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

[protectionist]

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

Absolutely ridiculous. How does one prove that someone else did not see a gun? They can say there was no gun recovered, or whatever. But there is no way possible to prove he did not see something.

But a jury of his peers found him guilty of the charge. So he is going away for the rest of his life.

Even the presence of a gun does not prove self defense
We have this second amendment thing that says you can carry one. You are not allowed to gun down anyone you see with a gun and claim self defense

Jordan Davis was also getting out of his car in the direction toward Michael Dunn. If he had a gun also, that would be enough to validate SD.

 

[protectionist]

They did provide evidence that no weapon was found and the jury accepted it

Oh yeah ? Let's hear you tell us what that evidence was. Let's hear it. Right now. HA HA.

The evidence is no weapon being found
The Defense claimed the victim had a weapon. There was no weapon. The defense was unable to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, that there actually was a weapon
Case closed

Dumb response.

1. That they didn't find a weapon means nothing. I've explained 100 times in this thread why. Have you read it ? Hint: 100 yards.

2. It's not the defense's job to convince a jury. The prosecution has that burden. I've repeated that 100 times here too.

1. Your "explanation" satisfies only yourself. It obviously didn't satisfy a jury
2 Yes it is the defenses job to convince a jury that there is not enough evidence to convict. The defense failed

2 Yes it is the defenses job to convince a jury that there is not enough evidence to convict

in self defense claims it is certainly the case

It really would help if you bozos would read the thread (which has already refuted you) before barging in here with ignorance.

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/

 

[reconmark]

Oh yeah ? Let's hear you tell us what that evidence was. Let's hear it. Right now. HA HA.

The evidence is no weapon being found
The Defense claimed the victim had a weapon. There was no weapon. The defense was unable to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, that there actually was a weapon
Case closed

Dumb response.

1. That they didn't find a weapon means nothing. I've explained 100 times in this thread why. Have you read it ? Hint: 100 yards.

2. It's not the defense's job to convince a jury. The prosecution has that burden. I've repeated that 100 times here too.

1. Your "explanation" satisfies only yourself. It obviously didn't satisfy a jury
2 Yes it is the defenses job to convince a jury that there is not enough evidence to convict. The defense failed

2 Yes it is the defenses job to convince a jury that there is not enough evidence to convict

in self defense claims it is certainly the case

It really would help if you bozos would read the thread (which has already refuted you) before barging in here with ignorance.

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/

Sure son.
Do you want your tapioca now??

 

[protectionist]

217 posts into the thread and not one person has presented a shred of evidence that there was not a gun in the SUV. Of course not. It can't be proven. And that's why Dunn could not be indicted much less convicted. Racial politics. Plain as day.

You are either deliberately lying or you are unaware of the rules of evidence.

Dunn was truly convicted on the evidence.

That you, for whatever reasons. disagree means nothing.

If Dunn claims self defense, the burden of proof falls on him. He could not prove it, other than he said so. The jury did not believe him

This idiotic post was refuted in my previous post (as hundreds of other idiotic posts also)

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/

 

[jon_berzerk]

Oh yeah ? Let's hear you tell us what that evidence was. Let's hear it. Right now. HA HA.

The evidence is no weapon being found
The Defense claimed the victim had a weapon. There was no weapon. The defense was unable to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, that there actually was a weapon
Case closed

Dumb response.

1. That they didn't find a weapon means nothing. I've explained 100 times in this thread why. Have you read it ? Hint: 100 yards.

2. It's not the defense's job to convince a jury. The prosecution has that burden. I've repeated that 100 times here too.

1. Your "explanation" satisfies only yourself. It obviously didn't satisfy a jury
2 Yes it is the defenses job to convince a jury that there is not enough evidence to convict. The defense failed

2 Yes it is the defenses job to convince a jury that there is not enough evidence to convict

in self defense claims it is certainly the case

It really would help if you bozos would read the thread (which has already refuted you) before barging in here with ignorance.

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/

by nature all self defense cases are affirmative defense cases

in dunns case he didnt even have “scintilla” of evidence in his favor

 

[WinterBorn]

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

Absolutely ridiculous. How does one prove that someone else did not see a gun? They can say there was no gun recovered, or whatever. But there is no way possible to prove he did not see something.

But a jury of his peers found him guilty of the charge. So he is going away for the rest of his life.

You just proved my case. I've already said many times that it's impossible to prove there was no gun. And that's exactly why the prosecution didn't and couldn't have a case. No evidence to counter Dunn's claim. Same as Zimmerman case (with the same railroading prosecutors) Like Zimmerman, case should have been Not Guilty based on Insufficient Evidence.
Just because it's impossible to provide evidence, doesn't mean you get a pass on burden of proof. I once was an accuser in a case where the defendant lied about the facts. Proving the facts was impossible. He won because of insufficient evidence. Happens every day. Welcome to the real legal world in America.

Dunn started the confrontation. He shot and killed a young man. If he was going to get away with it, it is up to him to prove he had reason to fear for his life. The fact that he left the scene and did not contact police is evidence that he knew he was in the wrong.

But if you want to go with the "Welcome to the real legal world in America", then Dunn was convicted by a jury of his peers. He can appeal. But he is doing time until the appeal is heard, and staying in prison unless it is successful.

 

[protectionist]

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.

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?

What I can tell you is you have just distinguished yourself here, as a complete IMBECILE. Like a few others before you, you come tumbling in here with what you think is an impressive, smart post, and the dumbest thing going, which has been refuted 100 times in this thread.

If fools like you would only READ THE THREAD befor eyou com eursting in here fill of energy and empty of knowledge of the subject matter, you wouldn'.t now be a class A fool in this thread. Go back and read my posts. I've been shooting down what you said all day long today. Sheeeeeshh!!

You are posting misinformation. You say Dunn confessed to the crime of murder. NO he did NOT.

And I never said that I know more than everyone who was there at the time of the crime, or everyone who was in the court room, or everyone who worked on the case. And I don't have to know more than them. All anyone has to know is that the prosecution never proved that there was no gun in the car. They had to do that, and they didn't. You don't have a clue of what your're talking about.

As for the cops you say would have found a gun if there was one, here's a hint for you > 100 yards. Don't know what that means do you ? HA HA HA.

You mean the police are too stupid to actually look for the gun? They weren't smart enough to actually look at the route the vehicle took and looked along that route to find the gun?

Wow you must think that the police are even more stupid than you are. Which they aren't. Do you think that that was the first murder they investigated and didn't know to look along the route the vehicle took for the gun? I don't think so.

What I think is that you're stuck on something and won't let it go. No matter what. You're right and everyone else is wrong.

Well the odds of that are slim to none sparky.

Go ahead and and believe what you want. No amount of what I post or what anyone else posts will ever get through your pea brain. That's fine. I don't give a rat's ass. It makes no difference to me if you believe the truth of not.

Have fun in your make believe world. Meanwhile here in reality that murderer was found GUILTY and will rightly spend the rest of his miserable life behind bars in prison without any chance for parole. You don't matter. What you think doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the jury believed. Which they didn't believe his lies and found him GUILTY.

Those are the facts. No matter what you argue. No matter how many names you call me or anyone else.

You can reply to this but I won't read it nor answer it. I lost all my patience with stupid years ago and you've gone way beyond stupid.

Anoter moronic post from you. I've come to expect that by now.

EARTH TO DANA: ha ha This is too funny. try reading about the case before you post and make a fool of yourself. The cops didn't search the area until a few DAYS after the shooting. By then the gun (if there was one) could be picked up by a garbage truck, found by someone and kept by them, or retrieved by the other 3 guys in the SUV. You really shouldn't come posting in here when you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

So now YOU may go back to YOUR little make-believe world. As for the FACTS,I just gave them to you in this post and my other posts in this thread. If you wish to live in denial, lke all the other blockheads in this thread, all I can say is NOT MY PROBLEM.

 

[protectionist]

The evidence is no weapon being found
The Defense claimed the victim had a weapon. There was no weapon. The defense was unable to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, that there actually was a weapon
Case closed

Dumb response.

1. That they didn't find a weapon means nothing. I've explained 100 times in this thread why. Have you read it ? Hint: 100 yards.

2. It's not the defense's job to convince a jury. The prosecution has that burden. I've repeated that 100 times here too.

1. Your "explanation" satisfies only yourself. It obviously didn't satisfy a jury
2 Yes it is the defenses job to convince a jury that there is not enough evidence to convict. The defense failed

2 Yes it is the defenses job to convince a jury that there is not enough evidence to convict

in self defense claims it is certainly the case

It really would help if you bozos would read the thread (which has already refuted you) before barging in here with ignorance.

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/

by nature all self defense cases are affirmative defense cases

in dunns case he didnt even have “scintilla” of evidence in his favor

Yes he did, and part of it it was provided by one of the kids in the SUV, Leland Brunson, who initially told police Jordan was getting out of the car when the shots rang out. Besides that, the judge accepted Dunn's self-defense claim, and the trial proceeded on that basis as a self-defense case. Don't you know anything about this ?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

Absolutely ridiculous. How does one prove that someone else did not see a gun? They can say there was no gun recovered, or whatever. But there is no way possible to prove he did not see something.

But a jury of his peers found him guilty of the charge. So he is going away for the rest of his life.

You just proved my case. I've already said many times that it's impossible to prove there was no gun. And that's exactly why the prosecution didn't and couldn't have a case. No evidence to counter Dunn's claim. Same as Zimmerman case (with the same railroading prosecutors) Like Zimmerman, case should have been Not Guilty based on Insufficient Evidence.
Just because it's impossible to provide evidence, doesn't mean you get a pass on burden of proof. I once was an accuser in a case where the defendant lied about the facts. Proving the facts was impossible. He won because of insufficient evidence. Happens every day. Welcome to the real legal world in America.

Dunn started the confrontation. He shot and killed a young man. If he was going to get away with it, it is up to him to prove he had reason to fear for his life. The fact that he left the scene and did not contact police is evidence that he knew he was in the wrong.

But if you want to go with the "Welcome to the real legal world in America", then Dunn was convicted by a jury of his peers. He can appeal. But he is doing time until the appeal is heard, and staying in prison unless it is successful.

even if he is successful on appeal (unlikely)he still has 60 + years for the other sentences

which in of itself at his age is a life sentence

 

[protectionist]

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

It says right there in your link there was no gun.

Dunn claimed he acted in self-defense because he believed Davis was reaching for a gun. No weapon was found.

NOTHING proved that there was no gun. Some people have SAID there was no gun. That isn't proof.

Michael Dunn case Opening statements begin in loud music murder trial - CNN.com

Ok so the murderer has to be believed when he said he thought that the victim was reaching for a gun. Just because he said so.

But when the police and all the other witnesses say there was no gun they aren't to be believed because they said so.

The fact that there was no gun found in that vehicle isn't enough proof to you either.

Seriously here, do you realize how ridiculous you are? You say something isn't true just because someone said it but you say that what the murderer said is true just because he said it.

The murderer has no proof there was any gun.

The police do have proof there was no gun.

It doesn't matter what you wish was true. It doesn't matter what you think. You mean zero in that situation.

What does mean something is the evidence presented to the jury and their ruling. They ruled GUILTY.

No amount of your lies, stamping your feet and throwing a hissy fit is going to change those facts.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. You do have to accept it.

Your posts are TOO STUPID to warrant a response. Seriously.

I'm not surprised that logic it way above your ability to grasp.

Come back when you're able to write a sentence. Try attending the 4th grade again.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Dumb response.

1. That they didn't find a weapon means nothing. I've explained 100 times in this thread why. Have you read it ? Hint: 100 yards.

2. It's not the defense's job to convince a jury. The prosecution has that burden. I've repeated that 100 times here too.

1. Your "explanation" satisfies only yourself. It obviously didn't satisfy a jury
2 Yes it is the defenses job to convince a jury that there is not enough evidence to convict. The defense failed

2 Yes it is the defenses job to convince a jury that there is not enough evidence to convict

in self defense claims it is certainly the case

It really would help if you bozos would read the thread (which has already refuted you) before barging in here with ignorance.

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/

by nature all self defense cases are affirmative defense cases

in dunns case he didnt even have “scintilla” of evidence in his favor

Yes he did, and part of it it was provided by one of the kids in the SUV, Leland Brunson, who initially told police Jordan was getting out of the car when the shots rang out. Besides that, the judge accepted Dunn's self-defense claim, and the trial proceeded on that basis as a self-defense case. Don't you know anything about this ?

Leland Brunson, who initially told police Jordan was getting out of the car when the shots rang out.

certainly and the photographic evidence on the rear door shows that it was slightly open when the shots hit it

but getting out of a car is by no means a reason in itself to shoot someone

 

[WinterBorn]

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

Absolutely ridiculous. How does one prove that someone else did not see a gun? They can say there was no gun recovered, or whatever. But there is no way possible to prove he did not see something.

But a jury of his peers found him guilty of the charge. So he is going away for the rest of his life.

You just proved my case. I've already said many times that it's impossible to prove there was no gun. And that's exactly why the prosecution didn't and couldn't have a case. No evidence to counter Dunn's claim. Same as Zimmerman case (with the same railroading prosecutors) Like Zimmerman, case should have been Not Guilty based on Insufficient Evidence.
Just because it's impossible to provide evidence, doesn't mean you get a pass on burden of proof. I once was an accuser in a case where the defendant lied about the facts. Proving the facts was impossible. He won because of insufficient evidence. Happens every day. Welcome to the real legal world in America.

Dunn started the confrontation. He shot and killed a young man. If he was going to get away with it, it is up to him to prove he had reason to fear for his life. The fact that he left the scene and did not contact police is evidence that he knew he was in the wrong.

But if you want to go with the "Welcome to the real legal world in America", then Dunn was convicted by a jury of his peers. He can appeal. But he is doing time until the appeal is heard, and staying in prison unless it is successful.

even if he is successful on appeal (unlikely)he still has 60 + years for the other sentences

which in of itself at his age is a life sentence

Which works for me if you are willing to shoot people for playing load music at a convenience store and talking trash.

 

[Asclepias]

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

Absolutely ridiculous. How does one prove that someone else did not see a gun? They can say there was no gun recovered, or whatever. But there is no way possible to prove he did not see something.

But a jury of his peers found him guilty of the charge. So he is going away for the rest of his life.

Even the presence of a gun does not prove self defense
We have this second amendment thing that says you can carry one. You are not allowed to gun down anyone you see with a gun and claim self defense

Jordan Davis was also getting out of his car in the direction toward Michael Dunn. If he had a gun also, that would be enough to validate SD.

But it wasnt. Thats why he is in prison for life.

 

[Wake]

It looks like Dunn shot multiple times at a van that was driving away from him. if that is true then he deserves his punishment.

The one thing I wonder about, is if he really did think one of them was drawing a gun on him, was it reasonable to shoot??? I don't know.

What I find particularly damning is how he simply went about his business and didn't call or contact anyone. Not the police, nobody. That makes no sense.

 

[protectionist]

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.

You are posting misinformation. You say Dunn confessed to the crime of murder. NO he did NOT.

Dana made a really excellent point that he "thought" he saw a gun, which is a clear indication of his guilt. If you are claiming self-defense, why on earth would you say you only thought you saw a gun and not that you definitely did see a gun? Because when you are caught in a lie, that is how people react by saying, "Well, I thought so."

Dunn says Davis threatened him, and he decided to take matters into his own hands upon seeing what he thought was the barrel of a gun sticking out of the Durango.

And also why on earth would he not have said there was gun to his fiancée?

Yet his fiancee, Rhonda Rouer, testified that Dunn had never mentioned any weapon to her -- be it a shotgun, a stick, a barrel or a lead pipe.

Michael Dunn convicted of attempted murder in loud music trial - CNN.com

If Dunn said he thought he saw a gun, that is enough to warrant a self-defense case and the judge agreed. Of course he did. It is the defendant's PERCEPTION that counts. As in all criminal cases there must be criminal INTENT. Know the law before you speak.

Here's the Florida self-defense statute >>

The 2014 Florida Statutes Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE [TBODY] [/TBODY] 776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.— [TBODY] [/TBODY] [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

"(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be."

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You are posting misinformation. You say Dunn confessed to the crime of murder. NO he did NOT.

Dana made a really excellent point that he "thought" he saw a gun, which is a clear indication of his guilt. If you are claiming self-defense, why on earth would you say you only thought you saw a gun and not that you definitely did see a gun? Because when you are caught in a lie, that is how people react by saying, "Well, I thought so."

Dunn says Davis threatened him, and he decided to take matters into his own hands upon seeing what he thought was the barrel of a gun sticking out of the Durango.

And also why on earth would he not have said there was gun to his fiancée?

Yet his fiancee, Rhonda Rouer, testified that Dunn had never mentioned any weapon to her -- be it a shotgun, a stick, a barrel or a lead pipe.

Michael Dunn convicted of attempted murder in loud music trial - CNN.com

If Dunn said he thought he saw a gun, that is enough to warrant a self-defense case and the judge agreed. Of course he did. It is the defendant's PERCEPTION that counts. As in all criminal cases there must be criminal INTENT. Know the law before you speak.

Here's the Florida self-defense statute >>

The 2014 Florida Statutes Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE [TBODY] [/TBODY] 776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.— [TBODY] [/TBODY] [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

"(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be."

Key word being reasonably. No one believed his story was reasonable. Thats why he is in prison.

 

[Esmeralda]

Is there anyone on this thread who is agreeing with PT?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

You are posting misinformation. You say Dunn confessed to the crime of murder. NO he did NOT.

Dana made a really excellent point that he "thought" he saw a gun, which is a clear indication of his guilt. If you are claiming self-defense, why on earth would you say you only thought you saw a gun and not that you definitely did see a gun? Because when you are caught in a lie, that is how people react by saying, "Well, I thought so."

Dunn says Davis threatened him, and he decided to take matters into his own hands upon seeing what he thought was the barrel of a gun sticking out of the Durango.

And also why on earth would he not have said there was gun to his fiancée?

Yet his fiancee, Rhonda Rouer, testified that Dunn had never mentioned any weapon to her -- be it a shotgun, a stick, a barrel or a lead pipe.

Michael Dunn convicted of attempted murder in loud music trial - CNN.com

If Dunn said he thought he saw a gun, that is enough to warrant a self-defense case and the judge agreed. Of course he did. It is the defendant's PERCEPTION that counts. As in all criminal cases there must be criminal INTENT. Know the law before you speak.

Here's the Florida self-defense statute >>

The 2014 Florida Statutes Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE [TBODY] [/TBODY] 776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.— [TBODY] [/TBODY] [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

"(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be."

The fact that he continued to fire as the van drove away pretty well destroys his self defense plea. Someone driving away from him is a threat??

 

[Wake]

I'm inclined to side with Asclepias on this one.

Regardless of skin color, you don't shoot people over loud music. Only if it's polka do you have that precious right.

Maybe we should focus on his thinking that a gun was being pulled on him. That's the only thing I am wondering about, besides Dunn's bizarre behavior afterwards.

 

[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.

I always go with the jury.

And, you don't shoot kids for being stupid young assholes.

You do, if they are threatening you and attacking you.

And if you "always go with the jury" then you would agree with the juries who convicted 321 defendants, most of whom were later set free by the work of the Innocence Project, when it was determined later that they were innocent. A few of these exonerated couldn't be set free. They had already been executed (because of people who think like you)

The Innocence Project - Home