Invisapeeps 2.0

Cactus 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.

---

 You are the one who said the loud music was making him irrational. Loud music should not make a person so irrational that they kill someone without justification.

---

Cactus -- The music was loud. Dunn asked for it to be turned down. Davis was in the backseat. Davis was not being addressed and was not in control of the stereo. Davis jumped into it and said *something.* Dunn shot Davis. Davis is dead. (This is the most factual picture I have so far.)

If Dunn was free to go away, the driver was free to turn the stereo down and Davis was free to shut his mouth. If this music makes Dunn a maniac, Davis' insistence on provoking another driver made him a dead man. Why the driver just had to crank that ****, we don't know. Why Davis just had to jump into it (or what he said), we don't know. Those freedoms were every bit as present as Dunn's freedom to drive away.

My original point still stands, namely I have questions here before I pass judgment. It could well be that Dunn deserves imprisonment.

Papa Bear wrote:

---

Cactus 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.

---

 You are the one who said the loud music was making him irrational. Loud music should not make a person so irrational that they kill someone without justification.

---

Cactus -- The music was loud. Dunn asked for it to be turned down. Davis was in the backseat. Davis was not being addressed and was not in control of the stereo. Davis jumped into it and said *something.* Dunn shot Davis. Davis is dead. (This is the most factual picture I have so far.)

If Dunn was free to go away, the driver was free to turn the stereo down and Davis was free to shut his mouth. If this music makes Dunn a maniac, Davis' insistence on provoking another driver made him a dead man. Why the driver just had to crank that ****, we don't know. Why Davis just had to jump into it (or what he said), we don't know. Those freedoms were every bit as present as Dunn's freedom to drive away.

My original point still stands, namely I have questions here before I pass judgment. It could well be that Dunn deserves imprisonment.

---

They were all free to do these things. They didn't. But Dunn was the only one who killed someone. That is what you are NOT free to do. 

Forty-two wrote:

---

Papa Bear wrote:

---

Forty-two wrote:

---

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

---

A threat to kill would be name one. Any statement of bodily harm that starts with "I'm gonna" would be another.

Again, why is the guy in the backseat provoking another driver? To me, this detail matters.

---

 I'd ont see why.

So if I say to someone I am going to kill you that justifies you shooting me?  That is good to know!!!

---

In Florida, that's exactly the case.

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?

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?

---

re 4--as opposed to shooting the guy whose music or rhetoric you find annoying?  Yes, definitely. 

Papa Bear wrote:

---

Cactus wrote:

---

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" (1) of loud music and a "lippy" teenager is in no way proportionate to killing an innocent person. (2) Teenagers are not violating your rights by being lippy. (3) 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? (4)

And what problem do you think this shooter "solved" anyway? (5)

---

1. What if I may ask is your orthographic point? Why is "problem" in quotation marks? Loud music is a problem.

2. As you say, this is the crux of it. One who threatens another isn't exactly innocent, but we don't know that.

3. Lippy no; threatening yes. As you say we don't know, but a guy in the backseat picking a fight with a driver isn't what I'd call innocent. (People really aren't grasping this?)

4. I value human life enough to encourage everyone to respect one another.

5. Freedom from fear. (Again pending further details.)

---

 You consider loud music a problem. Not everyone does. I consider it a problem sometimes, but a relatively minor one not remotely comparable to that of the gun violence which takes so many lives.  I don't think getting rid of loud music is worth a single life or any violence at all. Nor is it plausible that we could solve the problem of loud music through violence, unless perhaps you have a totalitarian dictatorship in mind, but even that wouldn't last. And getting rid of loud music would not address the many other sources of loud noise in society, such as planes, cars, trains, sirens, alarms, babies, dogs, etc.

How did he achieve freedom from fear and what does this mean? He has not made himself or society safer or more secure. And loud music and mouthy teens still exist. What exactly do you think he has accomplished?

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.

huckleberry wrote:

---

PB, I don't know why you're addressing those questions to me, but you may feel that a reasonable man shoots people because, while sitting in his car, he asks that music be turned down in another car and is then in some way threatened by a guy sitting in the back seat. You may even think that it's reasonable and good for society if folks believe that they are entitled to execute people who threaten or disrespect them. (1)

But I feel confident in saying that very few people will agree with you.  (2)

If what you're asking is, does the law of self-defense allow people to avoid a murder conviction by simply claiming they felt threatened, the answer is no, for obvious reasons. (3) A defendant claiming self-defense (other than in Florida) has to prove objectively that he or she was in fear of being killed or seriously injured and had no reasonable choie other than to kill.

And whether the person who says somethign the other person might see as threatening should expect to be safe has nothing to do with it. If you flash around a fat wad of cash in the middle of the night in a rough neghborhood, it's no less a crime if someone takes it from you at gunpoint. (4)

I honestly have no idea what you're suggesting with regard to police shootings. (5) Citizens are not police and Mr. Dunn did not have authority to enforce the law or what he thinks the law is. (6) Ideally at least, when a police officer shoots someone, the circumstances are examined very carefully and subjectively feeling threatened--or saying you did--doesn't meet the standard.

---

1. My understanding of "stand your ground" is that one does have the option of responding to a perceived threat with potentially deadly force. Please correct me if that is wrong.

2. Could be. We don't know. What we do know (so far) is that a heretofore law-abiding citizen opted to commit such an action. It's possible that the guy was just a quiet psycho the whole time, and chose now to act. It's also possible that Davis did something really outrageous.

3. With stand-your-ground, it could be.

4. That one may have been out there.

5. I'm trying to make the point that unarmed isn't synonymous with unthreatening. The guy in the backseat says certain things, motions into his jacket, Dunn has only a split-second to decide how to proceed. (Is one possible scenario.)

6. Never said he did. I am saying that his judgment call involved the same split-second thinking that would be involved with (for example) a cop. In other words, why is Dunn's split-second judgment call more problematic than a similar judgment call from a cop?

huckleberry wrote:

---

This thread is making my head spin.

Obviously we don't know the facts here. But whatever the details may be, a law that makes people think it's OK to shoot from your car at an unarmed guy sitting in another car is not a law that benefits society.

---

I would agree with this statement if the shooter KNEW the "unarmed guy" was, indeed, unarmed.

You can hide a lot of different types of weapons behind a vehicle door.

Papa Bear wrote:

---

huckleberry wrote:

---

PB, are you aware that Mr. Dunn fled the scene in his car and was arrested the next day in a different county in Florida? How does that fit into your heroic view of his actions? (1)

Also, according to a Reuters story, his lawyer has said that he started shooting because someone in the car "brandished" a shotgun, but there were no guns in the car. (2)

---

1. I got nothing on that. That truly was criminal. (By inference I was aware, but yeah that's a problem.)

2. Someone (Davis?) may have held up what resembled a gun as a scare tactic, unaware that Dunn was armed. That to me would very much justify stand your ground.

---

 Someone may have pretended to have a gun, but so far the only information we have is that Dunn's lawyer says he was threatened with a shotgun--and there was no shotgun. 

I am not of course an expert on Florida law, but the problem with its version of "stand your ground" (and I don't think the concept is a good one even when we're talking about common law versions or less lenient statutes) is that it tends to make the shooter immune from prosecution based on self-serving testimony (the shooter's) which often could be refuted only by the person he or she killed--charges are dropped, no jury ever hears the case, because the shooter claims to have felt threatened and there is no witness to refute the testimony. 

There is also the tendency to encourage the use of deadly force when most of us would agree it's not justified.  This point is illustrated by the wealth of information on the internet as to how to avoid prosecution by acting in certain ways before shooting and answering police and prosecutors' questions in a certain way. 

Forty-two wrote:

---

Papa Bear wrote:

---

Tigerlily, we're good. I too hope I'm not letting on that this is in anger.

Huck, nobody was shot "because the music was loud." If that were the case, Dunn would have shot the driver (or just shot the stereo). For *some* reason, he opted to shoot the guy in the back seat. Why that was, it wasn't about the music.

As for making threats. All the time I'm reading about how a police officer shot a guy who was later shown to be unarmed, because the individual chose to either not stand down when told to, or the individual was reaching for something that was later shown to be not a sidearm, or somesuch. And practically every time, the officer is shown to have done no wrongdoing. Why should Dunn be held to a standard higher than those officers who fire shots?

Huck, if memory serves this "reasonable man" standard is a benchmark against which actions are compared in court. (Memory could well be wrong.) Is a reasonable man, upon being deafened by somebody's stereo, supposed to just ignore it? And if the man opts to ask the driver to turn it down and is subsequently threatened, is the reasonable man supposed to just take it? Is the reasonable man supposed to thank the offending car for having mercy on him? If I were a juror, this is exactly what I'd be wondering.

And, if I were a juror, I'd also be wondering why the guy in the back seat. If a driver shoots another driver then yes, I agree this isn't "standing one's ground." It's likely road range and Dunn is likely a psycho. But for *some* reason, Dunn picked the guy in the back seat. I as a juror would want to know why.

Somewhat related, I'd also want to know whether backseat passengers who provoke other drivers are supposed to expect safety.

---

 Regarding the bolded, yes.  If I shot everyone who's music was too loud I would be a serial killer.

---

FrootLoop wrote:

---

Papa Bear wrote:

---

Spoiler

Cactus wrote:

---

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" (1) of loud music and a "lippy" teenager is in no way proportionate to killing an innocent person. (2) Teenagers are not violating your rights by being lippy. (3) 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? (4)

And what problem do you think this shooter "solved" anyway? (5)

---

---

1. What if I may ask is your orthographic point? Why is "problem" in quotation marks? Loud music is a problem.

2. As you say, this is the crux of it. One who threatens another isn't exactly innocent, but we don't know that.

3. Lippy no; threatening yes. As you say we don't know, but a guy in the backseat picking a fight with a driver isn't what I'd call innocent. (People really aren't grasping this?)

4. I value human life enough to encourage everyone to respect one another.

5. Freedom from fear. (Again pending further details.)

---

1. If loud music for a few minutes is that much of a 'problem' then you (general you) need psychiatric help. (1)

2. Funny how we only have the killers word about verbal threats. (2) the same killer that didn't call the police but skedaddled home the moment he hit the news.

3. People aren't grasping your little point PBJ (3) because it makes no sense.

4. Its always hard to tell just what you value, most of the time your values are far different from the rest of the posters. (4)

5. Again. If you fear loud music (5) or a car full of people with different skin color (6)......... you need serious help.

~FrootLoop

---

Froot, good to hear from you!

1. Apparently, the Center for Disease Control thinks all Americans need such help. From the CDC:

According to the World Health Organization's Guidelines for Community Noise, noise is an increasing public health problem. Noise can have the following adverse health effects: hearing loss; sleep disturbances; cardiovascular and psychophysiologic problems; performance reduction; annoyance responses; and adverse social behavior.

Along with supplemental articles, but they're a bit lengthy and dry to go into here. Bottom line is that no, it isn't just me.

2. Actually in this case, we don't. I understand that two other people were in that vehicle (still alive) to tell their side. I'm curious to hear what they say.

Is the problem what Huck said about this law in general? About how testimony (of the shooter) is inherently self-serving? If so, I'd also add that any testimony of a victim who lives is also self-serving. In other words, the victim who lives can always deny he did or said anything threatening, and we're no further along than before. Meanwhile it's the original guy who has to make the split-second decision. So the self-serving nature of any testimony bothers me a little, but not that much. It usually would be a wash either way. (I meant to write a post to Huck about this but am just rolling it into here.)

3. Glad you're keeping it classy, Froot. My point was that if this guy's the maniac everyone says he his, he shoots the driver or the stereo. That he went for the back seat tells me there's more to the story. I'm sorry if that escapes everyone.

4. Yeah tell me about it. This thread makes it clear. My values, however, happen to be the system's values, namely that the charged is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I am the one on this thread who said hold up, I can't judge this until I know more info. (Huck said that later by the by.) The "rest of the posters" that you mention constitute the lynch mob ready to either hang him or shred the law or both. I take great pride that my values are "far different" from that.

5. The CDC thing above. This isn't just me. And anyway, nobody was shot over the music.

6. Froot, I don't dislike you. Truly. But I have to be honest -- I'm very very disappointed by remarks like this. Not once on this entire thread -- or elsewhere (that I recall) -- did I mention anyone's skin color having anything to do with anything. You think if I had, the "rest of the posters" wouldn't have reamed me out? (And deservedly so?) It's not a big deal I guess, but I'm disappionted.

Noise is a menace. If you don't believe me, take it to the CDC (and the World Health Organization). We don't convict people in this country until they are proven guilty, the "rest of the posters' values" notwithstanding. And I will not apologize for advocating that people slow down and get all the facts before judgment.