MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
|
|
|
From the Readers
- barefooted 9 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 10 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 12 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
Creative corner
- PeraclesPlease 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- PeraclesPlease 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
- artappraiser 1 year ago
From the Dagbloggers
- Michael Wolraich 11 months 3 weeks ago
- Danny Cardwell 3 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 3 years 11 months ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- PeraclesPlease 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 1 month ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- Doctor Cleveland 4 years 2 months ago
- William K. Wolfrum 4 years 2 months ago
The Jordan Davis Murder Trial Verdict
By rmrd0000 on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 11:46am |Ta-Nehisi Coates expresses to sadness Black parents feel about the inability to protect their sons. Michael Dunn wrote racist letters from prison. Those letters were not used in the prosecution because the Florida prosecutors were afraid to bring up issues of race in court, similar to the situation in the Zimmerman case.
It is not first degree murder to kill an unarmed Black teen in Florida. George Zimmerman, the murder who feared for his life in a fist-fight now feels fit enough to participate in a boxing match for money.
The Florida legal system has become more of a joke.
URL:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/on-the-killing-of-jordan-davis-by-michael-dunn/283870/
- Add new comment
- 4117 reads
Comments
I don't know; he is still going to go to prison for a long time--probably the rest of his life--so at least he is getting what is coming to him. And the DA says he will be tried again on the murder charge. But yeah, it is bad that he wasn't convicted of murder.
by Aaron Carine on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 7:09pm
The outrage is that it wasn't first degree murder. The charge is more about how the murder of an unarmed 18 year-old is viewed by the legal system.
by AnonymousRm (not verified) on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 7:22pm
I don't know. First degree means pre-meditated. That's hard to argue in this case, in my opinion, since as far as I know he didn't know these guys prior to the shooting.
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 5:16pm
The definition of premeditation, it seems, varies by state.
by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:11pm
Indeed, the only practical outcome of the mistrial is that the death penalty goes off the table, which for some of us is perhaps not a bad thing, although in the racism context it is an unfortunate distinction.
More likely, were there a death penalty phase, the jury, following the general rule that white on black first degree rarely gets the death penalty (for reasons which are too obvious and disgusting to deconstruct), it's unlkely that the outcome even with a conviction this time around would differ as to sentence.
I'll tell you what ought to get the death penaty, though. The prosecutor's continued employablity.
by jollyroger on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 8:28pm
Well, my perspective is a white guy's perspective, but I think the verdict demonstrates two things:
1) The American criminal justice system has a racial bias.
2) Despite the bias, it would be an overstatement to say(as my brother does) that the system only benefits white people, because this killer who wasn't convicted of murder is still going to do hard time.
by Aaron Carine on Sun, 02/16/2014 - 10:21pm
Shooting at the fleeing car, tsk tsk..But for that.he might've walked for the actual homicide...after all, they were guillty of felony loud music--who knows what atrocities they were planning to inflict...)
by jollyroger on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 12:08am
Sorry I didn't see this before I posted a news item on it, too.
Disgusting.
True, he's far from walking, but he's also far from getting the justice he deserves.
by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 4:24pm
The more the merrier
From a legal standpoint, I think that it is important to get a first-degree murder conviction. Black teens need to know that the legal system works for them as wel.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 4:53pm
I would like to think that in this case the black teens would be bottom line thinkers like Wattree says black people are. In this case the bottom line is the guy will almost certainly spend the rest of his life in jail. That would mean that the justice system had done what it is intended for it to do without regard to the colors of the people involved. If the sentences handed down for his convictions support that assumption then it seems to me that it would be pro forma bs to make a show of going for 1st degree except maybe for someone only satisfied by the death penalty and so wants to go hard for that.
This guy has demonstrated that he cannot be allowed to roam free and has completely forfeited any right to any sympathy even though I think that as a rule prison sentences are more often than not far longer than they should be.
Following is a story way more damning of the legal system when it mindlessly goes for all it can get, IMO. I would suggest that a psychic investment in this guy getting less than full application of the law would be better spent than fretting about the guy who will die in prison somehow getting more punishment.
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/518/except-for-th...
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 6:18pm
Two different jurisdictions are involved so attention can be given to both cases. Legally, I suspect, the St. Louis case is more difficult because there is an outstanding conviction.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 6:38pm
An example of cold-hearted, unreasonable, Justice without mercy.
He should be allowed to atone for his error, to compensate his victim.
by Resistance on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 7:31pm
Ideally we would have a correctional system in every case possible rather than a penal system. This is a freak case but, taking the story at face value, the man has shown that he is rehabilitated. He has atoned. He should not have to spend one more day in jail for his offense thirteen years ago, IMO.
by A Guy Called LULU on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 8:05pm
How does he compensate his victim...he's dead.
How does he compensate his family...who have forever lost their son, nephew, cousin.
I'm sorry, the "cold-hearted, unreasonable, justice without mercy" is what happened to that kid whose life is over because he had the temerity to play loud music and sass. And had the bad luck to run into an adult who had no business carrying a gun and didn't have the sense God gave him to realize that kids play music loud and the better part of valor was to move his car if he didn't like it.
Given the weakness of his defense, the lack of corroborating evidence, the non-existence of claimed weapons, it would be "unreasonable" for him not to get a serious sentence. And this one hardly qualifies as "unreasonable."
Dunn got to live his life and still will. He may even get parole some day: Who knows? He can still read, write, exercise, learn a trade, visit with his wife, smell the air. He can find Jesus, if he hasn't already and become born again. He can find ways to do good. He can realize that much of what he thought was important isn't important. He could memorize the Q'uran. There are MANY things he can still do that Davis will never do.
I don't believe in the death penalty and don't believe he should be put to death. But based on what I see, he deserves the highest sentence.
by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:23pm
I think there is confusion between two different cases and it is probably my fault.
Resistance was referring ]I think] to a man whose story is told in the short audio link I posted. Dunn is not the man who Resistance is referring to and who he says should be allowed to atone and compensate and who I say has already atoned and should go free.
by A Guy Called LULU on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:53pm
I see...
It was easy to be confused because the thread was about Davis, except for this small offshoot onto another case.
Normally, I'm not one who believes in "staying on track" in a conversation because all the byways are kind of interesting.
But I don't quite trust this diversion only because you're arguing we shouldn't be "fretting" about Davis because, after all, Dunn got his just deserts despite his color, and we should be trying to reform folks and not mete out the maximum punishment to assuage our anger (or something).
And...
"Lookey here, here's something much worse which we should be thinking about instead of Davis."
This doesn't quite cut it for me. I agree with you about reform v punishment, but this isn't really the issue here. The biggest issue is that this kid was murdered because he was playing loud music. Once again, doing X while being black seems to attract white guys who feel emboldened to kill you.
Then comes the fact that this is a softer sentence than FL law would seem to call for--and why? Premeditation a la FL law was involved. Did this guy show remorse? Did he reflect on what HE had done? Did he ask to atone for what he's done to this family? I don't read that anywhere.
The most damning piece, which JR notes below or above, is that Dunn would have WALKED had he MERELY killed Davis and not shot at the car. He would have walked for killing someone, but is being convicted for trying unsuccessfully to kill other people. What's THAT about?
Jerry Seinfeld once joked that the difference between men and women watching TV is that women want to see what's on. Men want to see else is on. This feels a bit like that. I'm sure there are mountains of miscarriages of justice we can find, and maybe we should look into each and every one of them. Why not?
But it's a little odd, IMO, that, when we're intently "watching what's on," to say, "but look at what else is on!" especially when "what else is on" is a case that would appear to tell the opposite moral to the story "that's on."
by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 3:46pm
Unless, as seems to be the case, blacks get disproportionately harsher sentences than whites for the same crimes.
In that case, it could be said that this man's sentence may have been due in part to the color of his skin and his victim's.
So there's that "bottom line" to for the kids to think about, too. If they were the perp in this case, they might be going to death row.
The fact that he ain't going to be walking around is good, but is beside the point. There is a reason there are degrees of wrongdoing recognized by the judicial system. And there are good reasons why everyone should be treated the same way by the system.
by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 9:33pm
Too many unanswered questions. Did they have enough time to get rid of the shotgun?
by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 6:02pm
You appear to be assuming there was a shotgun. There is no evidence other than the word of someone who failed to notify police of the event that there was ever any other weapon than his own. Why does his word carry any weight at all, especially given what else we know about this man (that the jurors were not allowed to be made privy to)?
by Verified Atheist on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 7:42pm
The aptly named Mr or Ms. Not Verified does not seem to bring any personal reflection to his or her cut and paste job.
by jollyroger on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 7:47pm
What the verdict says is that if Dunn had murdered Jordan Davis and not shot at the other three teens, Dunn would have had a mistrial.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 8:35pm
It speaks to the prosecutor's incompetence that she was unable to explain to the jury that the same animus and homicidal intent that informed the shots fired at the fleeing vehicle should be imputed to the ones which found their fatal mark. It is incomprehensible that the continuous emptying of a clip could be parsed into three "self defense shots" and seven attempted murder shots.
by jollyroger on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 8:43pm
It may be that some of the jurors gave credence to the shotgun story--without any reason-- but they all agreed that once the kids were driving away, continuing to fire at them wasn't self defense. But there is no evidence that there was a shotgun, and I don't believe Dunn could have "thought he saw" a weapon that didn't exist.
by Aaron Carine on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 9:23pm
What makes you think they would find evidence after the scene was neglected for 4 days?
Spoliated ? No one in the car, had a cell phone to call 911 at the 100 feet away from the initial contact ? Instead they drove the vehicle back to the front, where the crime scene initially occurred to call 911? Was this to throw off investigators? Maybe a crime was committed at the 100 feet marker The hiding of evidence?
If there was evidence of a weapon, it was 100 feet away, in another parking lot, picked up by friends later. Convenient isn't it; Wheres the evidence?
by Resistance on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 10:10pm
Exactly, where IS the evidence of this gun/pipe/anything?
If we're now putting the kid on trial posthumously, then the prosecution--in this case, the defense--needs to find the weapon.
by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 11:57am
NCD is right. Resistance's "they had a shotgun; they threw it away and picked it up later" theory is nothing but speculation. And if they were aiming a shotgun at him, why didn't they return fire?
by Aaron Carine on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 3:23pm
Only in America would 'I thought I saw a shotgun' as I riddled the car with bullets' be taken seriously.
(1) If Dunn 'saw a shotgun' coming out the window, would the reaction be to keep plugging away with his handgun or haul ass and look for cover?
(2) If they had a shotgun, why didn't they use it? ....The scheme was (1) point a shotgun out the window, get riddled with gunfire, then (2) drive 100 ft. away and toss it?
This ranks with the GOP meme 'Of course Saddam had WMD. Under attack, he sent 'em all over to Syria'.
by NCD on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 11:49am
re:Aaron, misplaced
That is clearly what happened, but it's absurd that Dunn was accorded any credibility for the "shotgun" allegation in light of his overall behaviour. (Not to mention the phenomenally damaging testimony from his fiancee)
by jollyroger on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:17pm
As someone with a legal background, can you speak to the logic behind going after a first-degree murder charge? Doesn't that require pre-meditation of the kind that won't be found at a gas station?
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 7:44am
This is a fairly good overview of Florida's First Degree Murder statute. Like many first degree murder statutes (or second degree in NY), it's encompasses more than premeditated killing, and includes murders that occur during the commission of a felony. I'm hardly a criminal attorney but my understanding of premeditation is that it does extend beyond a "plan to kill," i.e. it extends to that which is intentional (even if the timing is extremely limited). Defer to any of the criminal experts on this. Your question is a fair one, but I think the fact that your asking it means to me that the Florida prosecution should have really been asking the same damn question before the indictment. Florida, the home of my folks and my oldest kid, never ceases to bring embarrassment and shame in this realm.
It is just so damn tragic, and it leads to what we have now, which is that an entire segment of Florida's citizenry finds no comfort in the rule of law. I can hardly imagine how it must feel for a parent.
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 10:49am
I think you can reach the threshold for premeditation in the act of removing the holstered gun from the glove box and then from the holster, in the absence of any continuing act of passion such as would mitigate to manslaughter.
I'm pretty certain that loading an unloaded gun when not in the throes of a struggle or active quarrel is arguable as premeditation, ie you can get instructions to that effect.
This might seem to be a wobbler, since I gather that the gun was already loaded when it was retrieved from the glovebox.
Of course, the reason for charging first degree is to get a "death qualified" jury, in jurisdictions where first degree murder can give you access to a penalty phase the outcome of which can be death.
(Jurors willing to impose a death sentence are statistically more likely to convict on the underlying facts, even if they convict for a lesser included offense, and so prosecutors use the death qualification to challenge bleeding heart liberals from the panel for cause.)
In this case, one might argue that it bit the proscutor in her ass, except that the jurors who hung up on the homicide itself evidently did so because some asshole(s) felt that the homicide was justified, which obviated the question of first vs. second degree murder, anyway.
In other words, even if it weren't overcharged, even if it were merely manslaughter, the stand your ground self defense (license to kill) argument would still have hung the jury up.
by jollyroger on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 11:32am
Apparently, "premeditation" is defined differently in different states.
In FL, apparently, premeditation can occur nbetwee shots.
by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 11:53am
exactly--you don't need much to reach pre-meditation.
by jollyroger on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:08pm
I appreciate the clarification on this from you, Bruce, and Peter. Thanks.
by Verified Atheist on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:25pm
Thanks JR. This is very helpful.
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 2:10pm
I am curious, if a group of young men are driving in a car and one of them says “Pull over here, by the Wells Fargo bank, I need some cash” Five minutes later he comes out of the bank, jumps in the car and says lets go, and the guard is right behind him, with his weapon drawn, would the guard be held responsible if someone in the car got injured, because the man had his friends in the getaway car?
If your friend in your car, decides to rob a Quick Trip and the clerk is killed, all who were in the vehicle could be charged with homicide.
The end of a pipe can sure look like the end of a shotgun if your in fear.
Deputy kills 13-year-old carrying fake rifle - CNN.com
by Resistance on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 9:10pm
How does this scenario relate to this case?
by Peter Schwartz on Mon, 02/17/2014 - 9:34pm
I have to say, what sickens and depresses me the most is the extent to which African American parents have to teach their young boys that the world is particularly dangerous for them and they need to take special precautions to avoid this danger.
If a white kid wears a hoodie, he's just wearing a piece of clothing. If a black kid does it, he's a suspect. If a white kid runs down the street, he's having fun or in a hurry to get home. If a black kid does it, he's running from a crime he's just committed.
People are amazingly resilient at getting used to a lot of things. But this sort of thing, always in the background and sometimes shoved into the foreground, takes its toll. It is a constant reminder that "you don't belong here." Day in and day out. It eats away at "all the progress we're making."
It's bad enough if you're assumed to have stolen, or are about to steal, something. But if kids are ripe targets for murder, as in the South of old, then we are in very bad shape.
by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:10pm
Argued in another post
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:20pm
Except that, I read, SYG doesn't work quite as well for blacks as it does for whites.
by Peter Schwartz on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:33pm
Yes but your teenage son still lives to celebrate his 19th birthday. Appeals are better than funerals.
by rmrd0000 on Tue, 02/18/2014 - 12:56pm