On Saturday, February 15, 2014 11:31:48 PM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
I would agree that they should at least wait to see the
actual sentence handed down. But he's most likely not going
to get 60 years. The minimum is 20 years on each count and
the judge could probably have them served concurrently. So,
he might just be facing 20 years. Then you typically have
time off for good behavior, parole, etc. He might be out
in 15 if he's lucky.
I didn't follow this much, but from what I see, the defendant
appeared quick to open fire and to continue to fire, when
there appeared to have been other options. That's why it was
easy for the jury to convict him on the attempted murder
charge for continuing to fire as they drove away.
One part in his story that makes
no sense to me is that he claims that while they were all
still in their cars, as the confrontation escalated, he
thought he saw a guy in the back point a shotgun out the car.
So, he says he reached over to the glove compartment,
got his gun and when the passenger started to get out he
started firing. But he started shooting
at the guy in the passenger seat, and that's the guy he killed.
THAT makes no sense, does it? If you think the guy in the
back seat has a shotgun, why in the world would you open fire
on the guy in the passenger seat? If his buddy has a shotgun,
he's in a perfect spot to blow you away.
Also his behavior afterward, ie fleeing rather than sticking around
suggests it wasn't a case of justified self defense. But in cases like
this, unless you hear all the testimony that the jury did,
see all the evidence, it's hard to sort the whole thing out. It
is another sad case of how bad behavior on both sides can
turn into something really bad happening. There appears to be
no dispute that the black kids in the car were playing obnoxiously
loud music and they started the verbal assault when he politely
asked them to turn it down. That's one of the risks you run
when you want to behave like that, you may run into someone
equally willing to escalate and then really bad things can happen.
On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:31:48 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
The news always adds up the maximum sentences and presents it in this
way, even though almost no one ever gets the sum of all the sentences.
They do this for everyone, but I'm afraid that those who haven't noticed
this feel wronged when the criminal who hurt them or killed somone they
cared about gets so much less than what the news suggested they would
get. They feel wronged by the criminal and betrayed by the courts.
Another example where the news should be ashamed of itself, and this
time, I'm not sure but I I may need to include radio and newspapers. I
don't recall if they participate in this or not.
No. Especially if someone is a first offender, or even the first time
it's a felony, the judge will have some, maybe all sentences served
concurrently, and won't give him the maximum for the most serious
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.
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 7:04:50 PM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
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.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 05:13:30 -0800 (PST), " firstname.lastname@example.org"
He shot a gun in commission of a felony and someone was hit. That is
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
On Monday, February 17, 2014 11:25:24 AM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
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
On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 08:43:20 -0800 (PST), " firstname.lastname@example.org"
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
3. 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
On Monday, February 17, 2014 12:57:31 PM UTC-5, email@example.com wrote:
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
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.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:04:50 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
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
On Monday, February 17, 2014 10:27:14 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
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.
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:04:50 -0500, email@example.com wrote:
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.
On 2/15/2014 10:18 PM, Daring Dufas: Hypocrite Sock Of Killer Loon wrote:
Killer Loon, how did the court case affect you personally? Are you an
obnoxious DAN who plays loud salaciousness music in public and fear you
may be shot by someone who asks you to turn it down? I know you're a
useful idiot for the elite P.L.L.C.F. who wish to disarm the American
people and you have no clue as to what will happen if those you support
seize power and turn the United States into a dictatorship. I do feel
sorry for you and those of your ilk who have no comprehension of what
will become of America if your puppet handlers get their way. It would
be funny to see you sitting in your sparsely furnished government owned
apartment that's identical to what all citizens are housed in because
everyone is equal and there are no more evil rich people with big lavish
homes. That is, except for the elite you so vociferously support and you
will be an old man sitting there in your drab government issue apartment
munching on government issue Soylent that is supplied to all of the
"Equal" citizens and the one thing going through your addled little
brain over and over again will be "WTF!" Be careful what you wish for
Killer Loon, your wish may come true. ^_^
Daring Dufas: Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare wrote:
What is the story about the guy he shot having a shotgun in the car? TV
said that the shooter maintains that was the case, but I did not hear if
that was ever introduced as evidence. Not making excuses for the guy,
just looking for the facts.
On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:13:12 AM UTC-5, Daring Dufas: Hypocrite TeaBillie on welfare wrote:
And if the shooter had been black and gotten into a similar
confrontation over music, someone wearing the wrong color
jacket, looking at someone the wrong way, etc, that happens about
1000 times more frequently, and that resulted in a shooting death,
what would it be then?
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.
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.
As to the shotgun -- testimony from his girlfriend revealed that
he <Dunn> 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.
Had I just fired numerous shots into a car and got back into mine...
1) there is no way my wife wouldn't be asking me a million questions.
2) if there was only ONE question asked, it would be 'why did
you shoot at them?'.
3) the adrenaline after such an occurence would have one so pumped
up that remaining silent wouldn't even be an option.
4) he wasn't so drunk that he didn't leave a good shot pattern
on the other car... and certainly not so drunk that he didn't
make it back to the hotel and remain awake/alert enough to
order and eat a pizza. <sidenote - having just now looked
back at her testimony, she says he had 3 or 4 drinks over the
course of the evening>
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.