Flagg wrote:J wrote:Flagg, for the record, you actually had the upper hand should you have chosen to pursue it.
My google-fu is weak when I feel like I've been hit by a truck and am on new psych meds, apparently.
But I knew I was right since the guy that taught the class was a retired Detective of 20 years.
Oh well, live and learn. Couldn't prove it so the concession stands.
The first case J linked seems to point out that if you stab someone 55 times, it indicates that you had time to think about what you were doing. You might stab someone
once without having a calculated, considered intent to kill them, you might even stab someone a few times without having thought about it. But you can't possibly stab someone 55 times without having had time to think about what the hell you're doing.
Plus, the part where the defendant stated that he was looking for money at the scene of the crime- which indicates intent to steal the money, which brings up the whole "murder committed in the course of committing a felony" issue. Basically, it's obvious that Sireci intended to commit crimes and formed plans accordingly before he even laid eyes on the victim, and the nature of the murder he committed makes it equally obvious that his intent to kill existed for a protracted period of time, and that he was not shocked or alarmed or surprised by what he had done.
In the Wilson case, premeditation would seem to come in because Wilson Junior took the time to grab a gun from Mrs. Wilson, after a protracted physical fight, in which Wilson Junior appears to have taken time out to stab a five year old child. Basically, if Wilson had any intention of
not killing, he would have stood down well before the point at which he shot Wilson Senior in the head.
I am fully convinced and aware that premeditation can occur over a timespan measured in seconds. I never disagreed with Flagg about that. I'm just not sure the act of drawing a weapon
in itself is enough, except in very unusual cases. Because if it were, then basically all murders committed with a weapon would be first-degree murders, and that is not so.
Flagg wrote:This jury was 9-3 to convict on first degree murder. 3 fucking idiots thought it was self defense because black kid sitting in SUV is clear threat.
Was the victim in or out of the vehicle when Dunn shot him?
I'd be shocked if this ended in a not guilty verdict. I think it's likely he'll be convicted or there will be a couple more mistrials before the DA drops it down to murder 2 or just gives up since he's gonna be in prison for the rest of his life anyway. But since the 3 complete idiots who voted not guilty did so because they bought self defense it's likely they wouldn't have convicted him on murder 2 either. After all it's northern FL and in Floriduh the farther north you go the farther south you get.
I agree with all of this; I think Falcon is grossly overestimating how corrupt and incompetent the US judiciary is. Not to say that there is NO incompetence, but there sure isn't this much. If there had been it wouldn't have come down to a hung jury in the first place.
aerius wrote:mr friendly guy wrote:Wouldn't Flagg's claim of aggravated child abuse fit the definition as given by AD for murder one? Since the victim is legally a child.
As I said, it is if you follow the letter of the law, but good luck convincing the jury. Aggravated child abuse is defined as aggravated battery of a child, which is battery using a deadly weapon, and a gun certainly qualifies.
However, I could claim something like the following: 17 year old Davis, the victim of the shooting is not a child. A child does not have a driver's license and cruise around in an SUV. Furthermore, a 17 year old can tried as an adult in a court of law here in Florida. How can you claim he's a child when he can be tried as an adult? Davis is not a child, therefore, aggravated child abuse does not apply. Therefore, the conditions for murder 1 are not met and the charge should be dismissed.
Then you need to deal with the 12 dumbest people who couldn't get out of jury duty. They, and most of the general public think that child abuse is when a mother beats her 3 year old to death with a rolling pin, or when daddy punches his 8 year old in the head 80 times until the kid stops moving. They're not going to think shooting at a 17 year old in a car is somehow child abuse, even if it technically is under the law.
Honestly, I suspect that the definition in the jury's minds lines up pretty well with the
intent of laws about aggravated child abuse. I suspect they were originally intended to cover 'typical' child abuse in which the defining characteristic is that the violence is directed at a defenseless child, usually by someone with a duty of care. Not to cover teenagers who, while they may be immature mentally, are physically capable of defending themselves, and physically indistinguishable from someone on the other side of their 18th birthday who is a legal adult.
The law might be technically applicable to cases where a 17 year old is shot by a stranger, but I'm not even sure a jury would be
wrong to rule that it shouldn't apply. If nothing else, applying the aggravated child abuse law to a case like this will result in the defense pointing out that the killer had no way of knowing whether the victim was 17 or 18.
And we probably shouldn't decide that it's possible to commit child abuse under circumstances where one had no reasonable way of knowing one was about to commit it.
