21
   

Oh, will the bullshyt never end?

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Feb, 2014 05:13 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
I actually got an "explanation" from CNN a few minutes ago... Some lawyer got on there and said that the reasoning was:
He could clearly be said to be attempting to murder the three other young men with the 6 shots at the vehicle as it fled, but that it was still unclear to the jurors whether he was defending himself with the first 4 shots directed at the young man he had words with in the stationary vehicle.

CNN's "explanation" sort of makes "sense".
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Feb, 2014 08:14 pm
Cultural differences be damned - what's wrong ethically in one place is still wrong and what's immoral or illegal in one part of the country is still wrong and illegal in the other.
snood
 
  3  
Reply Sun 16 Feb, 2014 08:40 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

snood wrote:

Would the finely tuned minds here at A2K please to explain to me: How in the hell someone can be guilty of ATTEMPTED murder, but not of murder - if they were successful in their attempt to kill the person?


I don't see where the two crimes are mutually exclusive. Were you to succeed in murdering someone, you obviously made the attempt to do this.

OK. But if we're going to resort to the use of common sense, then you'd have to stipulate that the converse should be true: If the attempt was made to murder, and the person is dead, then the same person guilty of attempting murder is also guilty of murder.
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2014 02:58 pm
@snood,
Not so fast! A jury has the power, such as it showed in the Dunn case, to just ignore the fact that there was a murder.
0 Replies
 
IRFRANK
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2014 08:47 pm
@Ragman,
Quote:
Cultural differences be damned - what's wrong ethically in one place is still wrong and what's immoral or illegal in one part of the country is still wrong and illegal in the other.


Laws differ from state to state.

The jury system is not perfect, just better than whatever is second.

Kind of like democracy.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Feb, 2014 11:23 pm
@jcboy,
Taking the time to plan another's death is arguably a more serious crime.

--------------

Planning like this:

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government played a significant role in one of the worst massacres of the century by supplying the names of thousands of Communist Party leaders to the Indonesian army, which hunted down the leftists and killed them, former U.S. diplomats say.
For the first time, U.S. officials acknowledge that in 1965 they systematically compiled comprehensive lists of Communist operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres. As many as 5,000 names were furnished to the Indonesian army, and the Americans later checked off the names of those who had been killed or captured, according to the U.S. officials.


http://www.namebase.org/kadane.html
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2014 07:21 am
@IRFRANK,
Sorry but in writing it, I mangled what I had been thinking. Feel free to ignore the part about what is illegal one part of the country.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 22 Feb, 2014 07:21 pm
It's not all that mysterious.

They jury didn't believe the killing was premeditated and the only charge they had before them (in terms of the killing) was 1st degree murder. They could find him guilty of attempted murder in terms of the other passengers though, and they did.

If the prosecution hadn't overreached, the jury would have had the opportunity to find him guilty of 2nd degree murder. Since they found him guilty of the attempted murder of the other men in the car, it's virtually certain they would have found him guilty of a lesser degree ( than 1st) of murder.

The jury did a very good job in this case. The prosecution did not. Any suggestion that rase played a role in the jury's decision is unfounded.
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2014 11:41 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
One of the two jurors who are talking to the press said that, regarding the murder charge, some of the jurors could not ignore the law in Fl, which says that a person may shoot when he or she feels threatened.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2014 01:40 pm
@Advocate,
Then they ignored it when considering the attempted murder charges. If you can murder someone if you feel threatened, then why can't you attempt to murder them in the presence of the same threat?

Of course it makes no sense which is why I take the reported comments of this juror with a grain of salt.
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2014 01:58 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
It is pretty-well established that Davis was cursing out Dunn. I would not be surprised if there was not a threat by Davis.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2014 02:26 pm
@Advocate,
I wouldn't be surprised either, and Dunn, apparently, claimed he saw a weapon in someone's hands, but there was no evidence that this was the case.

This is another example of how things can go very bad when two hot-headed jackasses confront one another. Playing music loudly is no reason for someone to kill you but when faced with an enraged miscreant like Dunn, discretion is probably the better part of valor. Backing off, in this case, would rankle most men, but I doubt that Davis's spectre is thinking "Well I showed that old cracker!"
JTT
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 Feb, 2014 05:07 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
"Miscreants" - you forget the Florida legislators, Finn.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 24 Feb, 2014 07:01 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Then they ignored it when considering the attempted murder charges.

Based on what the juror said, they didn't. They couldn't decide on the shots fired when the car was sitting there. However, shots were fired at the car when it was driving away and they agreed Dunn was no longer in danger at that time so they could agree on attempted murder for those shots.
0 Replies
 
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Tue 25 Feb, 2014 11:22 pm
@snood,
I'm not sure how many fine-tuned minds there are here, but if you get convicted of attempted murder, and the person you attempted to murder, actually gets murdered by you, WTF? Teen boys can be belligerent if confronted by older men, but that really doesn't constitute a threat to a man who has a gun. He could have called the police, they would have hassled the kids a little (I hope only that) and make them turn the music down. But macho dick needed to let them know who was boss, and shot and killed an unarmed teen, probably because he felt it was his duty to discipline them. I never had to shoot my sons or nephews to get their attention, the State of Florida owes that child's parents an apology. And they need to redefine the law so parents in the future do not have to bury their children because they were perceived as impudent by an armed, half drunk racist who never even bothered to call the police.
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Feb, 2014 11:48 pm
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I should have thought this was obvious.


Well, I must not be as observant and as brilliant as you are.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Wed 26 Feb, 2014 09:41 am
@glitterbag,
Amen
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Feb, 2014 09:49 am
@snood,
Not much has changed, Snood, despite the high minded talk.

History does matter.
-________

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/58/

American Soldiers in the Philippines Write Home about the War

During the U.S. war in the Philippines between 1899 and 1904 (which grew out of the Spanish-American War that had erupted in 1898), ordinary American soldiers shared the nationalist zeal of their commanders and pursued the Filipino “enemy” with brutality and sometimes outright lawlessness. Racism, which flourished in the United States in this period, led American soldiers to repeatedly assert their desire “to get at the niggers.” An anti-imperialist movement, which rejected annexation by the United States of former Spanish colonies like Puerto Rico and the Philippines, attempted to build opposition at home to the increasingly brutal war. Although few soldiers joined the anti-imperialist cause, their statements did sometimes provide ammunition for the opponents of annexation and war. In 1899, the Anti-Imperialist League published a pamphlet of Soldiers Letters, with the provocative subtitle: “Being Materials for a History of a War of Criminal Aggression.” Historian Jim Zwick notes that the publication “was immediately controversial. Supporters of the war discounted the accounts of atrocities as the boasting of soldiers wanting to impress their friends and families at home or, because the identities of some of the writers were withheld from publication, as outright fabrications.” But the brutal portrayal of the war that is found in these letters (excerpts from twenty-seven of them are included here) is supported in other accounts.

Private Fred B. Hinchman, Company A. United States Engineers, writes from Manila, February 22d:

At 1:30 o’clock the general gave me a memorandum with regard to sending out a Tennessee battalion to the line. He tersely put it that “they were looking for a fight.” At the Puente Colgante [suspension bridge] I met one of our company, who told me that the Fourteenth and Washingtons were driving all before them, and taking no prisoners. This is now our rule of procedure for cause. After delivering my message I had not walked a block when I heard shots down the street. Hurrying forward, I found a group of our men taking pot-shots across the river, into a bamboo thicket, at about 1,200 yards. I longed to join them, but had my reply to take back, and that, of course, was the first thing to attend to I reached the office at 3 P.M., just in time to see a platoon of the Washingtons, with about fifty prisoners, who had been taken before they learned how not to take them.

Arthur H. Vickers, Sergeant in the First Nebraska Regiment:

I am not afraid, and am always ready to do my duty, but I would like some one to tell me what we are fighting for.

Guy Williams, of the Iowa Regiment:

The soldiers made short work of the whole thing. They looted every house, and found almost everything, from a pair of wooden shoes up to a piano, and they carried everything off or destroyed it. Talk of the natives plundering the towns: I don’t think they are in it with the Fiftieth Iowa.

General Reeve, lately Colonel of the Thirteenth Minnesota Regiment:

I deprecate this war, this slaughter of our own boys and of the Filipinos, because it seems to me that we are doing something that is contrary to our principles in the past. Certainly we are doing something that we should have shrunk from not so very long ago.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Wed 26 Feb, 2014 05:23 pm
@glitterbag,
You may want to fine tune your reading skills.

There were other people in the victim' s car.

The attempted murder charges applied to the bullets being fired at them, not the guy who died.
glitterbag
 
  3  
Reply Wed 26 Feb, 2014 05:59 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Oh, my mistake. So he murdered the only teen in the car who didn't frighten him?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/26/2020 at 01:07:27