• 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

I'm still slack-jawed over the fact that they found the guy guilty of three counts of attempted murder on the guys he didn't manage to kill, but couldn't agree on a murder conviction on the guy he did manage to kill. WTF is up with that?? I can't imagine what the parents of that poor dead teenager must be going through right now, knowing that their son has still not received justice.

****ing Florida juries are all nutjobs. :(

Only one solution here - Take a saw and saw Florida off from the rest of the country, and float it to Cuba.... Wait, that won't work. Cuba doesn't want Florida either. LOL.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Had anyone seen them with an actual%
Dunn testified that he saw Davis with a gun.
Dunn's account is evidence.

Like I said; You are in over your head here.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

All the nonsense and dishonesty are coming directly from you, so please spare me your false sense of indignation.
:naughty
Get your facts straight, that is all which you have provided.
And still are.


The brother and sister did not both turn away their attention at the same time. Both of them had their attention on the Durango most of the time from the time the Durango sped towards their direction to the time two men got out of the vehicle and then getting back in while they stood there watching because they were afraid that night after hearing gun shots and weren't sure what was going on.
Irrelevant.
She did not see the other side of the vehicle as she honestly stated. And he said he didn't have eyes on them the whole time.

And like her brother, she too was at the rear of the car and saw nothing to the other side of the Durango, because it was impossible to see such from that vantage point.


At one point the sister opened her purse and looked down for a split second to get her car keys while the brother was still watching at the other end. The brother only put the toddler into the car seat just before the Durngo back away in reverse course towards the gas station. That part he did not see when the Durango starting to back away but as he testified, he had been putting the toddler into the car seat for so many times that it didn't take him but a few second and was still able to look up through the back window of the car.
Irrelevant. The angles show he is not being truthful.
And by his own testimony, he said he did not have eyes on them to entire time.


So, to recap, both did see the main part where the Durango came towards them, two got out of the vehicle inspecting car, one with cell phone talking and going to the hatchback to check inside. Nothing was witnessed by the two witnesses during those crucial moment before they back away with their Durango. And certainly no gun or shot gun was seen in their possession, stashed into the Durango or ditched somewhere in the parking lot, for the two never left the location where the Durango was stopped.

So, really, you have no case.
To recap, you have no case.
She did not, as she could not, see what happened on the passenger side of the Durango.
He did not have eyes on them the entire time, and the angles in question would not have allowed him to see what happened on the passenger side of the Durango either.


As you were already told, I need not provide any such thing, especially as no such claim was made.

They saw them get out, doing something.
They did not have eyes on them the entire time to say they didn't get rid of something.
Why do you have to resort to lying, Excon?

You certainly did make a strong suggestion that a gun did exist many times. The last one you made was just two posts away from your current one in post #317. Let me quote you:

"It is all circumstantial evidence suggesting the gun did exist."​

So, please don't try to run away and answer me the question: where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere?

Yes, you have to answer that if you want to use their testimonies to suggest "the gun did exist" and/or to claim that there was a gun that was stashed in or ditched out of the Durango. Now, answer that!!!

PLEASE ANSWER THE DAMN SIMPLE QUESTION, EXCON!!!
You have a real problem in understanding what has been said.
It is either that or you are straight out lying. Which is it?

And no, I do not have to answer to your idiotic assertion.

What I pointed out is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist.
No one else had to see a gun for that to be an accurate statement.
That is your problem for not fully understanding what circumstantial evidence is.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Well, my previous quote from the legal definition of Direct vs Indirect (Circumstantial evidence gave the illustrations:

If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann.

You see that, Excon? John saw Tom leaving the room with a smoking gun and yet John's testimony about seeing the smoking gun is just circumstantial evidence. Therefore, same as in Dunn's case, what the brother and sister saw that night at a location 200 yards from the shooting, whether they saw a gun or not, their testimony is simply circumstantial evidence.

But, we know the two witnesses testified that they didn't even see the boys had anything other the a cell phone, so go figure with your imaginary gun.


You have been thoroughly refuted and utterly defeated in your ongoing craps by me with clear logic, reason, legal definition and with fact of witness testimonies. All you have is turning the table and accusing me of your own follies and acting out your false sense of indignation that doesn't even belong.
Really?
You are pretending that you are so uneducated that you can not see the distinct difference between these?
Wow! Simply wow!

Well you are wrong, and are the only one who has been "thoroughly refuted and utterly destroyed by the facts.
1. Your quoted scenario is not relevant to this situation at all.
2. It is nothing more, as shown, than circumstantial evidence to Tom doing the shooting.
NOt to the existence of a gun.

But your quoted example is providing direct evidence to the existence of a gun. Duh!


This is just another example of you not knowing what the hell you are talking about, and explains your ridiculously absurd question above.
You simply do not understand.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Yes, it has been addressed several times ad nauseam and yet you continue to dish out crapola.
The only one dishing out crapola and making things up is you.


So, let me repeat one more time maybe hopefully this time it will sink in:
Your crapola will not sink in because it is wrong as crapola is.
Stop spewing it.


The brother and sister did not both turn away their attention at the same time. Both of them had their attention on the Durango most of the time from the time the Durango sped towards their direction to the time two men got out of the vehicle and then getting back in while they stood there watching because they were afraid that night after hearing gun shots and weren't sure what was going on.


At one point the sister opened her purse and looked down for a split second to get her car keys while the brother was still watching at the other end. The brother only put the toddler into the car seat just before the Durngo back away in reverse course towards the gas station. That part he did not see when the Durango starting to back away but as he testified, he had been putting the toddler into the car seat for so many times that it didn't take him but a few second and was still able to look up through the back window of the car.


And you even want to convince people of a draw of luck, a very convenient co-incidence that one witness just turned away and the other happened not to watch at the right time and at a split moment the boys ditched the shotgun right in front of them from a shot distance and never saw or heard a thing. Not even after the Durango left, nothing, nada of a shot gun on the parking lot. Too convenient it just doesn't wash.


So, to recap, both did see the main part where the Durango came towards them, two got out of the vehicle inspecting car, one with cell phone talking and going to the hatchback to check inside. Nothing was witnessed by the two witnesses during those crucial moment before they back away with their Durango. And certainly no gun or shot gun was seen in their possession, stashed into the Durango or ditched somewhere in the parking lot, for the two never left the location where the Durango was stopped. If they had ditched the shot gun from the Durango, the witnesses would have seen it laying somewhere on the ground. How can one miss seeing a shot gun being tossed out or laying on the ground in the parking lot?
A ridiculous argument that comes directly from you making **** up in your own head.
Not even the prosecutor would make such an argument because it can not be shown to be true.

The sister could not even see the other side of the vehicle at all, which she honestly stated. Period.

And even though her brother can clearly be shown to be untruthful by the line of sight he had, he has already stated he did not have his eyes on them the entire time.
So you have absolutely nothing to your argument.
It is nothing but foolishness on your part.


The brother wasn't lying about seeing both sides of the SUV. He was there, you weren't, so stop making stuffs up to falsely accuse people of lying.
The angle involved says he was being untruthful. Especially with the doors being open.


The brother testified that he and his sister was not standing together at the same location. When the Durango came towards them he went one way and his sister went the other way taking coverage behind her car by the front passenger door overlooking the Durango. The brother was actually running away and was standing at the other end behind her car. So, where he stood he could see directly at the Durango and therefore at both sides of the SUV doors.
Which does not give him a view of the other side of the Durango.
Not to mention the fact that he moved towards her car anyways, and had to interact with it, thus taking his eyes off of the Durango. Duh!

Location from her testimony.
He would have had to been up in the blue area the whole time to see what happened on that side of the vehicle. But he wasn't.
So stop with your nonsense.


Location from his testimony.


She honestly indicated that she was not able to see what happened on the other side of the Durngo, and by the angles involved, nether was he.
But beside that, he already stated he did not have eyes on them the entire time, and as we can see by the angles involved he couldn't have regardless if he was on either side of the car or at it's rear.

For him to be able to say such, he would have had to be standing far into the roadway the entire time they were out of the Durango. And he simply wasn't. He was preoccupied with the safty of his son.


So you can just stop with all your nonsense. He didn't have his eyes on them the entire time.


But, the whole point of your argument is that the brother would not have been able to see both sides and they couldn't have seen anything because they turned their attention away from the two men is just a self-defeating argument considering that you are relying on their testimonies as your evidence that the boys had a shotgun in the Durango that was ditched or stashed away.
You clearly have no idea what has been argued.


Remember, when another poster had asked you for evidence regarding your insistent claim that the boys had gun in their possession, the testimonies of these two witnesses were cited by you as your evidence. So, there you go again, shooting yourself in the foot at every turn while acting like you have conquered the whole wide world.

So, please don't try to run away but answer me the question: where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere?


Yes, you have to answer that if you want to use their testimonies to suggest "the gun did exist" and/or to claim that there was a gun that was stashed in or ditched out of the Durango. Now, answer that!!!
No I do not, because as already shown, I did not make the claim you say I made.
And you have just now shown that you did not understand what was said to another poster as well.
As usual, you are wrong and batting zero.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Dunn testified that he saw Davis with a gun.
Dunn's account is evidence.

Like I said; You are in over your head here.
So, now you're crawling back to Dunn's account to save your soul?

So what if you want to claim Dunn's self-serving statement as "evidence". The three boys in the Durango claimed no shotgun was in the vehicle and a witness at the shooting scene did not see a shotgun from the Durango pointing at Dunn which was towards the direction of vision of the witness. And then at another location by the loop parking lot two witnesses, brother and sister, testified they didn't see the boys with any weapon.

So, six evidence against your one, you loose, Excon.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

:naughty
Get your facts straight, that is all which you have provided.
And still are.


Irrelevant.
She did not see the other side of the vehicle as she honestly stated. And he said he didn't have eyes on them the whole time.

And like her brother, she too was at the rear of the car and saw nothing to the other side of the Durango, because it was impossible to see such from that vantage point.


Irrelevant. The angles show he is not being truthful.
And by his own testimony, he said he did not have eyes on them to entire time.


To recap, you have no case.
She did not, as she could not, see what happened on the passenger side of the Durango.
He did not have eyes on them the entire time, and the angles in question would not have allowed him to see what happened on the passenger side of the Durango either.


You have a real problem in understanding what has been said.
It is either that or you are straight out lying. Which is it?

And no, I do not have to answer to your idiotic assertion.

What I pointed out is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist.
No one else had to see a gun for that to be an accurate statement.
That is your problem for not fully understanding what circumstantial evidence is.

She could see enough to be able to tell if the men was just standing and then walking to the back of their vehicle vs ditching away a shotgun right there on the parking lot. She certainly could see that the men did not walk away from the vehicle with a shotgun and then ditched it somewhere else, that much is certain.

Like I said the brother was standing at different location from her and watched the men got out of the Durango (which was pointed at an angle towards them) until both men got back in. The part he didn't see was when the men reverse their way back to the gas station. So, he didn't see the two men ditching anything or stashing anything. If they did, the shot gun would be either laying in plain sight on the parking lot or still in the Durango which would be found by the police when they came by and impounded the vehicle while all the time witnesses were there watching and helping to revive Davis after pulling him out of the vehicle to the ground to perform CPR.

You claimed what you have "pointed out is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist."

So, tell me where is your circumstantial evidence? It couldn't be the two witnesses at the Loop parking lot, could it? Because they didn't see anything being ditched or stashed, let alone a shotgun and you yourself insisted they couldn't see much of anything, not that they saw or thought they saw something that looked like a gun or shotgun.

See your bind there?

So, you can't answer my question claiming because no one else had to see a gun for that to be an accurate statement? That's a very pathetic claim.

It's more like there was no other independent witness beside Dunn who could testify to seeing the boys with a gun or a shotgun to support your argument, that's why. Why then don't you just be honest and simply said so instead of leading us into a wild goose chase for nothing?
 
Last edited:
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Really?
You are pretending that you are so uneducated that you can not see the distinct difference between these?
Wow! Simply wow!

Well you are wrong, and are the only one who has been "thoroughly refuted and utterly destroyed by the facts.
1. Your quoted scenario is not relevant to this situation at all.
2. It is nothing more, as shown, than circumstantial evidence to Tom doing the shooting.
NOt to the existence of a gun.

But your quoted example is providing direct evidence to the existence of a gun. Duh!


This is just another example of you not knowing what the hell you are talking about, and explains your ridiculously absurd question above.
You simply do not understand.

The illustrations from the definition of circumstantial vs direct evidence parallel that of the situation of the witnesses in Dunn's case.

In the illustration John saw Tom leaving the room with a smoking gun and yet John's testimony about seeing the smoking gun is just circumstantial evidence. Therefore, same as in Dunn's case, what the brother and sister saw that night at a location 200 yards from the shooting, whether they saw a gun or not, their testimony is simply circumstantial evidence.

An object itself is neither direct or circumstantial evidence. Weapons, guns, cricket bat, disposed bloody clothing, etc, found after the fact or disposed into the lake after the fact, are simply part and parcel of circumstantial evidence, not direct. Direct means a witness has to witness with his or her own eyes the perpetrator using such weapon or object to cause fatal harm directly to the deceased victim when the event occurred.

Therefore direct means direct observation of an event by a witness. Circumstantial means evidence gathered together as presumptive or inferential conclusion to an event.

Which part of above don't you understand?
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

The only one dishing out crapola and making things up is you.



Your crapola will not sink in because it is wrong as crapola is.
Stop spewing it.


A ridiculous argument that comes directly from you making **** up in your own head.
Not even the prosecutor would make such an argument because it can not be shown to be true.

The sister could not even see the other side of the vehicle at all, which she honestly stated. Period.

And even though her brother can clearly be shown to be untruthful by the line of sight he had, he has already stated he did not have his eyes on them the entire time.
So you have absolutely nothing to your argument.
It is nothing but foolishness on your part.


The angle involved says he was being untruthful. Especially with the doors being open.


Which does not give him a view of the other side of the Durango.
Not to mention the fact that he moved towards her car anyways, and had to interact with it, thus taking his eyes off of the Durango. Duh!

Location from her testimony.
He would have had to been up in the blue area the whole time to see what happened on that side of the vehicle. But he wasn't.
So stop with your nonsense.


Location from his testimony.


She honestly indicated that she was not able to see what happened on the other side of the Durngo, and by the angles involved, nether was he.
But beside that, he already stated he did not have eyes on them the entire time, and as we can see by the angles involved he couldn't have regardless if he was on either side of the car or at it's rear.

For him to be able to say such, he would have had to be standing far into the roadway the entire time they were out of the Durango. And he simply wasn't. He was preoccupied with the safty of his son.


So you can just stop with all your nonsense. He didn't have his eyes on them the entire time.


You clearly have no idea what has been argued.


No I do not, because as already shown, I did not make the claim you say I made.
And you have just now shown that you did not understand what was said to another poster as well.
As usual, you are wrong and batting zero.
Apparently the Durango was orientated and angled directly towards the two witnesses. So they should be able to see as much as they claimed to have seen, not to mention that for one of the two men to have ditched the shotgun without walking away from the Durango the shotgun would have just laid there in plain view especially so when the vehicle reversed back towards the gas station.

Why are you being so difficult to admit that you are plain wrong?

And why are you wasting so much time and energy on these two witnesses whom you claimed could not see what happened on the other side and did not have eyes on the two men the entire time (even though they had during the crucial moment) when they didn't see anything of a weapon let alone a shotgun either with the persons of the two men or being ditched or stash away by them in anyway? How are their testimonies in any way shape or form support your contention that the two men had the shotgun but was ditched or stashed? Where is your evidence to that?

Remember, when another poster had asked you for evidence regarding your insistent claim that the boys had gun in their possession, the testimonies of these two witnesses were cited by you as your evidence. So, there you go again, shooting yourself in the foot at every turn while acting like you have conquered the whole wide world.

So, please don't try to run away but answer me the question: where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere? But, never mind, Excon, I know you can't answer that question without putting yourself in a bind. For crying out loud, I just have to put it there to remind you of your predicament.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Moderator's Warning:
Dolphinocean and Excon, stop the baiting and personal comments. Please stick to the topic, which is not each other.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Dunn testified that he saw Davis with a gun.
Dunn's account is evidence.

Like I said; You are in over your head here.

And the jury has the ability to decide if they believe him or not.

People can say lots of things. Does not make them true.

Given Dunn's actions after the shooting...a jury would be well within their rights to decide he was less than truthful.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

And the jury has the ability to decide if they believe him or not.

People can say lots of things. Does not make them true.

Given Dunn's actions after the shooting...a jury would be well within their rights to decide he was less than truthful.
:doh
:lamo

It is like you think you are saying something that no one knows.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

:doh
:lamo

It is like you think you are saying something that no one knows.

Not sure you do......
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Not sure you do......
As you are the one who has shown they do not fully understand things, you can only be thinking about yourself.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

So, now you're crawling back to Dunn's account to save your soul?
Wtf are you talking about this time?

Dunn's account is the root of what we are speaking about, with the actions of Davis's friends after the shooting being circumstantial evidence that a gun did exist. (Especially in conjunction with their lies.) Which can not be disproved by the bother's or sister's testimony.
Or did you forget all of that?


So what if you want to claim Dunn's self-serving statement as "evidence".
:doh:lamo
His account is of what happened.
It is also the account which the prosecution has to disprove or show wasn't justified. Which we already know she couldn't do.

But if you want to go down the road of self serving statements, then we can point out that Davis's friends who lied, all gave self serving accounts.
That Christopher Leblanc gave a self serving account, just as Shawn Atkins did as well.


The three boys in the Durango claimed no shotgun was in the vehicle and a witness at the shooting scene did not see a shotgun from the Durango pointing at Dunn which was towards the direction of vision of the witness. And then at another location by the loop parking lot two witnesses, brother and sister, testified they didn't see the boys with any weapon.
Davis's friends came off as not believable. I am sure you already know that.

Their actions, after the fact, are outright suspicious. The lies about the call, and lies about the child safety locks being on.
You can even say they lied about the window being up and the door not being opened. Physics proves they lied about those things as well.

They had absolutely no reason to lie about those things if they were not covering something up.


And there you go talking about two irrelevant witnesses (the Leblanc's) who did not, and could not see everything, as they themselves testified.
Which of course makes your claims even more absurd.



So, six evidence gainst your one, you loose, Excon.
iLOL
:doh
That isn't how it works. Duh!
Especially as you only have one obviously truthful person there. The female Leblanc.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

She could see enough to be able to tell if the men was just standing and then walking to the back of their vehicle vs ditching away a shotgun right there on the parking lot.
This is nothing more than you making things up that you want to be true.
Unlike her dishonest bother, she honestly testified that she could not see what was happening on the other side of the vehicle. End of argument.


She certainly could see that the men did not walk away from the vehicle with a shotgun and then ditched it somewhere else, that much is certain.
Obviously you do not know what her not being able to see what was happening on the other side of the vehicle means.


Like I said the brother was standing at different location from her and watched the men got out of the Durango (which was pointed at an angle towards them) until both men got back in.
Wrong. He stated where he was. At the end of her vehicle.
He had no angle to see anything.
And as he testified to, he was moving from one side of the vehicle to the other. He had no angle to see on the other side of the Durango.
His eyes were not on the vehicle the whole time, and as such, he can not testify to any absolute.
His angle of view did not allow him to see what was happening on the other side of the Durango, and as such, he can not testify to any absolute.
Do you really not understand these things?


You claimed what you have "pointed out is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist."
This is you ignoring what has been said, or not understanding it.

So again.
The testimony/evidence is that a gun was seen.
Davis's friends actions after the fact is the circumstantial evidence suggesting that there was a gun.

Or as previously said, several times now;

Their actions, as witnessed, is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist.

And apparently you are confused as to what their actions in toto are.
From them getting out and looking for, or stashing something, to the driver lying about calling 911, to the driver calling his aunt, and his cousin immediately coming into the area, to them not telling the police they left the scene.
It is all circumstantial evidence suggesting the gun did exist.


They saw them get out, doing something.
They did not have eyes on them the entire time to say they didn't get rid of something.


The witnesses see activity that suggested they were "looking" for something or trying to stash something inside the vehicle, goes directly to the suggestion that they were trying to find the gun to get rid of it. What is it you do not understand about that circumstantial evidence?


See your bind there?
So since you were not paying attention previously, just why do you think this evidence was pointed out and allowed to be presented as such during the trial?
Huh?
Like I said, you are in way over your head.


So, you can't answer my question claiming because no one else had to see a gun for that to be an accurate statement? That's a very pathetic claim.
:naughty
What is pathetic is claiming I said something I didn't say, and then asking me to prove that which I didn't assert.
That is dishonesty as well.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

The illustrations from the definition of circumstantial vs direct evidence parallel that of the situation of the witnesses in Dunn's case.
Wrong.
The example was that of circumstantial evidence to the shooting. Not to the existence of a gun.
And the existence of the gun was already established in the example.


In the illustration John saw Tom leaving the room with a smoking gun and yet John's testimony about seeing the smoking gun is just circumstantial evidence. Therefore, same as in Dunn's case, what the brother and sister saw that night at a location 200 yards from the shooting, whether they saw a gun or not, their testimony is simply circumstantial evidence.
The actual example.
If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann.

As you have already been told, that is circumstantial evidence to Tom shooting Ann. That is all. Duh!
It is also direct evidence that he had a gun, as in, the gun existed. Double D'oh!

Not understanding that, is called being in over your head.



Therefore direct means direct observation of an event by a witness. Circumstantial means evidence gathered together as presumptive or inferential ...

Which part of above underlined don't you understand?


So right back to what previously stated.

Their actions, as witnessed, is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist.

And apparently you are confused as to what their actions in toto are.
From them getting out and looking for, or stashing something, to the driver lying about calling 911, to the driver calling his aunt, and his cousin immediately coming into the area, to them not telling the police they left the scene.
It is all circumstantial evidence suggesting the gun did exist.


They saw them get out, doing something.
They did not have eyes on them the entire time to say they didn't get rid of something.


The witnesses see activity that suggested they were "looking" for something or trying to stash something inside the vehicle, goes directly to the suggestion that they were trying to find the gun to get rid of it. What is it you do not understand about that circumstantial evidence?
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

It is only an account of what happened if he is not lying.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Apparently the Durango was orientated and angled directly towards the two witnesses.
This is you again making things up to suite your false narrative.
Everybody testified that the Durango drove straight in and stopped, and then after a while backed straight out.
Not that it drove straight in, turned a little and then stopped, only to then after a while straightened out to back straight out. D'oh!


Christopher Leblanc stated clearly that "it stopped straight right in the middle".
Do you understand that?
That is what he stated. It stopped straight.


Think. He doesn't have x-ray vision. The body of the vehicle and the open doors blocked his view of what was going on on the [passengers side. Duh!
His saying he could see both sides of the vehicle is bs. There were blind spots because of his angle to the vehicle. (as shown)

He stated that he ended up at the rear of his sisters vehicle. Not out in the middle of the lanes of traffic.
That puts him at an angle where he was not able to see what was going on on the other side.
Just as it did fort his sister.


Why are you being so difficult to admit that you are plain wrong?
This is your inability and wrongness that you speak to.
You have been wrong at every turn and just trying to make excuses and move the goal posts to try and justify your absurd beliefs.
This latest (the vehicle was at an angle allowing him to .... blah, blah, blah), is just another great example of the contortions you will go through to try and baffle folks with bs, especially when the evidence says otherwise.



And why are you wasting so much time and energy on these two witnesses whom you claimed could not see what happened on the other side and did not have eyes on the two men the entire time
Hmmmm? Let's see. You are the one wasting time, spouting nonsense and trying to baffle with bs about something that the Leblanc's can not establish because they both said they did not have their attention on them the entire time.
That is you doing that, not me.
I am just refuting your ridiculous claims.


(even though they had during the crucial moment)
See. More nonsense. This is nothing more than you making something up.
Especially as no one could see what was going on, as established by testimony and angles, on the passengers side.


How are their testimonies in any way shape or form support your contention that the two men had the shotgun but was ditched or stashed? Where is your evidence to that?
And again. This is you not paying attention to what was said.

So again. Pay attention this time.
The actions of Davis's friends (from their lies to their suspicious activity) is the circumstantial evidence that suggests that a gun did exist.
This evidence can not be disproved by the Leblanc's inability to see anything.


Remember, when another poster had asked you for evidence regarding your insistent claim that the boys had gun in their possession, the testimonies of these two witnesses were cited by you as your evidence. So, there you go again, shooting yourself in the foot at every turn while acting like you have conquered the whole wide world.
That is nothing other than you not understanding what you read.


So, please don't try to run away but answer me the question: where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere? But, never mind, Excon, I know you can't answer that question without putting yourself in a bind. For crying out loud, I just have to put it there to remind you of your predicament.
iLOL
:doh
I am not in any predicament.
:lamo
You are with your false assertion.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

It is only an account of what happened if he is not lying.
iLOL

Yeah, unlike Dunn, Davis's friends were, making their actions even more suspicious.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

I'm still slack-jawed over the fact that they found the guy guilty of three counts of attempted murder on the guys he didn't manage to kill, but couldn't agree on a murder conviction on the guy he did manage to kill. WTF is up with that?? I can't imagine what the parents of that poor dead teenager must be going through right now, knowing that their son has still not received justice.

****ing Florida juries are all nutjobs. :(
His first target was making threats and reaching for something, so that first shot might be justified.

What he did wrong was fire at other people who weren't a threat.
 
Last edited:
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Wtf are you talking about this time?

Dunn's account is the root of what we are speaking about, with the actions of Davis's friends after the shooting being circumstantial evidence that a gun did exist. (Especially in conjunction with their lies.) Which can not be disproved by the bother's or sister's testimony.
Or did you forget all of that?

Wrong. Your so-called assertion about the actions of Davis' friends after the shooting did not involve any gun. Where is your so-called "circumstantial evidence" that a gun did exist with the boys as you have been talking about?

The only attempt by you to offer as "circumstantial evidence" of such was from the brother-sister testimony. Both witnesses testified they saw Stornes and Thompson the whole time they were in the parking lot, and they never took a weapon out of the car. "I never saw anything taken out of that car," she testified in line with her brother.

What part of the above bold statement testified by her don't you understand?


Davis's friends came off as not believable. I am sure you already know that.


Their actions, after the fact, are outright suspicious. The lies about the call, and lies about the child safety locks being on.
You can even say they lied about the window being up and the door not being opened. Physics proves they lied about those things as well.


They had absolutely no reason to lie about those things if they were not covering something up.




And there you go talking about two irrelevant witnesses (the Leblanc's) who did not, and could not see everything, as they themselves testified.
Which of course makes your claims even more absurd.
Nope. Davis' friends are much more honest than Dunn. Dunn perjured himself in many ways in the court under oath.


Their actions are within normal teenage human behavior within such circumstances. Again, you are bias against them while willfully blinded your eyes to many holes and failing in Dunn's story and behavior.


You have no proof the child safety lock wasn't on as stated by Thomson. They certainly had to unlock the child safety lock before a witness and an officer were able to get Davis down to the ground to perform CPR.


Physics didn't prove your claim of their lying. Neither did the witness, who just stepped out of the store moment being the shooting, saw Davis' door open.


You said they had no reason to lie but you have no proof of their lying except to make unfounded allegation. Like I said, the child safety locks had to be unlocked in order for the door to be opened to get Davis out for CPR.


And there you go talking about two irrelevant witnesses (the Leblanc's) who did not, and could not see everything, as they themselves testified.
Which of course makes your claims even more absurd.
The absurdity is your and your alone. You are the one offering the two witnesses' testimony as you "circumstantial evidence" to support your claim that the boys had a gun. So, now you're adknowledging that they did not and could not see everything and so they are irrelevant?


So, how's that going to help your argument that a gun exist with the boys in the Durango? See, you always ended up shooting yourself in the foot and you keep repeating it. Weird.


iLOL


That isn't how it works. Duh!
Especially as you only have one obviously truthful person there. The female Leblanc.
Even so, one truthful female LeBlanc defeats your one perjured defendant on trial for killing another person and shooting at another three boys while they were fleeing for their life.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

His account is of what happened.
It is also the account which the prosecution has to disprove or show wasn't justified. Which we already know she couldn't do.

But if you want to go down the road of self serving statements, then we can point out that Davis's friends who lied, all gave self serving accounts.
That Christopher Leblanc gave a self serving account, just as Shawn Atkins did as well.


So you have nothing but your own imaginative invention of the boys' action to the contrary of what were being testified to in court in order to prop up and sustain your failed argument.

His account is of what happened.
It is also the account which the prosecution has to disprove or show wasn't justified. Which we already know she couldn't do.

But if you want to go down the road of self serving statements, then we can point out that Davis's friends who lied, all gave self serving accounts.
That Christopher Leblanc gave a self serving account, just as Shawn Atkins did as well.

You falsely present the impression that Dunn's account of what happened that night was a proven fact of what actually happened. But it's not.

In a self-defense case not only the prosecution has to disprove or show Dunn's killing was not justified, the defendant also has a burden to show that his account is truthful, reasonable by reasonable person standard and also not contradicted by physical evidence, witness testimony or his own inconsistency.

But, we know how Dunn had lied and perjured himself so many times while under oath. If he was truly acting in self-defense, there was no need for him to lie about calling a LEO buddy for advice and wanting to turn himself in but in actual fact was apprehended by the Jacksonville police officer few hundred miles away the next day. Also there was no need for him to lie about having told his fiancee regarding Davis pointed a shotgun at him when his fiancee testified under oath that he did not.

So, if he was willing to lie about his buddy and his fiancee that didn't directly pertain to his shooting at the crime scene and subject them to possible perjury charge what else was he lying about to save his own skin when he was giving his account of what happened that night during the argument that resulted in the shooting?

But we know most of his accounts are self-serving and unbelievable.

Take for example Dunn portrayed himself to be very polite by asking the boys to turn down the music and sincerely thanking them while describing two menacing-looking black men sitting in the back seat scrawling at him. He said he didn't want any confrontation so he just sat in his car eyes front and window up even after hearing Davis said "F^^k that guy!" followed by music being turned back up.

He didn't want to ask for any more favor because he didn't want any confrontation. So, he claimed he paid no attention as he could hear the guy getting louder and louder talking to other guys and getting more agitated and spewing racial slurs.

For a guy who claimed not paying attention and being deaf on one ear, he claimed to have heard amid the loud music Davis said, "I should KILL that M-F!".

Yeah right. How believable can that be for any sane person to believe that a teenager who was having a good time stopping at a gas station to get some gum to freshen their breath while going mail hopping trying to get some chicks to lay was going to work himself up into a frenzy unprovoked simply because a guy asked him politely to turn down the loud music which he didn't want to comply and the guy asking politely didn't ask anymore or provoke him in any way but simply eyes looked straight ahead and window up?

How believable can Dunn be about how polite and non-confrontational and calm he was that night while complaining about loud music that bothered him in the face of menacing-looking black men scrawling and throwing racial slurs and expletives at him when it didn't take him very long to throw back snappy retorts at John Guy, the prosecutor, who was merely doing his job by asking him some simple questions relating to that night?

Yet, the ones who were polite and calm at the cross by the defense were supposed to be the ones menacing-looking and unreasonably out of control foul mouthed thugs as Dunn would have you believe?

Now, remember Thomson on the stand admitted that the music "was pretty loud" and that when he turned the music down Davis told him "F*** that; turn the music back up," so he did. Why would he even admit to the music being loud and Davis saying the expletive at all? Why couldn't he have done what Dunn had done by describing Davis as a very polite and non-confrontational little angel?

Now, just base on this alone, tell me who is more believable? Not to mention the overly dramatic acting lines attributed to Davis by a semi-deaf Dunn that sounded so artificial for a self-serving purpose.

Next, Dunn claimed he saw Davis bending forward and picked up something with both hands with yet another Hollywood make believe drama line, saying, "Yeah., I'm going to f^^king kill you!". Yeah right, it's not even funny

It just defies logic. Davis didn't own a car nor was he known to even have a gun or a shotgun. If he did, the defense would have dug it up long time ago or at least found some high school students who knew about Davis.

So, he and the other three boys were going to mall hopping looking for girls and having a good time that weekend with a Durango borrowed from Tommie's aunt and Davis decided to bring along his shotgun to hunt for some chics?

And Tommie, while on felony probation, was all gung-ho about that not to mention there was no leg room in the back seat for the two men sitting behind let alone putting a chic in between? And they were just going to leave the shotgun in plain view while going about mall hopping and hunting for girls?

It doesn't even make any sense they would have a shotgun with them that night in a Durango with no leg room and no place to conceal a shotgun while they go out to have a good time hunting for girls, who I'm sure you'd find very enthusiastic about seeing a shotgun pressing against their legs on the way to merryland.

Or are you confused between hunting chics and hunting wild turkey birds?

Cont...
 
Last edited:
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial[W:3

Then Dunn claimed he saw Davis laid a gun barrel against the window sill and that he could see about four inches of what looked like a 12 to 20 gauge barrel sticking up and registering on his face. The logical question is: why hadn't Davis, who had worked himself into a killing mode frenzy, fired at Dunn? What was he waiting for?


For Dunn to get his gun and shoot first ask question later? It makes no sense.


Dunn said he was paralyzed with fear, yeah right. But no, he was in such fear alright, not that he was seeking confrontation, oh nooooo..., he was trying to calm things down so he had to roll down his window again and asked, "Are you talking to me?"


Strike that. That script is too natural. Nooooo... when it comes to Dunn, things have to be dunn Dunn's way ---- artificially dramatic like this: "Are you talking about me?"


So, what did Dunn expect when he said he rolled down his window and turned towards the menacing-looking men who were working up into a frenzy and asked, "Are you talking about me?"


Not wanting to be confrontation, my foot. What a compulsive liar!


Then Dunn said Davis gave it another moment before he "resolved himself" to unlatched his car door to exit the vehicle. Then, according to Dunn, Davis got out of the Durango with his head clearing the door and made another grand standing Hollywood make believe announcement, saying, "You're dead bitch! This **** is going down now!"


Yeah, no kidding "this **** is going down"? What kind of stupid script is this? It's so way out there, it's freaking unbelievable.


Then Dunn reiterated his "****ting-in-his-pants" fairy tale about him being paralyzed by fear once again and the fear left him when something happened inside of him that caused him to grab his gun from the glove compartment the moment he saw Davis advanced on him.


And, here's the comical part, instead of Davis shooting Dunn with his shotgun right there and right then yet a second chance, the hallucinating screenwriter came up with another stupid gem to have Davis squeezing himself through the narrow gap between two tightly packed cars with a shotgun advancing towards Dunn.


But wait. The story gets weirder. Dunn claimed as he grabbed his gun from the glove box he still got time to politely make another of his grandstanding dramatic announcement to Davis, who was said to be advancing towards him just a split second ago, by saying, "You're not going to kill me you son of a bitch!"


And instead of Davis having the upper hand at every opportune time to shoot Dunn before Dunn could get his hand on his gun, it somehow was the other way around if you could believe his tall tale. As absurd as it is, Dunn claimed that he turned his head around and saw Davis ducked back inside the Durango after purportedly seeing Dunn reaching into the glove compartment for his gun. And then, in his very own words he said, "I fired at the rear passenger door." <<<<---how's that not murder by his own words?


And all the while when Dunn kept firing at them while they back up and drove away to flee for their life, the boys didn't even fire a single shot back at Dunn if they truly had a gun.


So, you see how absurd his story is? Not only was his story self-serving to save his soul but he couldn't even get it straight without defying common sense and logic.


Now, how is Christopher LeBlanc or Shawn Atkins gave a self-serving account? Neither of them was on trial for the murder of Davis, so what purpose were they self-serve by testifying the event that involved not them but the event between Dunn and Davis with his friends?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom