Toledo Talk

Stand Your Ground in Florida

This is a very thought provoking piece from Salon:

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/16/michael_dunns_sick_license_to_kill_hot_blooded_murder_of_jordan_davis_and_floridas_perverted_justice/

Specifically, it discusses how the stand your ground law places the burden of proof on the prosecutor to prove what the defendant was feeling/thinking.
"Because the “stand your ground” law creates an affirmative defense for criminal defendants, the prosecution had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn’s claim that he had a reasonable fear he was about to suffer great bodily harm was false."
It begs the questions, if a person approaches a guy in a parking lot, starts an argument and then feel threatened, in Florida, he is legally allowed to gun him down.
Is this a law we want in Ohio?

created by Progress22 on Feb 17, 2014 at 01:22:03 pm     Politics     Comments: 72

source      versions


Comments ... #

Dunn will get out of prison when he is 107.

I hope he doesn't run out and do it again then.

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 01:41:07 pm     #   5 people liked this

"It begs the questions, if a person approaches a guy in a parking lot, starts an argument and then feel threatened, in Florida, he is legally allowed to gun him down.
Is this a law we want in Ohio?" - That's an outright lie.

The relevant portion of the law of self defense in Florida reads: "A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself".

There is ZERO legal standing in your example to use stand your ground. Courts are still allowed to interpret the justification of your actions against the law. You can not stab someone, then shoot them when they fight back and claim "stand your ground".

Neither Dunn or Zimmerman invoked the controversial aspects of Florida's law. In fact, both defendants argued basic self defense law that would have been similar in just about every state in the nation.

Did you copy your post right from the daily thinkprogress.com info letter? Are you a paid poster?

posted by dbw8906 on Feb 17, 2014 at 01:55:02 pm     #   3 people liked this

By the way, the author of the article, Paul Campos, is the same idiot who wrote a book in 2004 called "The Obesity Myth" which claimed that obesity has no effect on mortality rates.

Not surpising that his piece would end up in a slanted tabloid like Salon.com.

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 02:02:03 pm     #   2 people liked this

Dunn chose to create a confrontation with a group of four young males.

Here's my problem - why is asking someone to turn down their music 'confrontational'? Are we not supposed to act civilized and polite? Should we avoid discussion and interaction at all costs?

Looking at that paragraph in whole:

Consider how these laws work in the context of Dunn’s actions. Dunn chose to create a confrontation with a group of four young males. He is a middle-aged computer programmer. A middle-aged man who chooses to start a verbal altercation with four teenage boys in a convenience store parking lot on a Friday night knows that he is running a non-trivial risk of suffering great bodily harm, or in non-technical terms, getting his ass kicked.

Wow, talk about racial profiling. So Dunn is supposed to act like a middle-age white guy who shouldn't be where he is at and even if he is supposed to be where he is at, he should know better than to talk to scary black teens.

A simple request to turn down the radio is not a confrontation or altercation; it is a conversation.

Did he go to far? Not according to the jury, until he shot at a departing car.

Do we want stand your ground in Ohio? I shouldn't have to retreat to protect myself. At the same time, any fight that I walk away from is a fight that I have won.

posted by MrsArcher on Feb 17, 2014 at 02:45:46 pm     #   5 people liked this

dbw - no, actually I copied a portion of it from Salon; which is why I posted the link and used quotes around the sentence that I found most intriguing. It is not a lie - it is fundamentally the same thing that Dunn did. HE provoked the confrontation, HE fired on a carload of teenagers. I'm not lying, I'm stating the facts as they are related in the story I quoted.
Further, in my opinion, Dunn never would have confronted those teens had he not been armed. Carrying a gun emboldened him.

posted by Progress22 on Feb 17, 2014 at 02:50:54 pm     #   1 person liked this

Okay Mrs. Archer, the next time a car load of black teens tell you to turn down your Taylor Swift, just smile politely and do so. After all, we should always do what perfect strangers tell us to.
You shouldn't have to retreat to protect yourself. You should be allowed to kill before retreating? WTF! Psycho.

posted by Progress22 on Feb 17, 2014 at 02:53:01 pm     #   1 person liked this

Did they need to play their music so loud, NO
Did Dunn need to shoot up a car full of kids, NO
Was he justified in shooting the kids, NO
I don't care what the kids did, they didn't deserve to be shot at, Dunn didn't deserve to be blasted with music either, still doesn't justify it. Sounds like jury has some nullification happening in there. The only difference to me between Martin and Dunn is Martin was justifiably in fear of his life as his head was being beaten into the concrete, where as Dunn could of just moved to a different parking space. I felt Martin was justified, Dunn was not.

posted by MIJeff on Feb 17, 2014 at 03:05:56 pm     #  

Inspired by a one-sided, mendacious article written by anti-freedom zealot Jeff Gerritt and sponsored by the local bird cage liner, I wrote a concise, thought-provoking response: Stand Your Ground and The Bully Pulpit. Feel free to peruse it at your leisure.

Cutting through the indelicate insults, aspersions on the author's ancestry and general vituperation, what this and similar arguments boil down to is an anti-freedom political agenda that refuses to actually read Florida's 'stand your ground' law, much less discuss the practical ramifications.

Anyone who cares to can read the Florida statute here: Florida Law: 776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm. A good explanation of the law, its ramifications and practical application can be found here: Much Confusion Around Both Stand-Your-Ground & Castle Doctrine.

From Progress22: It begs the questions, if a person approaches a guy in a parking lot, starts an argument and then feel threatened, in Florida, he is legally allowed to gun him down. Is this a law we want in Ohio?

It doesn't beg the question; You beg the question. Rising to the flame bait occasion, I would venture to say that if some middle-aged, slightly overweight white man approaches you at a gas station and tells you to turn that fucking shit off, you have a choice. You can either get your gun out and get to work, or you can shut your stupid fucking mouth your music off and everyone can leave the station the same way they came in; under their own power and not leaking. See how easy that is?

Ass.

posted by madjack on Feb 17, 2014 at 03:06:56 pm     #   2 people liked this

why is asking someone to turn down their music 'confrontational'?

Semantics. You could argue whether it is justified, or in a specific case, whether it was combative, aggressive, or provocative. But, Webster's defines "confrontation": http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/confrontation

By approaching the subject, you are confronting them.

You can either get your gun out and get to work, or you can shut your stupid fucking mouth your music off and everyone can leave the station the same way they came in; under their own power and not leaking.

WHOA, cowboy. You might want to switch to diluted whiskey. They sell it at Meijer and Kroger. It's cheaper anyway, and it might lower your voltage a little.

You forgot the third option, which is that the person offended by the loud music can simply finish their business, get in their car, and leave. Within minutes, the memory of the offensive situation will be distant history, you'll be on to more important issues of the day, and you'll have permanently altered neither your own nor anyone else's life over something so trivial. You may have blown your chance to be John Wayne, but on the bright side, nobody will be dead, and you won't be in prison. I'm sure you'll just call this "fag talk," but it makes plenty of sense to me.

posted by Sohio on Feb 17, 2014 at 03:48:42 pm     #   2 people liked this

"You forgot the third option, which is that the person offended by the loud music can simply finish their business, get in their car, and leave."

Yeah, but it takes a while to put your house up for sale and then find a new one in a neighborhood that doesn't tolerate 126 dB mysogyny delivered by wannabe thugs.

Oh, you meant just accept the cultural erosion in the moment and pretend it hasn't come into your life. Sorry.

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 04:12:13 pm     #   3 people liked this

^ Sometimes "y." Sometimes three "y"s. :D

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 04:15:01 pm     #  

http://madjackshack.blogspot.com/2014/02/stand-your-ground-and-bully-pulpit.html#more

I highly recommend reading this.

Not as a representative of of the "local bird cage liner," but as someone who just enjoys a good read.

You all gotta love @madjack. I met him. He is safe with his pistole at the range and fun person to be around.

posted by paulhem on Feb 17, 2014 at 05:53:28 pm     #   1 person liked this

A lot of things get said and written for public consumption, with the notable except of #22, am bettin' ya'll keep your powder dry.

posted by Mariner on Feb 17, 2014 at 06:28:57 pm     #  

I'm a big gun owner, but I have a problem with people who look for the slightest provocation to whip out a firearm and shoot. It would be a lot simpler to just leave the provocation. A firearm should only be used under extreme circumstances, not whenever you're pissed off. Some of these laws make it too easy to just shoot first.

posted by pete on Feb 17, 2014 at 06:57:43 pm     #   1 person liked this

pete posted at 05:57:43 PM on Feb 17, 2014:

I'm a big gun owner, but I have a problem with people who look for the slightest provocation to whip out a firearm and shoot. It would be a lot simpler to just leave the provocation. A firearm should only be used under extreme circumstances, not whenever you're pissed off. Some of these laws make it too easy to just shoot first.

Agreed. The second worst day of your life is killing another human being. The first? Standing there why they kill you.

But the piece that this thread refers to is straight up nonsense.

Once again, the lunatic anti-gun fringe jump on an opportunity to create emotional momentum from bullshit.

As far as I can tell from what I read, and in the absence of a found shotgun. Dunn was wrong, and he won't be released until oh... 20 years after he is dead from old age.

But hey, let's cry and whine like little bitches and pretend the laws don't work. After all, the wannabe thug was black, and the apparently over-reacting shooter was white. OOOHHHHH.

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 08:05:22 pm     #   1 person liked this

This just in:
Fake thug idiot black kid gets shot by trigger happy idiot white guy.

Let's make a gun grab.

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 08:06:54 pm     #  

"Carrying a gun emboldened him."

Biggest bullshit post ever. Obvious non armed response. Armed people are AMAZINGLY polite and avoid confrontation. You out yourself as having no experience around gun people with this one.

If you want to call it a bad shooting, go ahead. But this is a wild guess gone wrong.

I've never SEEN such polite and non-confrontational people as those who are armed.

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 08:14:55 pm     #   1 person liked this

A keyboard is what emboldens idiots.

Not guns.

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 08:42:56 pm     #   3 people liked this

justread posted at 07:14:55 PM on Feb 17, 2014:

"Carrying a gun emboldened him."

Biggest bullshit post ever. Obvious non armed response. Armed people are AMAZINGLY polite and avoid confrontation. You out yourself as having no experience around gun people with this one.

If you want to call it a bad shooting, go ahead. But this is a wild guess gone wrong.

I've never SEEN such polite and non-confrontational people as those who are armed.

All Stand-Your-Ground and similar laws do is give those who have had to defend themselves (as well as the police and prosecutors) an easy, legal out instead of having to come up with tens of thousands of dollars to mount a defense to a justified shooting. It does not embolden people, but it does get a bad rap when idiots use it inappropriately or the media who exploits the situations for ratings.

There was a study in Michigan that was required when they passed their concealed carry law. It tracked crimes committed by CCW permit holders for 10 years. Do you know what they found? That on average, concealed carry permit holders committed crimes 1/10 as often as the average citizen. So for every one law a CCW holder broke, 10 were broke by the average citizen. This included traffic offenses. Having a gun does not embolden the legal carrier statistically speaking. Actual incidences? They are just as prevalent now as they were before.

posted by MrsArcher on Feb 17, 2014 at 09:06:37 pm     #   4 people liked this

"I've never SEEN such polite and non-confrontational people as those who are armed" - except, of course, the gentlemen who just lobbed 10 rounds into a car load of teenagers. Real gentleman.
And yes, I can't say that I spend much time around "gun people;" unless you count the two and half decades that I spent in the US military (is that good enough? no?)
Don't you realize that this could happen to you? You could be the one asking those "thug" teenagers to turn down their music - and when one of shoots you - because he is scared (and who wouldn't be, many of you admit that you carry a firearm - that would scare a kid- I guarantee it). And under Florida law, if he is afraid of you, a guy with a gun telling him to turn down his music, he is justified in gunning you down first. I'm just saying it goes both ways. It seems like the winner will always be the guy who is living, because the dead guy can't say how scared he was. That is one messed up law.
And yes, justread, you too sound like a perfectly polite and non-confrontational gun slinger.

posted by Progress22 on Feb 17, 2014 at 09:27:22 pm     #  

progress22 that is flat out wrong.

If you are doing is asking someone to turn down their music, they are NOT justified in gunning you down.

I don't mean to belittle your position, but that argument is not only just wrong, it is silly as well. Have you read the law and the practical applications????

Could someone make a logical argument against the law? Yes, of course. But using that silly of an example lessens the rest of your argument.

posted by shamrock44 on Feb 17, 2014 at 09:52:32 pm     #   1 person liked this

Shamrock - it is the inverse of what happened. Was that not clear? Perhaps you should read the Salon article . . .

posted by Progress22 on Feb 17, 2014 at 09:59:01 pm     #  

justread posted at 03:12:13 PM on Feb 17, 2014:

"You forgot the third option, which is that the person offended by the loud music can simply finish their business, get in their car, and leave."

Yeah, but it takes a while to put your house up for sale and then find a new one in a neighborhood that doesn't tolerate 126 dB mysogyny delivered by wannabe thugs.

Oh, you meant just accept the cultural erosion in the moment and pretend it hasn't come into your life. Sorry.

Two things:

#1: You are confusing home ownership with patronage of a gas station or similar place of business.

#2. Yeah, you're right. The world is going to hell. Let's whip out a gun over some loud music.

Great plan.

posted by Sohio on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:06:45 pm     #   2 people liked this

Progress, I didn't get past the title of the article. It is obvious that it is a one-sided opinion piece.

Did you read the transcripts of the actual testimony in the trial or are you knee-jerking based on limited knowledge gathered from a biased opinion oriented magazine article?

posted by shamrock44 on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:08:31 pm     #   1 person liked this

Progress22 posted at 08:27:22 PM on Feb 17, 2014:

"I've never SEEN such polite and non-confrontational people as those who are armed" - except, of course, the gentlemen who just lobbed 10 rounds into a car load of teenagers. Real gentleman.
And yes, I can't say that I spend much time around "gun people;" unless you count the two and half decades that I spent in the US military (is that good enough? no?)

Don't you realize that this could happen to you? You could be the one asking those "thug" teenagers to turn down their music - and when one of shoots you - because he is scared (and who wouldn't be, many of you admit that you carry a firearm - that would scare a kid- I guarantee it). And under Florida law, if he is afraid of you, a guy with a gun telling him to turn down his music, he is justified in gunning you down first. I'm just saying it goes both ways. It seems like the winner will always be the guy who is living, because the dead guy can't say how scared he was. That is one messed up law.

And yes, justread, you too sound like a perfectly polite and non-confrontational gun slinger.

I'm not a "gun slinger," Mr. Keyboard expert. What I "sound" like in a pointed internet discussion with a weenie over a weenie article is no indicator of future illegal or unethical firearms use.
That's just weenie-think and weenie-speak.

I just happen to know that your giant leaps from logic to supposition is bullshit, as is the author of the article. The funny thing is, that I agree that it was a bad shooting, based on what I read. I just don't agree with the bullshit emotional crap-babble coming from your author, and apparently, you.

btw... claiming two and a half decades in the military on the internet to make yourself credible doesn't make you any less of a weenie. Must have been the Air Force. Even the Coasties are that weenish.

Look, your post was a flame bait, and the linked article was crap. The guy who "got off" was sent to jail for 60 years.
Stupid people shooting stupid people is still illegal in Florida.

Nobody here is suggesting that it was a good shooting. But that's not enough for the lunatic anti-gun weenfringe.

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:13:18 pm     #   2 people liked this

Sohio posted at 09:06:45 PM on Feb 17, 2014:
justread posted at 03:12:13 PM on Feb 17, 2014:

"You forgot the third option, which is that the person offended by the loud music can simply finish their business, get in their car, and leave."

Yeah, but it takes a while to put your house up for sale and then find a new one in a neighborhood that doesn't tolerate 126 dB mysogyny delivered by wannabe thugs.

Oh, you meant just accept the cultural erosion in the moment and pretend it hasn't come into your life. Sorry.

Two things:

#1: You are confusing home ownership with patronage of a gas station or similar place of business.

#2. Yeah, you're right. The world is going to hell. Let's whip out a gun over some loud music.

Great plan.

1) No, I was playing with the context of the word "leave" to make a point.

2) I didn't advocate that anybody whip out a gun over loud music.

3) Read more, guess less.

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:15:14 pm     #  

Why do people who want to make this an argument against the law always conveniently fail to mention the rest of the outcome of the trial. With guilty finding on the counts of attempted murder, Dunn is looking at about 60 years in jail.

posted by shamrock44 on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:16:34 pm     #   2 people liked this

Come off it, justread. You know what you were suggesting.

"Oh, you meant just accept the cultural erosion in the moment and pretend it hasn't come into your life. Sorry."

...the alternative being...?

posted by Sohio on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:16:52 pm     #  

Didn't see your post about the sentencing before I posted, justread.

You beat me to it!

posted by shamrock44 on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:18:02 pm     #  

The alternatives in my suggestion were

(You like numbers)

1) Just accepting it like a good weenie.

2) Moving away as in "leave."

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:20:35 pm     #  

Dunn is looking at 60 because of the shots he fired as the vehicle pulled away. Had he not done that . . . no sentence at all?
And lots of folks here are ok with that. Sad.

posted by Progress22 on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:22:48 pm     #  

I am ok with killing AND shooting at people being illegal and the shooter going away for 60 years.

What I am not ok with is weenies having emotional tantrums and twisting facts into whatever fits their drama.

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:24:08 pm     #  

justread posted at 09:20:35 PM on Feb 17, 2014:

The alternatives in my suggestion were

(You like numbers)

1) Just accepting it like a good weenie.

2) Moving away as in "leave."

Again, I think we're talking about two different things here. I'm talking about decisions made in the moment. You'r talking about choosing a long-term place to live. Or something?

I DO like numbers. I like numbers a lot. Wasn't one of Cat Stevens' better albums, though.

posted by Sohio on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:24:53 pm     #  

BTW, I am also not making a judgement on whether the shooting was justified. It sounds awful based on the limited facts I have read.

posted by shamrock44 on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:25:00 pm     #  

"Had he not done that . . . no sentence at all?"

Are you really too stupid and uninformed to know that he is getting RETRIED over the mistrial, despite the 60 year sentence?

OMG. Where does the anti-gun lunatic fringe get their weenies?

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:25:44 pm     #  

I think the important question here, that has not yet been asked, is: Is Dunn evil, or just misunderstood?

posted by Sohio on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:27:28 pm     #   2 people liked this

Sohio posted at 09:24:53 PM on Feb 17, 2014:
justread posted at 09:20:35 PM on Feb 17, 2014:

The alternatives in my suggestion were

(You like numbers)

1) Just accepting it like a good weenie.

2) Moving away as in "leave."

Again, I think we're talking about two different things here. I'm talking about decisions made in the moment. You'r talking about choosing a long-term place to live. Or something?

I DO like numbers. I like numbers a lot. Wasn't one of Cat Stevens' better albums, though.

Look, try to follow me here. I said I was playing with the context of the word "leave" as an intellectual exercise.

You are either:
1) Playing stupid as a troll device.
2) You're really that stupid.

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:27:40 pm     #  

justread posted at 09:27:40 PM on Feb 17, 2014:
Sohio posted at 09:24:53 PM on Feb 17, 2014:
justread posted at 09:20:35 PM on Feb 17, 2014:

The alternatives in my suggestion were

(You like numbers)

1) Just accepting it like a good weenie.

2) Moving away as in "leave."

Again, I think we're talking about two different things here. I'm talking about decisions made in the moment. You'r talking about choosing a long-term place to live. Or something?

I DO like numbers. I like numbers a lot. Wasn't one of Cat Stevens' better albums, though.

Look, try to follow me here. I said I was playing with the context of the word "leave" as an intellectual exercise.

You are either:
1) Playing stupid as a troll device.

2) You're really that stupid.

Sorry I'm not able to keep up with your intellectual acrobatics. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

posted by Sohio on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:30:08 pm     #  

LOL @ sohio's 9:27 post!

posted by shamrock44 on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:31:56 pm     #  

What don't you understand? He's getting the sentence based on firing shots at the other 3 kids as the car drove away -its in the article (ironic, you call yourself "justread").
He is getting NOTHING for the death of the child. Not so complicated.
And stop calling me a weenie, meanie.

posted by Progress22 on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:32:02 pm     #  

No apology necessary.

Troll on.

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:32:52 pm     #  

justread posted at 09:32:52 PM on Feb 17, 2014:

No apology necessary.

Troll on.

Nah. I wouldn't do that. I don't think you'd hold up to competition.

posted by Sohio on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:34:19 pm     #  

Ok, let's recap for the weenies.

1) Dunn is an idiot who is going to jail for 60 years for attempted murder of a bunch of little "children." He will be 107 when he gets out.

2) The prosecution is bringing back the murder charge for him shooting the 17-year old little "child" that resulted in a hung jury for good measure.

3) He "got away" with nothing.

4) He shouldn't have.

5) Stop saying he got away with it. See number 3.

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:38:21 pm     #  

Wow, you still don't get it. Stunning! How old are you?

posted by Progress22 on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:41:14 pm     #  

Whether I am 12 or 102, it doesn't matter. To the weenie anti-gun lunatic fringe I am pro-child killing simply because I am anti-emotional crap-babble nonsense.

You'll likely get the conviction ON PRINCIPLE that you cry and whine for. Be patient.
In the meantime, nobody got away with any shootings that day. Don't take my word for it. Read more.

posted by justread on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:47:07 pm     #  

Wow. You're cranky today. Cramps?

posted by Sohio on Feb 17, 2014 at 10:48:41 pm     #  

Progress22 posted at 09:32:02 PM on Feb 17, 2014:

What don't you understand? He's getting the sentence based on firing shots at the other 3 kids as the car drove away -its in the article (ironic, you call yourself "justread").
He is getting NOTHING for the death of the child. Not so complicated.

And stop calling me a weenie, meanie.

Today's youth are hardly children except maybe intelligence. By calling that thug a child you are trying to enforce an image of innocence that may or not be deserved. I'm sure he said something to Dunn, who knows what but I' sure it was not something pleasant .

posted by MIJeff on Feb 18, 2014 at 01:35:11 am     #  

I'm sure he said something to Dunn, who knows what but I' sure it was not something pleasant

What a ridiculous statement. WERE YOU THERE?

posted by Sohio on Feb 18, 2014 at 01:39:02 am     #  

Our military, and now domestic law enforcement utilize the effective device of extremely loud music in combat situations to disorient the opposition. The outcome would suggest the decedent did not respond with: we apologize for disturbing the peace and will moderate the volume forthwith. The outcome suggests both sides acted without probity. Submitted this once before from the Martin thread from Bill Shakespeare's Henry IV: "Discretion is the better part of valor."

posted by Mariner on Feb 18, 2014 at 06:28:17 am     #   1 person liked this

Sohio posted at 09:48:41 PM on Feb 17, 2014:

Wow. You're cranky today. Cramps?

Yes. My tummy hurt from the pain of knowing that this hot blooded child killer was just gonna walk away from this heinous murder because of Florida's pro-child-killer laws and that there would never be justice for this poor child because Florida laws gave Dunn a "license to kill" and stuff. Dunn is probably out on the street already. It's just not right. Plus, Ohio could be next and stuff.

posted by justread on Feb 18, 2014 at 10:59:51 am     #   2 people liked this

Sohio posted at 12:39:02 AM on Feb 18, 2014:

I'm sure he said something to Dunn, who knows what but I' sure it was not something pleasant

What a ridiculous statement. WERE YOU THERE?

No and neither were you, but I can imagine the conversation would be.
OWD turn that shit down
YT fuck you old man
at which time old white dude proceeds to pull out gun and shoot up car with young thugs in it.

OWD= old white dude, YT= young thug.

you seems like this has some personal meaning for you to get so offended.

posted by MIJeff on Feb 18, 2014 at 11:44:46 am     #   1 person liked this

Kinda sad that white dudes are already "old" at 47. :(

posted by justread on Feb 18, 2014 at 12:01:00 pm     #   2 people liked this

Sohio posted at 09:16:52 PM on Feb 17, 2014:

Come off it, justread. You know what you were suggesting.

"Oh, you meant just accept the cultural erosion in the moment and pretend it hasn't come into your life. Sorry."

...the alternative being...?

...the alternative being...? - MOVE

I lived around a neighborhood of "Jordan Davis" who felt it was awesome to blast misogynistic crap (I laugh as the same suckers who call it "misogynistic" rush to the store to buy the album for their runts but whateves...) and after several times of politely trying to deal with their garbage, I sucked up a rather large loss and shuffled off on the first U-Haul out of town. If you choose to live in a "thug" neighborhood than you must CHOOSE to deal with the "lifestyle" it brings. Put up, shut up, or GTFO.

You are a FOOL if you stop and ask a delusional sheeple to do ANYTHING. It's their car, their music, and last I checked I wasn't a noise ordinance enforcement officer. Did Mr. Dunn really think it was going to end up in his favor? It gets back to that fact that our self-defense laws are based on old english "reasonable person" standards. A "reasonable person" continues to his car after making his purchase to drive away and let fools be fools. A "reasonable person" realizes that 1 old dude vs several "yuthes" would create a situation where a force multiplier like a firearm would have to be introduced as a method of defense. A "reasonable person" would have realized that 10-15 seconds of music you don't like, isn't worth a potentially deadly confrontation.

Mr. Dunn is guilty of criminal stupidity and is TOO DUMB to exist amongst us. confrontations in parking lots over the fact that you don't like their music means you need to be in a cage as you clearly don't have the ability to navigate society PEACEFULLY.

*** I hate "rap" music, nobody needs to die over it.

Much like Zimmerman, if you want to try and be an agent for social change, get a badge to go with that gun.

posted by dbw8906 on Feb 18, 2014 at 12:45:37 pm     #  

The Davis-Dunn shooting is a bad deal all the way around. However you feel about it, this is one single incident and is no reason to oppose a law that Ohio desperately needs.

What's really sick is the anti-freedom crowd using the killing of a young man to further their cause - only the police will be allowed to have guns. I expect politicians in office will be allowed firearms as well, as will their bodyguards.

Of course, since no one will have a gun except for police, I don't really see the need for politicos and bodyguards to have one. But then, what do I know? I'm not anti-freedom.

Arguing with Progress22 about gun control is a lot like arguing with AnonymousCoward about anything. Expect nonsense opinions, distorted facts and loads of stable dressing. You'll get nothing else.

posted by madjack on Feb 18, 2014 at 01:31:16 pm     #   2 people liked this

MIJeff posted at 10:44:46 AM on Feb 18, 2014:
Sohio posted at 12:39:02 AM on Feb 18, 2014:

I'm sure he said something to Dunn, who knows what but I' sure it was not something pleasant

What a ridiculous statement. WERE YOU THERE?

No and neither were you, but I can imagine the conversation would be.
OWD turn that shit down

YT fuck you old man

at which time old white dude proceeds to pull out gun and shoot up car with young thugs in it.

OWD= old white dude, YT= young thug.

you seems like this has some personal meaning for you to get so offended.

Did I 'seems' offended to you? Just making an observation. Stop projecting.

posted by Sohio on Feb 18, 2014 at 02:21:23 pm     #  

justread posted at 11:01:00 AM on Feb 18, 2014:

Kinda sad that white dudes are already "old" at 47. :(

at 16 people age 30 are old to them.

posted by MIJeff on Feb 18, 2014 at 02:36:41 pm     #  

45 is the new 30.

16 is the new 12.

posted by justread on Feb 18, 2014 at 04:31:52 pm     #  

I think that only applies to people reaching those ages Justread, to teens anyone over 25 and is an authority figure is obviously outdated and stupid, anyone that age trying to hang with them is an obvious poser and will and should be ridiculed. The cool parents are the ones that are destroying the fabric of society by allowing their kids to run rampant doing whatever they want, if they are even attending to their kids at all in the first place.

posted by MIJeff on Feb 18, 2014 at 05:18:46 pm     #  

OH, to go back to the good old days...when young 'uns had respect for elders...admiration, in fact, and the desire to "hang" or "chill" with the elders of the tribe...and those same kids would just as soon fall on a sword as do anything untoward...

Like it was in the 1920s, in Harbor View:

http://www.toledohistorybox.com/2012/05/30/harbor-view-orgy/

posted by Sohio on Feb 18, 2014 at 06:04:00 pm     #  

MIJeff posted at 04:18:46 PM on Feb 18, 2014:

I think that only applies to people reaching those ages Justread, to teens anyone over 25 and is an authority figure is obviously outdated and stupid, anyone that age trying to hang with them is an obvious poser and will and should be ridiculed. The cool parents are the ones that are destroying the fabric of society by allowing their kids to run rampant doing whatever they want, if they are even attending to their kids at all in the first place.

You may be overthinking the joke.

posted by justread on Feb 18, 2014 at 09:21:26 pm     #  

Saw the Davis mom on TV this morning. Hard not to be sympathetic considering her loss. A parent's worst nightmare. My heart goes out to them.

But all of a sudden, she launched into this insane politicization of her son's death. All about how the laws need to change so he can "get justice." And so that there will be "justice for Treyvon Martin, and justice for the Sandy Hook kids, and justice for the Newtown Kids"

Yeah, she really went there.

Huh? (Scratches head wondering what Dunn's bad act had to do with the bad acts of other idiots and mentally ill teenagers over the years and across the nation)
I was waiting for her to say "justice for Columbine, and for Chad Oulson, and for Gabby Giffords, and the people of Oslo Norway, and for Abraham Lincoln, and for John F. Kennedy."
"And for Ronald Reagan..." Wait, I guess that would never happen. We're real selective about our outrage against shootings when individual whackos make stupid choices.

posted by justread on Feb 19, 2014 at 10:57:10 am     #   3 people liked this

"And for Ronald Reagan..." Wait, I guess that would never happen.

Is that a political-persuasion comment? If so, it's off-base. No liberals wanted Reagan to die that day. Most because of basic human decency; but even the ones lacking that had no desire to see Reagan martyred.

posted by Sohio on Feb 21, 2014 at 08:36:44 pm     #  

posted by Sohio on Feb 21, 2014 at 08:38:43 pm     #   3 people liked this

Sohio posted at 07:36:44 PM on Feb 21, 2014:

"And for Ronald Reagan..." Wait, I guess that would never happen.

Is that a political-persuasion comment? If so, it's off-base. No liberals wanted Reagan to die that day. Most because of basic human decency; but even the ones lacking that had no desire to see Reagan martyred.

How in the hell did we get from him being unlikely to be remembered as the victim of a crazy person with a gun to people having desire to see Reagan martyred? WTF???

Oh yeah, your hair trigger. I forgot.

posted by justread on Feb 22, 2014 at 09:20:41 pm     #   1 person liked this

It might be important to remember that the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan happened only about 3 or 4 months into his presidency (if that)...so the likelihood of "martyrdom" was nil. The country would have mourned him like they did all Presidents who were taken too early.

Also, he wouldn't have been killed for his beliefs-- which is the literal definition of martyrdom.

Simply put, he was the victim of a psycho (who is still locked up).

posted by oldhometown on Feb 22, 2014 at 11:54:53 pm     #   1 person liked this

Also, he wouldn't have been killed for his beliefs-- which is the literal definition of martyrdom.

You're right. I was using the term in the parlance of our times; the fashion in which it is often used now. "Lionization" would probably be a more accurate term for what I was describing.

How in the hell did we get from him being unlikely to be remembered as the victim of a crazy person with a gun to people having desire to see Reagan martyred? WTF???

It started with your veiled suggestion that an anti-gun person might not use Reagan as an example of someone who should be avenged; my perception being that this omisssion would be due to political persuasion. No hair trigger pulled, justread. Not on MY part, anyway. Did you notice how my post began with a question? Kind of hard to make the "hair-trigger" argument when a person asks questions first and shoots later...or not at all. Looks like maybe you need to check the safety on YOUR hair trigger. You've been pulling it a lot lately. Your skills at deflection are as sharp as ever, though.

posted by Sohio on Feb 23, 2014 at 01:07:18 am     #  

Ok, let's try again.

"Is that a political-persuasion comment?"

Of course not. Where the fuck did that come from?

posted by justread on Feb 24, 2014 at 09:21:24 pm     #  

Just my perception. It sounded like you were suggesting that a gun control advocate might be callous toward Reagan's shooting as opposed to the shootings of others you mentioned, as a result of Reagan's political disposition. That's all. If I perceived incorrectly, my apologies. I didn't think it was that abstract of a question.

posted by Sohio on Feb 24, 2014 at 09:25:38 pm     #  

Oh, ok. I thought it was a heavily assumptive and loaded question and that you were suggesting that I meant that some would "want him to die" or "see him martyred" when I was just suggesting that he was an unlikely addition to the list for a variety of reasons.

Either way, no need for an apology. I'm not offended, I just didn't want it to get twisted into something way beyond what my thought was.

posted by justread on Feb 24, 2014 at 09:38:16 pm     #  

Come on, justread. Don't you know me better than that by now?

posted by Sohio on Feb 24, 2014 at 10:21:37 pm     #  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTcu7MCtuTs

posted by justread on Feb 25, 2014 at 06:50:54 pm     #  

Aww, come on: link to the original by Harold Melvin & the Blue Notes featuring Teddy Pendergrass!

SOUUULLLLLLLLL TRAIN!

posted by oldhometown on Feb 25, 2014 at 09:44:34 pm     #