Latest Headlines
- Semi, Pickup Crash Closes Highway 29 For Hours In Cantonment
- Now That Matt Gaetz Has Resigned After Being Picked For Trump’s AG, Who Will Seek His Seat?
- Thursday Afternoon Update: CSX Railroad Crossing Closures
- Update: Northwest Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz Resigns From Congress After AG Nomination
- New ‘Wind Phone’ In Cantonment ‘Connects’ Grieving Families With Deceased Loved Ones
- Jay Couple Wins State Agriculture Competition, $45,000 Prize
- Century Paying $500 COVID-19 Stipend To Some Employees
- Escambia County Sheriff’s Office Creating Law Enforcement Memorial Plaza
- New Details Emerge In Fatal DUI Crash That Killed 14-Year-Old Cantonment Boy; Driver Released On Bond
- Cantonment Rotary Donates To Hurricane Relief
Former Marine Guilty In Murder Of Escambia Teen
November 30, 2012
A former Marine was found guilty Thursday of the December 2011 murder of an Escambia County teen.
Michael Palmer Davis, 26, was convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter; he had been charged with second degree murder for the shooting death of Alonzo Dewayne Knight.
Deputies responded to the 7100 block of Princess Lane near Fairfield Drive and Patricia Drive during the early morning hours of December 2, 2011. Upon arrival, Knight was
pronounced dead at the scene from a gunshot wound.
Authorities said a friend of Davis got into argument with several teenagers. During the argument, Davis fired a shot from 142 feet away, striking and killing Knight. Davis’ attorney argued that he was trying to break up the situation and did not actually intend to shoot anyone. As a trained Marine, the defense argued, he thought the shot was properly fired and he never thought a shot fired at the ground would hit someone.
Davis faces up to 30 years in prison when he is sentenced in January.
Comments
14 Responses to “Former Marine Guilty In Murder Of Escambia Teen”
While I admit I do not know the whole story, I have to still ask myself why, at his age, he was in the company of teenagers. Using a weapon if any sort to break up a fight is very extreme force but a firearm? If he had the training he states he had, wouldn’t he have learned if the ricochet effect? I do agree, shooting in the air would’ve been a better idea, but not using a firearm in the first place would be been his best option other than staying out of the argument all together.
@amused reader,,,,,,, ditto
@ Need justice
“If he didn’t intend on killing anyone, why didn’t he shoot up in the air. Sure looks like he regrets his action in the mug shot.”
Do you think those rounds shot in the air don’t come down?
There are no “former” Marines, you are active or inactive.
#Proud Old Vet: First thank you for your service. Second, the reason that it is noted that the perpetrator was a former Marine is b/c it was used in both his defense and by the prosecution. It is material to the case and that is why it was part of this news story.
soners,
There is no such thing as a “registered” weapon.
As a former Non-Com myself I think the inclusion of ” once a Marine” is ok. However , I am suprized that it worked to his advantage. After all, we all (U.S. Army here) were taught when and where to use “deadly Force”…… breaking up a fight from 142 feet away does not constitue the use of deadly force to me. And why is he running around with a weapon? simple answer to that is he knew he was used to involving himself in the kind of street Biz that would warrant using a weapon on the street. I am sure the weapon was registered and that he had a concealed weapons permit,,,,right?
Good job William, I’m a vet and had no problem with the article.
William is correct. The perp’s lawyer used the “once a marine” argument to get the verdict reduced from the 2nd degree murder charge, that he should receive. Shooting someone that is 142 feet away from you when you are next to your vehicle and can easily leave, is murder.
It appears the story has some added information not reported in the original version.
Proud Old Vet…I too served over 20 years and am tired of the sensationalism. WELCOME HOME.
>>Why did you find it necessary to include “Former Marine” in bold print in your headline when it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the article? If he had been an employee of yours, would you have included that in the headline as well? Just wondering.
Former Marine has everything to do with the this story — it was the backbone of his defense. The defense alleged that with weapons training in the Marines, he thought he would be able to fire into the ground and stop the ongoing argument. They argued that with his training he had not reason to believe the shot would hit someone, and it was all an accident.
And “wondering”, if we had an employee or former employee arrested, that would certainly be mentioned in the interest of fairness and disclosure.
Why did you find it necessary to include “Former Marine” in bold print in your headline when it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the article? If he had been an employee of yours, would you have included that in the headline as well? Just wondering.
If he didn’t intend on killing anyone, why didn’t he shoot up in the air. Sure looks like he regrets his action in the mug shot.
What does the fact that this man was “once” a MARINE have to do with his crime?
If he were a former Grocery Store Clerk or Fast Food Employee, would you have reported that information?
My guess is that the answer is NO!
As a proud veteran who served this country for over 20 years I am sick and tired of the “news media” trying to sensationalize stories at the cost of trying to shame our military men who served proudly and continue to be productive citizens.