Fl murderer convicted in loud music

This is Florida. The prosecutor can push a 10-20 life on this guy and since he shot someone it is automatic 25 to life. Remember the woman doing 20 for a warning shot. Same prosecutor. This guy will have his sentence commuted when he is so old and sick the state doesn't want to pay to watch him die.

Reply to
gfretwell
Loading thread data ...

Micky, you're a nice guy but you're trying to reason with Killer Loon who's a poster child for the P.L.L.C.F. Trying to reason with those of its ilk is like zipping up your pants with your wiener hanging out. ^_^

TDD

Reply to
The Daring Dufas

Cuts down on your moyel bill.

Reply to
Stormin Mormon

But he wasn't *convicted* of shooting anyone, he was convicted of

*trying* to shoot 3 people. I think that's why you're at the 25 years and all the news stories I've seen, the max sentence for any of the crimes is 20 years on each count.

It's the judge that determines the sentence. And the case of the black woman you're citing was overturned on appeal. She's getting a new trial. That was one of the worst court decisions I've seen handed down, ever.

If he got 25 and the sentences run concurrently, and we apply the no parole before 85% of the sentence rule, that's 21 served. He's 46, so assuming he has a normal life expectancy, that wouldn't be a life sentence, he could be out at 67. And I don't know about anyone else, but that seems adequate to me, given the crime. There are all kinds of people committing similar crimes and doing that or less.

I think a lot of this will come down to what the sentencing laws require to be considered, allowed to be considered, exclude from being considered, etc. If it's viewed from the standpoint that he was not convicted of the death that occured, and that isn't part of the sentencing consideration, perhaps because it's not allowed, then you're left with attempted murder convictions for shooting into a car and not wounding anyone.

Reply to
trader4

I tried to post again last night but my internet was down. Verzion, even thought my verizon land line phone was working.

ABC News the worst of the 3, said roughly that "because of Florida law, he will have to serve 60 years."

OTOH, NBC news, often much better than ABC, said "up to 60 years".

Normally I'd just believe NBC, but ABC was so specific, as if they'd actually asked someone, I was going to post here to retract what I'd said.

Reply to
micky

I forgot to reply to you.

Ugh. I'm not too concerned about this guy, but that woman with the warning shot, terrible. My brother lives in Florida and I visit. I'd better be careful. So should he and his family.

Reply to
micky

If you google, I don't see any news sources saying he has to serve

60 years or anything near that. That is the max he would coud face if they made him serve consecutive sentences. For a first time offender, that seems unlikely and unwarranted. It's kind of like saying Ray Nagin could go to jail for 100 years, but we all know that isn't going to happen.

A lot is going to depend on the sentencing guidelines and what the judge has to consider, may consider and is prohibited from considering. For example, he was not convicted of murder or even shooting the guy who died. If that can't be considered as part of the sentencing, then what you have is a guy who fired into an SUV, and didn't injure anyone. From what I see you have 3 counts of attempted murder. In similar situations, a guy like that with no priors, etc would get 20 years, served concurrently. And likely a lot less in many places.

Reply to
trader4

He shot a gun in commission of a felony and someone was hit. That is the test.

The basis of the appeal was not 10-20-life

At a certain point our prisons become the world's most expensive geriatric hospitals with all the costs of incarceration tacked on to the costs of nursing home care and the medical issues of senior citizens. The old idea of throwing someone in a hole and letting them die has given way to questions of whether an inmate can get a heart transplant.

Reply to
gfretwell

But he was *not* convicted of hitting anyone. He was convicted of

3 counts of attempted murder for the other 3 occupants of the car. The jusry deadlocked on the more serious charge. So, if it requires someone to be hit, no one was hit in the crimes he was convicted of. And if it's 25 years, why aren't we seing that number anywhere else. The most I see is 20 X 3, with the possbility that since he is a first time offender, they could be served concurrently.

It may not have been the technical basis of it, but you can't deny that the screwy sentence she received generated a lot of support for her case to be appealed on whatever basis they could find.

Reply to
trader4

We have not had the sentencing hearing yet and we do not know what Corey will bring up there so everyone is just guessing.

This is the text of the law and the paragraph that applies

*******************************************
  1. Any person who is convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony listed in sub-subparagraphs (a)1.a.-q., regardless of whether the use of a weapon is an element of the felony, and during the course of the commission of the felony such person discharged a ?firearm? or ?destructive device? as defined in s. 790.001 and, as the result of the discharge, death or great bodily harm was inflicted upon any person, the convicted person shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of not less than 25 years and not more than a term of imprisonment of life in prison.
**************************************

It is clear that they were convicted of attempted murder (a forcible felony on the list) and a person was killed as the result of discharging the gun " regardless of whether the use of a weapon is an element of the felony" he can get 25 to life if the prosecutor asks for it in the sentencing hearing.

I believe the whole issue was the charge to the jury. It had nothing to do with the facts in the case or the 10-20-life law. There is a big push to revisit this law, simply because it is to broadly applied and Angie Corey is one on the biggest abusers of that law. .

Reply to
gfretwell

From my reading of the law, which I think is reasonable, no one died or was injured from what Dunn was convicted of. For example, if you want to convict someone of felony murder,' ie a murder convicted in the course of a felony, then you charge the with felony murder and try them that way. The jury apprently could not agree on or convict on whether he was justified in firing on the passenger or not. They only agreed that he was guilty of attempted murder, apparently because he continued to fire on the car as it left the scene and there was no longer a threat. Until proven otherwise, Dunn is innocent of any criminal conviction for killing anyone, period.

And if the 25 year law applies, why is no one in the media reporting it? All I've seen is the max is 20 x 3, which seems unlikely to me, given that he has no priors and whatever happened was a spur of the moment thing. Dunn didn't go out looking to shoot anyone.

Or course it did. If she had been sentenced to 2 years, instead of

20 per the screwy law, there would not have been the huge outcry from the public, all the media attention and how quickly attornies jumped to her defense to appeal it. For anyone sentenced to anything, for her to get such a quick reversal and new trial is unusual.
Reply to
trader4

That's actually a pretty brilliant defense strategy. If I were his lawyer, I'd subpoena the ATF agents from the Koresh incident or someone qualified to testify about the use extremely loud music to deliberately disorient people. There have been studies that show that extremely loud music can disrupt cardiac and breathing rhythms.

Who hasn't been near a window shaking audio system at one time or another? Just the other day at a stoplight with all the windows closed up rolls this boombox on wheels with the weird all-bass road-shaking thumping that I assume was some kind of music. I don't think I've ever heard someone blasting a song I actually like. (-: Our custodial engineer had a woofer in his car the size of a full-size tire mounted in the hatch area. You could hear him approaching from a block away.

I once lived next door to a disco club. I can still hear "Stayin' Alive" and "Hot Stuff" ringing in my ears on a bad night. They played those two songs in their full plaster-loosening glory at least twice a night and the pictures rattled on the walls. Sometimes they would play the super-extended "disco" mixes with the same bass lines thumping away for what seemed liked hours. If I end up in hell, those songs will be waiting for me. But the rent was cheap. (-:

You've uncovered what could easily be a successful line of defense in any retrial. Beats the hell out of that contrived "shotgun in the rear window so I shot the front seat passenger" defense. I wonder if the judge would have allowed a demonstration of exactly what song was playing and how loudly. Drums, fightsongs and bugles have been used to whip soldiers into a patriotic fighting frenzy.

The more I think about it, the more I think you might have hit on what really happened. Dunn did flip out. Does anyone know what song was playing? If I represented him (which I can't because I'm not a lawyer) I would find an expert witness/shrink who would test Dunn using an fMRI while subjecting him to the same music v. music he liked. If people have favorite songs, and most of us do, then there must exist the exact opposite. Songs we just can't stand.

Marvin Gaye's father hated "Sexual Healing" so much that he killed him after listening to it.

formatting link

There's actual a lot of precedent out there. I am sure you couldn't find a juror hasn't been driven to near madness by someone with a loud stereo at one time in their lives. Zulu warriors drove their adversaries to the edge by the sounds the made clacking their spears on their shields.

BTW, for anyone wondering about the sentencing, here's another county heard from:

formatting link

Who would be on trial if those kids *did* have guns and fired back? If someone comes at you because he thinks you have a gun and you actually do who's standing whose ground?

Reply to
Robert Green

Unclear.

What is clear however is that the police botched the investigation by not searching the area immediately, leaving it entirely a "reasonable doubt" as to weather such a shotgun did exist and those in the car disposed of it in the time they were away from the gas station.

I have plenty of issues with the shooter's actions - not simply fleeing in his vehicle, firing multiple shots with time between shots and no apparent continued threat, etc. But there should be different charges for such actions.

I think everyone's view of the case, including those of the racist baiters would be different had the police located a shotgun in the car, and given the police failure that will remain an unknown barring an admission from one of the surviving parties that were in the car.

As for the initial request to turn down the music, far too much has been made about what music it was when that is simply not relevant. It is not racist to ask someone to turn down loud music when they are parked at a gas station or anywhere stationary where others may be trying to have a conversation such as a fast food drive through.

Turning music down in such cases is common courtesy, something that all teens should have learned from their parents. Indeed where I live is a short distance in from a 65 mph road, and the local kids here are courteous and turn down their music when they turn of that main road and I appreciate that courtesy.

Reply to
Pete C.

The only thing I disagree with is he really could not have driven off and left his girlfriend in what he saw as a threatening situation.

The first shot may have been plausible as self defense but shooting at a fleeing vehicle is aggravated assault with a firearm at a minimum. The sentence is the same, 25 to life.

You only have the right to defend yourself until the threat is abated. Then you have to stop shooting.

Reply to
gfretwell

That sort of activity is very immohel. o_O

TDD

Reply to
The Daring Dufas

As to the shotgun -- testimony from his girlfriend revealed that he never mentioned another weapon being involved.

He drove off to his motel, ordered a pizza, and slept off the numerous drinks he had earlier that evening at a wedding reception.

Reply to
83LowRider

How talkative are you when you've just had a traumatic experience and are also still a bit drunk?

Reply to
Pete C.

Without debating that one, how about 3 seconds. No more than that is needed in many states.

One example someone gave on the radio today, from one state, was the time between the first time one pulled the trigger and the second time, and that means consecutive shots, without a pause in between.

Occasions where premeditation is not found for one reason or anotehr don't change the minimum time necessary when those reasons are not present.

Reply to
micky

If it was a portable radio, not the car radio, it coudl have been someone in the back seat who turned it down, and the other guy in the back seat who turned it bck up.

But "someone else turned it up again", he said. I had assumed that was the driver, but I should have said it was the driver.

AIUI, it appears the shooter had just driven into the parking place. If he didn't like the noise, he could have backed out that spot and parked somewhere else. Later, when they got into a yelling match, and, he says, he thought he saw a shotgun, it would have probably taken less time to start the car and back up than it took to lean over to the glove box, get the gun, chamber a bullet and shoot. Plus, unless he killed the guy with the alleged shotgun on the first shot, shooting at him would be almost certain to get him to shoot back at you. But just backing up is much less likely to cause him to shoot and in a few seconds, the driver would be too far back to get hit without the alleged shotgun guy getting out of the car or shooting through his own rear window.

One reporter from NBC suggested that the hung jury on murder occcurred because at least one jurror believed that the shooter might have thought there was a shotgun, but the three convictions for murder were based on his shooting at the SUV as it was driving away. He plainly wasn't in any danger then but he was still shooting!! So even the negatvie jury votes on murder would agree on attempted murder for the other 3. Maybe the NBC guy is right.

What do this case, Trayvon Martin, the shooting of the movie texter have in common. All by someone carrying a gun. At least two of them carrying the gun for no special reason.

During this same period there was another teenager accosted and he was hit over the head with a cell phone. If there was a bruise, it was gone in a couple days. Partly because his accoster was carrying only a cell phone, not a gun.

Reply to
micky

As I've pointed out a few times now, it's worse than that. He opened fire on the guy in the passenger seat. That makes no sense. If you thought someone in the back seat had a shotgun, then they are in a perfect position to blow you away when you open fire on their buddy who's in front. Also, you have the fact that you wouldn't think a rational person would go up against a shotgun that hadn't been fired with a pistol. And top it off with the fact that in the driver seat, you're in a very difficult spot to deal with someone with a shotgun in the back seat. What are you going to do? Turn, try to shoot over your shoulder, car pillar possibly blocking you, etc.....

But just

I agree, from what I've read so far, that appears to have been the best option. But it's not a real good one either, because if the guy does have a shotgun, he can easily shoot you while you're backing up.

I would think he's very likely correct.

And let's also look at all the cases where carrying a gun prevented a violent crime from happening. Of course you won't hear about those much because the lib media only wants to make a spectacle of cases where it goes the other way.

It would be nice if all perps out to rape, loot, pillage or kill only carreed a cell phone, but many choose to use a gun. If you run up against one of those, a cell phone isn't going to do you much good.

Reply to
trader4

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.