“I hate that thug music.”

[S.J.]

I think the judge was wrong to tell them deadly force is justified against one but not the others. They were acting as one. How is Dunn supposed to know which ones were a threat and which ones were not? Sounds like the judge wants him found guilty of something. More grounds for an appeal.

You are reading quite a bit into that. If the law says that self-defense must be applied separately to each count, isn't it the judge's responsibility to tell that to the jurors?

*I don't know what the relevant law(s) are, I'm just making the point that I don't see anything in the judge's answers to indicate any kind of bias.

Ok, let's give the judge the benefit of the doubt and say there was no bias in his answers. To say what he said would tell me he has never been in a situation where he was being threatened by more than one person. You don't have time to assess the demeanor of the other 3 to determine if they are a threat or not. When you're fighting for your life you can't take any chances.

 

[S.J.]

There was no gun. He 'felt threatened' because they were loud, raucous black teenagers. In Florida now, people think they have a license to kill black teenagers. Probably across the US too. If I had a black teenager in America at this time, I'd keep him/her as close to me as possible. Leave the country if I could. Nowadays, it is like they are all wearing a target.

You don't know there was no gun, you just want to see him dangle.

Prosecution proved beyond 'reasonable doubt' that a gun was not there in the car, sparky.

That's your opinon (which isn't worth shit).

 

[Montrovant]

I think the judge was wrong to tell them deadly force is justified against one but not the others. They were acting as one. How is Dunn supposed to know which ones were a threat and which ones were not? Sounds like the judge wants him found guilty of something. More grounds for an appeal.

You are reading quite a bit into that. If the law says that self-defense must be applied separately to each count, isn't it the judge's responsibility to tell that to the jurors?

*I don't know what the relevant law(s) are, I'm just making the point that I don't see anything in the judge's answers to indicate any kind of bias.

Ok, let's give the judge the benefit of the doubt and say there was no bias in his answers. To say what he said would tell me he has never been in a situation where he was being threatened by more than one person. You don't have time to assess the demeanor of the other 3 to determine if they are a threat or not. When you're fighting for your life you can't take any chances.

What does the judge's history have to do with it? If he has been in a situation where he was being threatened by more than one person, should he ignore the law or proper courtroom procedures?

You seem to be intent on finding a flaw in the judge when the flaw may be in the laws of the state (assuming such a flaw exists).

 

[Tank]

There was no gun. He 'felt threatened' because they were loud, raucous black teenagers. In Florida now, people think they have a license to kill black teenagers. Probably across the US too. If I had a black teenager in America at this time, I'd keep him/her as close to me as possible. Leave the country if I could. Nowadays, it is like they are all wearing a target.

Nothing kills black teenagers more, then other black teenagers

 

[Katzndogz]

The jury asked the judge three questions, then went back to their cubbyhole. What's to ask?? He murdered someone over music. There was no weapon found from the victim.
Something stinks.

That's true, but not quite so cut and dried. The police didn't start looking for the alleged weapon for several days, which was plenty of time for the kids in the car to dump it. What hurts Dunn more than the lack of a weapon, is the fact that the car was driving away and he was still firing his own weapon.

 

[JimH52]

I cannot believe this scumbag with the smirk on his face has not been already found guilty of murder. Florida juries must be biggest pro-defendant assemblies in the US. UNBELIEVABLE!

 

[S.J.]

You are reading quite a bit into that. If the law says that self-defense must be applied separately to each count, isn't it the judge's responsibility to tell that to the jurors?

*I don't know what the relevant law(s) are, I'm just making the point that I don't see anything in the judge's answers to indicate any kind of bias.

Ok, let's give the judge the benefit of the doubt and say there was no bias in his answers. To say what he said would tell me he has never been in a situation where he was being threatened by more than one person. You don't have time to assess the demeanor of the other 3 to determine if they are a threat or not. When you're fighting for your life you can't take any chances.

What does the judge's history have to do with it? If he has been in a situation where he was being threatened by more than one person, should he ignore the law or proper courtroom procedures?

You seem to be intent on finding a flaw in the judge when the flaw may be in the laws of the state (assuming such a flaw exists).

Just because he's a judge doesn't mean he interprets the law accurately. Ever hear of "activist judges"?

 

[Gracie]

Maybe the jury keeps thinking about knockout games, mostly performed by blacks against whites, and that is why they are taking their time.

Maybe a gun was involved and they had ample time to ditch it.

Maybe Dunn was just in a fucked up mood and ready to rumble, found someone to rumble with, and did what he did because he wanted to.

Maybe he needed more wine because he was already drunk, went home with his skanky girlfriend after she went to fetch more wine, where they ordered pizza and watched a movie while his skanky girlfriend stuff that pizza in her mouth with non shaking hands but put on a damn fine performance on the stand.

Who knows.

 

[Montrovant]

Ok, let's give the judge the benefit of the doubt and say there was no bias in his answers. To say what he said would tell me he has never been in a situation where he was being threatened by more than one person. You don't have time to assess the demeanor of the other 3 to determine if they are a threat or not. When you're fighting for your life you can't take any chances.

What does the judge's history have to do with it? If he has been in a situation where he was being threatened by more than one person, should he ignore the law or proper courtroom procedures?

You seem to be intent on finding a flaw in the judge when the flaw may be in the laws of the state (assuming such a flaw exists).

Just because he's a judge doesn't mean he interprets the law accurately. Ever hear of "activist judges"?

That may be the case, but what makes you assume it is so?

 

[CaféAuLait]

Jury reached verdict on 4 of 5 counts.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't know there was no gun, you just want to see him dangle.

Prosecution proved beyond 'reasonable doubt' that a gun was not there in the car, sparky.

That's your opinon (which isn't worth shit).

The jury believes there was no gun. The argument now is the level of verdict.

sparky, the day of the white vigilante is over.

 

[MaryL]

Rap is about hate and death at a supernova volume . Big surprise someone was pushed over the edge reacting to it. Rap is about male dominance, violence, rape and homophobia at a volume even the CIA that used water boarding won’t do, in fear of the negative public reaction…Rap music is like that. Psychological warfare. It isn’t freedom of speech, but this is the level of craziness the country has sunk to.

 

[Asclepias]

Rap is about hate and death at a supernova volume . Big surprise someone was pushed over the edge reacting to it. Rap is about male dominance, violence, rape and homophobia at a volume even the CIA that used water boarding won’t do, in fear of the negative public reaction…Rap music is like that. Psychological warfare. It isn’t freedom of speech, but this is the level of craziness the country has sunk to.

You must have never listened to the rap I listen to then. I dont listen to gangsta rap but I do listen to rap. To label all rap the same as gangsta rap is stupidity of the highest order.

 

[Asclepias]

First, he shouldn't have started a confrontation with them; he should have just got in his car and left.
Second, if he felt threatened, he should have just gotten in his car and driven away. If they followed him and really were a threat, he should have called the police.

Killing people because they look at you scary or yell at you is absurd. It is cretinous. Only a complete ass would do such a thing.

Or a cowardly wussy. I miss the days of a a good fist fight. No one really got hurt and everyone lived to fight another day.

 

[S.J.]

What does the judge's history have to do with it? If he has been in a situation where he was being threatened by more than one person, should he ignore the law or proper courtroom procedures?

You seem to be intent on finding a flaw in the judge when the flaw may be in the laws of the state (assuming such a flaw exists).

Just because he's a judge doesn't mean he interprets the law accurately. Ever hear of "activist judges"?

That may be the case, but what makes you assume it is so?

Common sense. You don't wait for your assailant to shoot you before you react to his threat.

 

[Asclepias]

Just because he's a judge doesn't mean he interprets the law accurately. Ever hear of "activist judges"?

That may be the case, but what makes you assume it is so?

Common sense. You don't wait for your assailant to shoot you before you react to his threat.

You can take a look to be a threat. At some point commons sense needs to be deployed. You really dont want the days of the wild west back do you?

 

[JimH52]

Just heard the jury cannot decide of the first count, the most important. This is close to a mistrial.....UNBELIEVABLE!

 

[AceRothstein]

Ok, let's give the judge the benefit of the doubt and say there was no bias in his answers. To say what he said would tell me he has never been in a situation where he was being threatened by more than one person. You don't have time to assess the demeanor of the other 3 to determine if they are a threat or not. When you're fighting for your life you can't take any chances.

What does the judge's history have to do with it? If he has been in a situation where he was being threatened by more than one person, should he ignore the law or proper courtroom procedures?

You seem to be intent on finding a flaw in the judge when the flaw may be in the laws of the state (assuming such a flaw exists).

Just because he's a judge doesn't mean he interprets the law accurately. Ever hear of "activist judges"?

That's just a stupid term conservatives use to describe a judge who makes a ruling they disagree with.

 

[MaryL]

Oh, I have heard enough rap to know, loud hacks that can't read music. Auto tune. Bass. Music isn't about force, volume or urban hate. People have a right ot privacy, and all that BOOM BOOM BOOM isn't quite what the founding fathers had in mind for freeedom of speach.

 

[JakeStarkey]

S.J. has no common sense factor.