Justice Denied... No More?

Yesterday, legal observers across the nation were stunned. This was far from expected.

In a Florida courtroom, Michael Dunn was found guilty of the first degree murder of Jordan Davis. The jury had deadlocked on this charge during the original trial, though they ultimately agreed to convict Dunn of attempting to murder the other passengers in the car Dunn had shot into due to a dispute over "loud music". But this time, the jury only took 6 hours to reach a verdict.



Like George Zimmerman, Michael Dunn used Florida's "Stand Your Ground" statute as his legal defense. Ever since the NRA and ALEC began promoting "'Stand Your Ground' model legislation" across the nation, more of these cases have popped up in the states that have adopted this "model legislation". We even have a "Stand Your Ground" case right here in Nevada, as Wayne Burgarello is using AB 321 as his legal defense in his murder trial in Reno.

Wayne Burgarello's next court date is set for October 15. He's been released on $150,000 bail. And he's plead not guilty in the murder of Cody Devine and the attempted murder of another woman at Burgarello's abandoned duplex. Burgarello claims he "stood his ground against trespassers", but Devine's family members say Cody didn't even know the duplex he & his female friend were staying in was Burgarello's.

Many have been wondering how difficult it may be for the Washoe County District Attorney's Office to convict Burgarello, especially considering the "ace in the hole" he has in AB 321. But now that a Florida jury has convicted Michael Dunn for murdering Jordan Davis despite "Stand Your Ground", perhaps there's reason for Cody Devine's family to continue hoping for justice here in Nevada.



Still, it's concerning to realize how difficult it is to prosecute murder cases in Florida, in Nevada, and in other "Stand Your Ground" states. It's hard for us to understand how George Zimmerman, Michael Dunn, or Wayne Burgarello to claim "self defense" in any other capacity. Perhaps the outcome of the Burgarello trial will be more like Dunn's and less like Zimmerman's. Or perhaps, the reverse will be true.

Regardless, we will likely see more AB 321/"Stand Your Ground" cases as time marches on. And going forward, the question for Governor Brian Sandoval (R-NRA) and the Nevada Legislature will be: "Did you agree to 'model legislation' that just let someone get away with murder"?

Bloody "Rebranding"

We know they like to go there. But really, must they go there? Don't they realize how moronic they sound whenever they go there?

But alas, NRA "News" internet eye candy commentator Dom Raso insists on going there.



Really, Mr. Raso? Really, NRA? Jim Crow? Seriously?

We know the NRA is trying hard to "rebrand" itself as "the nation's leading civil rights organization"... But that doesn't mean this statement is true. After all, where was the NRA when Trayvon Martin was brutally murdered?



Oh, yes. That's right. The NRA was busy enabling more George Zimmermans to "stand their ground" against innocent people. And the NRA & its "TEA" tinged allies were busy attacking Trayvon's family & friends for daring to fight for #JusticeForTrayvon.

And for the record, we saw the same reaction from the NRA after the murder of Jordan Davis. That's because the NRA always turns to "philosophical arguments" over "framing & language" whenever it's confronted with the ugly truth about "Stand Your Ground".



Jim Crow? Seriously? But of course, it's easier for the NRA to turn to rhetorical nonsense than to address its own history of enabling the likes of Johnny Lee Wicks, Cliven Bundy, Wayne Burgarello, Jerad & Amanda Miller, and Brent Douglas Cole. The NRA can "rebrand" itself as often as it wants, but it can't "rebrand" away its own bloody record.

Standing on What Ground?

How could we have known? Sooner or later, this kind of tragedy was bound to happen. And now, we're bound to witness a hot mess explode in court... Even though it's crystal clear that Wayne Burgarello shot two people.

So why is this bound to be a hot mess? Wayne Burgarello admitted he shot Cody Devine dead and seriously wounded Janai Wilson. What else do we need to know? Ah, but Wayne Burgarello is now claiming "Stand Your Ground" as his legal defense.



Wait, what?! Remember when the Nevada Legislature passed AB 321 in 2011? We do. Oh, and we remember sounding this alarm in 2012.

They set up a dangerous slippery slope for justifying as "self-defense" what would otherwise be declared manslaughter or murder. After all, what we may consider murder can be twisted by a smart criminal defense attorney into a "Stand Your Ground" situation just by insinuating that the homicide victim was somehow threatening the shooter's life and/or property, even if there's little or no evidence that the shooter was really at risk.

So why are we now falling down this slippery slope? Why did we have to take this downhill course in the first place? And can we afford to keep making decisions out of political convenience while ignoring future public safety crises?

And this is exactly what Wayne Burgarello's defense attorney is claiming. He's claiming Burgarello had the right to shoot Cody Devine and Janai Wilson because he found them at his vacant duplex in Sparks. After all, isn't this what "Stand Your Ground" is for?

Ever since George Zimmerman was set free after murdering Trayvon Martin, we've had to confront this brutal reality. Zimmerman shot Martin dead for "committing the crime" of walking outside while black. Martin was "armed" with a hoodie, a bag of Skittles, and a bottle of Arizona iced tea. And yet, George Zimmerman now enjoys his G-O-TEA/"gun enthusiast" celebrity status while Trayvon Martin's family must go to the cemetery to visit him.

But wait, wasn't Cody Devine trespassing upon someone else's property? Possibly, though it's unclear as to whether he even knew he was not wanted there. Whatever the case, did Wayne Burgarello have the right to unilaterally impose the death penalty on him?

This is the central question to the "Stand Your Ground"/Shoot to Kill principle. Should anyone have the ability to unilaterally impose the death penalty on someone else for whatever reason? Do we really need to return to the "Old West Days" of shootouts anywhere, everywhere? Why did the Nevada Legislature & Governor Brian Sandoval (R) approve this? Might they be having second thoughts about this now?

(Not) Standing on Solid Ground

There's been plenty of outcry from across the country in the past month over the tragic shooting of Trayvon Martin near Orlando, Florida. There's been growing suspicion both of shooter George Zimmerman and his motives for killing Trayvon, as well as of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law, and just how much that contributed to Trayvon's untimely death.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Yesterday, The Sun asked: Can it happen here?

In Las Vegas, officials and academics are taking a close look at the Martin case, and for good reason: Nevada recently passed a law nearly identical to Florida’s, leading many to believe a similar tragedy could play out in the Silver State.

“The circumstances are ripe for a Trayvon situation to happen here,” said Sylvia Lazos, a law professor at UNLV's Boyd School of Law. “We have a lot of crime. We have a lot of people with guns. We have a lot of people who are untrained. We have to watch it. ... These combinations can be quite toxic.”

Nevada is one of 25 states, according to the Legal Community Against Violence, with a law allowing individuals to use deadly force when they feel threatened with no obligation to stand down or try to avoid violence once reasonable fear is established.

Nevada’s “stand your ground” law was approved by the 2011 Legislature and took effect in October. It allows that as long as a person who feels threatened didn’t initiate the altercation and isn’t doing anything criminal, that person can stand and use deadly force and it would be considered “justifiable homicide.”

Such laws “are all designed to allow for some expanded notion of self-defense,” Lazos said. “The problem that you have when regular people engage in self-defense ... is that people make decisions fairly quickly about whether they are, in fact, in danger.”

Last year, our Legislature passed AB 321, which was a somewhat modified version of "Stand Your Ground" that formalized the already accepted view (in this state) that people can shoot to kill if they feel their lives and/or property is at stake. While AB 321 may "feel good" in that it supposedly empowers potential crime victims to "stop a crime before it starts" (along with providing politicians who support it with plenty of praise from the NRA), it may soon lead to some frightening unintended consequences. Case in point: Trayvon Martin.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Last session, all but three Nevada legislators (for both houses COMBINED!) voted for AB 321. Assembly Members Maggie Carlton (D-East Las Vegas), Richard Carrillo (D-Paradise), and Peggy Pierce (D-Las Vegas) were the only ones to vote against AB 321, while all their Assembly colleagues either sponsored or co-sponsored this bill in addition to voting for it. The Senate passed AB 321 unanimously. Sadly here in Nevada, "trigger happy" on steroids can be prevalent in both parties, and it especially reoccurs when NRA and other gun lobby endorsements are at stake.

So far, there's been no hard evidence proving George Zimmerman was in danger of losing his life or any of his property when he spotted Trayvon Martin in his gated community. However that didn't stop certain folks in law enforcement from letting George Zimmerman go without charging him for homicide, simply because Zimmerman's lawyers claimed "Stand Your Ground" as his defense. There's a good chance we can see cases like this occur here in Nevada thanks to AB 321.

And frankly, that's why state statutes like Nevada's AB 321 and Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law frighten me. They set up a dangerous slippery slope for justifying as "self-defense" what would otherwise be declared manslaughter or murder. After all, what we may consider murder can be twisted by a smart criminal defense attorney into a "Stand Your Ground" situation just by insinuating that the homicide victim was somehow threatening the shooter's life and/or property, even if there's little or no evidence that the shooter was really at risk.

So why are we now falling down this slippery slope? Why did we have to take this downhill course in the first place? And can we afford to keep making decisions out of political convenience while ignoring future public safety crises?