MSM Spotlights Dunn Trial ; Ignores Blacks Killing Whites

[protectionist]

And there you go with the racist shit. Shame insane people don't know they are nuts. I would pay for an honest interview.

I think I would just about pay for someone to answer what I said in Post # 50. Any takers ?

The very nature of this incident is such that an acquittal would surely have resulted in rioting as bad if not worse than that which followed the 1992 Rodney King verdict in L.A. The Florida judicial system as well as the jurors in this case were well aware of that and were not willing to risk the potential damage by bending over backward to acquit an obvious loose cannon like Michael Dunn.

Dunn's actions were decidedly more aggressive than defensive because he had a clear opportunity to retreat. His mistakes were to fire at a retreating vehicle, which even police are forbidden to do, and not staying put and calling the police.

In my opinion Michael Dunn is either stupidly arrogant or he's insane.

Zimmerman's trial had just as much publicity. No riots.

If Dunn did see a gun, he may not have had time to retreat. In a split second, some
citizens have been shot and killed. In fact, retreating could even cause someone to be killed as it is easier/quicker to pop off a shot (if they had a gun), than for Dunn to get back in his car. we have the liberty to sit here ans speculate, but we're talking about a concealed weapon permit holder with a gun who needs t make a split second decision with life or death in the balance.

AS for a retreating vehicle, Again, IF someone in it had a gun, they could fire as well as from an approaching vehicle. It all hinges on whether Dunn saw a gun, which the prosecution couldn't prove.

I agree that Dunn should have remained and called police, but that still isn't as important as whether there was a visible gun (or look-alike) in the SUV.

 

[protectionist]

I finally heard somebody mention the idea of there being a gun (or at least the appearance of one) in the SUV.

3 eyewitnesses said otherwise.

Oh wait, they don't count. Because they're black. Never mind.

Yes, I get that you think that way, and possibly one of the jurors. Fortunately, the legal system and most people don't.

I get that you make stupid assumptions. Way to avoid that is by reading the thread. Try Post # 50 in which I said >> "Note also that even the prosecutor, John Guy admitted there were inconsistencies in the witness accounts., and in a criminal trial, inconsistencies add up to >>> REASONABLE DOUBT."

THAT is why they don't count (even according to the prosecutor), not because of race. Sorry you'll have to find something else to throw your race cards at.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I'm going to assume the OP is another racist come here to recruit for his board.

The post is sickeningly racist and bigoted.

You must hate this country so much. Why do you stay?

Sure beats actually addressing the issue, huh?

This dishonest deflection technique no longer works, sorry.

Anyway, back to the issue: MSNBC doesn't have time to cover meaningless stories like this, they're going too busy going after the important stuff, like traffic jams in Jersey.



.

My oh my.....you have become quite the hack. And we are all thankful that you never, ever resort to dishonest deflection.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Zimmerman's trial had just as much publicity. No riots.

Zimmerman's story was much more convincing. If Zimmerman had just left the scene and went for pizza, how do you think things would have turned out for him?

If Dunn did see a gun, he may not have had time to retreat. In a split second, some citizens have been shot and killed.

The car was moving away -- removing the immediate threat, which is the equivalent of retreating. To keep shooting at it is aggressive, not defensive. Regardless of how you and I might feel about it, that's how the Law sees it.

In fact, retreating could even cause someone to be killed as it is easier/quicker to pop off a shot (if they had a gun), than for Dunn to get back in his car. we have the liberty to sit here ans speculate, but we're talking about a concealed weapon permit holder with a gun who needs t make a split second decision with life or death in the balance.

And then drove away and went for pizza, like nothing more serious than an argument had happened.

AS for a retreating vehicle, Again, IF someone in it had a gun, they could fire as well as from an approaching vehicle.

The weight of that speculation hinges on whether a gun had been found. But being concerned with that contingency it is reasonable to assume Dunn would have stuck around to tell the police there was a car full of armed and dangerous persons on the loose?

It all hinges on whether Dunn saw a gun, which the prosecution couldn't prove.

I think it all hinges on Dunn leaving the scene.

I agree that Dunn should have remained and called police, but that still isn't as important as whether there was a visible gun (or look-alike) in the SUV.

True. But unfortunately for Dunn he didn't stick around and no gun was found. Your wishes and mine have no bearing on those cold facts. I'm not taking a biased position in this discussion. I'm presenting what I believe to be the objective facts. Dunn was convicted and I've told you why I believe it worked out that way.

 

[protectionist]

[...]

Zimmerman's trial had just as much publicity. No riots.

Zimmerman's story was much more convincing. If Zimmerman had just left the scene and went for pizza, how do you think things would have turned out for him?

If Dunn did see a gun, he may not have had time to retreat. In a split second, some citizens have been shot and killed.

The car was moving away -- removing the immediate threat, which is the equivalent of retreating. To keep shooting at it is aggressive, not defensive. Regardless of how you and I might feel about it, that's how the Law sees it.


And then drove away and went for pizza, like nothing more serious than an argument had happened.


The weight of that speculation hinges on whether a gun had been found. But being concerned with that contingency it is reasonable to assume Dunn would have stuck around to tell the police there was a car full of armed and dangerous persons on the loose?

It all hinges on whether Dunn saw a gun, which the prosecution couldn't prove.

I think it all hinges on Dunn leaving the scene.

I agree that Dunn should have remained and called police, but that still isn't as important as whether there was a visible gun (or look-alike) in the SUV.

True. But unfortunately for Dunn he didn't stick around and no gun was found. Your wishes and mine have no bearing on those cold facts. I'm not taking a biased position in this discussion. I'm presenting what I believe to be the objective facts. Dunn was convicted and I've told you why I believe it worked out that way.

I respect your opinion which I see as a bit more honest than some others in this thread. I'd just say the "no gun was found" aspect was obliterated when the SUV left the scene for long enough for a gun to be ditched. That is at least as relevant as Dunn leaving the scene.

I'm just hoping there is not getting to be a trend for courts and juries to acquiesce to the demands of the black power protesters for fear of riots or some kind of retaliation, and the heavily biased rants of MSM (CNN, HLN, MSNBC).

 

[protectionist]

Tonight I turned on CNN's Anderson Cooper show which was supposed to be a report on Dunn trial. First they had one of the jurors which was kind of interesting, Then they had a rather extensive interview with Jordan Davis' parents, who, not suprisingly were very anti-Dunn. Did they have anybody speaking from Dunn's defense ? No. His lawyer ? Nope ? His daughter ? Nope. Same old/same old. Surprising that these guys (in this case CNN) have no shame.

 

[SuMar]

I'm going to assume the OP is another racist come here to recruit for his board.

The post is sickeningly racist and bigoted.


You must hate this country so much. Why do you stay?

Actullay..liberal media are the racists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Tonight I turned on CNN's Anderson Cooper show which was supposed to be a report on Dunn trial. First they had one of the jurors which was kind of interesting, Then they had a rather extensive interview with Jordan Davis' parents, who, not suprisingly were very anti-Dunn. Did they have anybody speaking from Dunn's defense ? No. His lawyer ? Nope ? His daughter ? Nope. Same old/same old. Surprising that these guys (in this case CNN) have no shame.

This juror? The one who said it wasn't about race, and that Dunn was a good guy?

"Loud music" trial | Black Juror | Race Not Factor | Davis

Racist.

 

[protectionist]

Tonight I turned on CNN's Anderson Cooper show which was supposed to be a report on Dunn trial. First they had one of the jurors which was kind of interesting, Then they had a rather extensive interview with Jordan Davis' parents, who, not suprisingly were very anti-Dunn. Did they have anybody speaking from Dunn's defense ? No. His lawyer ? Nope ? His daughter ? Nope. Same old/same old. Surprising that these guys (in this case CNN) have no shame.

This juror? The one who said it wasn't about race, and that Dunn was a good guy?

"Loud music" trial | Black Juror | Race Not Factor | Davis

Racist.

Who are you calling a racist ? (not that it matters - coming from you - LOL)

 

[jon_berzerk]

Tonight I turned on CNN's Anderson Cooper show which was supposed to be a report on Dunn trial. First they had one of the jurors which was kind of interesting, Then they had a rather extensive interview with Jordan Davis' parents, who, not suprisingly were very anti-Dunn. Did they have anybody speaking from Dunn's defense ? No. His lawyer ? Nope ? His daughter ? Nope. Same old/same old. Surprising that these guys (in this case CNN) have no shame.

This juror? The one who said it wasn't about race, and that Dunn was a good guy?

"Loud music" trial | Black Juror | Race Not Factor | Davis

Racist.

Who are you calling a racist ? (not that it matters - coming from you - LOL)

juror 8 said it was not about race

in the dunn case

Black Juror in Dunn Case: Trial about Justice, not Race


Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

 

[protectionist]

The title of this OP says > " MSM Spotlights Dunn Trial..." I'd like to add something there. And that is HOW they are spotlighting. All we seem to hear about is RACE. And what a big bad wolf Micheal Dunn is.

When is HLN, CNN, MSNABC going to talk about WHAT HAPPENED in the Dunn shooting case, rather than just what a big bad wolf Michael Dunn is ? How about the 3 guys in the SUV ? Who are they ? They left the shooting scene right after the shooting ? Where did they go ? How long were they there? Did they return ? Who called the cops ? When did they arrive ? Did these 3 guys testify at the trial ? What did they say ? Did the cops testify ? What did THEY say ?
How did the prosecution prove there was no gun in the SUV ? If they didn't prove that, how can there be a conviction ?
Lots of time on the air. Still a lot of UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. We don't even know the names of the 3 guys in the SUV. If anybody has any of this information please tell us, and the source of your information.

 

[mamooth]

They left the shooting scene right after the shooting ? Where did they go ?

To the parking lot next door. Under observation of witnesses, who saw no gun dumped. Then quickly back to the gas station. Nowhere to dump a gun.

Here's a testimony summary. The friends are named. Dunn's lawyer focused on the "well, we can't be absolutely totally 100% positive there wasn't a gun!" defense, and it failed. It's unlikely that same defense would work any better a second time around, being it was so absurd.

"Loud Music" murder trial | Durango survivors testify | Michael Dunn

 

[Wry Catcher]

Think for a moment, if gun control is not opposed by the NRA we could reduce needless violence. Based on the OP, one might expect the obvious conclusion would be to support gun control. That the author of the OP used a few data points to draw a race based conclusion is probative that calling the author of the OP a racist is spot on.

 

[protectionist]

Think for a moment, if gun control is not opposed by the NRA we could reduce needless violence. Based on the OP, one might expect the obvious conclusion would be to support gun control. That the author of the OP used a few data points to draw a race based conclusion is probative that calling the author of the OP a racist is spot on.

What is spot on is calling you an idiot for saying that. The "conclusion" is that some MSM outlets are focusing on white on black crime, to an extreme degree, in a very biased, and racist (against whites) way, while ignoring the very evident (from plenty of "data points") black on white crime.

If you wish to talk about gun control, you're free to do so, and quite likely can find your way to the New Thread button. But saying that others should do that, rather than what they choose to write about is quite ridiculous. The point of the OP is a valid and important one, and the overwhelming anti-Dunn influence of 3 cable news stations could very well have skewed the voting of the jurors in the trial, in addition to just being horrendous "journalism".

 

[protectionist]

They left the shooting scene right after the shooting ? Where did they go ?

To the parking lot next door. Under observation of witnesses, who saw no gun dumped. Then quickly back to the gas station. Nowhere to dump a gun.

Here's a testimony summary. The friends are named. Dunn's lawyer focused on the "well, we can't be absolutely totally 100% positive there wasn't a gun!" defense, and it failed. It's unlikely that same defense would work any better a second time around, being it was so absurd.

"Loud Music" murder trial | Durango survivors testify | Michael Dunn

1. The LI article of Andrew Branca doesn't quite correlate with what you said here. You said "To the parking lot next door. Under observation of witnesses, who saw no gun dumped." The LI article says 2 witnesses testified who were "two witnesses who observed the SUV for the brief period it had pulled away from the gas station." So they were not witnesses of anything pertaining to the SUV AFTER that brief period, while it was in the parking lot (shopping plaza) adjacent to the gas station, quite some distance away, and would not have seen a gun being dumped at that location. How can anyone say "Nowhere to dump a gun" I suppose it could have been dumped in some thick bushes, a dumpster, a parked car with a window carelessly left open, etc.

2 The LI article mentions that "interviews conducted at the police station by detectives were not recorded, despite the station having adequate capabilities to do so". It goes on to note that Dunn's lawyer >> "seems he intends to argue that this allowed the statements of the Durango survivors to be altered and coordinated over time." Not so trivial a point.

3. LI article >> "...when Corey asked Holmes where his notebook was from the night of the shooting, and Holmes casually indicated that the notebook was gone, destroyed. This seemed as if it might have some import, but Strolla never touched upon it in cross.
Offline, a Federal law enforcement officer contacted me to share that in his service notebooks were dated and destroyed by fire at pre-determined intervals, to ensure the confidentiality of their contents. Perhaps a similar policy is being followed by the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office."


4. Although some witnesses were at the scene it is not established if they were either otherwise preoccupied or so shocked that that didn't see a gun if there was one there. They certainly wouldn't have been looking for one, and one often doesn't see what one is not looking for. Also, mitigating this is John Guy's admission that there were inconsistencies" among the witness accounts.

5. LI article >> "Consistent with Strolla’s narrative that Davis’ weapon was “stashed” and never found, it is necessary that the crime scene have been less than fully secured. Naturally, a few patrol cars and some yellow tape do not an impermeable sphere make, so there was some opportunity for Strolla to point out areas where Shore wasn’t absolutely certain if this or that had been secured at one or another moment in time."

6. LI article >> Davis was in an aggressive mode against Dunn, shouting profanities at him, which Dunn did not do the same.

7. LI article >> After finding Davis shot the boys did not call 911, giving them time to stash a gun before they drove back to the gas station.

8. LI article >> Leland Brunson, one of the 4 SUV occupants, testified that >> "that Davis was gesticulating with his right hand, in which he held a cell phone, but that he never made gun-like or similar motions with his hand." However, at bit of a distance and in low light, a cell phone could be mistaken for a gun.

9. LI article >> "Brunson said Dunn was speaking in a normal, conversational tone of voice. He also agreed that Dunn had never tried to get out of his car. Brunson agreed that it was Davis who was yelling, getting more mad, and driving the escalation of the situation."

10. In contrast to the many MSM voices who have claimed that Davis was "unarmed", actually >> "It was also revealed that Davis himself had, in fact, been armed, with a “Smith & Wesson tactical knife.”

11. LI article >> Regarding witness Melissa LeBlanc >> "She agreed that she couldn’t testify to what she hadn’t seen."

12. LI article >> Regarding witness Christopher LeBlanc >> "in his initial reports to police he had suggested that the occupants of the vehicle appeared as if they were trying to stash something inside the vehicle."

Reading all this I see no evidence on the prosecution's side that the SUV did not have gun (which could have been stashed inside or outside of the SUV). What also hasn't been noted is that a gun could have still been in the SUV when the boys returned back to the gas station and then dumped, before police arrived. And it could have been dumped anywhere. And if this happened the kids dumping a gun wouldn't do it where they saw people watching them. They'd get to a spot where they couldn't be observed, look around, and THEN dump that gun. Legal bottom line. Once Dunn claimed self-defense, and that he saw a gun, it is the prosecution's duty to prove there was no gun, not Dunn or Strolla's duty to prove there was one. I still don't see where the prosecution ever did that, leaving the jury no choice but to acquit. Should be plenty of potential for a repeal of the guilty verdicts on appeal, based on the same defense of no proof of absence of a gun.

I can't help getting the feeling that the jury was either influenced by a heavy amount of anti-Dunn, MSM broadcasting (if not a campaign against him), and/or a fear of retaliation from the black community's lunatic fringe, who made themselves very vocal, audible, and visible, over the past 3 months.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The title of this OP says > " MSM Spotlights Dunn Trial..." I'd like to add something there. And that is HOW they are spotlighting. All we seem to hear about is RACE. And what a big bad wolf Micheal Dunn is.

When is HLN, CNN, MSNABC going to talk about WHAT HAPPENED in the Dunn shooting case, rather than just what a big bad wolf Michael Dunn is ? How about the 3 guys in the SUV ? Who are they ? They left the shooting scene right after the shooting ? Where did they go ? How long were they there? Did they return ? Who called the cops ? When did they arrive ? Did these 3 guys testify at the trial ? What did they say ? Did the cops testify ? What did THEY say ?
How did the prosecution prove there was no gun in the SUV ? If they didn't prove that, how can there be a conviction ?
Lots of time on the air. Still a lot of UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. We don't even know the names of the 3 guys in the SUV. If anybody has any of this information please tell us, and the source of your information.

Still trying to make this about race, what a surprise.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Think for a moment, if gun control is not opposed by the NRA we could reduce needless violence. Based on the OP, one might expect the obvious conclusion would be to support gun control. That the author of the OP used a few data points to draw a race based conclusion is probative that calling the author of the OP a racist is spot on.

What is spot on is calling you an idiot for saying that. The "conclusion" is that some MSM outlets are focusing on white on black crime, to an extreme degree, in a very biased, and racist (against whites) way, while ignoring the very evident (from plenty of "data points") black on white crime.

If you wish to talk about gun control, you're free to do so, and quite likely can find your way to the New Thread button. But saying that others should do that, rather than what they choose to write about is quite ridiculous. The point of the OP is a valid and important one, and the overwhelming anti-Dunn influence of 3 cable news stations could very well have skewed the voting of the jurors in the trial, in addition to just being horrendous "journalism".

I'm sorry, I'm not an idiot and whenever anyone defaults to name calling of that sort I immediately infer they're an asshole.

It is my hope that your water heater begins to leak, you hire a non union scab to save a few dollars and end up without hot water for a week, and receive a citation for you failure to secure a permit as required by code.

 

[protectionist]

The title of this OP says > " MSM Spotlights Dunn Trial..." I'd like to add something there. And that is HOW they are spotlighting. All we seem to hear about is RACE. And what a big bad wolf Micheal Dunn is.

When is HLN, CNN, MSNABC going to talk about WHAT HAPPENED in the Dunn shooting case, rather than just what a big bad wolf Michael Dunn is ? How about the 3 guys in the SUV ? Who are they ? They left the shooting scene right after the shooting ? Where did they go ? How long were they there? Did they return ? Who called the cops ? When did they arrive ? Did these 3 guys testify at the trial ? What did they say ? Did the cops testify ? What did THEY say ?
How did the prosecution prove there was no gun in the SUV ? If they didn't prove that, how can there be a conviction ?
Lots of time on the air. Still a lot of UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. We don't even know the names of the 3 guys in the SUV. If anybody has any of this information please tell us, and the source of your information.

Still trying to make this about race, what a surprise.

Among your other problems, apparently is not being able to read very well.

 

[protectionist]

Think for a moment, if gun control is not opposed by the NRA we could reduce needless violence. Based on the OP, one might expect the obvious conclusion would be to support gun control. That the author of the OP used a few data points to draw a race based conclusion is probative that calling the author of the OP a racist is spot on.

What is spot on is calling you an idiot for saying that. The "conclusion" is that some MSM outlets are focusing on white on black crime, to an extreme degree, in a very biased, and racist (against whites) way, while ignoring the very evident (from plenty of "data points") black on white crime.

If you wish to talk about gun control, you're free to do so, and quite likely can find your way to the New Thread button. But saying that others should do that, rather than what they choose to write about is quite ridiculous. The point of the OP is a valid and important one, and the overwhelming anti-Dunn influence of 3 cable news stations could very well have skewed the voting of the jurors in the trial, in addition to just being horrendous "journalism".

I'm sorry, I'm not an idiot and whenever anyone defaults to name calling of that sort I immediately infer they're an asshole.

So if anyone (that would include YOU) defaults to name calling of that sort, and you immediately infer they're an asshole, then (having just done that) you just inferred that YOU are an asshole. OK. We'll take your word for it.

 

[ScienceRocks]

People kill people every single day. The only reason the msn is reporting this is they want blacks to hate whites. They want hatred to be directed at all whites.

This is racism.