Invisapeeps 2.0

Cactus · Senior Member

Here we go again-Standing your ground in FL

Cactus · Senior Member

I am not sure what you mean, pbj. There are polite ways to ask someone to turn down their music-but how much does that matter? Rudeness, whether in playing music loudly or asking impolitely for it to be turned down, does not constitute a threat and is not a crime. Either could provoke or escalate a conflict but who's to say when it becomes "threatening"?

-- Edited by Cactus on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 01:42:01 PM

Cactus · Senior Member

Papa Bear wrote:
Mom of half a dozen wrote:
I think when you walk (or in this case drive) up to a group of teenagers you should expect that the response might not be what you hope for. They are teenagers for crying out loud! They could say "sorry about that" and turn it down. Or maybe "get lost you crazy old man/woman" and laugh at you. Even the most well behaved teenagers can go through a period were they buck authority. Why did he even go over there? It's a parking lot, why is it important to him they turn it down? What was he going to be doing there that required quiet, and why is his want of silence more important than their want of loud music? When it became clear they weren't going to do what he wanted why didn't he just leave? Why stay and argue with a bunch of kids?

I agree there might be more to the story, but on the face of the issue it is just so stupid. A young man is dead over loud music.

This may surprise some of you but I am actually for private citizens owning guns if they choose. However I am also for punishing people who use them incorrectly. I am middle of the road on this issue. I thought I should put that out there so everyone would know where I stand.
Because he wants the damned music turned down?
I'm still waiting for anyone to say something besides, "if people want their music loud, others just need to suffer." I am never going "there" either.

Part of living in society is putting up with other people. Some places have noise ordinances you can appeal to. Some people are considerate enough to turn down music if asked. If neither applies, yes, you do have to suffer, or remove yourself. As opposed to shooting people.

eta: Until this post, nobody ITT said "if people want their music loud, others just need to suffer" and I don't think that should be the case. People shouldn't have to put up with excessively loud music. But why is the alternative to this shooting someone? How does killing enter the equation? You don't really think killing someone is in any way proportionate to the violation of excess noise, do you?

-- Edited by Cactus on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 02:29:16 PM

Cactus · Senior Member

Papa Bear wrote:
Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
I don't know how you prove that a person didn't really feel threatened in a given situation. Other standards must be applied. And if there is no obligation to seek options other than deadly force-which seems to be the point of this law-there is too much leeway-anyone can say they felt threatened, and oh well if they happened to make a mistake.
Basically this.
My questions include, why was the music turned way up, why couldn't the driver turn it down, why was a guy in the back seat picking a fight with a different driver?
What does any of this matter? If the guy in the back seat called Dunn a "effing *******" while the music that was blasting "bitches and ho" at max decibel it still does not matter. I does not constitute deadly force. Since the dead guy was unarmed and in a car Dunn should rot in jail.
Why is the guy in the back seat calling anything at the driver? A threat is a threat.

I don't agree that "a threat is a threat" necessarily. And calling someone a name isn't the same as threatening them, though I can understand why someone might feel threatened by being called a name in certain situations. But I don't think the law in most places says that anytime anyone threatens you in any way, you are justified in using deadly force, nor should it.

-- Edited by Cactus on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 04:40:41 PM

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
I don't know how you prove that a person didn't really feel threatened in a given situation. Other standards must be applied. And if there is no obligation to seek options other than deadly force-which seems to be the point of this law-there is too much leeway-anyone can say they felt threatened, and oh well if they happened to make a mistake.
Basically this.
My questions include, why was the music turned way up, why couldn't the driver turn it down, why was a guy in the back seat picking a fight with a different driver?
What does any of this matter? If the guy in the back seat called Dunn a "effing *******" while the music that was blasting "bitches and ho" at max decibel it still does not matter. I does not constitute deadly force. Since the dead guy was unarmed and in a car Dunn should rot in jail.
Why is the guy in the back seat calling anything at the driver? A threat is a threat.
We don't know what he said to him but unless he had a lethal weapon (1) they were just words. So Dunn should match words with words. If a person in a vehicle says something to you that you don't like and you are in a car then you know what....just drive away. (2)

1. Or Dunn had reason to believe he had a lethal weapon.

2. So if I have this right -- someone's blasting music, uncomfortably (to the point of pain), and I ask them to turn it down and get a threat in reply. (I agree we don't know that that happened, but we'll say.)

According to you (and I gather Cactus), one should just drive away. To live under the fear that comes with constant noise and threats. To me, that isn't acceptable.

ETA: And again, WHY is the guy in the backseat getting into it? Not "what was said," but why is anything said.

-- Edited by Papa Bear on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 04:56:05 PM

Forty-two · Guru

It said words were exchanged, that could mean anything...again not that it matters, like I said I don't any words that justify someone shooting you. So you are blaming it on the victim because Dunn did not like what he said? Really? I am curious as to what words you think warrant being shot.

-- Edited by Forty-two on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 05:18:09 PM

Cactus · Senior Member

Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
I don't know how you prove that a person didn't really feel threatened in a given situation. Other standards must be applied. And if there is no obligation to seek options other than deadly force-which seems to be the point of this law-there is too much leeway-anyone can say they felt threatened, and oh well if they happened to make a mistake.
Basically this.
My questions include, why was the music turned way up, why couldn't the driver turn it down, why was a guy in the back seat picking a fight with a different driver?
What does any of this matter? If the guy in the back seat called Dunn a "effing *******" while the music that was blasting "bitches and ho" at max decibel it still does not matter. I does not constitute deadly force. Since the dead guy was unarmed and in a car Dunn should rot in jail.
Why is the guy in the back seat calling anything at the driver? A threat is a threat.
We don't know what he said to him but unless he had a lethal weapon (1) they were just words. So Dunn should match words with words. If a person in a vehicle says something to you that you don't like and you are in a car then you know what....just drive away. (2)
1. Or Dunn had reason to believe he had a lethal weapon.
2. So if I have this right -- someone's blasting music, uncomfortably (to the point of pain), and I ask them to turn it down and get a threat in reply. (I agree we don't know that that happened, but we'll say.)
According to you (and I gather Cactus), one should just drive away. To live under the fear that comes with constant noise and threats. To me, that isn't acceptable.
ETA: And again, WHY is the guy in the backseat getting into it? Not "what was said," but why is anything said.

-- Edited by Papa Bear on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 04:56:05 PM
According to you, if you ask someone to lower their music and they don't, it's acceptable to shoot them? (1) Do I have that right? Or only if you feel threatened by their reply? (2)
If you can drive away, why is shooting a person-who may be unarmed and innocent-a better solution? (3) You find killing someone-even a possibly innocent person-preferable to avoiding confrontation by driving away? (4)
Why shouldn't the guy in the backseat say something? (5)
4. You keep saying "driving away" like that makes the problem go away. The noise is still loud for everyone, and (presumably) lippy backseat guy is jut as lippy to everyone else.

The "problem" of loud music and a "lippy" teenager is in no way proportionate to killing an innocent person. Teenagers are not violating your rights by being lippy. They may or not be violating a noise ordinance by playing loud music but that's not a felony and they haven't killed anyone. It's very arguable that these teenagers were hurting anyone at all. How much can you value human life to come up with something like this comment? Do you think "solving" the "problem" of loud music and a loudmouth teenager are worth killing someone?

And in what way did the shooter solve this problem anyway? These 'problems" no longer exist, due to him?

-- Edited by Cactus on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 05:31:05 PM

tigerlily · Guru

Papa Bear wrote:
huckleberry wrote:
This thread is making my head spin. (1)

Obviously we don't know the facts here. (2) But whatever the details may be, a law that makes people think it's OK to shoot from your car at an unarmed (3) guy sitting in another car is not a law that benefits society. (4)
1. Sorry about that.
2. Thank you.
3. "Unarmed" != unthreatening. (Admittedly this is a key detail in this story. I'm prepared to be way off.)
4. What about forcing people to accept loud music and threats from the cars' occupants as just facts of life? Does that climate benefit society?

I truly just do not understand. Is a disrespectful and aggressive climate good for society? Of course not. How you think it's ok for 1 person to act as judge/jury/executioner is beyond me.

I don't think anyone here believes that it's good to have music so loud it's bothering other people or that it's ok to make threats on others. However, how exactly does it help to have someone shoot them for it? So people can learn that the guy with the biggest gun wins? It's ok to be rude/mean as long as you have a rocket launcher? How does his shooting that kid benefit society?

eta: not sure how that reads, but I'm not angry - I really do want to know what you're thinking. I feel the same way you do about people acting disrespectful or mean towards others just because they can is a huge issue with society and I'd honestly love for every single one of them to disappear. I just don't think we should shoot them ;)

-- Edited by tigerlily on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 06:40:01 PM

Forty-two · Guru

What I find most interesting are the comments at the end of the article.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/27/1244411/jordan-russell-davis/

Less than nine months after Trayvon Martin was shot and killed in central Florida, another black teenage student was killed under suspicious circumstances.

Michael David Dunn, a 45-year-old vice president of Dunn & Dunn Data Systems in Vero Beach, was in Jacksonville this past weekend for his son’s wedding. The Orlando Sentinel details what happened on Friday when Dunn, a gun collector, encountered Jordan Russell Davis, a student at nearby magnet school Samuel W. Wolfson High:

Jordan Russell Davis, 17, and several other teenagers were sitting in a sport utility vehicle in the parking lot when Dunn pulled up next to them in a car and asked them to turn down their music, [Jacksonville sheriff's Lt. Rob] Schoonover said.
Jordan and Dunn exchanged words, and Dunn pulled a gun and shot eight or nine times, striking Jordan twice, Schoonover said. Jordan was sitting in the back seat. No one else was hurt.Dunn’s attorney Monday said her client acted responsibly and in self-defense. She did not elaborate.

Schoonover also said that “there were words exchanged” between the two, and Dunn claims to have felt “threatened” before opening fire.

According to his father Ron Davis, the teenager died in the arms of his friend in the car. Ron said his son was unarmed.

Dunn was arrested at his home on Saturday and charged with murder and attempted murder. He is being held without bail.

Davis’s funeral will take place on Saturday, Dec. 1 and his parents plan to create a foundation “for at risk students that suffer from tragedies, in his memory.”

Since Dunn is claiming self-defense, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, which earned infamy after Trayvon Martin’s killing, could be at issue in this case. After Martin’s death, Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) appointed a task force to review the law that authorizes the unfettered use of deadly force in self-defense, but the panel didn’t recommend any significant changes

Cactus · Senior Member

How awful.
42, I didn't see the comments. What was interesting about them?

Forty-two · Guru

They are at the bottom of the story if you click on the link, but here are some of them.

Kirk Fields · Top Commenter · San Antonio, Texas

...folks, take a long hard look at Mr. Michael David Dunn, note the physical characteristics: over 40, caucasian, angry looking. There are thousands if not millions of these guys, all over America and they are known to be heavily armed and accustomed to deference in police matters. They feel entitled, resentful of losing an election, and are certain that even without weapon or provocation, an Obama voter is a threat to them. They are bigots. They are losers. They are the worst kind of cowards and they shoot to kill.

Reply · 1,720 ·

· 18 hours ago

Kim Nickells · Top Commenter

You are so right, Kirk. It's hard to believe how surrounded we are by these paranoid little men.

Reply · 318 ·

· 17 hours ago
.

David Bellard

Kirk, you hit the nail on the head.

Reply · 254 ·

· 17 hours ago
.

Debbie Durham Walton · Enon, Ohio

I agree with you, Kirk, and you've scared the crap out of me!!

Reply · 153 ·

· 17 hours ago
.

View 119 more.

.
.

Robb Lincoln · Top Commenter · Walla Walla, Washington

How hard is it to realize that the (unintended?) consequence of the Stand Your Ground law is to create an open season on any and all "others". Time to call an end to this demented social experiment.

Reply · 472 ·

· 18 hours ago

Jasmine Kate · Top Commenter

Exactly! Someone died over this stupid law.

How many more deaths do we need.

Reply · 129 ·

· 18 hours ago
.

Teri Donovan Springer · Top Commenter

Absolutely. ANYONE can now claim they felt "threatened" and open fire. Insanity.

Reply · 174 ·

· 18 hours ago
.

Chrystal Louise Prather · Top Commenter · Works at Dreams About Derek

What's wrong with this picture it's not like they're going after adults they are going after CHILDREN. Teenager I don't care you can tell when someone is young

Cactus · Senior Member

I'm no expert and correct me if I'm wrong, but
it appears that in this law, a person does not have to show they were correct in the belief that their life was threatened, they don't have to show that deadly force was their only option (as opposed to retreat, even in public), the other party does not have to have inflicted damage or been shown to have been committing a crime, and there need be no proportion between the force they used against the other person and anything the other person was shown to have been doing against them. If it is accepted that their belief in a threat to their life was honest but mistaken, I don't know what standard is applied with regards to the reasonableness of that belief. It is a confusing law which would be better covered by other laws regarding self defense and degrees of homicide.

If you kill someone out of an honest but mistaken belief that your life was being threatened, isn't that still considered a crime in most states (maybe differing based on whether the belief is considered "reasonable" or "unreasonable')?

I don't know how you prove that a person didn't really feel threatened in a given situation. Other standards must be applied. And if there is no obligation to seek options other than deadly force-which seems to be the point of this law-there is too much leeway-anyone can say they felt threatened, and oh well if they happened to make a mistake.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

I don't know how you prove that a person didn't really feel threatened in a given situation. Other standards must be applied. And if there is no obligation to seek options other than deadly force-which seems to be the point of this law-there is too much leeway-anyone can say they felt threatened, and oh well if they happened to make a mistake.

Basically this.

My questions include, why was the music turned way up, why couldn't the driver turn it down, why was a guy in the back seat picking a fight with a different driver?

Mom of half a dozen · Guru

The thing that gets me about these cases is I don't feel they fall under the stand your ground law. This one may be even more ridiculous than the last. They are in completly separate vehicles. No imminent threat. Neither of these cases come off as self defense to me. If Trayvon had had a gun and used it to kill Zimmerman, that would have seemed more like stand your ground. Someone you don't know comes up to you, starts asking you to explain yourself, chases you. It would seem more like self defense than walking up to someone, questioning them, and then chasing them down.

*I don't know how you prove that a person didn't really feel threatened in a given situation. Other standards must be applied. And if there is no obligation to seek options other than deadly force-which seems to be the point of this law-there is too much leeway-anyone can say they felt threatened, and oh well if they happened to make a mistake.*

I also agree with this, from Cactus post. If all it takes is saying you feel threatened there are going to be a lot of people getting away with murder. There should be some sort of standard that needs to be met. They need to be looked at on a case by case basis. It sounds to me like this guy got mad, a bunch of teenagers mouthed off to him, and he shot one. I am interested in what the witnesses have to say. I also think his defense may be going with this because they think it is his only hope of getting out of serious jail time.

Cactus · Senior Member

Mom of half a dozen wrote:
The thing that gets me about these cases is I don't feel they fall under the stand your ground law. This one may be even more ridiculous than the last. They are in completly separate vehicles. No imminent threat. Neither of these cases come off as self defense to me. If Trayvon had had a gun and used it to kill Zimmerman, that would have seemed more like stand your ground. Someone you don't know comes up to you, starts asking you to explain yourself, chases you. It would seem more like self defense than walking up to someone, questioning them, and then chasing them down.

They don't to me either, but I think that is a problem with this law. "Stand your ground" laws are not the same as self defense-if they were this separate law would not be needed as cases like this would just be covered under self defense. I think self defense laws have standards that are not met in 'stand your ground" cases and that is the problem.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Cactus wrote:
The survivors in the car can probably offer answers to those questions, though I don't know how relevent the answers will be, especially to the first two questions. What is the relevence of the music? (1)
We don't know that the guy in the backseat was picking a fight. I suppose the others will say it was the driver of the other car who was picking a fight. (2)
In theory the guy in the backseat could have threatened the other driver, regardless of who started the confrontation.
We could ask why the driver didn't drive away when he felt threatened but the law apparently does not obligate him to seek options other than deadly force anyway.
edited: xpost to pbj

-- Edited by Cactus on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 01:28:40 PM

1. What is the polite way to ask someone to turn down the music?

2. The guy in the other car didn't have his music turned up.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Cactus wrote:
I am not sure what you mean, pbj. There are polite ways to ask someone to turn down their music (1)-but how much does that matter? (2) Rudeness, whether in playing music loudly or asking impolitely for it to be turned down, does not constitute a threat and is not a crime. (3) Either could provoke or escalate a conflict but who's to say when it becomes "threatening"?

-- Edited by Cactus on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 01:42:01 PM

1. Like how? And maybe he did that polite way.

2. Maybe they threatened him right back. (Again, why is a backseat passenger mixing it up?)

3. No, but issuing a threat does constitute a threat.

I mean -- I think rampant shooting is bad and I also think rampant deafening music is bad. (Sufficiently loud music actually is a threat to someone with a weak heart.) This situation seems a lot more murky than OP is letting on.

Cactus · Senior Member

We don't know the answers to all these questions, pbj. We don't know who threatened whom or that any threat occured at all. We only know who shot whom.
Loud music is bad but in no way comparable to rampant shooting. Are people with weak hearts justified in killing anyone making loud noise or doing anything else that can theoretically compromise their health? Is an asthmatic justified in shooting a smoker? Is a person with allergies justified in shooting someone wearing too much perfume? If it's such a threat why confront it rather than calling the authorities? Are you really arguing that the loud music was in itself the threat?
If this were a self defense case I don't believe the standards would be met. That is the problem.
If you kill someone in a public place, with no real evidence that you were threatened, and you had options other than deadly force, that should be a crime IMO.
Even if there were more to this case than meets the eye and there was a real threat-again, why not simply argue self defense ?

Cactus · Senior Member

Isn't the whole point of the stand your ground law that you didn't really have to kill someone and you knew you didn't? Otherwise why wouldn't it be self defense or some other law?

Mom of half a dozen · Guru

I think when you walk (or in this case drive) up to a group of teenagers you should expect that the response might not be what you hope for. They are teenagers for crying out loud! They could say "sorry about that" and turn it down. Or maybe "get lost you crazy old man/woman" and laugh at you. Even the most well behaved teenagers can go through a period were they buck authority. Why did he even go over there? It's a parking lot, why is it important to him they turn it down? What was he going to be doing there that required quiet, and why is his want of silence more important than their want of loud music? When it became clear they weren't going to do what he wanted why didn't he just leave? Why stay and argue with a bunch of kids?

I agree there might be more to the story, but on the face of the issue it is just so stupid. A young man is dead over loud music.

This may surprise some of you but I am actually for private citizens owning guns if they choose. However I am also for punishing people who use them incorrectly. I am middle of the road on this issue. I thought I should put that out there so everyone would know where I stand.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Cactus wrote:
We don't know the answers to all these questions, pbj. We don't know who threatened whom or that any threat occured at all. We only know who shot whom.
Loud music is bad but in no way comparable (1) to rampant shooting. (2) Are people with weak hearts justified in killing anyone making loud noise or doing anything else that can theoretically compromise their health? (3) Is an asthmatic justified in shooting a smoker? Is a person with allergies justified in shooting someone wearing too much perfume? If it's such a threat why confront it rather than calling the authorities? (4) Are you really arguing that the loud music was in itself the threat? (5)
If this were a self defense case I don't believe the standards would be met. That is the problem.
If you kill someone in a public place, with no real evidence that you were threatened (6), and you had options other than deadly force, that should be a crime IMO.
Even if there were more to this case than meets the eye and there was a real threat-again, why not simply argue self defense ? (7)

1. Is your opinion. (Which I can respect, as I hope others respect my disagreement.)

2. This shooting wasn't rampant.

3. Such people are justified in trying to remedy the situation. Precisely what this driver was doing. (I agree that things get murky about the gun business.)

4. Why not indeed? That's one of my questions here.

5. Yes.

6. We don't know that's the case.

7. We'll see.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Mom of half a dozen wrote:
I think when you walk (or in this case drive) up to a group of teenagers you should expect that the response might not be what you hope for. They are teenagers for crying out loud! They could say "sorry about that" and turn it down. Or maybe "get lost you crazy old man/woman" and laugh at you. Even the most well behaved teenagers can go through a period were they buck authority. Why did he even go over there? It's a parking lot, why is it important to him they turn it down? What was he going to be doing there that required quiet, and why is his want of silence more important than their want of loud music? When it became clear they weren't going to do what he wanted why didn't he just leave? Why stay and argue with a bunch of kids?

I agree there might be more to the story, but on the face of the issue it is just so stupid. A young man is dead over loud music.

This may surprise some of you but I am actually for private citizens owning guns if they choose. However I am also for punishing people who use them incorrectly. I am middle of the road on this issue. I thought I should put that out there so everyone would know where I stand.

Because he wants the damned music turned down?

I'm still waiting for anyone to say something besides, "if people want their music loud, others just need to suffer." I am never going "there" either.

Cactus · Senior Member

So you think playing loud music is comparable to shooting someone? Or only if the shooting is not "rampant"? Fine, if you really want to stand by that statement.
Yes people are justified in trying to remedy the situation (sometimes) Shooting someone is not a reasonable way of "remedying" something like loud music.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Cactus wrote:
So you think playing loud music is comparable to shooting someone? (1) Or only if the shooting is not "rampant"? (2) Fine, if you really want to stand by that statement. (3)
Yes people are justified in trying to remedy the situation (sometimes) Shooting someone is not a reasonable way of "remedying" something like loud music. (4)

1. Inasmuch as it can cause death, yes.

2. Perhaps; my point was that this shooting wasn't rampant.

3. Thank you. (Truly!)

4. In Florida, as a matter of law, remedying a threat with a shooting is reasonable. *If* it turns out that the driver was threatened, he's on fairly solid ground.

===

Cactus (and anyone), I have a question for you. Supposedly, loud music (however unwelcome) isn't a threat. My experience, un-PC as it may be, is that most of the loud music (and I say "music" loosely) is the same "music" that objectifies women. Calling them hoes, bitches, so forth and so on. This helps foster a culture of disrespecting women; such a culture in turn makes life (all else being equal) more difficult and I'd say dangerous for women. This is a father of daughters saying this.

Yet I'm to understand that you consider loud music to be no big deal. Do you stand by that?

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Cactus wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Mom of half a dozen wrote:
I think when you walk (or in this case drive) up to a group of teenagers you should expect that the response might not be what you hope for. They are teenagers for crying out loud! They could say "sorry about that" and turn it down. Or maybe "get lost you crazy old man/woman" and laugh at you. Even the most well behaved teenagers can go through a period were they buck authority. Why did he even go over there? It's a parking lot, why is it important to him they turn it down? What was he going to be doing there that required quiet, and why is his want of silence more important than their want of loud music? When it became clear they weren't going to do what he wanted why didn't he just leave? Why stay and argue with a bunch of kids?

I agree there might be more to the story, but on the face of the issue it is just so stupid. A young man is dead over loud music.

This may surprise some of you but I am actually for private citizens owning guns if they choose. However I am also for punishing people who use them incorrectly. I am middle of the road on this issue. I thought I should put that out there so everyone would know where I stand.
Because he wants the damned music turned down?
I'm still waiting for anyone to say something besides, "if people want their music loud, others just need to suffer." I am never going "there" either.
Part of living in society is putting up with other people. Some places have noise ordinances you can appeal to. Some people are considerate enough to turn down music if asked. If neither applies, yes, you do have to suffer, or remove yourself. As opposed to shooting people.

And live with being threatened by loud troublemakers? I guess I'm not as enlightened as some.

Cactus · Senior Member

PJB, nobody should be killed for producing or playing music that degrades women or is argued to degrade women. I do stand by that.

I don't think such music should be outlawed or censored either. That is a separate topic. Again, I don't see how killing even enters into such a conversation.

Cactus · Senior Member

Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Mom of half a dozen wrote:
I think when you walk (or in this case drive) up to a group of teenagers you should expect that the response might not be what you hope for. They are teenagers for crying out loud! They could say "sorry about that" and turn it down. Or maybe "get lost you crazy old man/woman" and laugh at you. Even the most well behaved teenagers can go through a period were they buck authority. Why did he even go over there? It's a parking lot, why is it important to him they turn it down? What was he going to be doing there that required quiet, and why is his want of silence more important than their want of loud music? When it became clear they weren't going to do what he wanted why didn't he just leave? Why stay and argue with a bunch of kids?

I agree there might be more to the story, but on the face of the issue it is just so stupid. A young man is dead over loud music.

This may surprise some of you but I am actually for private citizens owning guns if they choose. However I am also for punishing people who use them incorrectly. I am middle of the road on this issue. I thought I should put that out there so everyone would know where I stand.
Because he wants the damned music turned down?
I'm still waiting for anyone to say something besides, "if people want their music loud, others just need to suffer." I am never going "there" either.
Part of living in society is putting up with other people. Some places have noise ordinances you can appeal to. Some people are considerate enough to turn down music if asked. If neither applies, yes, you do have to suffer, or remove yourself. As opposed to shooting people.
And live with being threatened by loud troublemakers? I guess I'm not as enlightened as some.

We don't know that they were threatening. That is the whole crux of the argument. Even if they were threatening, the driver had options other than shooting one of them. That appears to be why this is not a self defense case, but a 'stand your ground" case.

Whether they were loud or troublemakers is arguable. They might say it was the other driver who was the troublemaker.

Cactus · Senior Member

I see in the OP that the shooter is actually claiming self defense, so I stand corrected on that point.

I don't know that 'stand your ground' is not a component of self defense rather than a defense in itself but I do think in either case it allows for too much leeway in these shootings.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Cactus wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Mom of half a dozen wrote:
I think when you walk (or in this case drive) up to a group of teenagers you should expect that the response might not be what you hope for. They are teenagers for crying out loud! They could say "sorry about that" and turn it down. Or maybe "get lost you crazy old man/woman" and laugh at you. Even the most well behaved teenagers can go through a period were they buck authority. Why did he even go over there? It's a parking lot, why is it important to him they turn it down? What was he going to be doing there that required quiet, and why is his want of silence more important than their want of loud music? When it became clear they weren't going to do what he wanted why didn't he just leave? Why stay and argue with a bunch of kids?

I agree there might be more to the story, but on the face of the issue it is just so stupid. A young man is dead over loud music.

This may surprise some of you but I am actually for private citizens owning guns if they choose. However I am also for punishing people who use them incorrectly. I am middle of the road on this issue. I thought I should put that out there so everyone would know where I stand.
Because he wants the damned music turned down?
I'm still waiting for anyone to say something besides, "if people want their music loud, others just need to suffer." I am never going "there" either.
Part of living in society is putting up with other people. Some places have noise ordinances you can appeal to. Some people are considerate enough to turn down music if asked. If neither applies, yes, you do have to suffer, or remove yourself. As opposed to shooting people.
And live with being threatened by loud troublemakers? I guess I'm not as enlightened as some.
We don't know that they were threatening. That is the whole crux of the argument.(1) Even if they were threatening, the driver had options other than shooting one of them. (2) That appears to be why this is not a self defense case, but a 'stand your ground" case.
Whether they were loud or troublemakers is arguable. They might say it was the other driver who was the troublemaker.

1. No argument there. It could be this guy was just the maniac everyone thinks he is.

2. Such as what? According to you (if I read right), the good citizen should just live with threats coming out of a vehicle whose noise is disturbing the whole neighborhood. And again, I will never be that "enlightened."

As an aside: noise actually creates pain, especially as one gets older. I can't get a lot plainer than that.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

All I'm saying is, a little respect would have gone a long way. Nobody here would have been dead or in jail.

Cactus · Senior Member

If you ask someone to turn down their music and they don't, you think it is okay to kill them? That's really what you are arguing?

There may be people who have conditions so delicate that their lives are threatened by things one encounters in normal everyday life such as loud noises or bad smells but that does not mean the killing of the people producing the loud noises or bad smells etc is justified.

Nor does the disturbance of the "whole neighborhood" justify a shooting.

tigerlily · Guru

Cactus wrote:
If you ask someone to turn down their music and they don't, you think it is okay to kill them? That's really what you are arguing?

There may be people who have conditions so delicate that their lives are threatened by things one encounters in normal everyday life such as loud noises or bad smells but that does not mean the killing of the people producing the loud noises or bad smells etc is justified.

Nor does the disturbance of the "whole neighborhood" justify a shooting.

Not PB, but I'm interpreting it as, if you respond to someone in an escalated, antagonistic way, then why would you be surprised that they respond in a further escalated, antagonistic way?

Obviously, neither is right and should not be used as an excuse for doing something horrible. Especially since if we're killing people for being disrespectful, the world's population would drop by a significant amount quite quickly.

Cactus · Senior Member

Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Mom of half a dozen wrote:
I think when you walk (or in this case drive) up to a group of teenagers you should expect that the response might not be what you hope for. They are teenagers for crying out loud! They could say "sorry about that" and turn it down. Or maybe "get lost you crazy old man/woman" and laugh at you. Even the most well behaved teenagers can go through a period were they buck authority. Why did he even go over there? It's a parking lot, why is it important to him they turn it down? What was he going to be doing there that required quiet, and why is his want of silence more important than their want of loud music? When it became clear they weren't going to do what he wanted why didn't he just leave? Why stay and argue with a bunch of kids?

I agree there might be more to the story, but on the face of the issue it is just so stupid. A young man is dead over loud music.

This may surprise some of you but I am actually for private citizens owning guns if they choose. However I am also for punishing people who use them incorrectly. I am middle of the road on this issue. I thought I should put that out there so everyone would know where I stand.
Because he wants the damned music turned down?
I'm still waiting for anyone to say something besides, "if people want their music loud, others just need to suffer." I am never going "there" either.
Part of living in society is putting up with other people. Some places have noise ordinances you can appeal to. Some people are considerate enough to turn down music if asked. If neither applies, yes, you do have to suffer, or remove yourself. As opposed to shooting people.
And live with being threatened by loud troublemakers? I guess I'm not as enlightened as some.
We don't know that they were threatening. That is the whole crux of the argument.(1) Even if they were threatening, the driver had options other than shooting one of them. (2) That appears to be why this is not a self defense case, but a 'stand your ground" case.
Whether they were loud or troublemakers is arguable. They might say it was the other driver who was the troublemaker.

1. No argument there. It could be this guy was just the maniac everyone thinks he is.
2. Such as what? According to you (if I read right), the good citizen should just live with threats coming out of a vehicle whose noise is disturbing the whole neighborhood. And again, I will never be that "enlightened."
As an aside: noise actually creates pain, especially as one gets older. I can't get a lot plainer than that.

If the kid had actually made a threat-a verbal threat, for example-the shooter had the option to leave the scene. By threat, I do not mean the playing of the music itself, since that does not constitute a threat to a reasonable person. If you want to argue that loud music constituted a threat-very far fetched IMO- than it would have been even more reasonable for the shooter to leave the scene or remove from the scene the person being "threatened" by the loud music.

It was not unreasonable for the shooter to ask that the music be lowered. But if the kids refused, shooting one of them was not a reasonable response.

It seems likely that the music was being played through the car, and it does not appear that the shooter shot the source of the music such as the car radio or speakers. So that, in addition to the basic implausibility of the argument, makes it unlikely that the shooter shot to save himself from the music itself.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Cactus -- if no verbal threat, then I agree with you.

If verbal threat, the option of shooting == valid and the option of leaving == the option of leaving in fear. (And thank you Tigerlily!)

Papa Bear · Senior Member

tigerlily wrote:
Cactus wrote:
If you ask someone to turn down their music and they don't, you think it is okay to kill them? That's really what you are arguing?

There may be people who have conditions so delicate that their lives are threatened by things one encounters in normal everyday life such as loud noises or bad smells but that does not mean the killing of the people producing the loud noises or bad smells etc is justified.

Nor does the disturbance of the "whole neighborhood" justify a shooting.
Not PB, but I'm interpreting it as, if you respond to someone in an escalated, antagonistic way, then why would you be surprised that they respond in a further escalated, antagonistic way?
Obviously, neither is right and should not be used as an excuse for doing something horrible. Especially since if we're killing people for being disrespectful, the world's population would drop by a significant amount quite quickly.

Then maybe nobody should be antagonistic! (again thank you Tigerlily.)

tigerlily · Guru

I think it's ridiculous that the comments are attributing this man's completely out of proportion (based solely on the article) response to the kids and their music/disrespect to the fact that Obama won the election. Seriously? That is completely ludicrous. And even if this one guy was driven over the edge by the election, it speaks more to his crazy racist self than it does to the entire race of white people. The people making those comments are no less racist than the people they are accusing. There is no chance of this country ever moving beyond race when everyone wants to further propagate every ounce of hate they can drum up.

Obviously the boy should not have been shot. The argument of self defense is ridiculous unless the teenagers were threatening him with a gun themselves (and even then, he probably should have just ducked and driven off rather than shooting). If the shooter was racially motivated, this is a great opportunity to try to further the lesson of racial hatred and generalization being a bad thing instead of using it as more reason to hate a certain race.

"...folks, take a long hard look at Mr. Michael David Dunn, note the physical characteristics: over 40, caucasian, angry looking. There are thousands if not millions of these guys, all over America and they are known to be heavily armed and accustomed to deference in police matters. They feel entitled, resentful of losing an election, and are certain that even without weapon or provocation, an Obama voter is a threat to them. They are bigots. They are losers. They are the worst kind of cowards and they shoot to kill."

So...I'm guessing that commentor would think that it's racist and wrong for police to pull over a black man due to racial profiling. Yet here he is doing the exact same thing.

This kind of thing bothers me a lot as I'm sure you can tell by now ;)

tigerlily · Guru

Papa Bear wrote:
tigerlily wrote:
Cactus wrote:
If you ask someone to turn down their music and they don't, you think it is okay to kill them? That's really what you are arguing?

There may be people who have conditions so delicate that their lives are threatened by things one encounters in normal everyday life such as loud noises or bad smells but that does not mean the killing of the people producing the loud noises or bad smells etc is justified.

Nor does the disturbance of the "whole neighborhood" justify a shooting.
Not PB, but I'm interpreting it as, if you respond to someone in an escalated, antagonistic way, then why would you be surprised that they respond in a further escalated, antagonistic way?
Obviously, neither is right and should not be used as an excuse for doing something horrible. Especially since if we're killing people for being disrespectful, the world's population would drop by a significant amount quite quickly.
Then maybe nobody should be antagonistic! (again thank you Tigerlily.)

Based on the story, Dunn should spend the rest of his life in prison.

But yes, the world would be much better off overall if everyone tried to interact with others with respect rather than trying to exert control or power.

Cactus · Senior Member

Papa Bear wrote:
How did he achieve freedom from fear and what does this mean?
It means he confronts the justice system (full of rational people) one time, instead of indefinitely cowering to troublemakers who would intimidate. Maybe he considers it a trade-off worth making.

Why do you say "one time"? He could be in the criminal justice system for a long time (and possibly in a loud place full of intimidating people), or he could be set free, in which case he will again be exposed to loud music and teenagers. Why wouldn't he be?

Anyway, what kind of person considers a person's life a worthwhile trade off for whatever it is you think he has gotten from this?

-- Edited by Cactus on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 11:37:42 PM

Papa Bear · Senior Member

"Based on the story" --- perhaps.

Forty-two · Guru

Papa Bear wrote:
I don't know how you prove that a person didn't really feel threatened in a given situation. Other standards must be applied. And if there is no obligation to seek options other than deadly force-which seems to be the point of this law-there is too much leeway-anyone can say they felt threatened, and oh well if they happened to make a mistake.
Basically this.
My questions include, why was the music turned way up, why couldn't the driver turn it down, why was a guy in the back seat picking a fight with a different driver?

What does any of this matter? If the guy in the back seat called Dunn a "effing *******" while the music that was blasting "bitches and ho" at max decibel it still does not matter. I does not constitute deadly force. Since the dead guy was unarmed and in a car Dunn should rot in jail.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
I don't know how you prove that a person didn't really feel threatened in a given situation. Other standards must be applied. And if there is no obligation to seek options other than deadly force-which seems to be the point of this law-there is too much leeway-anyone can say they felt threatened, and oh well if they happened to make a mistake.
Basically this.
My questions include, why was the music turned way up, why couldn't the driver turn it down, why was a guy in the back seat picking a fight with a different driver?
What does any of this matter? If the guy in the back seat called Dunn a "effing *******" while the music that was blasting "bitches and ho" at max decibel it still does not matter. I does not constitute deadly force. Since the dead guy was unarmed and in a car Dunn should rot in jail.

Why is the guy in the back seat calling anything at the driver? A threat is a threat.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Cactus wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
I don't know how you prove that a person didn't really feel threatened in a given situation. Other standards must be applied. And if there is no obligation to seek options other than deadly force-which seems to be the point of this law-there is too much leeway-anyone can say they felt threatened, and oh well if they happened to make a mistake.
Basically this.
My questions include, why was the music turned way up, why couldn't the driver turn it down, why was a guy in the back seat picking a fight with a different driver?
What does any of this matter? If the guy in the back seat called Dunn a "effing *******" while the music that was blasting "bitches and ho" at max decibel it still does not matter. I does not constitute deadly force. Since the dead guy was unarmed and in a car Dunn should rot in jail.
Why is the guy in the back seat calling anything at the driver? A threat is a threat.
I don't agree that "a threat is a threat" necessarily. And calling someone a name isn't the same as threatening them, though I can understand why someone might feel threatened by being called a name in certain situations. But I don't think the law in most places says that anytime anyone threatens you in any way, you are justified in using deadly force, nor should it.

-- Edited by Cactus on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 04:40:41 PM

We still don't know what was said. And a lot of it, we probably won't know until it comes out in court.

Answer me this. Assume (as I do) that the shooter, 45, had no priors. Do you really believe that he fostered some decades-long, deep-seated anger at a certain kind of person, and relished this moment has his chance to get even of sorts? Do you believe this shooter is a threat to society?

What I believe is that pain makes people irrational and that excess noise causes pain. It's possible he had good reason to think he was threatened, and it's possible he just snapped such that in retrospect it couldn't be justified. Either way, this man has to be held accountable.

But why was the guy in the back seat getting into it at all? And why was the damned music turned up in the first place?

Forty-two · Guru

Papa Bear wrote:
Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
I don't know how you prove that a person didn't really feel threatened in a given situation. Other standards must be applied. And if there is no obligation to seek options other than deadly force-which seems to be the point of this law-there is too much leeway-anyone can say they felt threatened, and oh well if they happened to make a mistake.
Basically this.
My questions include, why was the music turned way up, why couldn't the driver turn it down, why was a guy in the back seat picking a fight with a different driver?
What does any of this matter? If the guy in the back seat called Dunn a "effing *******" while the music that was blasting "bitches and ho" at max decibel it still does not matter. I does not constitute deadly force. Since the dead guy was unarmed and in a car Dunn should rot in jail.
Why is the guy in the back seat calling anything at the driver? A threat is a threat.

We don't know what he said to him but unless he had a lethal weapon they were just words. So Dunn should match words with words. If a person in a vehicle says something to you that you don't like and you are in a car then you know what....just drive away.

Cactus · Senior Member

I don't know. Lots of people foster lifelong hostility to certain kinds of people. I don't know whether he did or not-that would be speculation.
That he was in musically induced physical pain that rendered him irrational is also speculation, and it seems to me more implausible than the other. And according to the article (and again, we may be missing information from the article but that's what I'm going by) he moved closer to the source of music.
And if he can't hear loud music without going berserk and shooting people, then, yes, he is a threat to society.

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Cactus wrote:
I don't know. Lots of people foster lifelong hostility to certain kinds of people. I don't know whether he did or not-that would be speculation.
That he was in musically induced physical pain that rendered him irrational is also speculation, and it seems to me more implausible than the other.(1) And according to the article (and again, we may be missing information from the article but that's what I'm going by) he moved closer to the source of music. (2)
And if he can't hear loud music without going berserk and shooting people, then, yes, he is a threat to society. (3)

1. To you, perhaps.

2. To ask them to turn it down.

3. Oh please. Why do you think noise ordinances exist? Anyway, he didn't shoot the guy who controlled the stereo.

Obviously the guy in the backseat said something that Dunn reacted to. Again, why is the guy in the backseat even saying anything? That and many more questions are what I'd want addressed.

Forty-two · Guru

Papa Bear wrote:
Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
I don't know how you prove that a person didn't really feel threatened in a given situation. Other standards must be applied. And if there is no obligation to seek options other than deadly force-which seems to be the point of this law-there is too much leeway-anyone can say they felt threatened, and oh well if they happened to make a mistake.
Basically this.
My questions include, why was the music turned way up, why couldn't the driver turn it down, why was a guy in the back seat picking a fight with a different driver?
What does any of this matter? If the guy in the back seat called Dunn a "effing *******" while the music that was blasting "bitches and ho" at max decibel it still does not matter. I does not constitute deadly force. Since the dead guy was unarmed and in a car Dunn should rot in jail.
Why is the guy in the back seat calling anything at the driver? A threat is a threat.
We don't know what he said to him but unless he had a lethal weapon (1) they were just words. So Dunn should match words with words. If a person in a vehicle says something to you that you don't like and you are in a car then you know what....just drive away. (2)
1. Or Dunn had reason to believe he had a lethal weapon.
2. So if I have this right -- someone's blasting music, uncomfortably (to the point of pain), and I ask them to turn it down and get a threat in reply. (I agree we don't know that that happened, but we'll say.)
According to you (and I gather Cactus), one should just drive away. To live under the fear that comes with constant noise and threats. To me, that isn't acceptable.
ETA: And again, WHY is the guy in the backseat getting into it? Not "what was said," but why is anything said.

-- Edited by Papa Bear on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 04:56:05 PM

Unless the guy in the back seat showed a weapon then Dunn was out of line and should rot in jail. It does not matter what the guy said to him. What the heack does it matter if he was blasting music, the guy's poor sensitive ears were bothered, it was not like he was in his home If someone has on perfume that hurts my nose how is that any different? Or smoking a cigarette around another person? That could really cause damage, maybe they should be shot too.

Forty-two · Guru

Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
I don't know. Lots of people foster lifelong hostility to certain kinds of people. I don't know whether he did or not-that would be speculation.
That he was in musically induced physical pain that rendered him irrational is also speculation, and it seems to me more implausible than the other.(1) And according to the article (and again, we may be missing information from the article but that's what I'm going by) he moved closer to the source of music. (2)
And if he can't hear loud music without going berserk and shooting people, then, yes, he is a threat to society. (3)
1. To you, perhaps.
2. To ask them to turn it down.
3. Oh please. Why do you think noise ordinances exist? Anyway, he didn't shoot the guy who controlled the stereo.
Obviously the guy in the backseat said something that Dunn reacted to. Again, why is the guy in the backseat even saying anything? That and many more questions are what I'd want addressed.

Do we know that he did? And even so why on earth does it matter?

Cactus · Senior Member

Papa Bear wrote:
Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
I don't know how you prove that a person didn't really feel threatened in a given situation. Other standards must be applied. And if there is no obligation to seek options other than deadly force-which seems to be the point of this law-there is too much leeway-anyone can say they felt threatened, and oh well if they happened to make a mistake.
Basically this.
My questions include, why was the music turned way up, why couldn't the driver turn it down, why was a guy in the back seat picking a fight with a different driver?
What does any of this matter? If the guy in the back seat called Dunn a "effing *******" while the music that was blasting "bitches and ho" at max decibel it still does not matter. I does not constitute deadly force. Since the dead guy was unarmed and in a car Dunn should rot in jail.
Why is the guy in the back seat calling anything at the driver? A threat is a threat.
We don't know what he said to him but unless he had a lethal weapon (1) they were just words. So Dunn should match words with words. If a person in a vehicle says something to you that you don't like and you are in a car then you know what....just drive away. (2)
1. Or Dunn had reason to believe he had a lethal weapon.
2. So if I have this right -- someone's blasting music, uncomfortably (to the point of pain), and I ask them to turn it down and get a threat in reply. (I agree we don't know that that happened, but we'll say.)
According to you (and I gather Cactus), one should just drive away. To live under the fear that comes with constant noise and threats. To me, that isn't acceptable.
ETA: And again, WHY is the guy in the backseat getting into it? Not "what was said," but why is anything said.

-- Edited by Papa Bear on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 04:56:05 PM

According to you, if you ask someone to lower their music and they don't, it's acceptable to shoot them? Do I have that right? Or only if you feel threatened by their reply?

If you can drive away, why is shooting a person-who may be unarmed and innocent-a better solution? You find killing someone-even a possibly innocent person-preferable to avoiding confrontation by driving away?

Why shouldn't the guy in the backseat say something?

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Cactus wrote:
I don't know. Lots of people foster lifelong hostility to certain kinds of people. I don't know whether he did or not-that would be speculation.
That he was in musically induced physical pain that rendered him irrational is also speculation, and it seems to me more implausible than the other.(1) And according to the article (and again, we may be missing information from the article but that's what I'm going by) he moved closer to the source of music. (2)
And if he can't hear loud music without going berserk and shooting people, then, yes, he is a threat to society. (3)
1. To you, perhaps.
2. To ask them to turn it down.
3. Oh please. Why do you think noise ordinances exist? Anyway, he didn't shoot the guy who controlled the stereo.
Obviously the guy in the backseat said something that Dunn reacted to. Again, why is the guy in the backseat even saying anything? That and many more questions are what I'd want addressed.
Do we know that he did? (1) And even so why on earth does it matter? (2)

1. Going off the article.

2. If he kept his mouth shut, maybe he's still alive. I gather it matters to his family.

42 -- I realize this is your thread and I don't mean to presume, but I would be curious to see all this in a poll added.
"Based on this article, should Dunn go to prison?" Yes; Need more info; No

(To gauge opinion among the lurkers)

Papa Bear · Senior Member

Cactus wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
Forty-two wrote:
Papa Bear wrote:
I don't know how you prove that a person didn't really feel threatened in a given situation. Other standards must be applied. And if there is no obligation to seek options other than deadly force-which seems to be the point of this law-there is too much leeway-anyone can say they felt threatened, and oh well if they happened to make a mistake.
Basically this.
My questions include, why was the music turned way up, why couldn't the driver turn it down, why was a guy in the back seat picking a fight with a different driver?
What does any of this matter? If the guy in the back seat called Dunn a "effing *******" while the music that was blasting "bitches and ho" at max decibel it still does not matter. I does not constitute deadly force. Since the dead guy was unarmed and in a car Dunn should rot in jail.
Why is the guy in the back seat calling anything at the driver? A threat is a threat.
We don't know what he said to him but unless he had a lethal weapon (1) they were just words. So Dunn should match words with words. If a person in a vehicle says something to you that you don't like and you are in a car then you know what....just drive away. (2)
1. Or Dunn had reason to believe he had a lethal weapon.
2. So if I have this right -- someone's blasting music, uncomfortably (to the point of pain), and I ask them to turn it down and get a threat in reply. (I agree we don't know that that happened, but we'll say.)
According to you (and I gather Cactus), one should just drive away. To live under the fear that comes with constant noise and threats. To me, that isn't acceptable.
ETA: And again, WHY is the guy in the backseat getting into it? Not "what was said," but why is anything said.

-- Edited by Papa Bear on Wednesday 28th of November 2012 04:56:05 PM
According to you, if you ask someone to lower their music and they don't, it's acceptable to shoot them? (1) Do I have that right? Or only if you feel threatened by their reply? (2)
If you can drive away, why is shooting a person-who may be unarmed and innocent-a better solution? (3) You find killing someone-even a possibly innocent person-preferable to avoiding confrontation by driving away? (4)
Why shouldn't the guy in the backseat say something? (5)

1. No.

2. Perhaps (in Florida)

3. Because that solution has people living perpetually in fear.

4. You keep saying "driving away" like that makes the problem go away. The noise is still loud for everyone, and (presumably) lippy backseat guy is jut as lippy to everyone else.

5. It isn't his car and it isn't his stereo, Dunn wasn't talking to him.

And, incidentally, Davis was as free to keep his mouth shut as Dunn was to drive away.