Dunn Sentenced to Life w/o Parole. Was He Even Guilty ?

[protectionist]

"That the prosecution never PROVED that Dunn didn't act in self-defense" is a false statement, period.

Another is true, when it comes to Protectionist's postings protesting Dunn's convictions: Protectionist has "been refuted 100 times in this thread."

1. Show me even ONE instance where the prosecutin proved that Dunn didn't act in self-defense (hint: you'll have to prove the the kids did not have a gun in their SUV - that's IMPOSSIBLE.

2. Show me ONE instance where I have been refuted. Again > you'll hav eto shoiw the prosecution proving that the kids did not have a gun in their SUV - and that's IMPOSSIBLE.

 

[protectionist]

Dunn and done, as we used to say about Johnny Dunn driving for a basket.

Who ? Hah ? Wha ? Oh, never mind.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The jury accepted the prosecution's story: that is PROOF.

No one has to show you anything. You have created a false standard, which Dunn's defense team tried and failed.

That a white man can shoot a black person and go to jail is what you are horrified about to your tippy toes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I refer you to the evidence brought forth in the courtroom.

Then, like I said, you haven't shown a shred of evidence to prove it, because they didn't bring the evidence needed, in the courtroom. They didn't prove their case.

I don't have to show evidence. You are wrong, apparently they DID prove their case. Guilty.

Yes you do have to show evidence. In this thread you are the accuser. Burden of proof is always on the accuser. Show me how the prosecution proved their case. I say they did not do that (and in fact, they COULD NOT do that) This is a case where it is impossible to prove there was no gun.

They proved that Dunn fired the shots
They proved the boys were unarmed and no threat to him
They proved he kept firing even though he was in no personal jeopardy
They proved he is a dick

They did NOT prove the boys were unarmed, or that it was not SELF-DEFENSE. Can you ? They also did NOT prove that Dunn was in no personal jeopardy while he fired. Just because one guy at the wheel is driving away, doesn't mean another guy couldn't shoot from a fleeing vehicle. In road chases, cops have been killed by being shot by passengers in a fleeing vehicle,

Nonsense.

The state indeed disproved the defendant's claim of self-defense, the jury's verdict is proof of that fact.

 

[protectionist]

The jury accepted the prosecution's story: that is PROOF.

No one has to show you anything. You have created a false standard, which Dunn's defense team tried and failed.

That a white man can shoot a black person and go to jail is what you are horrified about to your tippy toes.

Juries accept prosecution stories all the time, only to have an innocent man be freed after being in prison for 25 years. The Innocence Project has a long list of these cases. That a jury accepted the prosecution's tale, doesn't rate a hill of beans in this case.

Yes you do have to show something. You have to show that there was not a gun in the SUV, AND YOU CAN'T.

That a white man can shoot a black person, and be freed from jail in an appeal trial, is what you are horrified about to your tippy toes.

 

[mamooth]

Remember, absolute proof is _not_ the standard that has to be met. Which is good, being how absolute proof is usually impossible.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the required legal standard, and that standard was met.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the prosecution has to show nothing now: the case is over.

Now the defense has to show something, and I predict that it will fail miserably.

 

[PredFan]

Let me check:

Trayvon Martin is still dead, George Zimmerman is still not in jail, and Dunn is going to jail. It's three wins for justice. Now if we can free the cop in Fergusson, jail the looters there and send Al and Jesse to North Korea, all will be right with the world.

 

[jon_berzerk]

A Duval County judge in Florida sentenced Michael Dunn to Life w/o possibility of parole, for killing Jordan Davis, a young black boy, who was in an SUV with 3 friends. The judge and others in the trial all seem to have concluded that Dunn was guilty without any shadow of reasonable doubt.

The judge told Dunn >> "Mr. Dunn, your life is effectively over," ...What is sad... is that this case exemplifies that our society seems to have lost its way." This statement may be true, but in what way ? Did Angela Corey, the prosecutor (and famous for her attempted kangeroo court lynching of George Zimmerman) ever PROVE that Dunn did not shoot in self-defense ? I don't think she did. And based on that, I don't see how Dunn could have even been convicted, much less get life w/o parole.

So is this a case of society losing it's way because of someone shooting recklessly, or is it a case of more pandering to the race hustler loudmouths, and their perpetual threat of riots ? Would Dunn have been convicted and sentenced to life w/o parole, if he were black and Davis was white ?

It looks like Dunn may have gotten a raw deal here, just because he's white, and the kid he killed was black.

no collaborating evidence and flight from the scene

indicated a guilty verdict

 

[Esmeralda]

I refer you to the evidence brought forth in the courtroom.

Then, like I said, you haven't shown a shred of evidence to prove it, because they didn't bring the evidence needed, in the courtroom. They didn't prove their case.

I don't have to show evidence. You are wrong, apparently they DID prove their case. Guilty.

Yes you do have to show evidence. In this thread you are the accuser. Burden of proof is always on the accuser. Show me how the prosecution proved their case. I say they did not do that (and in fact, they COULD NOT do that) This is a case where it is impossible to prove there was no gun.

YOU were not on the Jury, end of story.

The mere fact that we have a thread going here (and you're part of it ), shows it's NOT the end of the story.

That's not true. I think people are just mesmerized by your complete lack of understanding of the situation here. There is no evidence the boys had a weapon. Everyone keeps telling you, but you just don't get it. Just because the killer says he saw a gun or thought he saw one, the prosecution is under no obligation to prove there was no gun, and, in fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative. This is a ridiculous thread alright, and you are the one making it ridiculous
.

 

[Esmeralda]

LINK??

The judge was right - Dunn threw away his own life. Very sad because it never should have happened. I hope it sends a message to others who think they'll get away with gunning down kids for loud music. Same with other, over-the-top, crazies who shoot someone for texting or throwing popcorn or knocking on your door.

Dunn claimed he saw a gun, and that he fired in SELF-DEFENSE. So you being the accuser, have the burden of proof to prove that he did not see a gun. Nobody in the trial proved that. Can you ?

For whatever it's worth, here's your link. >>

Life without parole for loud-music murderer in Florida - CNN.com

There were never any guns found. The boys did not have any guns.

It is not the burden of the defense to produce a gun. It is the burden of prosecution to prove there was NOT A GUN. They did NOT do that.

You just don't get it. You can't prove a negative. Logic 101. You're an idiot.

Then you don't have a case. Cases require proof. Didn't you know ?

You cannot prove a negative. How many times do I have to tell you? What an idiot.

 

[protectionist]

Remember, absolute proof is _not_ the standard that has to be met. Which is good, being how absolute proof is usually impossible.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the required legal standard, and that standard was met.

It most certainly was NOT met. Not a shred of evidence was produced to show that the gun Dunn claims he saw, wasn't there. NO PROOF was given at all, much less beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[protectionist]

No, the prosecution has to show nothing now: the case is over.

Now the defense has to show something, and I predict that it will fail miserably.

The case is going to be appealed. And whether YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS (and mine) will be trampled on again, will depend on WHO is handling the case. You have a very lackadasical attitude to your freedom (to be innocent until proven guilty) being scrubbed away.

 

[protectionist]

Let me check:

Trayvon Martin is still dead, George Zimmerman is still not in jail, and Dunn is going to jail. It's three wins for justice. Now if we can free the cop in Fergusson, jail the looters there and send Al and Jesse to North Korea, all will be right with the world.

FALSE! They didn't prove their case against Dunn, and you haven't here either. You are trying to take credit for what you have not achieved.

 

[protectionist]

A Duval County judge in Florida sentenced Michael Dunn to Life w/o possibility of parole, for killing Jordan Davis, a young black boy, who was in an SUV with 3 friends. The judge and others in the trial all seem to have concluded that Dunn was guilty without any shadow of reasonable doubt.

The judge told Dunn >> "Mr. Dunn, your life is effectively over," ...What is sad... is that this case exemplifies that our society seems to have lost its way." This statement may be true, but in what way ? Did Angela Corey, the prosecutor (and famous for her attempted kangeroo court lynching of George Zimmerman) ever PROVE that Dunn did not shoot in self-defense ? I don't think she did. And based on that, I don't see how Dunn could have even been convicted, much less get life w/o parole.

So is this a case of society losing it's way because of someone shooting recklessly, or is it a case of more pandering to the race hustler loudmouths, and their perpetual threat of riots ? Would Dunn have been convicted and sentenced to life w/o parole, if he were black and Davis was white ?

It looks like Dunn may have gotten a raw deal here, just because he's white, and the kid he killed was black.

no collaborating evidence and flight from the scene

indicated a guilty verdict

It's debatable whether Dunn's leaving was a flight, or for other reasons. even if it ever did be defined as a flight, that's not enough for a murder conviction.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Dunn claimed he saw a gun, and that he fired in SELF-DEFENSE. So you being the accuser, have the burden of proof to prove that he did not see a gun. Nobody in the trial proved that. Can you ?

For whatever it's worth, here's your link. >>

Life without parole for loud-music murderer in Florida - CNN.com

There were never any guns found. The boys did not have any guns.

It is not the burden of the defense to produce a gun. It is the burden of prosecution to prove there was NOT A GUN. They did NOT do that.

You just don't get it. You can't prove a negative. Logic 101. You're an idiot.

Then you don't have a case. Cases require proof. Didn't you know ?

You cannot prove a negative. How many times do I have to tell you? What an idiot.

He doesn't know that means. Give him an example and have him try to prove it.

 

[protectionist]

Then, like I said, you haven't shown a shred of evidence to prove it, because they didn't bring the evidence needed, in the courtroom. They didn't prove their case.

I don't have to show evidence. You are wrong, apparently they DID prove their case. Guilty.

Yes you do have to show evidence. In this thread you are the accuser. Burden of proof is always on the accuser. Show me how the prosecution proved their case. I say they did not do that (and in fact, they COULD NOT do that) This is a case where it is impossible to prove there was no gun.

YOU were not on the Jury, end of story.

The mere fact that we have a thread going here (and you're part of it ), shows it's NOT the end of the story.

That's not true. I think people are just mesmerized by your complete lack of understanding of the situation here. There is no evidence the boys had a weapon. Everyone keeps telling you, but you just don't get it. Just because the killer says he saw a gun or thought he saw one, the prosecution is under no obligation to prove there was no gun, and, in fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative. This is a ridiculous thread alright, and you are the one making it ridiculous
.

Sounds like YOU are the one not understanding. I never said there was evidence that the boy had a weapon. I said there is no evidence that he did NOT have one, which the prosecution would need for a conviction. And YES, the prosecution most certainly IS under the obligation to prove there was no gun. And you are correct that this cannot be done. And that's exactly why there cannot be a conviction.

The prosecution cannot and did not disprove Dunn's claim of self-defense. You are all jus too villainizing of Dunn to allow yourself to let go of the position you have been comfortable with before seeing this thread. For whatever the reason of the failure of the prosecution to prove the absence of a gun, the fact is they failed in that, and couldn't prove this wasn't self-defense.

READ THIS CAREFULLY >>>

Where the defendant in a Florida criminal case presents any evidence of self-defense, the State must overcome the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO RAISE A SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM

The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case...fense-florida/

 

[protectionist]

There were never any guns found. The boys did not have any guns.

It is not the burden of the defense to produce a gun. It is the burden of prosecution to prove there was NOT A GUN. They did NOT do that.

You just don't get it. You can't prove a negative. Logic 101. You're an idiot.

Then you don't have a case. Cases require proof. Didn't you know ?

You cannot prove a negative. How many times do I have to tell you? What an idiot.

He doesn't know that means. Give him an example and have him try to prove it.

I've already agreed with that 10 times over in this thread, you boob. Try reading it, before coming in here and making a fool out of yourself. And I've already addressed that point repeatedly.

Ability to prove, or inability to prove, isn't the issue. The issue is proving or not proving, by whatever the cause or limitation(s).

 

[Dana7360]

I refer you to the evidence brought forth in the courtroom.

Then, like I said, you haven't shown a shred of evidence to prove it, because they didn't bring the evidence needed, in the courtroom. They didn't prove their case.

I don't have to show evidence. You are wrong, apparently they DID prove their case. Guilty.

Yes you do have to show evidence. In this thread you are the accuser. Burden of proof is always on the accuser. Show me how the prosecution proved their case. I say they did not do that (and in fact, they COULD NOT do that) This is a case where it is impossible to prove there was no gun.

If that is the rules then I again refer you to the evidence and testimony in the courts. That is the ONLY evidence that matters. Unless someone in this thread was actually there when it happened.

And it is precisely that evidence (and LACK of it) that is the crux of the case. Should have been ruled NOT GUILTY, based on INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

What you think means nothing.

What the jury thought means everything. Obviously the prosecution proved that the teenagers didn't have a gun by the fact that there was no gun found in the vehicle by the police. If there had been a gun the police would have found it and it would have been entered into evidence. Since there was no gun entered into evidence or presented as evidence, there was no gun. The only person who had a gun was the murderer. Even the murderer admits there was no gun. He said he THOUGHT they had a gun. That's a huge difference from actually having one.

The fact that he was found guilty proves that yes he did what he admitted he did do. That's the facts of this situation. The man admitted what he did. Now you're saying he lied when he admitted to what he did. Wow. You weren't at the crime scene. You don't know the murderer or any of the victims. You weren't in the court room. You aren't a lawyer working on the case.

Yet you insist that you know more than everyone who was there at the time of the crime, everyone who was in the court room, everyone who worked on the case and even the murderer himself.

Wow.

Can you tell me what color the sky is in your world?

 

[Dana7360]

Hopefully one of the inmates does something to earn the tax dollars spent on his upkeep and rids the earth of this feral scum. Seems like he is just another whining, confused racist. In one of his letters he complains how the system is biased towards Black people but in the same breath says the jail is full of Blacks. How stupid can you be?

"It's spooky how racist everyone is up here and how biased toward blacks the courts are. This jail is full of blacks and they all act like thugs," he noted. He went on to say, "This may sound a bit radical but if more people would arm themselves and kill these **** idiots when they're threatening you, eventually they may take the hint and change their behavior."

If he said that I would tend to agree with him. And that anti-white racism (based on fear of Black rioting), appears to be what got him convicted, not a fair trial, based on evidence.

You tend to agree because you are stupid like him. You dont see the contradiction in what he said?

Evidence shows he shot and killed an unarmed kid, shot at other unarmed kids. What exactly are you missing in this?

I'm missing you and the others providing proof that the kid was unarmed. Just saying it isn't good enough. You have to prove it. That is simply impossible.

The police proved it by not finding any weapon in the vehicle. If there had been a weapon then the police would have found it in the vehicle.

I'm sure the investigating officer took the stand and testified that they found no weapon in that vehicle.

Are you saying that the police lied on the stand?

You can't be that obtuse can you?