The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21604
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:43 am

If Florida didn't have their version of stand your ground, Dunn would have been convicted of murder, although he still might be at his retrial.

Ninja
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1643
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:22 pm

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Ninja » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:49 pm

Dangerousman wrote:That's not saying I agree or disagree with the non-conviction on that charge and there's no justification for you saying it means I'm comfortable with it. It only means I'm not going to form an opinion about something when I lack sufficient information. Maybe you ought to try that out yourself sometime.


Fair enough.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Dangerousman » Thu Feb 27, 2014 1:11 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:If Florida didn't have their version of stand your ground, Dunn would have been convicted of murder, although he still might be at his retrial.


Would you care to explain how you reached that opinion?

Do you think he would have been convicted under Wisconsin law?

From what I read, Dunn's lawyer never argued anything about "stand your ground." So it's odd that you would claim he wasn't convicted because of a portion of the law that wasn't raised during the trial.

Also, if this happened in a state with a "duty to retreat" law, generally speaking, the actual duty to retreat only applies to circumstances in which one has the ability to safely withdraw. Not just the ability to run away, but to do so with complete safety. Whether Dunn had the ability to do that while standing exposed in a gas station lot seems fairly doubtful.

A juror said she believed Dunn had acted in self-defense-- up until the point were he continued to shoot at the car as it drove away. That's what he was convicted of doing.

Also one juror said she thought Dunn was guilty of murder, but second degree murder, not first degree as he was charged. If that is the reason the jury was unable to convict Dunn, then perhaps your problem lies with the prosecutor for overcharging Dunn.

So, like Zimmerman, we have another case with people in the forum railing against Florida's stand your ground law when that portion of the law wasn't a factor in either case. That's curious.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Dangerousman » Thu Feb 27, 2014 1:12 pm

Ninja wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:That's not saying I agree or disagree with the non-conviction on that charge and there's no justification for you saying it means I'm comfortable with it. It only means I'm not going to form an opinion about something when I lack sufficient information. Maybe you ought to try that out yourself sometime.


Fair enough.


Thank you

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21604
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Feb 27, 2014 1:23 pm

DMlan, you also claimed the Zimmerman verdict had nothing to do with stand your ground, since his defense attorney didn't bring it up. Yet the judge in that case read the law to the jury. To think that jurors don't consider that law in their deliberations is either disingenuous or extremely naive on your part.

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Dangerousman » Thu Feb 27, 2014 4:47 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:DMlan, you also claimed the Zimmerman verdict had nothing to do with stand your ground, since his defense attorney didn't bring it up. Yet the judge in that case read the law to the jury. To think that jurors don't consider that law in their deliberations is either disingenuous or extremely naive on your part.


Tell us what part of stand your ground the jury had to consider in reaching their verdict in the Zimmerman case. Stand your ground becomes a non-issue when your ass has been put on the ground and someone is on top of you. Any mention of stand your ground by the judge was incidental. The jury instructions also included those portions of the law that cover killing by accident or in a heat of passion, although neither of these issues were in any way part of that case.

Are you going to explain your statement about "Dunn would have been convicted...?"

Or shall I just add it to the long list of the questions you've avoided answering over the past years?

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21604
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Feb 27, 2014 5:37 pm

Tell that to the Zimmerman jury. Stand your ground entered into their not guilty verdict.

Juror: We talked Stand Your Ground before not-guilty Zimmerman verdict

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12942
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby snoqueen » Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:47 pm

Ninja wrote:
I also encourage you to read "Self-defense and the Mistaken Racist," which I linked to and quoted from earlier, because it devotes a great deal of attention to the various theories of reasonableness in self-defense, and the implications of each.
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/ ... ext=facpub


This is some deep shit and I am still trying to work my way through it, but it's definitely applicable to what is being discussed in this topic. I'll get through it and if this conversation turns back to theories of reasonableness I'll be better prepared. But whoa. Not easy reading, and I'm the one who manages to follow kurt's science posts with all the formulas and graphs.

Interesting what different people on this forum are fluent in.

Ninja
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1643
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:22 pm

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Ninja » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:16 pm

snoqueen wrote:
Ninja wrote:
I also encourage you to read "Self-defense and the Mistaken Racist," which I linked to and quoted from earlier, because it devotes a great deal of attention to the various theories of reasonableness in self-defense, and the implications of each.
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/ ... ext=facpub


This is some deep shit and I am still trying to work my way through it, but it's definitely applicable to what is being discussed in this topic. I'll get through it and if this conversation turns back to theories of reasonableness I'll be better prepared. But whoa. Not easy reading, and I'm the one who manages to follow kurt's science posts with all the formulas and graphs.

Interesting what different people on this forum are fluent in.


And it's not an accident or a coincidence that it was published in 2008, long before the Zimmerman and Dunn stories became national obsessions.

I knew this shit was going to happen. A lot of people knew it. But knowing it and stopping it are very different things.

Ninja
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1643
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 12:22 pm

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby Ninja » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:33 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:If Florida didn't have their version of stand your ground, Dunn would have been convicted of murder, although he still might be at his retrial.


Would you care to explain how you reached that opinion?

Do you think he would have been convicted under Wisconsin law?

From what I read, Dunn's lawyer never argued anything about "stand your ground." So it's odd that you would claim he wasn't convicted because of a portion of the law that wasn't raised during the trial.


Maybe I'm too philosophical about the law, but I think you're too literal. A particular statute doesn't have to be invoked for the general spirit of self-defense law, and the general nature of self-defense discussion to be a factor in a judge's or jury's decision.

It's not just concealed carry, and it's not just castle docrtine, and it's not just stand your ground, it's the entire conversation that we've been having about self-defense in this country over the last 20 years, and how different that conversation is from the way the issue has traditionally been approached.

We're permitting totally avoidable (if admittedly, arguably, legally justifiable) homicides. That's just so crazy! I know that you're a decent human being and I know that you're a rational human being, but I really don't understand how you can look at the Zimmerman and Dunn situaitons, irrespective of how they turned out in criminal court, and not be seriously disturbed by the fact that two teenagers are dead who wouldn't be dead if armed adults didn't feel somehow entitled, and even obligated to confront them because they had the wrong impression of them, and then get scared and shoot them. That's another consequence of this obsession with self-defense and avoiding hypothetical victimhood, and that has to stop.
Last edited by Ninja on Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12942
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The Dunn Mistrial, Self Defense Law, and Reasonableness

Postby snoqueen » Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:14 pm

That's because he's looking at it from the viewpoint of the person with the gun.

Which isn't wrong, but given today's rhetorical extremism it blinds him to a great many other perfectly valid viewpoints that need to be part of the discussion too.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests