Page 18 of 36 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 355

Thread: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial[W:336]

  1. #171
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,159

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by year2late View Post
    Yup.

    I think some people believe their gun rights are so absolute that they are dumbstruck that their weapons really don't give them the right to do as they please. When they are struck with that reality it must be quite the revelation.
    While it shouldn't, it seems some people get the idea that "Stand Your Ground" means shoot first and ask questions later.

    It's really pretty basic - the right to own or carry a weapon =/= right to shoot it whenever you want to at whomever you want to. Nowhere does the 2nd Amendment give you the absolute "right to discharge as you please."


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  2. #172
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Del Zeppnile View Post
    Some good points here, but I don't leave my gun at home just because I may be having a drink. But I don't drink more than would allow me to drive either, so I don't I see the presence of my gun as necessarily a problem. I absolutely don't drink when I go to the gun range, but the reason for having the gun is for my protection---- even if I have had a couple of beers. Which if you think about it is the same with an off duty police officer. A cop doesn't just leave his gun at home if he is going to a wedding reception. At least not the one's I know.

    The problem here is that Dunn and a few others who have done similar failed to appreciate that while they are carrying a weapon they should have a DUTY to avoid all types of arguments and confrontations or any situation where they will be introducing that firearm into a conflict that could otherwise be avoided. Carrying a gun and guy takes your parking space--- move on, get over it, don't argue. WHY? Well, if it turns into a pushing match and I feel threatened with injury or death, it may end up me having to use the gun.

    IF Dunn had followed common sense while he had his gun, he wouldn't have even bothered to say one word about the loud music. If he assumed they were "thugs" anyway--- why not just ignore them (when you have a gun). It's not like the gas station was his home; he could have been in and out of there in two minutes without any conflict. And if it were that these teens were criminals who for some reason just out of the blue decided to attack Dunn, even despite he had already been drinking--- AND he was in real danger without a way to retreat and he used his gun---- this would have been a justifiable homicide.

    But that didn't happen. Dunn believed that he had "extra power" to back up his silly testosterone filled demands for RESPECT, and now a young man is dead and Dunn will likely spend the rest of his life in prison. Not because of his right to carry a gun and protect himself, but because he is FOOL.

    My advice to gun owners. Don't be a dumbass.



    This is excellent advice for everyone!

  3. #173
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    Self defense against what?

    Loud music?
    I see you haven't been paying attention. Figures.
    He was threatened. This threat was then coupled with being shown what appeared to be the barrel of a shotgun, after which the Davis said it was going down now and started getting out of the vehicle to carry through with his threat to kill.
    And you want to come in here and act all absurd by saying the above.
    Simply wow!





    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    If both people had guns, how do you decide which side you're on? Usually with you, anybody with a gun is automatically right.
    First of all, there is not a "usually" with me.
    So you can stop being personal, and stop making ridiculously absurd personal comments.

    As to your question.
    In this case, it is obviously the one (Davis) who threatened to kill the other (Dunn) causing them to act in self defense.





    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Too much poo to repost it all.
    Yes, you slung a lot that doesn't matter.
    His scholastic status matters not to his making threats to kill another human being does it?
    Of course it doesn't.

    And the believability of those he hung with was in play here.
    They have/had credibility issues.





    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    I think the comparison is "being threatening." Zimmerman felt threatened by a hoodie. This guy felt threatened by loud music.
    False narrative of both accounts.
    If you can't be honest about the facts why even attempt to discuss them?





    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    The problem with excon is that he believes every word that dunn said is true.
    Your problem is that you are discussing me. This isn't about me. Or didn't you know that?


    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    he ignores all the other facts of the case.
    Secondly, what you say about me is wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    1. police found no gun. video tape evidence show the kids were gone less than 2 minutes as they went back to the gas station for help.
    That means nothing as the police did not look for one until days later.
    Yes we know the guys drove away, were scene acting like they were stashing something. The driver contacted his aunt, who then later came into the area.
    All highly suspicious and circumstantial evidence that a gun had existed and was stashed.


    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    2. given testimony from everyone there is no way that dunn got out of the car.
    Wrong. As he was seen out of the vehicle.


    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    a. Dunn even testified that they were parked close enough that him getting out would be difficult.
    Oy vey. Being difficult, does not mean impossible.
    Duh!

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    b. his friends testified that the child safety locks were on which means it would be impossible to open the back door from the inside.
    Which we discovered during the trial wasn't true. Go figure, huh!


    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    3. the medical examiner supports this as according to them he was shot sitting down and falling away from the door.
    The Doctors conclusions where shown, during trial, to be flawed for lack of information in drawing the conclusions she did.
    Garbage in, garbage out.


    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    4. Dunn didn't mention anything about a gun to his wife even though he testified that he did which puts the gun into question.
    Her not remembering really means nothing.


    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    as i said you can't make up stuff and then shoot someone in so called self defense you have to have evidence of an actual threat. lieing about a threat just to try and claim self defense is still murder.
    Which isn't what happened here so what you said its nonsense.


    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    contrary to what he thinks you are responsible for any collateral damage you may cause as well. that includes shooting at or hitting innocent people.

    Contrary to what you think, you are wrong.
    If a person is granted immunity for acting in self defense. Those actions of self defense are immune from criminal prosecution and civil law suits.
    Read the law, and stop spreading false information.
    The immunity is complete.


    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    as for the murder charge they could have been hung on it because they just gave the guy at least 20 years. what is the point of giving him more. he is going to be close to dead when he gets out more so if he gets the maximum which would be 60 years.
    Sure they could have. Unlikely though.
    It is more likely that they considered that charge first, couldn't come to a decision, so then moved on to the other charges.


    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    we will see what the next jury says. probably will get at least manslaughter. there just not enough doubt to say martin was a threat. not to mention dunn's own testimony is inconsistent with the data.
    And there you have it folks, the classical slip that reveals what it is actually about for the person arguing.





    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    He always believes the white guy with a gun. Every last time.
    Wrong.
    Dishonest and wrong.
    You are just spouting false, nonsensical, bs.





    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I think the mistake ExCon makes is believing that the state has to disprove his version of events. I, on the other hand, believe that's up to the jury to decide. Is the defendant's claim believable? Not even beyond a shadow of a doubt...but more likely than not. He also doesn't seem to understand "affirmative defense." There's no doubting that he shot and killed the young man. Now it's up to him to show that, more likely than not, it happened the way he says it happened.

    It's important to keep in mind, though, that the jury was hung on the teen's murder. Some/many couldn't find him guilty on that particular charge, even though, as I understand it, they could have found him guilty on a lesser charge. (I'm not sure about that, but I personally don't see 1st Degree Murder.)

    What they did say loud and clear, though, is that you can't shoot willy-nilly into a car without it being attempted murder.
    MaggieD you are speaking from a point of ignorance. That means from a point of being untaught.
    You were already shown to be wrong about "affirmative defense", and yet here you are speaking nonsense about it and me.

    You should really learn what you are speaking about before you try and say someone else is wrong, especially as I haven't been.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  4. #174
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    MaggieD you are speaking from a point of ignorance. That means from a point of being untaught. You were already shown to be wrong about "affirmative defense", and yet here you are speaking nonsense about it and me.

    You should really learn what you are speaking about before you try and say someone else is wrong, especially as I haven't been.
    What am I wrong about? An affirmative defense being necessary when one is on trial for murder and claiming self-defense? No, I'm not. In an affirmative defense, the defendant admits he shot/killed someone - which is against the law - and must show, to the satisfaction of the jury that he acted in self-defense. If he can convince the jury of that, he'll be found not guilty. What is it that you disagree with here?

    If a person is granted immunity for acting in self defense. Those actions of self defense are immune from criminal prosecution and civil law suits. Read the law, and stop spreading false information. The immunity is complete.
    I think you're wrong here. If I am acquitted of shooting/killing a burglar in my home based on self-defense, I can still be held responsible for the fact that I fired six shots and one of them went through the wall and shot a baby in the head. If you have a link that proves otherwise, I'd be happy to have a look.

  5. #175
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,159

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    First of all, there is not a "usually" with me.
    So you can stop being personal, and stop making ridiculously absurd personal comments.

    As to your question.
    In this case, it is obviously the one (Davis) who threatened to kill the other (Dunn) causing them to act in self defense.

    There's always a usually with you. I have yet to see you not defend someone who was carrying a gun.

    There is no corroborating evidence of a threat or a gun. What did the other people who got shot say? Dunn's fiancee testified that he didn't mention that they had a gun either that day or the day after. Apparently only after it was clear he was in trouble. While that is not evidence, there is also no evidence that there was a gun. Just one man's word, why do you buy his story unequivocally?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  6. #176
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,645

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    What am I wrong about? An affirmative defense being necessary when one is on trial for murder and claiming self-defense? No, I'm not. In an affirmative defense, the defendant admits he shot/killed someone - which is against the law - and must show, to the satisfaction of the jury that he acted in self-defense. If he can convince the jury of that, he'll be found not guilty. What is it that you disagree with here?
    The question the jury has to ask is that the use of force what any reasonable person would do. Not what the defendant thinks is reasonable but what a reasonable person would do. if we went by what the defense thought was reasonable we wouldn't have need of a trial.

    The jury couldn't agree if what he did was reasonable as some thought it was others didn't. he still has to answer for shooting at innocent people which are the other 3 boys in the car which the jury found was above and beyond reasonable.

    unlike what excon thinks you are not immune from collateral damage.


    I think you're wrong here. If I am acquitted of shooting/killing a burglar in my home based on self-defense, I can still be held responsible for the fact that I fired six shots and one of them went through the wall and shot a baby in the head. If you have a link that proves otherwise, I'd be happy to have a look.
    [/QUOTE]

    There isn't anything that i am aware of. you are responsible for any bullet fired out of a gun and including innocent people outside the perceived threat can still land you in jail.

  7. #177
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    What am I wrong about? An affirmative defense being necessary when one is on trial for murder and claiming self-defense? No, I'm not. In an affirmative defense, the defendant admits he shot/killed someone - which is against the law - and must show, to the satisfaction of the jury that he acted in self-defense. If he can convince the jury of that, he'll be found not guilty. What is it that you disagree with here?
    You were already shown why what you earlier stated was wrong.

    As for what you now say.
    [simplified]All an affirmative defense requires is for the defendant to present to the trier of fact a reason why he acted the way he did. Not to just present, or say, I was acting in self defense, but to present why. As in, I shot because he was getting out of his vehicle to carry thorough with his threat to kill me.[/simplification]
    The Prosecution is still required to prove all elements of the crime and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant didn't act in self defense.



    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I think you're wrong here. If I am acquitted of shooting/killing a burglar in my home based on self-defense, I can still be held responsible for the fact that I fired six shots and one of them went through the wall and shot a baby in the head. If you have a link that proves otherwise, I'd be happy to have a look.
    Yes you can be. That is what you do not seem to understand.
    Which is your failure for not reading that which has already been provided.
    What do you not understand about the immunity being complete?
    If your response is judged to be self defense you can not be held accountable for any other damage stemming from that act of self defense.

    The law can not say you are immune from criminal prosecution for that use of said force, only to say that they can prosecute you for something else stemming from the use of that justified legal force. It doesn't say that at all.
    The law gives complete immunity to anything stemming from the use of that force.


    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
    History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

    Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

    That immunity is complete.
    Collateral damage or not, the person is covered. And why would that be?
    Because you are allowed to protect yourself and should not be held accountable for doing so.






    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    There's always a usually with you. I have yet to see you not defend someone who was carrying a gun.
    Besides you continuing to be personal, your argument, is wrong as usual.
    There are more, but just off the top of my head.
    1. Officer shoots at van as it leaves the scene of ticketing.
    2. Officer shoot man getting out of truck with a knife in his hands.
    The usual seems to be your false off-topic personal responses.


    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    There is no corroborating evidence of a threat or a gun.
    There doesn't need to be any direct corroborating evidence.
    But there is circumstantial evidence that the claimed gun was stashed.


    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    What did the other people who got shot say?
    They had no credibility.
    They lost most of it with the bs about the safety locks.
    So really matters not.


    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Dunn's fiancee testified that he didn't mention that they had a gun either that day or the day after.
    She was an emotional wreck.
    Her not remembering matters not.


    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    Apparently only after it was clear he was in trouble.

    He stated such and has remained adamant from the the first telling to authorities.


    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    While that is not evidence, there is also no evidence that there was a gun.
    Yes it is, and yes there was. His account is evidence. And that is supported by the circumstantial evidence that something was stashed. And the suspicious activity of the driver contacting his aunt who later came into the same area.





    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    The question the jury has to ask is that the use of force what any reasonable person would do. Not what the defendant thinks is reasonable but what a reasonable person would do.
    That isn't even true.
    The law in Florida, which has the reasonable man standard written into it, only requires that the response/reaction; ie: the action that the defendant is on trial for; be a reasonable.
    Nothing other than that.

    Other states are different have the wording reflect otherwise.
    But not in the State of Florida.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  8. #178
    Sage



    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    12,247

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    So, do you think Michael was a reasonable man?

  9. #179
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Dunn's reaction to a guy getting out of a vehicle to kill him, was reasonable.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  10. #180
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:53 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    30,645

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force,
    that only applies to the threat involved it does not include innocent bystanders you are wrong. if you shoot an innocent bystander you are not immune for that action.

    That isn't even true.
    The law in Florida, which has the reasonable man standard written into it, only requires that the response/reaction; ie: the action that the defendant is on trial for; be a reasonable.
    Nothing other than that.
    again incorrect but you don't care so it doesn't matter. you try what you propose in florida and you will go to jail just like dunn is going to jail for attempted murder.

    There doesn't need to be any direct corroborating evidence.
    But there is circumstantial evidence that the claimed gun was stashed.
    no there isn't even that. that is the theory by the defense attorney that the gun was stashed. that is not evidence. it is his theory. just as it is dunn's testimony not evidence that there was a gun (which no one found).

    They had no credibility.
    They lost most of it with the bs about the safety locks.
    So really matters not.
    you seem to think dunn is completely credible even though his story has a ton of holes in it and he is the only one with that account other witnesses discredit dunn's testimony.

    so we have multiple people saying the opposite of dunn including people that were in the car they are all wrong and dunn is right even though what he said has proven to be in-accurate. on top of that he fled the scene of a crime.

    next jury manslaughter. dunn shot at 3 innocent kids all because one kid cussed him out. no evidence presented by the defense supports dunn's theory.

Page 18 of 36 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •