Loud Music Murder Trial {KING}

First of all, the kid wasn't shot because the music was too loud, he was shot because the shooter thought he saw a gun come out. Stop with the bull shit already.

Secondly, I cannot really say since I wasn't there and I don't know the evidence. My opinion, for what it is worth (and that ain't much) is that only an idiot would shoot his gun because he "thought" he saw one. Something is t right about that defense. Did he already have his gun out? If so, why? If not, he had enough time to draw his weapon so he had enough time to be sure it was a gun he saw.

Bad choice on the side of the defendant. At the very least he should get the lowest penalty for manslaughter. Again though, I'm only going by the VERY unreliable info I've heard on the case.

If there was no gun found, that defense is bullshit.

Agreed.

My point was that he should have had time to discern wether there was a gun or not, since he had time to draw his weapon. If his weapon was already out then he's the aggressor IMO. The defense doesn't make sense to me. Of course, this is based on my limited knowledge of the case.
 
An unarmed kid in Florida killed because someone thought the music was too loud in a car he was in.


Should Dunn go to prison for murder, or be aquitted?

What will the outcome of the case do to the way people in Florida and nationally start interpreting Stand Your Ground and Self-Defense laws? Will blacks feel some type of way if Dunn is aquitted? If Dunn goes to prison, will the sentence be substancial, or reduced?

What do you think?

He absolutely positively killed the young man. Only question is was he justified doing so? I don't believe he was. I don't believe he believes he was or he woulda stayed and waited for police to arrive. Plus, having a gun in the first place means you suffer from an irrational amount of fear of strangers. What should have been a simple "Could you please turn your music down?" became an attack born out of irrational reactions to whatever the victim said. Yet none of that then justified firing on him. The shooter caused the incident beginning to end. He woulda only been there a couple minutes then left. If you can't grit your teeth and bear loud music that long, that's more your problem than their's.

I hope he's found guilty. I just wish the death penalty was on the table. He deserves death.

The death penalty for believing he was protecting himself?

You liberals just want the animals to take over.

Was he supposed to wait until shots were being fired at him?

Florida law says he doesn't have to.

Grit our teeth and bear the loud music?

This isn't about loud music, it's about a car full of young thugs who were spoken to by an adult and reacted aggressively.
 
An unarmed kid in Florida killed because someone thought the music was too loud in a car he was in.


Should Dunn go to prison for murder, or be aquitted?

What will the outcome of the case do to the way people in Florida and nationally start interpreting Stand Your Ground and Self-Defense laws? Will blacks feel some type of way if Dunn is aquitted? If Dunn goes to prison, will the sentence be substancial, or reduced?

What do you think?

He absolutely positively killed the young man. Only question is was he justified doing so? I don't believe he was. I don't believe he believes he was or he woulda stayed and waited for police to arrive. Plus, having a gun in the first place means you suffer from an irrational amount of fear of strangers. What should have been a simple "Could you please turn your music down?" became an attack born out of irrational reactions to whatever the victim said. Yet none of that then justified firing on him. The shooter caused the incident beginning to end. He woulda only been there a couple minutes then left. If you can't grit your teeth and bear loud music that long, that's more your problem than their's.

I hope he's found guilty. I just wish the death penalty was on the table. He deserves death.

I agree with your main point but your statement that having a gun means you have an irrational fear is stupidity in the extreme.
 
People shouldn't kill people in cold blood because of stupid music. Only a idiot would listen to such crap but murder be you the thug or the guy that doesn't like it isn't right.

I heard this from a moderately reliable source. That the shooter claims he filled the "three step" process required. This means that he did not have a CCW permit. It also means that he had even more time to consider what he was doing. That is one of the purposes of that particular law. If this is true, he definitely should be found guilty.

I also heard that the shots came through the back windows of the "thugs'" vehicle, implying that the victims were leaving.

Unless my info is totally wrong, this guy does time.
 
People shouldn't kill people in cold blood because of stupid music. Only a idiot would listen to such crap but murder be you the thug or the guy that doesn't like it isn't right.

According to the defendant, and my understanding of the case, he wasn't shot because of the music, he was shot because of a perceived threat.
 
First of all, the kid wasn't shot because the music was too loud, he was shot because the shooter thought he saw a gun come out. Stop with the bull shit already.

Secondly, I cannot really say since I wasn't there and I don't know the evidence. My opinion, for what it is worth (and that ain't much) is that only an idiot would shoot his gun because he "thought" he saw one. Something is t right about that defense. Did he already have his gun out? If so, why? If not, he had enough time to draw his weapon so he had enough time to be sure it was a gun he saw.

Bad choice on the side of the defendant. At the very least he should get the lowest penalty for manslaughter. Again though, I'm only going by the VERY unreliable info I've heard on the case.

If there was no gun found, that defense is bullshit.

Agreed.

My point was that he should have had time to discern wether there was a gun or not, since he had time to draw his weapon. If his weapon was already out then he's the aggressor IMO. The defense doesn't make sense to me. Of course, this is based on my limited knowledge of the case.

Doesn't help that he ran from his crime.
 
Michael Dunn fatally shot 17-year-old Jordan Davis in November 2012 during a dispute at a Jacksonville gas station, but the 47-year-old man claims the shooting was in self-defense.

Dunn was charged with first-degree murder, and he was also charged with the attempted murders of three other people in the SUV with Davis the day after Thanksgiving.

"I hate that thug music," white man told fiancée moments before gunning down black teen

I'm surprised this guy isn't a bigger right wing hero than Zimmerman.

There's not enough room for Dunn to be a hero. The hero roll is already clogged with cops and prosecutors who sent THESE guys to prison >> New Nation News - Black-on-White Crime

As for Dunn, IF there is evidence they SUV guys were unarmed, THEN there pobably should be a conviction. From what I've heard, even the prosecution has not presented any evidence they were unarmed. The prosecutor John Guy openly admits there were "inconsistencies" in witness accounts. "It's not like television," he said. "In real life, there are inconsistencies."

Well maybe so, Mr. Guy, but you being a lawyer, ought to know those "inconsistencies", in a criminal trial, add up to >>> REASONABLE DOUBT.
 
An unarmed kid in Florida killed because someone thought the music was too loud in a car he was in.


Should Dunn go to prison for murder, or be aquitted?

What will the outcome of the case do to the way people in Florida and nationally start interpreting Stand Your Ground and Self-Defense laws? Will blacks feel some type of way if Dunn is aquitted? If Dunn goes to prison, will the sentence be substancial, or reduced?

What do you think?

I think if Stand your Ground laws stay and spread, we have simply enabled society to legally engage in armed warfare. If there is no legal criteria to justify our use of firearms other than that someone FEELS threatened - no physical evidence of a threat need exist, then we are all authorized to walk out our doors and start shooting ANYONE we do not like.

The Stand your Ground law is idiotic madness.
 
Angela Corey AGAIN, was unable to get any charge to stick on a grown man with a gun killing an unarmed teen where the adult initiated the confrontation.
 

Forum List

Back
Top