Jury deliberating in Michael Dunn trial

[protectionist]

There's some truth in that, seems to me.
White people though need to get some tolerance, patience, and cool, calm and rational thinking...and make sure they always obey the law.
Penalties for breaking the law can be very severe, especially in America.

Retreat is often the wisest part of valour.

Trouble with that is "retreat" creates a culture wherin Blacks (the loony segment of them) harass (if not physically harm) whites, and other races. Question to consider is, being harassed, if not attacked, any way to go through life ?

Also, by continually retreating, that encourages MORE harassment, and the situation gets worse. As a White/Hispanic, I carry a gun, with a concealed weapon permit, bullet in the chamber, ready to fire, and won't hestitate to shoot if I am attacked. If anyone of any race gives me verbal crap, I give it right back to them.

I just wonder how many of these kind of shootings it's going to take before people learn to conduct themselves in a civil manner when out in public. And realize (at least here in Florida) it can be dangerous not to. Hopefully Blacks, and anybody, will get focused soon.

Your hero is a wife beater and cocaine fueled idiot.

Dunn is not my hero. Clear, rational thinking and common sense is my hero. Try it.

 

[Sarah G]

If you could just tell us when this murderer gets off, that would be great.

 

[protectionist]

The HLN 'Verdict Watch', for what it is or is not worth, seem to believe that the jury is fighting over Murder 1 vs Murder 2, with maybe 1 or 2 or 3 hold outs for the Murder 2 verdict.

How could either of those be the verdict ? How can anyone establish that it was not self-defense ? (beyond a reasonable doubt)

No proof of a gun by the victim or his friends.

Firing at least three shots at a fleeing car.

Death is not the punishment for loud music.

1. The absence of a gun is mitigated by the fact that of the SUV having left the shooting scene, long enough for a gun to be dumped, and police having not checked the area for 4 days. This leaves open the possiblility that the SUV guys had a gun (witnesses were inconsistent), and that being the case, it could have been self-defense, and certainly leaves saying it wasn't (beyond a reasonable doubt) impossible. (strike 1)

2. Just because a car is fleeing doesn't mean someone is no longer in danger of being shot (if there was a gun in the car) People can shoot from a fleeing car just as much as an approaching car. Also, the shooting started when the car was NOT fleeing, and it could have fled very quickly, while the shooter was still shooting. (strike 2)

3. If there was a gun in the car, THAT is the reason for the shooting, not loud music.
At this point, no one has shown me a shred of evidence that there was no gun in the car, visible to Dunn. (strike 3)

If anybody thinks they have that evidence, let's hear it.

 

[Asclepias]

If you think you can do it, let's hear it, right now. I'm asking YOU, Asclepias. Now don't go ducking under that desk.

No gun was ever found in the car the victim was in.

He never called the cops even after claiming he was afraid of gang retaliation.

He never told his fiance the kid threatened him with a gun.

He lied about several parts of his testimony or changed his story.

Maybe you haven't heard all the facts. No gun was found. BUT, the SUV left the scene for a short time and went to the next shopping mall about 400 ft away, and then returned. Plenty of time to dump the gun, if there was one. And the police didn't come and look for the gun until 4 days later.

If he was afraid of gang retaliation, that would explain not calling the cops.

I don't know about the fiancee, but the SUV leaving and returning is the main thing, IMO.

Changing a story happens frequently among criminal defendants, and often turns out to be just stress and confusion. The main thing here is the SUV. Who can PROVE (beyond a reasonable doubt) that they didn't have a gun, and dumped it in that adjacent shopping plaza ? And without being able to prove that, I see conviction as impossible.

You are talking if ands or maybes. The SUV could have left the scene to drive their friend to the hosptial not to dump a gun then thought it would be better to wait for an ambulance. The area was not searched due to Dunn not reporting the incident. His fault. The facts are there was no gun.

He committed a crime and used a weapon in the commission of that crime. if he was legit he would have called the police and told them he shot in self defense. That would have additionally prompted an immediate search of the area for a gun the kids supposedly dumped.

You dont know about the fiance because you wont touch it with a ten foot pole. He never told her. The main thing is he never called the cops. Even after he realized the kid was killed.

Changing a story is also a hallmark of lying through your teeth. If he was rational enough to call the pizza guy he should have been rational enough to get his story straight.

 

[protectionist]

No gun was ever found in the car the victim was in.

He never called the cops even after claiming he was afraid of gang retaliation.

He never told his fiance the kid threatened him with a gun.

He lied about several parts of his testimony or changed his story.

Maybe you haven't heard all the facts. No gun was found. BUT, the SUV left the scene for a short time and went to the next shopping mall about 400 ft away, and then returned. Plenty of time to dump the gun, if there was one. And the police didn't come and look for the gun until 4 days later.

If he was afraid of gang retaliation, that would explain not calling the cops.

I don't know about the fiancee, but the SUV leaving and returning is the main thing, IMO.

Changing a story happens frequently among criminal defendants, and often turns out to be just stress and confusion. The main thing here is the SUV. Who can PROVE (beyond a reasonable doubt) that they didn't have a gun, and dumped it in that adjacent shopping plaza ? And without being able to prove that, I see conviction as impossible.

You are talking if ands or maybes. The SUV could have left the scene to drive their friend to the hosptial not to dump a gun then thought it would be better to wait for an ambulance. The area was not searched due to Dunn not reporting the incident. His fault. The facts are there was no gun.

He committed a crime and used a weapon in the commission of that crime. if he was legit he would have called the police and told them he shot in self defense. That would have additionally prompted an immediate search of the area for a gun the kids supposedly dumped.

You dont know about the fiance because you wont touch it with a ten foot pole. He never told her. The main thing is he never called the cops. Even after he realized the kid was killed.

Changing a story is also a hallmark of lying through your teeth. If he was rational enough to call the pizza guy he should have been rational enough to get his story straight.

This is a very weak post and doesn't even come close to validating a conviction'

1. Yes, there are ifs and maybes. But until those ifs and maybe are erased (BY THE PROSECUTION), there still isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt, of a non-self defense shooting.

2. It doesn't matter WHERE the SUV went. The mere fact that it left and returned shows that the gun (if there was one) could have been dumped. Sure, there are "ifs", but even the prosecutors have not closed up those questions, and that is what uis necessary to have a conviction.

3. No Dunn not calling the cops and his fiancee is NOT the main thing. The main thing is that the prosecutors have not proved that there was not a gun in the car visible to Dunn. As it stands, it could have been self-defense. This makes a legal, proper conviction impossible.

4. Changing a story happens frequently among criminal defendants, and often turns out to be just stress and confusion.

In case you don't know how criminal trials work, the defense does not have to prove anything. The burden of proof does not rest upon the defense to prove Dunn innocent, it rests upon the prosecution to prove Dunn guilty, which neither they or you, or anyone in this thread have done, so far.

So. I still say, if anyone thinks they can prove there was no gun in the SUV visible to Dunn, let's hear it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How could either of those be the verdict ? How can anyone establish that it was not self-defense ? (beyond a reasonable doubt)

No proof of a gun by the victim or his friends.

Firing at least three shots at a fleeing car.

Death is not the punishment for loud music.

1. The absence of a gun is mitigated by the fact that of the SUV having left the shooting scene, long enough for a gun to be dumped, and police having not checked the area for 4 days. This leaves open the possiblility that the SUV guys had a gun (witnesses were inconsistent), and that being the case, it could have been self-defense, and certainly leaves saying it wasn't (beyond a reasonable doubt) impossible. (strike 1)

2. Just because a car is fleeing doesn't mean someone is no longer in danger of being shot (if there was a gun in the car) People can shoot from a fleeing car just as much as an approaching car. Also, the shooting started when the car was NOT fleeing, and it could have fled very quickly, while the shooter was still shooting. (strike 2)

3. If there was a gun in the car, THAT is the reason for the shooting, not loud music.
At this point, no one has shown me a shred of evidence that there was no gun in the car, visible to Dunn. (strike 3)

If anybody thinks they have that evidence, let's hear it.

The evidence was clearly presented by the prosecution that defendant did not have a gun.

The defendant had a legal obligation to stop firing when the supposed threat was eliminated, which was the case.

You are not on the jury, so your opinion is just that.

Murder 1 or Murder 2, kiddo.

 

[Asclepias]

Maybe you haven't heard all the facts. No gun was found. BUT, the SUV left the scene for a short time and went to the next shopping mall about 400 ft away, and then returned. Plenty of time to dump the gun, if there was one. And the police didn't come and look for the gun until 4 days later.

If he was afraid of gang retaliation, that would explain not calling the cops.

I don't know about the fiancee, but the SUV leaving and returning is the main thing, IMO.

Changing a story happens frequently among criminal defendants, and often turns out to be just stress and confusion. The main thing here is the SUV. Who can PROVE (beyond a reasonable doubt) that they didn't have a gun, and dumped it in that adjacent shopping plaza ? And without being able to prove that, I see conviction as impossible.

You are talking if ands or maybes. The SUV could have left the scene to drive their friend to the hosptial not to dump a gun then thought it would be better to wait for an ambulance. The area was not searched due to Dunn not reporting the incident. His fault. The facts are there was no gun.

He committed a crime and used a weapon in the commission of that crime. if he was legit he would have called the police and told them he shot in self defense. That would have additionally prompted an immediate search of the area for a gun the kids supposedly dumped.

You dont know about the fiance because you wont touch it with a ten foot pole. He never told her. The main thing is he never called the cops. Even after he realized the kid was killed.

Changing a story is also a hallmark of lying through your teeth. If he was rational enough to call the pizza guy he should have been rational enough to get his story straight.

This is a very weak post and doesn't even come close to validating a conviction'

1. Yes, there are ifs and maybes. But until those ifs and maybe are erased (BY THE PROSECUTION), there still isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt, of a non-self defense shooting.

2. It doesn't matter WHERE the SUV went. The mere fact that it left and returned shows that the gun (if there was one) could have been dumped. Sure, there are "ifs", but even the prosecutors have not closed up those questions, and that is what uis necessary to have a conviction.

3. No Dunn not calling the cops and his fiancee is NOT the main thing. The main thing is that the prosecutors have not proved that there was not a gun in the car visible to Dunn. As it stands, it could have been self-defense. This make a legal, proper conviction impossible.

4. Changing a story happens frequently among criminal defendants, and often turns out to be just stress and confusion.

In case you don't know how criminal trials work, the defense does not have to prove anything. The burden of proof does not rest upon the defense to prove Dunn innocent, it rests upon the prosecution to prove Dunn guilty, which neither they or you, or anyone in this thread have done, so far.

So. I still say, if anyone thinks they can prove there was no gun in the SUV visible to Dunn, let's hear it.

1. The if and or buts are erased. There was no gun. Ever....like ever found.

2. The SUV driving away would be a normal reaction to having been shot at. Not too many people sit still if they can drive away. That has nothing to do with dumping a gun.

3. Yes Dunn not calling the cops will be the main thing if he is convicted. I will change my avatar for a week with a one of your choice if he is convicted and that is not mentioned as the defining element or one of the most defining reasons. Not quite as certain about not telling his fiance but I have almost the same amount of conviction.

4. Like I said early it also turns out that the person is lying. Yes I understand the defense has to prove their case. They have done so. Minus being there with a video camera that would mean no one would be convicted. "Reasonable doubt" is the criteria. Nothing is reasonable about his excuses.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The jury has asked this morning some complicated questions about self defense. I guess one or two are of the opinion that they can shoot folks who frown at them, or call them names, or blast loud music.

Looks like guilty or a hung jury.

 

[S.J.]

The jury has asked this morning some complicated questions about self defense. I guess one or two are of the opinion that they can shoot folks who frown at them, or call them names, or blast loud music.

Looks like guilty or a hung jury.

Or maybe one or two of them care about the law and are able to resist the pressure from the lynch mob outside who want him found guilty no matter what.

 

[bianco]

Guilty or not guilty, these incidents are going to keep occurring because whites are getting tired of being harassed, threatened, and victimized by these thugs.

There's some truth in that, seems to me.
White people though need to get some tolerance, patience, and cool, calm and rational thinking...and make sure they always obey the law.
Penalties for breaking the law can be very severe, especially in America.

Retreat is often the wisest part of valour.

There is a limit to what people will tolerate. Why does anyone have to "retreat" when they feel they are being threatened?
Hence the SYG law in virtually every state now. And it's driving the LIBs crazy. B/c virtually every crime committed is by their 'base'.
Is this what's it's come to? A bunch of simian thugs roaming the streets looking to commit felony assault 'because they are "bored" is allowed to threaten and intimidate and assault innocent people and it wouldn't have happened if the victim had only "retreated"? Is this what a civilized society must tolerate for fear of being called "racist"?
Why must anyone be "tolerant" or "patient" or "cool" or "calm"?
What is civilized society dealing with? A race of people who are apparently genetically incapable of behaving themselves so the rest of society must continually make excuses for their endemic antisocial behavior b/c a chef in Africa sold his Black slaves to a Dutch trading ship for a pice of broken mirror centuries ago?

People don't have to retreat when they're being threatened, or feel they're being threatened, they can choose what to do.
"A bunch of simian thugs roaming the streets looking to commit felony assault 'because they are "bored"" is not allowed to threaten and intimidate and assault innocent people...but there can't be a cop on every corner.
Retreating where possible from a threatening situation, as a first choice[even if armed with 1 or 5 handguns]is often the wisest thing to do.
It's not being a coward, or *****, or wimp etc.
It's about avoiding trouble.

Running away, to live another day is nothing new;

Francis Marion American Patriot Adoption Showcase.

1) We got lead and we got powder
We don't fight with an empty gun
Only makes us shout the louder
We are men of Marion. (chorus)


___


CHORUS:


Swamp Fox! Swamp Fox!
Tail on his hat,
Nobody knows where The Swamp Fox's at.

Swamp Fox! Swamp Fox!
Hiding in the glen,
He runs away to fight again.

 

[S.J.]

There's some truth in that, seems to me.
White people though need to get some tolerance, patience, and cool, calm and rational thinking...and make sure they always obey the law.
Penalties for breaking the law can be very severe, especially in America.

Retreat is often the wisest part of valour.

There is a limit to what people will tolerate. Why does anyone have to "retreat" when they feel they are being threatened?
Hence the SYG law in virtually every state now. And it's driving the LIBs crazy. B/c virtually every crime committed is by their 'base'.
Is this what's it's come to? A bunch of simian thugs roaming the streets looking to commit felony assault 'because they are "bored" is allowed to threaten and intimidate and assault innocent people and it wouldn't have happened if the victim had only "retreated"? Is this what a civilized society must tolerate for fear of being called "racist"?
Why must anyone be "tolerant" or "patient" or "cool" or "calm"?
What is civilized society dealing with? A race of people who are apparently genetically incapable of behaving themselves so the rest of society must continually make excuses for their endemic antisocial behavior b/c a chef in Africa sold his Black slaves to a Dutch trading ship for a pice of broken mirror centuries ago?

People don't have to retreat when they're being threatened, or feel they're being threatened, they can choose what to do.
"A bunch of simian thugs roaming the streets looking to commit felony assault 'because they are "bored"" is not allowed to threaten and intimidate and assault innocent people...but there can't be a cop on every corner.
Retreating where possible from a threatening situation, as a first choice[even if armed with 1 or 5 handguns]is often the wisest thing to do.
It's not being a coward, or *****, or wimp etc.
It's about avoiding trouble.

Running away, to live another day is nothing new;

Francis Marion American Patriot Adoption Showcase.

1) We got lead and we got powder
We don't fight with an empty gun
Only makes us shout the louder
We are men of Marion. (chorus)


___


CHORUS:


Swamp Fox! Swamp Fox!
Tail on his hat,
Nobody knows where The Swamp Fox's at.

Swamp Fox! Swamp Fox!
Hiding in the glen,
He runs away to fight again.

Running away only encourages the criminal behavior.

 

[J.E.D]

No you don't, you're a disgrace.

You're a disgrace. People like you give white people a bad name.

Get lost.

no

 

[JakeStarkey]

The jury has asked this morning some complicated questions about self defense. I guess one or two are of the opinion that they can shoot folks who frown at them, or call them names, or blast loud music.

Looks like guilty or a hung jury.

Or maybe one or two of them care about the law and are able to resist the pressure from the lynch mob outside who want him found guilty no matter what.

How funny that one of the lynch mob of the far right demonizes others for following the law.

The old days are gone forever, sparky.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is a limit to what people will tolerate. Why does anyone have to "retreat" when they feel they are being threatened?
Hence the SYG law in virtually every state now. And it's driving the LIBs crazy. B/c virtually every crime committed is by their 'base'.
Is this what's it's come to? A bunch of simian thugs roaming the streets looking to commit felony assault 'because they are "bored" is allowed to threaten and intimidate and assault innocent people and it wouldn't have happened if the victim had only "retreated"? Is this what a civilized society must tolerate for fear of being called "racist"?
Why must anyone be "tolerant" or "patient" or "cool" or "calm"?
What is civilized society dealing with? A race of people who are apparently genetically incapable of behaving themselves so the rest of society must continually make excuses for their endemic antisocial behavior b/c a chef in Africa sold his Black slaves to a Dutch trading ship for a pice of broken mirror centuries ago?

People don't have to retreat when they're being threatened, or feel they're being threatened, they can choose what to do.
"A bunch of simian thugs roaming the streets looking to commit felony assault 'because they are "bored"" is not allowed to threaten and intimidate and assault innocent people...but there can't be a cop on every corner.
Retreating where possible from a threatening situation, as a first choice[even if armed with 1 or 5 handguns]is often the wisest thing to do.
It's not being a coward, or *****, or wimp etc.
It's about avoiding trouble.

Running away, to live another day is nothing new;

Francis Marion American Patriot Adoption Showcase.

1) We got lead and we got powder
We don't fight with an empty gun
Only makes us shout the louder
We are men of Marion. (chorus)


___


CHORUS:


Swamp Fox! Swamp Fox!
Tail on his hat,
Nobody knows where The Swamp Fox's at.

Swamp Fox! Swamp Fox!
Hiding in the glen,
He runs away to fight again.

Running away only encourages the criminal behavior.

sparky, you are not a vigilante.

 

[S.J.]

People don't have to retreat when they're being threatened, or feel they're being threatened, they can choose what to do.
"A bunch of simian thugs roaming the streets looking to commit felony assault 'because they are "bored"" is not allowed to threaten and intimidate and assault innocent people...but there can't be a cop on every corner.
Retreating where possible from a threatening situation, as a first choice[even if armed with 1 or 5 handguns]is often the wisest thing to do.
It's not being a coward, or *****, or wimp etc.
It's about avoiding trouble.

Running away, to live another day is nothing new;

Francis Marion American Patriot Adoption Showcase.

1) We got lead and we got powder
We don't fight with an empty gun
Only makes us shout the louder
We are men of Marion. (chorus)


___


CHORUS:


Swamp Fox! Swamp Fox!
Tail on his hat,
Nobody knows where The Swamp Fox's at.

Swamp Fox! Swamp Fox!
Hiding in the glen,
He runs away to fight again.

Running away only encourages the criminal behavior.

sparky, you are not a vigilante.

People have the right to defend themselves, idiot.

 

[bianco]

Running away only encourages the criminal behavior.

sparky, you are not a vigilante.

People have the right to defend themselves, idiot.

People do have a right to defend themselves...and in America are allowed to carry handguns.

When, where, how, and why to use these guns is what the people have to consider.

Shoot someone, and the cops decide to charge you...there goes your home to pay for the lawyers, even if you're acquitted.
The Trayvon Martin/Zimmerman case is instructive.

Often better to slip away into the shadows, or drive away, than get involved in a gunfight.
The bad people often have automatic weapons.

 

[J.E.D]

there does not have to be proof of a gun in the car

it is if dunn reasonably had fear for his life

And that is the problem with these laws. Dunn didn't have to actually see a gun. All he has to say is he feared for his life. So, this guy gave me a menacing look, he reached into his pocket for what could have been a gun, then I shot him because I feared for my life. That's a bit of an over-simplification; but a situation like that could very well take place - especially if people see that they can claim SYG for almost any situation and become more willing to do so as they see people getting away with what would be considered murder in any other state without a SYG law.

 

[J.E.D]

UPDATE (2-15): 4:41PM Note from jury. Jury has verdict on four of the five counts–the one they can’t decide is the first charge, the murder charge for death of Jordan Davis. Healey to read them Allen charge. Bringing the jurors on in. Healey reads them the Allen charge, sends them back to deliberations.

 

[S.J.]

there does not have to be proof of a gun in the car

it is if dunn reasonably had fear for his life

And that is the problem with these laws. Dunn didn't have to actually see a gun. All he has to say is he feared for his life. So, this guy gave me a menacing look, he reached into his pocket for what could have been a gun, then I shot him because I feared for my life. That's a bit of an over-simplification; but a situation like that could very well take place - especially if people see that they can claim SYG for almost any situation and become more willing to do so as they see people getting away with what would be considered murder in any other state without a SYG law.

Now you're just being silly.

 

[J.E.D]

there does not have to be proof of a gun in the car

it is if dunn reasonably had fear for his life

And that is the problem with these laws. Dunn didn't have to actually see a gun. All he has to say is he feared for his life. So, this guy gave me a menacing look, he reached into his pocket for what could have been a gun, then I shot him because I feared for my life. That's a bit of an over-simplification; but a situation like that could very well take place - especially if people see that they can claim SYG for almost any situation and become more willing to do so as they see people getting away with what would be considered murder in any other state without a SYG law.

Now you're just being silly.

Brilliant retort. Brilliant, I say!