Jordan Davis murder....... (Jacksonville: 2013, high school, live in)

[0nyxStation]

Is the media going overboard with some of the coverage? Not just locally but on a national level?

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2...e#comment-form

[0nyxStation]

Port Canaveral officer fired having targets resembling Trayvon Martin | jacksonville.com

This is kinda related story about these police officer being fired.

[0nyxStation]

News

Judge frowns on letters released from jail in Jordan Davis case | members.jacksonville.com

[justNancy]

Originally Posted by BlackPeach2

Is the media going overboard with some of the coverage? Not just locally but on a national level?

[url=http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2013-01-04/story/photo-jacksonville-teen-fatally-shot-gas-station-be-shown-times-square#comment-form]Photo of Jacksonville teen fatally shot at gas station to be shown in Times Square, WJXT reports | members.jacksonville.com[/url]

I live in FL so I can't say whether or not there was more coverage locally, but that's very possible. I don't think the news was sensationalized at all, however. Many people I know weren't even away of this shooting until the trial began.

The media selects what will sell and, at the time of this shooting, stories about the Zimmerman case had saturated the news for so long that I think it got lost, although it's an entirely different case. Unique and horrific stories are usually the ones that page page one. That might be one reason there have been 44 school shootings since Sandy Hook, but we only briefly hear about them. There's also a political aspect to the news, i.e., the Zimmerman case was blown way out of proportion. I think he was wrong, but he got more attention than many serial killers and it became a media circus.

Michael Dunn shot an unarmed teenager because they got into an argument over loud music. The trial is over for now, but Michael Dunn will be behind bars for many years, probably for the rest of his life, so a retrial on the murder charge probably isn't necessary. OTOH, every victim should get justice and justice certainly was not served when the jury said they were deadlocked. In Florida, the jury can also convict on a lesser charge like manslaughter. I just don't know what they were thinking in that jury room. No gun was found. No bullets were fired at Mr. Dunn. He didn't have a scratch on him. Then he ran, probably to get the booze out of his blood or maybe something stronger. It's possible we'd never even know about this incident if eyewitnesses hadn't written down his license plate. People would just think it was drug related or gang related shooting, even though this high school student came from a good home, had never been in trouble, and didn't have a weapon.

[fsu813]

Originally Posted by BlackPeach2

Is the media going overboard with some of the coverage? Not just locally but on a national level?

Photo of Jacksonville teen fatally shot at gas station to be shown in Times Square, WJXT reports | members.jacksonville.com

Of course.

They're trying to gin up controversy, because it's good for ratings.

Just a few FACTS:

1. This was NOT a "Stand Your Ground" case, despite all the talk about the law. (P.S. - neither was the Martin/Zimmerman case).

2. The media keeps saying how the man shot the teenager because the music was too loud. Not true. The man says he shot him because he saw a gun and was being verbally threatened.

3. There's no doubt the man was guilty of the lesser charges, which he now faces 60 years in prison for, but the mistrial for the major charge is very understandable. There should be no shock, as the media wants to encourage. The SUV with the victims drove away from the scene. The SUV was searched promptly for a gun, but not the rest of the area. It's certainly reasonable to think the victims could have thrown the gun away while they were off scene. Is is probable? I don't know, probably not. But there is reasonable doubt. Therefore, a hung jury is not surprising. If this was a civil trial, and all the jury had to think about is what "probably" happened, then it's an easy case. But "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high standard.

[abvavgjoe]

Originally Posted by fsu813

Of course.

They're trying to gin up controversy, because it's good for ratings.

Just a few FACTS:

1. This was NOT a "Stand Your Ground" case, despite all the talk about the law. (P.S. - neither was the Martin/Zimmerman case).

2. The media keeps saying how the man shot the teenager because the music was too loud. Not true. The man says he shot him because he saw a gun and was being verbally threatened.

3. There's no doubt the man was guilty of the lesser charges, which he now faces 60 years in prison for, but the mistrial for the major charge is very understandable. There should be no shock, as the media wants to encourage. The SUV with the victims drove away from the scene. The SUV was searched promptly for a gun, but not the rest of the area. It's certainly reasonable to think the victims could have thrown the gun away while they were off scene. Is is probable? I don't know, probably not. But there is reasonable doubt. Therefore, a hung jury is not surprising. If this was a civil trial, and all the jury had to think about is what "probably" happened, then it's an easy case. But "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high standard.

I agree with this.

[justNancy]

Originally Posted by fsu813

The media keeps saying how the man shot the teenager because the music was too loud. Not true. The man says he shot him because he saw a gun and was being verbally threatened.

So if someone shoots and kills another person and claims he was threatened with a gun, should we always believe him? If this is the case, nobody would ever be convicted because every defendant would use that as a defense. "I felt threatened. I saw a gun." I do agree with you, however, that he didn't kill Jordan Davis because of the loud music. He killed him because he didn't like his attitude.

Originally Posted by fsu813

There's no doubt the man was guilty of the lesser charges, which he now faces 60 years in prison for, but the mistrial for the major charge is very understandable. There should be no shock, as the media wants to encourage. The SUV with the victims drove away from the scene.

Michael Dunn is the one who left the scene. He didn't bother to call the police. He ordered a pizza as if nothing important happened that evening. You claim the victims left the scene, but Dunn continued to shoot even after they began to move the car, so they drove away for a few minutes. Were they supposed to sit there until he killed all of them? They did not leave the area. Would you stick around while someone was shooting at you? Why didn't they fire a single shot back at Dunn if there was a gun? Why didn't Dunn mention to his fiancee that there was a gun? She contradicted his statement during her sworn testimony. I also find it difficult to believe he thought Davis or one of the other teenagers had a gun and didn't warn her when she ran out of the convenient store. If he felt his life was being threatened, wouldn't that make sense?

Originally Posted by fsu813

The SUV was searched promptly for a gun, but not the rest of the area. It's certainly reasonable to think the victims could have thrown the gun away while they were off scene. Is is probable? I don't know, probably not. But there is reasonable doubt. Therefore, a hung jury is not surprising. If this was a civil trial, and all the jury had to think about is what "probably" happened, then it's an easy case. But "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a very high standard.

I understand what you mean, but anything is possible in life. The evidence, however, does not support Dunn's story. Think about it. Would you just sit in the car and allow a man to shoot continuously without firing a single shot? Maybe they pulled away because they didn't want to die! I also disagree with you about "beyond a reasonable doubt." It is not "beyond any doubt at all." Jurors are supposed to consider eyewitness testimony, police reports and forensic evidence. The Medical Examiner was very clear when she testified that Jordan Davis was not leaning in the direction of Michael Dunn's vehicle. Even the trajectory of the bullet that killed him shows he was leaning away. Only the defendant, who has every reason to lie, said there was a gun pointed at him, and he kept changing his story.

[fsquid]

I'm sure I should care, but I just don't

[abvavgjoe]

Originally Posted by fsquid

I'm sure I should care, but I just don't

If you got really upset every time you hear about someone getting murdered nowadays, you'd be a nervous wreck. We're desensitized. We have to be to function.

[justNancy]

Originally Posted by fsquid

I'm sure I should care, but I just don't

Everyone has the right to care or not care about an issue. I would never judge you or anyone else for having an opinion or not having one at all.

Although we're talking about the death of a youth, people die every minute. The death of Jordan Davis isn't any more or less tragic than the death of a child killed by a drunk driver or abusive parent. The only reason I get so flustered is because the law on self defense is too broad. At this point, since Dunn will be incarcerated for the rest of his life, it really doesn't matter to me. Some people say it sends a message that you can shoot someone, claim self defense and get away with murder, but I don't think Dunn is getting away with much, since life, as he knew it, is pretty well over for him.

Some posts claim this was not a SYG case, but the jury (2 jurors have already been on TV) was hung because the jurors could not agree on Michael Dunn's perception of fear, that there was possible imminent harm or death. I don't care what you call it, but 2 jurors obviously thought there was reasonable doubt, that it was "possible" Jordan Davis did threaten him with a gun, even though no gun was found, no bullets from the victim's car were ever found, Dunn didn't have a scratch on him, and Dunn was the one who left the scene and hid from the police.

I guess the next time someone is shot in self defense, the defendant's claim might be that the victim sicced his dog on him and then it ran away. Nobody else will testify to seeing a dog, a police search won't be able to locate the dog, the medical examiner will report that no dog bites were found on the defendant, but someone in the jury will ask "But what if there really was a dog?"