Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial[W:336]

MaggieD · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Excon said:
Liberal views? Utter nonsense. There is nothing liberal about it.
Harp? No MaggieD, I pointed out where your reasoning was wrong. Big difference.

If you fail to understand that a person does not have to wait until fired upon in order to use self defense, that is not my problem.

Of course, I disagree. Firing approximately multiple shots into an automobile moving away from you is NOT self-defense. "The teens drove off as Dunn began firing." I realize you're right and the rest of the world is wrong, but I'm sure that's not a new position for you.

There in no reliable evidence to suggest he is lying about what he saw. None. And while there is no direct evidence, there is circumstantial evidence to support that there was a weapon. But the jury could not reach a verdict on that charge. The other charges where absurd. So again. If he is later found not guilty, these current conviction will not stand, as his actions were in self defense which grants him immunity from all criminal actions in regards to his using such force.

I don't understand why they brought him up on 1st degree murder charges. Had they brought him up on some lesser charge, in my opinion, he would have been convicted. I don't think it was pre-meditated. Mistake.

However, self-defense, as you know damned well, is an affirmative defense. It is up to the defendant to show that he acted in self-defense. Not up to the prosecution to prove that he didn't. He failed.

Had I been on the jury, I would have been immediately suspect because he left the scene and didn't call the police. The idea that there's no need to contact the cops after you've unloaded ten rounds in self-defense is ludicrous. It has nothing to do with whether or not he broke some law in not doing so. And everything to do with those are not the actions of a reasonable man.

Another poster here was right. You are the poster child for irresponsible gun ownership. As is he.

There was no circumstantial evidence there was a gun. Only his word. And that? He didn't even happen to mention to his girlfriend. "Jesus. That guy pulled a gun on me." Nope. My guess he was drunk. That's why he left.

Excon · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

MaggieD said:
Of course, I disagree. Firing approximately multiple shots into an automobile moving away from you is NOT self-defense. "The teens drove off as Dunn began firing."

Under the very limited amount of distance traveled, it is.
As already pointed out, he was firing at the threat in the vehicle. That threat was not the driver. That threat was not moving away on his own, and because of the tint, he had no way of knowing if said threat was going to start blasting away.

MaggieD said:
I don't understand why they brought him up on 1st degree murder charges. Had they brought him up on some lesser charge, in my opinion, he would have been convicted. I don't think it was pre-meditated. Mistake.

The current results are not because he was over charged. They jury had the option of find a guilty verdict on the lesser included offenses, M2 or just manslaughter. They didn't
It is ridiculous to think that they couldn't come to a decision between the thee charges if they all believed he was guilty of something, it is more likely one or more would not convict period.

MaggieD said:
However, self-defense, as you know damned well, is an affirmative defense. It is up to the defendant to show that he acted in self-defense. Not up to the prosecution to prove that he didn't. He failed.

It is amazing that as many times as affirmative defense has been discussed that some folks still do not grasp it
The defense does not have to prove anything.
They have to make a showing of evidence to generate the self defense jury instruction. They met that burden by Dunn taking the stand.
The prosecution then has to prove the all elements of the charge which she failed to do. Which is to disprove what he has stated.
The prosecution failed.

MaggieD said:
Had I been on the jury, I would have been immediately suspect because he left the scene and didn't call the police.

Be suspicious all you want. Not all people, or even a majority of all people, think straight for some time after a traumatic event.
He stated he was in fear and that is believable. And his being in an unfamiliar surroundings makes it more believable.

MaggieD said:
The idea that there's no need to contact the cops after you've unloaded ten rounds in self-defense is ludicrous.

I care not if you think it is ridiculous. If there is no requirement that a person do so, you can not hold the person accountable for such.

MaggieD said:
It has nothing to do with whether or not he broke some law in not doing so. And everything to do with those are not the actions of a reasonable man.

WTF!
Wrong. You do not hold a person who broke no law responsible just because you think his actions irresponsible. That is ludicrous.

MaggieD said:
There was no circumstantial evidence there was a gun. Only his word.

I have already explained this to you. You are wrong.

MaggieD said:
And that? He didn't even happen to mention to his girlfriend. "Jesus. That guy pulled a gun on me." Nope. My guess he was drunk. That's why he left.

There is no evidence that he was drunk or even slightly inebriated.
And his train wreck of a girlfriend not remembering, doesn't mean he didn't.

MaggieD said:
Another poster here was right. You are the poster child for irresponsible gun ownership. As is he.

Besides you being wrong about this, it was also an uncalled for personal comment. Shame.

AGENT J · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

year2late said:
Actually, I had to wonder if part of the reason he didn't come forth immediately was intoxication.

If the man was in fear for his life enough to open fire. He would have called the police IMMEDIATLY when he was at a safe distance. That is what a responsible gun-owner would do.

Gotta wonder why he didn't.

I agree its one of the biggest black marks on his story and why he has almost zero credibility after he factually was proven to be a liar.

but yes theres nothing reasonable or logical about his actions at the gas station or after. This is why the thug is going to prison.

AGENT J · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Texmex said:
You sound jealous.

In ways I am, im jealous that i wont be around to at hear the wanna be tough guy who kills kids cry like a little girl

AGENT J · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Smeagol said:
I think Dunn is a racist killer who in a half drunk state thought he was making the world a better place by shooting up a car full of "black thugs" in his view after an incident where he was disrespected. However, its possible if the tripod in the SUV was brandished, it might have looked like a gun barrel to someone who had been drinking hard liquor all afternoon. Alternatively, as an avid gun enthusiast if the tripod was brandished, he might have known it wasn't a gun and it was just a kid trying to look tough but offered just the excuse he needed to in his mind legally kill some "thugs" in his view.

regardless the streets are safer for us all with that nutball DUnn off of them

cpgrad08 · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

DiAnna said:
I'm still slack-jawed over the fact that they found the guy guilty of three counts of attempted murder on the guys he didn't manage to kill, but couldn't agree on a murder conviction on the guy he did manage to kill. WTF is up with that?? I can't imagine what the parents of that poor dead teenager must be going through right now, knowing that their son has still not received justice.

****ing Florida juries are all nutjobs.

With the State went for 2nd degree Murder they would probably would have found him guilty. I can see the why the Jury was hung on a 1st degree count since it was really wasn't per-meditated. I wouldn't have convicted him on 1st degree, second degree, yes.

DiAnna · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

cpgrad08 said:
With the State went for 2nd degree Murder they would probably would have found him guilty. I can see the why the Jury was hung on a 1st degree count since it was really wasn't per-meditated. I wouldn't have convicted him on 1st degree, second degree, yes.

The jury was given the option (according to CNN) of choosing First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder or Manslaughter. At least one clueless idiot couldn't vote for any of 'em.

cpgrad08 · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

DiAnna said:
The jury was given the option (according to CNN) of choosing First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder or Manslaughter. At least one clueless idiot couldn't vote for any of 'em.

Maybe but generally the jury will vote for what the DA was for, in this case it looks it was for 1st degree. It is the same reason the Zimmerman was found innocent. Also I think a jury should be allowed to vote on the case the D.A. makes and not to be allowed vote for a lesser charge if it wasn't part of the case.

molten_dragon · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Excon said:
If he is later found not guilty and/or given immunity for responding to an immanent threat with deadly force, this finding by the jury can not stand.

Absolutely it can. Just because his shooting of Davis would deemed self defense does not mean that the shots he fired into the rest of the vehicle after it had started to drive away would also be self defense.

'Self defense' does not give one nearly as broad of immunity to prosecution as you seem to believe it does. You can't get away with any violent action you want simply by claiming it was self defense. You can't shoot at other people in the vicinity of the person that threatened you, and you can't continue shooting at an aggressor after they are no longer a threat (such as when they're already down or fleeing). The attempted murder conviction was absolutely the right decision.

MaggieD · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Excon said:
Under the very limited amount of distance traveled, it is. As already pointed out, he was firing at the threat in the vehicle. That threat was not the driver. That threat was not moving away on his own, and because of the tint, he had no way of knowing if said threat was going to start blasting away.

The current results are not because he was over charged. They jury had the option of find a guilty verdict on the lesser included offenses, M2 or just manslaughter. They didn't It is ridiculous to think that they couldn't come to a decision between the thee charges if they all believed he was guilty of something, it is more likely one or more would not convict period.

Since he was convicted of attempted murder, that makes no sense. Since it took so long for a verdict, I was suspecting nullification by one or more jurists. I don't think that happened . . . or it would have been a hung jury on all counts.

It is amazing that as many times as affirmative defense has been discussed that some folks still do not grasp it
The defense does not have to prove anything.

Apparently you don't understand an affirmative defense.

WTF! Wrong. You do not hold a person who broke no law responsible just because you think his actions irresponsible. That is ludicrous.

We are judged by the totality of our actions. His defense team asked the jury to believe that what was going on in his head was a fight for his life. The fact that he did a very unnatural thing, left the scene, didn't call the cops, is as fair to consider as his state of mind.

There is no evidence that he was drunk or even slightly inebriated. And his train wreck of a girlfriend not remembering, doesn't mean he didn't.

His explanation of why he left the scene isn't believable. But a high BAC would explain in. Nothing else does. She's a train wreck because . . . ?

Besides you being wrong about this, it was also an uncalled for personal comment. Shame.

You'll get no apology from me. The jury found him guilty. In a poll taken on this site, 31 of 33 people thought he was guilty. Ex doesn't think so. Ex thinks all someone has to say is, "I thought I saw a gun," and the prosecution has to disprove it. And if they can't? He walks. Well, the rest of the world disagrees with you.

ludin · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

molten_dragon said:
Absolutely it can. Just because his shooting of Davis would deemed self defense does not mean that the shots he fired into the rest of the vehicle after it had started to drive away would also be self defense.

your wasting your time. this has been explained time and time again to him and he doesn't understand.

You are responsible for every bullet even in a self defense case. if you shoot at or hit an innocent bystander (IE people in the car) you can be put up on separate charges other than the main one and can be convicted for them regardless if it is self defense or not.

you don't get total immunity from actions outside the immunity case.

Excon · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

molten_dragon said:
Absolutely it can. Just because his shooting of Davis would deemed self defense does not mean that the shots he fired into the rest of the vehicle after it had started to drive away would also be self defense.

'Self defense' does not give one nearly as broad of immunity to prosecution as you seem to believe it does. You can't get away with any violent action you want simply by claiming it was self defense. You can't shoot at other people in the vicinity of the person that threatened you, and you can't continue shooting at an aggressor after they are no longer a threat (such as when they're already down or fleeing). The attempted murder conviction was absolutely the right decision.

TAke it up with the law as written.
It would in this case.
His actions are those of defending himself. Shooting at the vehicle as it started to move away the very limited distance it did, is part and parcel of that, as he had no idea because of the tint if the guy was going to start shooting back.

Unitedwestand13 · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

molten_dragon said:
Absolutely it can. Just because his shooting of Davis would deemed self defense does not mean that the shots he fired into the rest of the vehicle after it had started to drive away would also be self defense.

'Self defense' does not give one nearly as broad of immunity to prosecution as you seem to believe it does. You can't get away with any violent action you want simply by claiming it was self defense. You can't shoot at other people in the vicinity of the person that threatened you, and you can't continue shooting at an aggressor after they are no longer a threat (such as when they're already down or fleeing). The attempted murder conviction was absolutely the right decision.

i think some people apply the belief of " the best defense is a good offense" when they attempt to claim self defense

AGENT J · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

ludin said:
your wasting your time. this has been explained time and time again to him and he doesn't understand.

You are responsible for every bullet even in a self defense case. if you shoot at or hit an innocent bystander (IE people in the car) you can be put up on separate charges other than the main one and can be convicted for them regardless if it is self defense or not.

you don't get total immunity from actions outside the immunity case.

100% correct a perfect example of this is even when police lose thier jobs or have charges filed again them when its deam they acted irresponsibly. Yes they may have been protecting themselves or bystanders but that doesn't allow totally immunity.

A hostage or bystander gets killed and it gets reviewed and it better be deemed responsible otherwise there a debt to pay to the law.

molten_dragon · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Excon said:
TAke it up with the law as written.
It would in this case.

No, it wouldn't. The key section of the Florida self defense law is this (emphasis mine):

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

It is not reasonable to believe that a car which you've already fired into several times and is now driving away from you is a threat which needs to be met with deadly force. No sane person would find that reasonable.

joko104 · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

The ruling is bizarre and indicates the jury did exactly what they are not suppose to do - compromise. There is NO rationale by which he is guilty of attempted murder on 3 not killed, but in disagreement over the one he did. It means the jury decided they just wanted to go home and agreed on a middle ground. Either he meant to kill someone or not. While some will be glad he was convicted on anything, it is bizarre.

I also think it would poise a double jeopardy to retry him on one charge.

This also is an example of a lazy defense attorney. The defense should have insisted on a separate trial for each charge - which the defense can do and didn't. Now the prosecutor can take the 4 hung-jury and present it as fact that he attempted to kill the other three since there is a jury finding to that effect.

Excon · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

MaggieD said:
Since he was convicted of attempted murder, that makes no sense. Since it took so long for a verdict, I was suspecting nullification by one or more jurists. I don't think that happened . . . or it would have been a hung jury on all counts.

And again, back to the original point about jury instruction.
They were not given proper instruction on self defense and had to compartmentalize.
As it is obvious that he was not firing at the other three in self defense as they did not provoke such a response as Davis did, they had no option but to return a verdict of guilt.

MaggieD said:
Apparently you don't understand an affirmative defense.

That would be you.
The defense made their required showing to generate the self defense instruction. That was their burden, and then met it.
Keep that in mind when you reads the following. They met their burden of showing/production as the instruction was generated.

UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Code:

[COLOR="#000000"]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

David Beneman
Maine CJA Resource Counsel
Levenson, Vickerson & Beneman
P.O. Box 465
Portland, ME 04112
...

I. Legal Groundwork For Affirmative Defenses

A. What is an Affirmative Defense?

An affirmative defense is one which provides a defense without negating an essential
element of the crime charge. [highlight][COLOR="#000000"]To establish an affirmative defense the defendant must place
before the jury sufficient proof [COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"]to generate a jury instruction[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR] on the particular defense theory
sought.[/COLOR][/highlight] Normally, an affirmative defense is expressly designated as affirmative by statute,
or is a defense involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the
accused.

B.  How is an Affirmative Defense different from a “Regular” Defense?

[U]An affirmative defense is one which requires the actual production of evidence, [highlight][B][COLOR="#000000"]be
it testimonial or physical[/COLOR][/B][/highlight][/U]. [COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"]The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of
Government witnesses or produced after the close of the Government’s case in chief.[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR]
Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either
justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the
charge. A defendant must generate an affirmative defense instruction.


C. Types of Defenses

There are two categories of defense.
1. I did not do it defenses, and
2. I did it but defenses.
Affirmative defenses are available in both categories.


[...]


[B]D. Burdens[/B]
The term “affirmative defense” seems inextricably tied to arguments about burden shifting.
Three different burdens exist; 
[INDENT][COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"][B]burden of proof [/B](always on the government)[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR],
[B]burden of production[/B] (normally on the defense), and
[B]burden of persuasion[/B] (normally back on the government).[/INDENT]
The burden of proof to prove the essential elements of the crime charged BRD [highlight][COLOR="#000000"]starts with
and ALWAYS stays with the Government.[/COLOR][/highlight]
The burden of production to generate an affirmative defense is on the defense.
This is constitutional because the defense is not negating an essential element of the crime charged.
The standard, meaning the quantum of evidence needed, varies with the particular affirmative defense.
Generally it is either by a preponderance, or by clear and convincing. Once the defense has met this burden
of producing an affirmative defense, [COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"]the Government has the additional burden of [B]persuading[/B][/COLOR][/U][/COLOR] the jury
not just as to each element of the crime BRD, but also to persuade the jury to reject the affirmative defense BRD as well.

[INDENT][INDENT]I. [B]Burden of Proof[/B] Presenting an affirmative defense offers no relief to the government in what they must prove.
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Rather, if the defense generates an affirmative defense,
[highlight][COLOR="#ff0000"][U][COLOR="#000000"]the government must then disprove the defense generally beyond a reasonable doubt.[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR][/highlight]
Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson, 569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978)(emphasis added).
[/INDENT][/INDENT][/COLOR]

[URL="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:06-_HilumfEJ:www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf+affirmative+defense&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjQQ9DDIG6I9rtWnkdrvG4XMpf-h2KGVxjIf2cgCnXgnZ6rKrFrnVZwDO3Pw-YkvR4VQt6w8d4k7Jd6u3XiNVni3HwMVJaz2xJgZswMP-HkNfqJhwe5jZwla03YrbDJEf3LwZ9D&sig=AHIEtbQjGQcnos5_jKrclWonXfetxH8Zuw"]Source[/URL]

MaggieD said:
We are judged by the totality of our actions. His defense team asked the jury to believe that what was going on in his head was a fight for his life. The fact that he did a very unnatural thing, left the scene, didn't call the cops, is as fair to consider as his state of mind.

:doh Not sticking around a hostile environment is a very natural thing.

MaggieD said:
His explanation of why he left the scene isn't believable. But a high BAC would explain in. Nothing else does.

Wrong.
While that is what you believe, his explanation is perfectly acceptable and understandable.
BAC? There is no such evidence to even consider. That is nothing more than speculation on your part.

MaggieD said:
She's a train wreck because . . . ?

Some people are more emotional than some.
The mere fact of being charged is enough to start the water works.

MaggieD said:
You'll get no apology from me.

Did I ask for one? No I didn't, nor does it excuse your getting personal like that.

MaggieD said:
The jury found him guilty. In a poll taken on this site, 31 of 33 people thought he was guilty.

A poll at this site? OMG! I am mortified. iLOL
You realize how silly you sighting a poll in this sight sounds, right? Probably not. So never-mind the question.

MaggieD said:
Ex thinks all someone has to say is, "I thought I saw a gun," and the prosecution has to disprove it. And if they can't? He walks. Well, the rest of the world disagrees with you.

No MaggieD. It isn't that simple. So you can stop misrepresenting any time now.

Leo · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Dezaad said:
I think you are right about them not having to tell the court. I was not well informed. However, I still believe the law should be changed. It should never be ok to deceive the court, and an attorney who has been told outright that "I shot the bastard" shouldn't be allowed to attempt to convince a jury that their client didn't. What purpose is served by allowing an attorney to deliberately deceive?

I cannot comment upon the laws which prevail in the various US jurisdictions, but under British Law your earlier statements were, in effect, correct.

A Barrister who is informed of guilt by his potential client has the duty to either refuse representation (and become a potential witness against the client) or to inform the court of his client's admitted guilt, while advising that client to make a guilty plea in the hope of a lesser sentence. He may not, at the risk of being disbarred, represent a client whom he knows to be guilty, as anything otherwise. A Barrister may also withdraw from a case where he feels ‘the administration of justice might be or appear to be prejudiced’.

So you see, we 'serfs and subjects' (as some Americans are wont to describe us) do some things rather better.

But the pachyderm in the chamber which everyone is ignoring - and which someone needs to mention (at the risk of the storm of vituperation such mention will doubtless bring,) - is the fact that none of this would have happened, and a 16 year old would be alive today, had Dunn not been allowed to carry a hand gun.

MaggieD · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Excon said:

And again, back to the original point about jury instruction.
They were not given proper instruction on self defense and had to compartmentalize.
As it is obvious that he was not firing at the other three in self defense as they did not provoke such a response as Davis did, they had no option but to return a verdict of guilt.

That would be you.
The defense made their required showing to generate the self defense instruction. That was their burden, and then met it.
Keep that in mind when you reads the following. They met their burden of showing/production as the instruction was generated.

UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

Code:

[COLOR="#000000"]UNDERSTANDING AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

David Beneman
Maine CJA Resource Counsel
Levenson, Vickerson & Beneman
P.O. Box 465
Portland, ME 04112
...

I. Legal Groundwork For Affirmative Defenses

A. What is an Affirmative Defense?

An affirmative defense is one which provides a defense without negating an essential
element of the crime charge. [highlight][COLOR="#000000"]To establish an affirmative defense the defendant must place
before the jury sufficient proof [COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"]to generate a jury instruction[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR] on the particular defense theory
sought.[/COLOR][/highlight] Normally, an affirmative defense is expressly designated as affirmative by statute,
or is a defense involving an excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the
accused.

B.  How is an Affirmative Defense different from a “Regular” Defense?

[U]An affirmative defense is one which requires the actual production of evidence, [highlight][B][COLOR="#000000"]be
it testimonial or physical[/COLOR][/B][/highlight][/U]. [COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"]The evidence can be adduced through cross examination of
Government witnesses or produced after the close of the Government’s case in chief.[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR]
Affirmative defenses do not directly attack an element of the crime but provide either
justification for the conduct or some other legally recognized approach to undermining the
charge. A defendant must generate an affirmative defense instruction.


C. Types of Defenses

There are two categories of defense.
1. I did not do it defenses, and
2. I did it but defenses.
Affirmative defenses are available in both categories.


[...]


[B]D. Burdens[/B]
The term “affirmative defense” seems inextricably tied to arguments about burden shifting.
Three different burdens exist; 
[INDENT][COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"][B]burden of proof [/B](always on the government)[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR],
[B]burden of production[/B] (normally on the defense), and
[B]burden of persuasion[/B] (normally back on the government).[/INDENT]
The burden of proof to prove the essential elements of the crime charged BRD [highlight][COLOR="#000000"]starts with
and ALWAYS stays with the Government.[/COLOR][/highlight]
The burden of production to generate an affirmative defense is on the defense.
This is constitutional because the defense is not negating an essential element of the crime charged.
The standard, meaning the quantum of evidence needed, varies with the particular affirmative defense.
Generally it is either by a preponderance, or by clear and convincing. Once the defense has met this burden
of producing an affirmative defense, [COLOR="#0000ff"][U][COLOR="#000000"]the Government has the additional burden of [B]persuading[/B][/COLOR][/U][/COLOR] the jury
not just as to each element of the crime BRD, but also to persuade the jury to reject the affirmative defense BRD as well.

[INDENT][INDENT]I. [B]Burden of Proof[/B] Presenting an affirmative defense offers no relief to the government in what they must prove.
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977). Rather, if the defense generates an affirmative defense,
[highlight][COLOR="#ff0000"][U][COLOR="#000000"]the government must then disprove the defense generally beyond a reasonable doubt.[/COLOR][/U][/COLOR][/highlight]
Mullaney, 421 U.S. at 704; U.S. v. Jackson, 569 F.2d 1003, 1008 n.12 (7th Cir. 1978)(emphasis added).
[/INDENT][/INDENT][/COLOR]

[URL="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:06-_HilumfEJ:www.fd.org/pdf_lib/beneman_affirmative_defenses_materials.pdf+affirmative+defense&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjQQ9DDIG6I9rtWnkdrvG4XMpf-h2KGVxjIf2cgCnXgnZ6rKrFrnVZwDO3Pw-YkvR4VQt6w8d4k7Jd6u3XiNVni3HwMVJaz2xJgZswMP-HkNfqJhwe5jZwla03YrbDJEf3LwZ9D&sig=AHIEtbQjGQcnos5_jKrclWonXfetxH8Zuw"]Source[/URL]

:doh Not sticking around a hostile environment is a very natural thing.

Wrong.
While that is what you believe, his explanation is perfectly acceptable and understandable.
BAC? There is no such evidence to even consider. That is nothing more than speculation on your part.

Some people are more emotional than some.
The mere fact of being charged is enough to start the water works.

Did I ask for one? No I didn't, nor does it excuse your getting personal like that.

A poll at this site? OMG! I am mortified. iLOL
You realize how silly you sighting a poll in this sight sounds, right? Probably not. So never-mind the question.

No MaggieD. It isn't that simple. So you can stop misrepresenting any time now.

I'll let you argue with someone else now. You and I will never agree on this issue. I'm glad you're wrong.

Excon · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

molten_dragon said:
No, it wouldn't. The key section of the Florida self defense law is this (emphasis mine):

See you are skipping over the premise of what was said.
If he is later found not guilty, the current charges can not stand, as that limited shooting at the vehicle as it pulls away is part and parcel of him defending himself.

molten_dragon said:
It is not reasonable to believe that a car which you've already fired into several times and is now driving away from you is a threat which needs to be met with deadly force. No sane person would find that reasonable.

Wrong. This was already explained.
Shooting at the vehicle as it started to move away the very limited distance it did, is part and parcel of that, as he had no idea because of the tint if the guy was going to start shooting back.

Excon · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

MaggieD said:
I'll let you argue with someone else now. You and I will never agree on this issue. I'm glad you're wrong.

You are the one who is wrong MaggieD.

MaggieD · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Excon said:
You are the one who is wrong MaggieD.

Me, the jury and the state of Florida. Gotcha.

Excon · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

MaggieD said:
Me, the jury and the state of Florida. Gotcha.

Wrong again. The Jury did not reach a conclusion in regards to what we are discussing. Which is the murder charge.

molten_dragon · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Excon said:
See you are skipping over the premise of what was said.
If he is later found not guilty, the current charges can not stand, as that limited shooting at the vehicle as it pulls away is part and parcel of him defending himself.

Wrong. This was already explained.
Shooting at the vehicle as it started to move away the very limited distance it did, is part and parcel of that, as he had no idea because of the tint if the guy was going to start shooting back.

I'll simply reiterate what I said before, no sane person would find that reasonable.

Excon · Feb 16, 2014

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

molten_dragon said:
I'll simply reiterate what I said before, no sane person would find that reasonable.

And you are wrong there as well.
Lets see?

Guy is screaming obscenities at you and verbally threatens your life.
Guy presents object (seen as a shotgun barrel) intended to present threat as real.
Guy then says it is going down now and starts getting out of the vehicle to carry through with said threat.

The person being threatened with imminent death is not required to flee, and he is not required to be harmed first before responding to such an imminent threat.
Responding with deadly force is reasonable under such circumstances.
So you are just wrong.

It all boils down to belief of what he said.
The prosecution did not disprove his account as evidenced by the Jury not make a decision in regards to it.

Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial[W:336]

MaggieD

Excon

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

cpgrad08

American

DiAnna

Hooter Babe

cpgrad08

American

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite

MaggieD

ludin

Excon

Unitedwestand13

AGENT J

"If you ain't first, you're last"

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite

joko104

Excon

Leo

MaggieD

Excon

Excon

MaggieD

Excon

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite

Excon

Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial[W:336]

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

"If you ain't first, you're last"

American

Hooter Babe

American

Anti-Hypocrite

"If you ain't first, you're last"

Anti-Hypocrite

Anti-Hypocrite

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency