Jury deliberating in Michael Dunn trial

[protectionist]

Dunn was stupid, he should have stayed on the seen and called the cops.

Yep, he would be as free as Zimmerman if he had stayed.

I don't think so. You can't justify shooting up a fleeing vehicle.

Sure you can. Someone can shoot you from a fleeing vehicle, as well as a still vehicle or an approaching one.

Also, when a shooter is shooting multiple rounds, he doesn't know that the driver is going to suddenly start the car and drive. When the car does lurch foward, it get a few shots coming from the barrage that was shooting at a still car.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

When is CNN, HLN, etc going to talk about WHAT HAPPENED in the Dunn shooting case, rather than just what a big bad wolf Michael Dunn is ? If they can tear themselves away from the subject of race for 5 minutes >> 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.

They do know the names of his 3 friends who were in the SUV.

Jordan Davis’ Three Friends

Here’s a little more about the three young men who were with Jordan Davis the night he was killed.

■ Leland Brunson, now 18, was considered Jordan Davis’ best friend, according to court papers. Brunson was a minor at the time Michael Dunn shot Davis, prompting his mother to file a lawsuit on his behalf against Dunn claiming infliction of emotional distress and defamation. The lawsuit was settled last fall. Brunson has no known criminal record.

■ Tevin Thompson, now 18, was also younger than 18 the night of the shooting. His mother also sued Dunn on his behalf and it was settled with Brunson’s. He has no known criminal record.

■ Tommie Stornes, now 20, had been arrested on auto burglary charges in 2011 and was put on a probation that included a 7 p.m. curfew. After the shooting that happened about 7:40 p.m., he was found to be in technical violation, but no further action was considered necessary, according to court records. State records list him as the registered agent for Flatline Music Group LLC.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: Dunn Trial: Friends in SUV when Jordan Davis died describe what happened | members.jacksonville.com

 

[PredFan]

Yep, he would be as free as Zimmerman if he had stayed.

I don't think so. You can't justify shooting up a fleeing vehicle.

Sure you can. Someone can shoot you from a fleeing vehicle, as well as a still vehicle or an approaching one.

Also, when a shooter is shooting multiple rounds, he doesn't know that the driver is going to suddenly start the car and drive. When the car does lurch foward, it get a few shots coming from the barrage that was shooting at a still car.

I disagree.

 

[PredFan]

I have had a CCW license in the state of Florida since it was instituted a ways back. I am a member of the NRA and NAGR. I contribute when I am able to the causes the NRA asks. I support the 2nd Amendment to the hilt. My cred as a gun advocate is unquestionable. I believe that if you are armed, you have a responsibility to know wtf you are doing. You have a responsibility to keep a cool head, and to be able to assess any situation. In fact keeping a cool head can save your life and the lives of others as much as your gun can.

Dunn acted like a hot headed idiot. I cannot find anything justifiable in his actions. We don't need hot headed morons indiscriminately shoot guns off.

 

[protectionist]

When is CNN, HLN, etc going to talk about WHAT HAPPENED in the Dunn shooting case, rather than just what a big bad wolf Michael Dunn is ? If they can tear themselves away from the subject of race for 5 minutes >> 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.

They do know the names of his 3 friends who were in the SUV.

Jordan Davis’ Three Friends

Here’s a little more about the three young men who were with Jordan Davis the night he was killed.

■ Leland Brunson, now 18, was considered Jordan Davis’ best friend, according to court papers. Brunson was a minor at the time Michael Dunn shot Davis, prompting his mother to file a lawsuit on his behalf against Dunn claiming infliction of emotional distress and defamation. The lawsuit was settled last fall. Brunson has no known criminal record.

■ Tevin Thompson, now 18, was also younger than 18 the night of the shooting. His mother also sued Dunn on his behalf and it was settled with Brunson’s. He has no known criminal record.

■ Tommie Stornes, now 20, had been arrested on auto burglary charges in 2011 and was put on a probation that included a 7 p.m. curfew. After the shooting that happened about 7:40 p.m., he was found to be in technical violation, but no further action was considered necessary, according to court records. State records list him as the registered agent for Flatline Music Group LLC.

Read more at Jacksonville.com: Dunn Trial: Friends in SUV when Jordan Davis died describe what happened | members.jacksonville.com

Thanks. I did read about it in another article with their testimonies.

 

[protectionist]

I don't think so. You can't justify shooting up a fleeing vehicle.

Sure you can. Someone can shoot you from a fleeing vehicle, as well as a still vehicle or an approaching one.

Also, when a shooter is shooting multiple rounds, he doesn't know that the driver is going to suddenly start the car and drive. When the car does lurch foward, it get a few shots coming from the barrage that was shooting at a still car.

I disagree.

With what ?

 

[PredFan]

Sure you can. Someone can shoot you from a fleeing vehicle, as well as a still vehicle or an approaching one.

Also, when a shooter is shooting multiple rounds, he doesn't know that the driver is going to suddenly start the car and drive. When the car does lurch foward, it get a few shots coming from the barrage that was shooting at a still car.

I disagree.

With what ?

I disagree that you can justify shooting up a fleeing vehicle.

 

[protectionist]

I have had a CCW license in the state of Florida since it was instituted a ways back. I am a member of the NRA and NAGR. I contribute when I am able to the causes the NRA asks. I support the 2nd Amendment to the hilt. My cred as a gun advocate is unquestionable. I believe that if you are armed, you have a responsibility to know wtf you are doing. You have a responsibility to keep a cool head, and to be able to assess any situation. In fact keeping a cool head can save your life and the lives of others as much as your gun can.

Dunn acted like a hot headed idiot. I cannot find anything justifiable in his actions. We don't need hot headed morons indiscriminately shoot guns off.

I have a Concealed weapons license too, and have carried a handgun for years, never having used it.

What is the crux of this case is not Dunn. Actually, if you knew the testimony of the 3 kids in the car, you'd know that of the 2, it was Jordan Davis who was the "hot headed idiot", who was yelling profanities at Dunn, and acting like he was going to get out of the car and go after him. Dunn made made no similar postures, and remained quiet.

The key point is, was there a gun in the SUV ? And the key legal point is > did the prosecution fulfill its requirement of proving Dunn's self-defense claim to be invalid (that of no gun in the SUV) It is not whether you "can find anything justifiable in his actions" This is a legal case, which hinges on whether you/we can find anything justifiable in the prosecution's attempt to prove that Dunn's actions were NOT justifiable. I say the prosecution did not do that. If anyone can show how they did, let's hear it.

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

 

[protectionist]

I disagree.

With what ?

I disagree that you can justify shooting up a fleeing vehicle.

So if you are arguing with a passenger in a vehicle, and the driver gets scared and starts driving away, but the passenger right then, points a gun at you (as the vehicle is fleeing), you do nothing ? Or you shoot at that passenger to defend yourself ?

Hint: if you choose the 1st choice, you may not have to testify in court. Not when you're dead.

 

[PredFan]

I have had a CCW license in the state of Florida since it was instituted a ways back. I am a member of the NRA and NAGR. I contribute when I am able to the causes the NRA asks. I support the 2nd Amendment to the hilt. My cred as a gun advocate is unquestionable. I believe that if you are armed, you have a responsibility to know wtf you are doing. You have a responsibility to keep a cool head, and to be able to assess any situation. In fact keeping a cool head can save your life and the lives of others as much as your gun can.

Dunn acted like a hot headed idiot. I cannot find anything justifiable in his actions. We don't need hot headed morons indiscriminately shoot guns off.

I have a Concealed weapons license too, and have carried a handgun for years, never having used it.

What is the crux of this case is not Dunn. Actually, if you knew the testimony of the 3 kids in the car, you'd know that of the 2, it was Jordan Davis who was the "hot headed idiot", who was yelling profanities at Dunn, and acting like he was going to get out of the car and go after him. Dunn made made no similar postures, and remained quiet.

The key point is, was there a gun in the SUV ? And the key legal point is > did the prosecution fulfill its requirement of proving Dunn's self-defense claim to be invalid (that of no gun in the SUV) It is not whether you "can find anything justifiable in his actions" This is a legal case, which hinges on whether you/we can find anything justifiable in the prosecution's attempt to prove that Dunn's actions were NOT justifiable. I say the prosecution did not do that. If anyone can show how they did, let's hear it.

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

It doesn't matter that a kid is yelling obscenities, he had the gun and you can't shoot someone for cussing. Apparently the prosecution did prove its case because Dunn was convicted. Had I been on that jury I'd have found him guilty of murder as well. There is no justification for shooting, none. You DO NOT shoot multiple times because you THINK you saw a gun.

 

[PredFan]

With what ?

I disagree that you can justify shooting up a fleeing vehicle.

So if you are arguing with a passenger in a vehicle, and the driver gets scared and starts driving away, but the passenger right then, points a gun at you (as the vehicle is fleeing), you do nothing ? Or you shoot at that passenger to defend yourself ?

Hint: if you choose the 1st choice, you may not have to testify in court. Not when you're dead.

I wouldn't have shot, and I wouldn't have been shot. If he's in a fleeing vehicle and I'm on foot, I have the advantage and can escape. It is no longer a stand your ground case if the other person is leaving.

At any rate, neither one of us was there and the 12 people who heard the testimony and saw the evidence ruled that he was guilty. I'm siding with them.

 

[protectionist]

I have had a CCW license in the state of Florida since it was instituted a ways back. I am a member of the NRA and NAGR. I contribute when I am able to the causes the NRA asks. I support the 2nd Amendment to the hilt. My cred as a gun advocate is unquestionable. I believe that if you are armed, you have a responsibility to know wtf you are doing. You have a responsibility to keep a cool head, and to be able to assess any situation. In fact keeping a cool head can save your life and the lives of others as much as your gun can.

Dunn acted like a hot headed idiot. I cannot find anything justifiable in his actions. We don't need hot headed morons indiscriminately shoot guns off.

I have a Concealed weapons license too, and have carried a handgun for years, never having used it.

What is the crux of this case is not Dunn. Actually, if you knew the testimony of the 3 kids in the car, you'd know that of the 2, it was Jordan Davis who was the "hot headed idiot", who was yelling profanities at Dunn, and acting like he was going to get out of the car and go after him. Dunn made made no similar postures, and remained quiet.

The key point is, was there a gun in the SUV ? And the key legal point is > did the prosecution fulfill its requirement of proving Dunn's self-defense claim to be invalid (that of no gun in the SUV) It is not whether you "can find anything justifiable in his actions" This is a legal case, which hinges on whether you/we can find anything justifiable in the prosecution's attempt to prove that Dunn's actions were NOT justifiable. I say the prosecution did not do that. If anyone can show how they did, let's hear it.

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

It doesn't matter that a kid is yelling obscenities, he had the gun and you can't shoot someone for cussing. Apparently the prosecution did prove its case because Dunn was convicted. Had I been on that jury I'd have found him guilty of murder as well. There is no justification for shooting, none. You DO NOT shoot multiple times because you THINK you saw a gun.

The next time you don't use your gun and your permit, to defend yourself against someone who you THINK you see holding a gun, you'll be dead.

And I still say that NO, it is NOT apparent at all that the prosecution proved its case, and you haven't shown one shred of evidence that they did (nor has anyone else in this thread). As for Dunn being convicted, that doesn't mean the prosecution proved a thing. The conviction could be (as I said before) a result of fear of retaliation + MSM bias influence heavily weighted against Dunn, for 3 months.

 

[protectionist]

I disagree that you can justify shooting up a fleeing vehicle.

So if you are arguing with a passenger in a vehicle, and the driver gets scared and starts driving away, but the passenger right then, points a gun at you (as the vehicle is fleeing), you do nothing ? Or you shoot at that passenger to defend yourself ?

Hint: if you choose the 1st choice, you may not have to testify in court. Not when you're dead.

I wouldn't have shot, and I wouldn't have been shot. If he's in a fleeing vehicle and I'm on foot, I have the advantage and can escape. It is no longer a stand your ground case if the other person is leaving.

At any rate, neither one of us was there and the 12 people who heard the testimony and saw the evidence ruled that he was guilty. I'm siding with them.

You can side with anyone and anything you like. What you can't do is conclude that you wouldn't have been shot in the hypothetical case I gave you. As I said before, you could be shot from an approaching vehicle, a still one, or a fleeing one. And you don't have an advantage if you're outside on foot. Frankly, you'd be more like a sitting duck.