Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial
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! :doh
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.
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.
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?
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?
he ignores all the other facts of the case.
Secondly, what you say about me is wrong.
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.
:doh 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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
:lamo:lamo
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.
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.
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.
He always believes the white guy with a gun. Every last time.
Wrong.
Dishonest and wrong.
You are just spouting false, nonsensical, bs.
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.
