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

[protectionist]

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.

Everybody including the jury.

Juries don't always get it right. That's why we have appeals courts. Read the website of the Innocence Project.

The Innocence Project - Home

 

[protectionist]

You have no way of knowing if "Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time"

If Davis had a gun and he was getting out of the car (as his buddy claimed), then Dunn might be dead now, if he had walked away. Also, Florida law prescribes that he is under no obligation to walk away, and has a right to shoot to defend himself.

See post # 275.

You stupid ****. You know the law runs both ways. Right. Those kids in the SUV had a right to protect themselves in self defense. In this case, it would have been justified if those kids had blasted his ass all over the parking lot as soon as Dunn pulled out his gun.

To bad those kids didn't have a gun. Maybe we wouldn't be wasting all that money paying for Dunn to have a place to live. Worthless piece of shit that the guy is.

YOU are the stupid fuckhead. You can't say > "To bad those kids didn't have a gun", because nobody has any way of knowing if they did have one or not.

But you want to let a man get away with murder because he claimed he saw a gun?? lmao

Read the law (post # 275) oh unknowing one.

And why, if he was claiming he saw a gun, was he firing at the van as it drove away? Where was the threat then??

From the SUV. You think shots can't be fired from a vehicle just because it's driving away ?
Guess how many cops have been shot at from cars that they were chasing after. Answer: Thousands.

 

[R.D.]

I'm looking at something illogical, and you haven't produced anything to show it to be logical, one iota. Come back when you think you've got something worth posting

If you are looking at something illogical you should cease looking in the mirror clown. The defense proved he shot and killed the kid, shot at the other kids, and they had no gun for him to use as a defense. He needed to prove that they had a gun not the otherway around.

Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time

Yep, and that is what you are supposed to do.

You have no way of knowing if "Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time"

If Davis had a gun and he was getting out of the car (as his buddy claimed), then Dunn might be dead now, if he had walked away. Also, Florida law prescribes that he is under no obligation to walk away, and has a right to shoot to defend himself.

If you accept that he was threatened with a gun, he is justified in shooting. But continuing to fire at the van as it drove away destroys that. There was no threat from a van fleeing his assault.

Not necessarily.

He was in a very public place, he could have simply shown his own gun or called for help. And not have run away

 

[protectionist]

He was found guilty by the people that saw all the evidence. Sorry retard but your boy is going to spend life in prison regardless of what you think. You cant imagine how happy it makes me that your feelings are hurt over it.

I'm looking at something illogical, and you haven't produced anything to show it to be logical, one iota. Come back when you think you've got something worth posting

If you are looking at something illogical you should cease looking in the mirror clown. The defense proved he shot and killed the kid, shot at the other kids, and they had no gun for him to use as a defense. He needed to prove that they had a gun not the otherway around.

Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time

Yep, and that is what you are supposed to do.

Do not inflame the situation then shoot.

That's a no-no.

Dunn told the kids to turn down their ******* music. The kids told him to go **** himself
They were at a convenience store not outside his house. He could have gotten into his car and driven away from the offending music at any time
That is the way most of America would have handled the situation

I've already refuted that dumb notion, a few post ago. Read the thread. .

 

[protectionist]

If you are looking at something illogical you should cease looking in the mirror clown. The defense proved he shot and killed the kid, shot at the other kids, and they had no gun for him to use as a defense. He needed to prove that they had a gun not the otherway around.

Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time

Yep, and that is what you are supposed to do.

You have no way of knowing if "Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time"

If Davis had a gun and he was getting out of the car (as his buddy claimed), then Dunn might be dead now, if he had walked away. Also, Florida law prescribes that he is under no obligation to walk away, and has a right to shoot to defend himself.

If you accept that he was threatened with a gun, he is justified in shooting. But continuing to fire at the van as it drove away destroys that. There was no threat from a van fleeing his assault.

Not necessarily.

He was in a very public place, he could have simply shown his own gun or called for help. And not have run away

Refuted in the previous post. .

 

[R.D.]

Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time

Yep, and that is what you are supposed to do.

You have no way of knowing if "Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time"

If Davis had a gun and he was getting out of the car (as his buddy claimed), then Dunn might be dead now, if he had walked away. Also, Florida law prescribes that he is under no obligation to walk away, and has a right to shoot to defend himself.

If you accept that he was threatened with a gun, he is justified in shooting. But continuing to fire at the van as it drove away destroys that. There was no threat from a van fleeing his assault.

Not necessarily.

He was in a very public place, he could have simply shown his own gun or called for help. And not have run away

Refuted in the previous post. .

No. Why are you so angry an animal got his just deserts?

 

[Asclepias]

Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time

Yep, and that is what you are supposed to do.

You have no way of knowing if "Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time"

If Davis had a gun and he was getting out of the car (as his buddy claimed), then Dunn might be dead now, if he had walked away. Also, Florida law prescribes that he is under no obligation to walk away, and has a right to shoot to defend himself.

If you accept that he was threatened with a gun, he is justified in shooting. But continuing to fire at the van as it drove away destroys that. There was no threat from a van fleeing his assault.

Not necessarily.

He was in a very public place, he could have simply shown his own gun or called for help. And not have run away

Refuted in the previous post. .

The only thing you have refuted was your claim you have some semblance of intelligence.

 

[WinterBorn]

You stupid ****. You know the law runs both ways. Right. Those kids in the SUV had a right to protect themselves in self defense. In this case, it would have been justified if those kids had blasted his ass all over the parking lot as soon as Dunn pulled out his gun.

To bad those kids didn't have a gun. Maybe we wouldn't be wasting all that money paying for Dunn to have a place to live. Worthless piece of shit that the guy is.

YOU are the stupid fuckhead. You can't say > "To bad those kids didn't have a gun", because nobody has any way of knowing if they did have one or not.

But you want to let a man get away with murder because he claimed he saw a gun?? lmao

Read the law (post # 275) oh unknowing one.

And why, if he was claiming he saw a gun, was he firing at the van as it drove away? Where was the threat then??

From the SUV. You think shots can't be fired from a vehicle just because it's driving away ?
Guess how many cops have been shot at from cars that they were chasing after. Answer: Thousands.

The people in the van had not fired a single shot! He was in no danger.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You have no way of knowing if "Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time"

If Davis had a gun and he was getting out of the car (as his buddy claimed), then Dunn might be dead now, if he had walked away. Also, Florida law prescribes that he is under no obligation to walk away, and has a right to shoot to defend himself.

See post # 275.

You stupid ****. You know the law runs both ways. Right. Those kids in the SUV had a right to protect themselves in self defense. In this case, it would have been justified if those kids had blasted his ass all over the parking lot as soon as Dunn pulled out his gun.

To bad those kids didn't have a gun. Maybe we wouldn't be wasting all that money paying for Dunn to have a place to live. Worthless piece of shit that the guy is.

YOU are the stupid fuckhead. You can't say > "To bad those kids didn't have a gun", because nobody has any way of knowing if they did have one or not.

But you want to let a man get away with murder because he claimed he saw a gun?? lmao

Read the law (post # 275) oh unknowing one.

And why, if he was claiming he saw a gun, was he firing at the van as it drove away? Where was the threat then??

Poor terrified kids, trying to get a way from some wacko shooting at them. Its just lucky he didn't murder more than one but those kids have to live with the memory of their friend being gunned down in front of them.

Dunn changed his story, lied and then changed his lie. He should have gotten the death penalty.

 

[protectionist]

This is a waste of time. None of you dumbos are presenting anything here worth responding to. I'm going back to my other endeavors. You've been refuted every time, and I'm just having to repeat myself over and over, because you all are too lazy to read the thread, to know that what you say has already been refuted numerous times.

 

[protectionist]

YOU are the stupid fuckhead. You can't say > "To bad those kids didn't have a gun", because nobody has any way of knowing if they did have one or not.

But you want to let a man get away with murder because he claimed he saw a gun?? lmao

Read the law (post # 275) oh unknowing one.

And why, if he was claiming he saw a gun, was he firing at the van as it drove away? Where was the threat then??

From the SUV. You think shots can't be fired from a vehicle just because it's driving away ?
Guess how many cops have been shot at from cars that they were chasing after. Answer: Thousands.

The people in the van had not fired a single shot! He was in no danger.

That's irrelevant. Read the law. (post # 275)

 

[R.D.]

Are you related to Dunn?

 

[protectionist]

I bet some of those black kids in the vehicle WISH they had a gun on them.

Nobody knows if they didn't (including YOU)

 

[protectionist]

Are you related to Dunn?

Nope.

 

[rightwinger]

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

There was plenty of evidence to have a self-defense basis. It was accepted. Thereafter it is 100% the burden of the prosecution to prove IT'S case. the defense has no burdden of proof. Bottom lin > Prosecution didn't prove.

Actually, it wasn't accepted

Just ask the jury

 

[protectionist]

Since nobody here is bring anythng substantial to the table, I'll go back to my other things, and leave with a few things to ponder >>

Nathan Brown, 40, was released from a New Orleans prison in June after serving more than 16 years for a 1997 attempted rape of which he was innocent. On Tuesday, Judge Ray Steib of the 24th Judicial District Court apologized to Brown for the years that he lost while being locked away for a crime that he did not commit, and told Brown that he is entitled to $330,000 in wrongful conviction compensation from the state of Louisiana.
- See more at: Innocence Blog New Orleans Exoneree Will Receive State Compensation

 

[Asclepias]

This is a waste of time. None of you dumbos are presenting anything here worth responding to. I'm going back to my other endeavors. You've been refuted every time, and I'm just having to repeat myself over and over, because you all are too lazy to read the thread, to know that what you say has already been refuted numerous times.

Yes it is a waste of time. No one supports your dumb ass opinion.

 

[WinterBorn]

But you want to let a man get away with murder because he claimed he saw a gun?? lmao

Read the law (post # 275) oh unknowing one.

And why, if he was claiming he saw a gun, was he firing at the van as it drove away? Where was the threat then??

From the SUV. You think shots can't be fired from a vehicle just because it's driving away ?
Guess how many cops have been shot at from cars that they were chasing after. Answer: Thousands.

The people in the van had not fired a single shot! He was in no danger.

That's irrelevant. Read the law. (post # 275)

The guy opened fire on those kids because of loud music and because they talked shit to him. There has never been any sign of a gun except in his plea. Of course he said he felt threatened. He was looking for an excuse.

He'll spend the rest of his life in jail. Even if the self defense plea was accepted and done, the rest of the charges amount to 60+ years, which, at his age, is life.

 

[Asclepias]

Since nobody here is bring anythng substantial to the table, I'll go back to my other things, and leave with a few things to ponder >>

Nathan Brown, 40, was released from a New Orleans prison in June after serving more than 16 years for a 1997 attempted rape of which he was innocent. On Tuesday, Judge Ray Steib of the 24th Judicial District Court apologized to Brown for the years that he lost while being locked away for a crime that he did not commit, and told Brown that he is entitled to $330,000 in wrongful conviction compensation from the state of Louisiana.
- See more at: Innocence Blog New Orleans Exoneree Will Receive State Compensation

Nathan Brown didnt shoot kids in a car for playing loud music and neglect to turn himself in.

 

[WinterBorn]

Since nobody here is bring anythng substantial to the table, I'll go back to my other things, and leave with a few things to ponder >>

Nathan Brown, 40, was released from a New Orleans prison in June after serving more than 16 years for a 1997 attempted rape of which he was innocent. On Tuesday, Judge Ray Steib of the 24th Judicial District Court apologized to Brown for the years that he lost while being locked away for a crime that he did not commit, and told Brown that he is entitled to $330,000 in wrongful conviction compensation from the state of Louisiana.
- See more at: Innocence Blog New Orleans Exoneree Will Receive State Compensation

There are plenty of convictions that are wrong. But Dunn DID shoot someone.