• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

You need to substantiate your claim first.

There is evidence that Dunn is a liar because that's my testimony. Claim substantiated.

When did Dunn call the police?
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

There is evidence that Dunn is a liar because that's my testimony. Claim substantiated.

When did Dunn call the police?
Dodging.
Most likely because you do not know the evidence and are only going off of others claims.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Really?
You already know that the circumstantial evidence suggests that there was one that was stashed.

You really don't see just how insane your claims are do you?

There was no shotgun to be found. Period. Thus, Dunn was wrong. Just because he thought he saw a weapon does not mean there was indeed a weapon. Holding fast to solely Dunn's statement in spite of physical evidence to the contrary, shows you're simply going to believe Dunn's statement over the young men's evidence... which include physical evidence to back up their claim, no matter what.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

You really don't see just how insane your claims are do you?

There was no shotgun to be found. Period. Thus, Dunn was wrong. Just because he thought he saw a weapon does not mean there was indeed a weapon. Holding fast to solely Dunn's statement in spite of physical evidence to the contrary, shows you're simply going to believe Dunn's statement over the young men's evidence... which include physical evidence to back up their claim, no matter what.
It is your claims that are apparently insane.
They, as well as you, can not disprove his claim because of the circumstantial evidence.
Not finding the gun does not mean it did not exist.
The young men provided no credible/reliable evidence. And no physical evidence backs up their claims about a gun.

And what you apparently don't understand, is his account is evidence.
It hasn't been disproved.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Dodging.
Most likely because you do not know the evidence and are only going off of others claims.

My testimony is evidence.

When did Dunn call the police. Answer the question.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

My testimony is evidence.

When did Dunn call the police. Answer the question.
Dodging.
Most likely because you do not know the evidence and are only going off of others claims.

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

Dodging.
Most likely because you do not know the evidence and are only going off of others claims.

Support your claim.

When did Dunn call the police? It's not a statement, it's a question.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

It is your claims that are apparently insane.
They, as well as you, can not disprove his claim because of the circumstantial evidence.
Not finding the gun does not mean it did not exist.
The young men provided no credible/reliable evidence. And no physical evidence backs up their claims about a gun.

And what you apparently don't understand, is his account is evidence.
It hasn't been disproved.

So if no gun is found, no shells, no residual powder, no nothing... that does NOT mean it wasn't there? How can you possibly, with a straight face, claim that no physical evidence backs up their claim that no gun was present, when in fact NO GUN WAS PRESENT?! You have to prove a gun was present, not the other way around.

You've just slipped into guilty until proven innocent... but only for the people of color.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

When did Dunn call the police? It's not a statement, it's a question.
Still dodging I see.
You need to support your claims.
Which I already know you can't.





So if no gun is found, no shells, no residual powder, no nothing... that does NOT mean it wasn't there?
Holy ****.
You really don't pay attention do you?
The evidence is that a gun was used to threaten, with circumstantial evidence to suggest that gun was stashed after the fact.
That has not been disproved.
No shells, no residual powder ... All meaningless to whether or not it existed.


How can you possibly, with a straight face, claim that no physical evidence backs up their claim that no gun was present, when in fact NO GUN WAS PRESENT?! You have to prove a gun was present, not the other way around.

You've just slipped into guilty until proven innocent... but only for the people of color.
Wrong. He does not have to prove it.
In order for the Prosecutor to meet it's burden and prove all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt they must disprove his account, or in the alternative, show it wasn't justified.


And sadly, you display your own biased viewpoint. This has nothing to do with race. So don't even try to suggest such bs.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Still dodging I see.
You need to support your claims.
Which I already know you can't.






Holy ****.
You really don't pay attention do you?
The evidence is that a gun was used to threaten, with circumstantial evidence to suggest that gun was stashed after the fact.
That has not been disproved.
No shells, no residual powder ... All meaningless to whether or not it existed.


Wrong. He does not have to prove it.
In order for the Prosecutor to meet it's burden and prove all the elements beyond a reasonable doubt they must disprove his account, or in the alternative, show it wasn't justified.


And sadly, you display your own biased viewpoint. This has nothing to do with race. So don't even try to suggest such bs.

Was a shotgun found? No? Proven!
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Was a shotgun found? No? Proven!
For some reason it escapes you that a gun not being found, does not mean that one did not exist.

I wonder why that is?
Especially as there is circumstantial evidence that suggests it was stashed.

What is it that you do not understand about these things?
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

For some reason it escapes you that a gun not being found, does not mean that one did not exist.

I wonder why that is?
Especially as there is circumstantial evidence that suggests it was stashed.

What is it that you do not understand about these things?
I answered your question repeatedly.

Were there any inaccuracies in Dunn's statements?

For some reason it escapes you that a gun not being found, does not mean that one did not exist.
A say invisible pink unicorns don't exist. Now prove that they do exist.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

I snicker at the thought of Davis suddenly turned into an uncontrollable blood-thirsty killer that night. After all, I'm sure like most hot-headed teenagers, he would be having a lengthy history of threatening and killing tons of other teens in high school for the usual teenage quarrel and confrontation. And after all, that night they were planning for a good time cruising the mall for girls and thinking a shotgun on the floor of a tight back compartment was a very good idea to set the girls in romantic mood. It's absurd.

He said they scowled at him but he turned away not paying no attention, rolled up his window and faced straight.That's because a confrontation was the last thing he was looking for. Yeah right.

Jordan Davis saying: "I should f-ing KILL that m-f" and his polite "Excuse me - are you talking about me?" ----too sanitized. I call it bs.

Jordan Davis coming at him with a 10 or 20 gauge shotgun saying "You're dead, bitch! This thing is going down now!" and he went to glove compartment to get his gun, put a bullet in the chamber and still have time to make a very polite and dramatic declarative line "You are not going to kill me you son of a bitch". It's ridiculous ----this bs never happened.

John Guy should have asked him on the stand when he acted out under cross: "Is this the way you behaved on that night or worst?"

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

Yeah, I think they're right. And the state will probably re-try him on the 1st degree murder charge. I don't know how they can call it pre-meditated, frankly...I don't know, maybe they won't re-try him. It's a bit of a stretch.

But he did wrong. He's a very bad example of a gun-owner. If he hadn't left? If there had been a gun? Maybe they'd have found it. The leaving is what did it for me. No reasonable person would leave the scene when they'd killed someone. If he was afraid and THAT'S why he left right away? Then you call the coppers immediately or go right to the station. Maybe he was BAC impaired.

It's extremely hard to prove First Degree Murder. That is premeditated murder.

Hell, you can piss someone off and get shot dead and that isn't even First Degree Murder (in most states).

To get a First Degree Murder charge you have to premeditate the murder - and that is difficult considering getting insides ones head is impossible.

I don't know much about this case considering it's called the "loud music case" and that kinda drops my interest so.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

It's extremely hard to prove First Degree Murder. That is premeditated murder.

Hell, you can piss someone off and get shot dead and that isn't even First Degree Murder (in most states).

To get a First Degree Murder charge you have to premeditate the murder - and that is difficult considering getting insides ones head is impossible.

I don't know much about this case considering it's called the "loud music case" and that kinda drops my interest so.

Not sure it's that difficult to prove. Bringing a weapon with you instead of using one of opportunity is pretty much a slam dunk, in my opinion.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

I answered your question repeatedly.

Were there any inaccuracies in Dunn's statements?


A say invisible pink unicorns don't exist. Now prove that they do exist.
Why are you quoting what I said to another person, and making an irrelevant response to it?

You still need to back up your claims, which we already know you can not do.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Not sure it's that difficult to prove. Bringing a weapon with you instead of using one of opportunity is pretty much a slam dunk, in my opinion.

That doesn't prove anything....


The statute in most states say that you have to have premeditation........ I could bring a weapon to a bar, get pissed at a guy aim the gun at him and shoot the damn bartender on accident and that is not First Degree Murder.

The statute is premeditation - meaning the murder (of said dead individual) was planned all a long.

That is almost impossible to prove...
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

For some reason it escapes you that a gun not being found, does not mean that one did not exist.

I wonder why that is?
Especially as there is circumstantial evidence that suggests it was stashed.

What is it that you do not understand about these things?

You have repeated this claim of circumstantial evidence proving the existence of a shot gun many times, and I have asked you before to provide said circumstantial evidence. You have thus far declined, so I went looking for it.

First off - do you understand what is meant, in the legal sense, by circumstantial evidence? Allow me to assist with the legal definition -

Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.

There was no information or testimony proving the existence of the alleged shotgun, and even the witness who first drew attention to the possibility of it being hidden, withdrew his testimony under oath.

Seconds after 17-year-old Jordan Davis was shot outside a Gate gas station in November, a man was leaving The Loop restaurant with his sister and son next door.

He heard the gunshots and called police, telling the dispatcher he saw the driver and passenger get out of the red Dodge Durango that was carrying Davis and three other teens.

"One was on his cellphone looking back, and it looked like they were pretty much just -- I don't know if they were trying to stash something in the car or look for something or what, but it looked like they got out, kind of brushed themselves off and then they got back in," the witness told a 911 dispatcher.

That comment, suggesting the teens could have stashed a weapon, is likely what defense attorneys for murder suspect Michael Dunn will latch onto in this case. Dunn is accused of firing into the teens' SUV several times during a dispute over loud music.

In his sworn statements to the state attorney's office the following month, the man from The Loop clarified that he did not see the men try to hide anything.

"Just so it's clear, the whole time you saw the vehicle, you never saw them throw anything out of the vehicle?" an investigator asked.

"Correct," the man said.

"And you never saw any weapons of any kind?" the investigator asked.

"Correct," the man said.
Witness says he saw teens get out of SUV after shooting | News - Home

Police said the teens pulled out of the gas station toward The Loop, got out, and then reversed back to the gas station.

"The vehicle was either observed by witnesses or impounded by police, so anything in that vehicle would have still been in that vehicle or probably still be in that vehicle, and it's been combed through," Phillips said.
Witness says he saw teens get out of SUV after shooting | News - Home

So believe what you will, but please discontinue making this bogus claim.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

You have repeated this claim of circumstantial evidence proving the existence of a shot gun many times, and I have asked you before to provide said circumstantial evidence. You have thus far declined, so I went looking for it.

First off - do you understand what is meant, in the legal sense, by circumstantial evidence? Allow me to assist with the legal definition -

Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.

There was no information or testimony proving the existence of the alleged shotgun, and even the witness who first drew attention to the possibility of it being hidden, withdrew his testimony under oath.

Witness says he saw teens get out of SUV after shooting | News - Home


Witness says he saw teens get out of SUV after shooting | News - Home

So believe what you will, but please discontinue making this bogus claim.
Good job putting together a cogent rebuttal that put the nail in the coffin. Two got out of the vehicle, one on the cell phone and the other brushing his clothing probably to check if he was hit. Two witnesses were very close nearby witnessing all this event that took only a few seconds. They didn't see any weapon being tossed out and if stashed inside the vehicle, the Durango was impounded when police was at the scene. And of course no firearm was found in the Durango.

But, let's see what Excon will say to this next. I'm sure he will come up with something instead of conceding error to the bogus claim.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

When did Dunn contact the police?

He was in the process of thinking about contacting the authorities...give the guy a break.;)
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

That doesn't prove anything....


The statute in most states say that you have to have premeditation........ I could bring a weapon to a bar, get pissed at a guy aim the gun at him and shoot the damn bartender on accident and that is not First Degree Murder.

The statute is premeditation - meaning the murder (of said dead individual) was planned all a long.

That is almost impossible to prove...

Actually is that the standard? I recall someone on another thread posting something from a legal site that essentially indicated the planning could be a very rapid process. I do not recall having any strong feelings about the reliability of that website.

That being said, after watching Law and Order for 20 years, it seems like Murder 2 - depraved indifference to me.:lol:
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

You have repeated this claim of circumstantial evidence proving the existence of a shot gun many times, and I have asked you before to provide said circumstantial evidence. You have thus far declined, so I went looking for it.

First off - do you understand what is meant, in the legal sense, by circumstantial evidence? Allow me to assist with the legal definition -

Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.

There was no information or testimony proving the existence of the alleged shotgun, and even the witness who first drew attention to the possibility of it being hidden, withdrew his testimony under oath.

Witness says he saw teens get out of SUV after shooting | News - Home


Witness says he saw teens get out of SUV after shooting | News - Home

So believe what you will, but please discontinue making this bogus claim.
Great post, thank you.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

You have repeated this claim of circumstantial evidence proving the existence of a shot gun many times, and I have asked you before to provide said circumstantial evidence. You have thus far declined, so I went looking for it.

First off - do you understand what is meant, in the legal sense, by circumstantial evidence? Allow me to assist with the legal definition -

Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.

There was no information or testimony proving the existence of the alleged shotgun, and even the witness who first drew attention to the possibility of it being hidden, withdrew his testimony under oath.

Witness says he saw teens get out of SUV after shooting | News - Home


Witness says he saw teens get out of SUV after shooting | News - Home

So believe what you will, but please discontinue making this bogus claim.

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

but please discontinue making this bogus claim.
The only bogus claim is yours.


You have repeated this claim of circumstantial evidence proving the existence of a shot gun many times, and I have asked you before to provide said circumstantial evidence. You have thus far declined, so I went looking for it.
1. You clearly are confused and not understanding what you are reading. I said there is circumstantial evidence that suggests the gun did exist.
Not once have I said it was proven to have existed. There is a big difference in what you are falsely saying I said, and what I actually said.
So stop making bogus claims.
2. Where did you ask me to provided anything that I hadn't already provided? Or is this just another of your bogus claims?


First off - do you understand what is meant, in the legal sense, by circumstantial evidence? Allow me to assist with the legal definition -

Information and testimony presented by a party in a civil or criminal action that permit conclusions that indirectly establish the existence or nonexistence of a fact or event that the party seeks to prove.
You clearly need to pay attention to, and start understanding what you are reading.


There was no information or testimony proving the existence of the alleged shotgun, and even the witness who first drew attention to the possibility of it being hidden, withdrew his testimony under oath.
Wrong on all counts.
1. No one said it was proven.
2. The witness did not change what he said. It appeared to him that the individual was trying to stash something. So that is another false claim you have made. You taking the following exchange and twisting it to mean he withdrew his claim is absurdity at best.

"Just so it's clear, the whole time you saw the vehicle, you never saw them throw anything out of the vehicle?" an investigator asked.

"Correct," the man said.

"And you never saw any weapons of any kind?" the investigator asked.

"Correct," the man said.

There is no withdrawal of his claim that it appeared to him to be stashing or looking for something.

And secondly, it was established by his 911 call that it was dark enough not to be able to be certain of the drivers hair style (just long), and on cross that he was not observing the guys in the red Durango the whole time.
So any suggestion that he would have seen anything thrown out of the vehicle is ridiculous.

So I would suggest you stop with your bogus claims.




Police said the teens pulled out of the gas station toward The Loop, got out, and then reversed back to the gas station.

"The vehicle was either observed by witnesses or impounded by police, so anything in that vehicle would have still been in that vehicle or probably still be in that vehicle, and it's been combed through," Phillips said.
:lamo:lamo:lamo
Besides the police getting things wrong, like stating it was 90 seconds the Durango was gone, when the time is more likely over 6 minutes, the police are not witnesses to what happened.
Hmmm? 6 minutes doing what?
6 minutes that Davis laid dying in the back while they didn't even call 911. But the driver did call his aunt who later came into the area.
Puh-lease!
The circumstantial evidence is there, and suggestive like I said.


The facts win again, so again, I would suggest you stop with your bogus claims.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Good job putting together a cogent rebuttal that put the nail in the coffin.
:doh:2rofll::doh

Untruths do not make a cognitive rebuttal.
Nor do they put a nail in any coffin.
:2rofll:
:doh
 
Back
Top Bottom