Another controversial Stand Your Ground killing in Florida

http://www.npr.org/2014/02/03/270874416/murder-trial-reminiscent-of-zimmerman-case-to-begin-in-florida
http://news.yahoo.com/murder-trial-opens-florida-shooting-over-loud-music-060201995--sector.html;_ylt=A0SO8yR2u.9SE2gAsPNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--

Yes, again the shooter is a middle-aged, suburban, white man and the victim is an unarmed black teen. It all started when the victim (Davis) and 3 friends were filling up gas next to the shooter (Dunn). Davis' car was playing loud music and Dunn asked them to turn it down. They complied, but later turned it back up and allegedly made some threatening comments to Dunn. Dunn claims to have seen one of them "reach down for something" in the car, so he pulled out his 9mm from his glove box and fired 4 rounds. No warning shot, no "Stop what you're doing I'm armed!"... just shoot first. But here is the worst part - the youths then proceeded to flee (understandable), and Dunn fired 4 more rounds into the departing vehicle (GREAT job Reuters for failing to include that important detail - of course NPR didn't forget).


I am not sure if any of those "gratuitous" shots were the kill shot, and a later search of Davis' vehicle revealed no weapons. That seems to violate SYG to me - there was no more threat, why keep shooting? He is not Dirty Harry. Was he trying to stop them from blasting their music next time? Some people think that violence is the default response to difficult situations, and they don't consider how that perception will make things worse for everyone.

-----

Yeah, and it's not like these guys had no choice. Both Zimmerman and Dunn were not having a crime committed against them. In both cases, they did/could have called the police to resolve it, and not directly confront. And in both cases, their escalating actions made violence more likely to ensue. To be fair, if Zimm or Dunn did those things to you or I, likely no one would be dead at the end of the day. But that's the point - they have no idea who they are dealing with. So maybe they should think about whether loud music or a hoodie is enough of a problem to risk the possibility of a gunfight. But a gun in your belt/car suddenly makes you Mr. Badass, so it changes your risk calculations.

That is one of the biggest problems associated with SYG laws and America's gun culture in general. Like Bill Maher joked, America's foreign policy is "What the F you looking at!?!" Same with domestic - why is violence too often the default response to an unpleasant situation? And in a competitive, free society, unpleasant altercations are inevitable. Do we have to go OK Corral every time someone else does something we don't like? The hubris and egoism associated with the rationale behind SYG is shocking to me. I can't believe higher courts haven't looking into the Constitutional implications too.

Pretty much this is the only situation where vigilantism is justified, when a fanatical drug cult takes over your community, there is no rule of law, and your corrupt government/military is ineffective:


http://latinousa.org/2014/01/31/michoacan-101-inside-civilian-militia-uprising/

We do not and should not live in a comic book.