Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You didn't even follow the trial, did you?
They couldn't watch anything about the trial because they were sequestered in hotel rooms without television sets or internet access.
And sheriff's deputies outside the rooms to make sure they didn't sneak out.
And on what date did that begin ? Don't lie. I know the answer. Ah I'll just tell you. The sequester didn't occur until February. The killing occured in November. Get it ?
Doesn't matter. From that point on they saw nothing, heard nothing once the jury selection was made.
The findings are almost 100% appellate proof.
They didn't need to see or hear anything in the media to know that a "not guilty" verdict would likely inspire the heathens to riot.
And on what date did that begin ? Don't lie. I know the answer. Ah I'll just tell you. The sequester didn't occur until February. The killing occured in November. Get it ?
Doesn't matter. From that point on they saw nothing, heard nothing once the jury selection was made.
The findings are almost 100% appellate proof.
Are you retarded ? Of course it matters. They just went through 2+ months of indocrination to be biased against Dunn, on 3 cable channels, by dozens of Dunn-haters, and nothing much else. Like tonight, on CNN, Jeffery Toobin ridiculously said Dunn shot an unarmed man. How does he know he was unarmed ? Nobody knows that, except the 3 kids in the SUV.
Or it might confirm I can toy with your mind and make you jump through hoops. I meant to say exactly what I said. It was done to specifically to make you focus on that since you have nothing else. Like the idiot you are, you did just that. How do you like getting schooled moron?
Nice attempt at escaping egg on your face. You didn't escape. Looks like you need practice dodging, as long as you're going to make an idiot out of yourself this badly. HA HA, Oh man, that was too funny. You said you would not be able to type, and immediately before that, youmade a mistake typing.
As for your obviousattempt to save face, all that can be said is >>
You are trying way too hard. Your post looks like a scene from Mario Brothers. You must not have much joy in your life. I am glad I made you laugh. Or was it false relief?
Doesn't matter. From that point on they saw nothing, heard nothing once the jury selection was made.
The findings are almost 100% appellate proof.
Are you retarded ? Of course it matters. They just went through 2+ months of indocrination to be biased against Dunn, on 3 cable channels, by dozens of Dunn-haters, and nothing much else. Like tonight, on CNN, Jeffery Toobin ridiculously said Dunn shot an unarmed man. How does he know he was unarmed ? Nobody knows that, except the 3 kids in the SUV.
HLN is the worst
they have defense attorneys on all the time
that very seldom if ever present a defense stance
on which ever defendant they are watching at the time
Dunn was stupid, he should have stayed on the seen and called the cops.
Yep, he would be as free as Zimmerman if he had stayed.Dunn was stupid, he should have stayed on the seen and called the cops.
Dunn was stupid, he should have stayed on the seen and called the cops.
They didn't need to see or hear anything in the media to know that a "not guilty" verdict would likely inspire the heathens to riot.
Which might be the very one thing that inspired them to make a guilty verdict (when the prosecution never proved there wasn't a gun in the SUV)
They didn't need to see or hear anything in the media to know that a "not guilty" verdict would likely inspire the heathens to riot.
Which might be the very one thing that inspired them to make a guilty verdict (when the prosecution never proved there wasn't a gun in the SUV)
Isn't it impossible to prove a negative - that something was NOT there? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the defense to prove that there WAS a gun? If the burden of proof is on prosecution to meet an unattainable threshold of "proof" that something was NOT there, what stops anyone in a car from shooting anyone else in a car and claiming self-defense cuz they saw a gun and you can't prove they DIDN'T have one? I don't care what your preconceived stereotypes are of how likely or unlikely someone is to have a gun or not, that's not a justice system I can support.
They didn't need to see or hear anything in the media to know that a "not guilty" verdict would likely inspire the heathens to riot.
Which might be the very one thing that inspired them to make a guilty verdict (when the prosecution never proved there wasn't a gun in the SUV)
Isn't it impossible to prove a negative - that something was NOT there? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the defense to prove that there WAS a gun? If the burden of proof is on prosecution to meet an unattainable threshold of "proof" that something was NOT there, what stops anyone in a car from shooting anyone else in a car and claiming self-defense cuz they saw a gun and you can't prove they DIDN'T have one? I don't care what your preconceived stereotypes are of how likely or unlikely someone is to have a gun or not, that's not a justice system I can support.
Which might be the very one thing that inspired them to make a guilty verdict (when the prosecution never proved there wasn't a gun in the SUV)
Isn't it impossible to prove a negative - that something was NOT there? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the defense to prove that there WAS a gun? If the burden of proof is on prosecution to meet an unattainable threshold of "proof" that something was NOT there, what stops anyone in a car from shooting anyone else in a car and claiming self-defense cuz they saw a gun and you can't prove they DIDN'T have one? I don't care what your preconceived stereotypes are of how likely or unlikely someone is to have a gun or not, that's not a justice system I can support.
it is up to the state to prove
that dun did not act in justifiable self defense
Isn't it impossible to prove a negative - that something was NOT there? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the defense to prove that there WAS a gun? If the burden of proof is on prosecution to meet an unattainable threshold of "proof" that something was NOT there, what stops anyone in a car from shooting anyone else in a car and claiming self-defense cuz they saw a gun and you can't prove they DIDN'T have one? I don't care what your preconceived stereotypes are of how likely or unlikely someone is to have a gun or not, that's not a justice system I can support.
it is up to the state to prove
that dun did not act in justifiable self defense
That's it, in a nutshell.
Yep, he would be as free as Zimmerman if he had stayed.Dunn was stupid, he should have stayed on the seen and called the cops.
Isn't it impossible to prove a negative - that something was NOT there? Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the defense to prove that there WAS a gun? If the burden of proof is on prosecution to meet an unattainable threshold of "proof" that something was NOT there, what stops anyone in a car from shooting anyone else in a car and claiming self-defense cuz they saw a gun and you can't prove they DIDN'T have one? I don't care what your preconceived stereotypes are of how likely or unlikely someone is to have a gun or not, that's not a justice system I can support.
it is up to the state to prove
that dun did not act in justifiable self defense
That's it, in a nutshell.
The prosecution doesn't have to prove that there wasn't a gun. If the gun had been found then it would have been hard to convict. Dunn said he thought he saw a gun. Ok, we'll we didn't find one so we have to go by the evidence we HAVE.
