed at someone...is drawn in any sense of the word.This is pure desperation on your part.


He was getting out of the vehicle. Which was supposedly a tight fit because of the closeness of the vehicles, which also means the door couldn't have been opened all the way.
Davis's action of getting out of the vehicle is not that of having a weapon drawn, as it was not at the ready, especially as the getting out took about as much time as Dunn had to draw his weapon and start using it.
What is apparent to me is that you are choosing not to think things through,

no, I just gave you both scenarios, step by step, heh! No, not thought out at all!

but instead choose to go off and assert ridiculous bs.

Again...it all had to be shown in court...so not so ridiculous. Was the shotgun pointed behind the window as you already wrote yourself...or not? It's not so much that we dont know for certain...and knew less before all testimony....because we learn from all that...but the fact that you call anything not dreamed up in your own head as 'ridiculous' is basically the definition of the word...because *I* know how to use it properly. Your dismissal of many of our speculations on the events were not ridiculous...as now been borne out in trail.

Your inability to articulate discussions is why you have to resort to claiming everyone else's comments ridiculous....but ya might want to look in a mirror!:mrgreen:


Wow! Still choosing not to think things through, huh?
Getting out of the vehicle took time where the gun would not be at the ready (as in drawn). Duh!

LMAO...really? Getting out and raising barrel of shotgun is still faster than all 8 steps that I described for Dunn in the vehicle. Again....driving away... it's faster.

So you finally attempted to actually address the discussion....wow. But too bad you still cant prove me wrong. So your claims of ridiculous are just that...unfounded.
 
Back
Top Bottom