Page 60 of 61 FirstFirst ... 105058596061 LastLast
Results 591 to 600 of 610

Thread: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial[W:292]

  1. #591
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    He most definitely provoked the confrontation by demanding that the teens turn down their music.
    BS!
    Learn the damn evidence.
    He didn't demand anything.
    He asked.
    And in accordance with his request, it was uneventfully turned down.

    It was only after it was turned down that Davis took exception to it being turned down and Davis started yelling at Dunn that the incident was then provoked.

    Even Davis's friends testified that Dunn asked and was not the one irate or using foul language, but Davis was.

    That is not Dunn provoking anything.
    That is Davis provoking it.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    He later invented an alibi of self-defense
    No he didn't.
    He was responding specifically to the threats made by Davis, who was getting out of the vehicle to carry through with the the threat.



    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    hat the jury didn't find credible.
    Can that bs right now. You have no clue what the jury thought at this time.
    All you are doing is assuming.
    Juries get things wrong all the time, and if the Juror from the first trial is any indication as to why anyone on this Jury found him guilty, it is a miscarriage of justice.

    That is why this discussion is about the evidence, not their decision.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    he never once mentioned that a teenager had pulled out a firearm[/U].[/I]
    And he says he told her.
    Her not remembering means exactly squat, especially as we saw she is an emotional disturbed person.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Moreover, the notion that Dunn "did not know" he had shot Davis is also absurd. The news story notes, "Taking the stand in his own defense, Mr. Dunn told jurors on Tuesday that he shot Mr. Davis again and again..." Shot someone "again and again" is not the same thing as "not knowing."
    Your contention is absurd.
    Davis had jumped back into the vehicle that had tinted windows and then left.
    Dunn couldn't see inside, and surely didn't know anyone was hit.

    He did not learn that he had hit him and that he died until the next day.
    There is no evidence that counters that.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    in looking strictly at the facts.

    Which they apparently did not do.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Dunn didn't like the music. He demanded its being turned down. The teens refused and responded with insults. Dunn was angry about the insults and decided to harm them even as the teens never posed a meaningful threat to him. Afterward, he fled the scene despite having fired "again and again" at Davis. At some latter point in time, he created an alibi that a shotgun had been pointed at him.
    Showing again that you do not know the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Had he shot in self-defense, he would have informed the police immediately afterward as soon as he felt he was no longer in danger.
    That is an assumption on your part.
    No one acts the same. Everybody acts differently, especially after traumatic experiences.
    The fact that he did act that ways says you are wrong.

    Look, I do not care if you have a different opinion of the evidence than I do, we can debate that, but at least know what it is before attempting to discuss.
    Last edited by Excon; 10-21-14 at 04:11 PM.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  2. #592
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    BS!
    Learn the damn evidence.
    You can say what you wish. From the facts that have been reported, not an account of events that was found not to be credible, I've reached exactly the same conclusion the jury, which had all the information, reached. Dunn shot people who posed no threat whatsoever for him, fabricated a story about a shotgun, and fled the scene of his crime.

  3. #593
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    You can say what you wish. From the facts that have been reported, not an account of events that was found not to be credible, I've reached exactly the same conclusion the jury, which had all the information, reached. Dunn shot people who posed no threat whatsoever for him, fabricated a story about a shotgun, and fled the scene of his crime.

    Understood. You got nothing, and wont even bother to learn the evidence.
    Figures.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  4. #594
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    Understood. You got nothing, and wont even bother to learn the evidence.
    Figures.
    With all due respect, the jury's verdict suggests entirely the opposite. Instead, the claims that Dunn was a "victim" or deserved to be acquitted lacked credible basis as far as the jury (and the earlier one, too) was concerned.

    I doubt that the verdict will be overturned on appeal, assuming any appeal is even attempted. The only plausible item that could be reversed, and even that appears less likely than not, could be the element of premeditation.

    Several points:

    1. The news story unequivocally points to Dunn's starting the whole affair seeking that the music be turned down (LA Times). He didn't like the music, describing it as "thug" music (NY Times). And given Dunn's description of the music as "thug" music, one can't automatically assume that Dunn didn't use derogatory descriptions of the music. A transcript of what exactly was said has not been published.

    2. The teens rejected his demand, as they were free to do, and a "dispute" or "argument" ensued (NY Times and Washington Post). When they turned down his request, he could have walked away.

    3. Dunn claimed that a teen pointed a shotgun at him and purportedly attempted to exit the vehicle. In fact, the teens were unarmed. Furthermore, the teens were fired upon when trying to leave the scene, not go after Dunn. (NY Times)

    4. Afterward, Dunn went back to his hotel and the next day went home. He never reported his shooting to the police even as he, himself, stated he fired 'again and again' at the teens. (NY Times) Were it self-defense, he would have reported his shooting, as he would have asserted that he was compelled to use his gun to defend himself. He didn't. Only after his arrest did he suddenly assert "self-defense." Had he not been apprehended, he would almost certainly have never reported the shooting, as he had more than ample time to have done so prior to his arrest.

    Key questions in the case:

    1. Was it self-defense? No. First, the teens never pointed a shotgun at Davis. Second, the teens were attempting to leave the scene when they were shot at by Dunn. Third, Dunn never reported his shooting to the police despite more than ample time to have done so. He simply left the scene.

    2. Would a reasonable person in Dunn's position feel threatened? Almost certainly not. The teens were attempting to leave the scene when he fired upon them. Earlier insults as part of an argument don't constitute a continuing "threat" when the party is trying to leave the scene.

    3. Did Dunn make up an alibi of self-defense. Almost certainly, as it amounted to perhaps his only chance to escape conviction and prison. Moreover, he very likely did it some time after the incident. Dunn complained to his fiance about "thug" music. He never said anything about a gun having been pointed at him, even as she would have been the person most likely to have been told if such a situation occurred. Therefore, at some point afterward, possibly after his arrest (because he never reported the shooting), he came up with the alibi. Furthermore, a shotgun is large. To say he saw a shotgun when the teens were unarmed stretches the imagination. In any case, his former fiance's testimony shattered his thin alibi and demolished his credibility.

    In sum, his actions were unnecessary. There was no need for him to have fired at the teens, much less 10 times. He killed an unarmed teen and could have injured or killed others. Most likely, his actions were the result of his being enraged that the teens refused his request to turn down their music (as was their right) and disrespected him. Disrespect and insults do not warrant one's being shot repeatedly. Dunn retaliated with unlawful and excessive use of force. Worse, he did so, even as the teens were trying to extricate themselves from the situation and were trying to leave. Afterward, Dunn became a fugitive, leaving the scene and never reporting the incident to the police.

    The jury held him accountable for his violence as it properly should have. The jury, more than any person here or in the general public had complete access to all the evidence. Based on what was described in news accounts, even as that information is more limited than what the jury had available to it, there's no rational basis for disagreeing with the verdict. The judge's sentence reflects the jury's finding. Davis, not Dunn, was the victim of a savage and unwarranted attack. The perpetrator of the attack was convicted and is being held accountable for his crime.

    That's the end of it. The jury made an evidence-based decision.

    Sources:

    LA Times: Florida man sentenced to life in prison over loud-music killing - LA Times
    NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/us...c-dispute.html
    Washington Post: Michael Dunn sentenced to life without parole for ‘loud music’ killing of Jordan Davis - The Washington Post

  5. #595
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    With all due respect, the jury's verdict suggests entirely the opposite. Instead, the claims that Dunn was a "victim" or deserved to be acquitted lacked credible basis as far as the jury (and the earlier one, too) was concerned.

    I doubt that the verdict will be overturned on appeal, assuming any appeal is even attempted. The only plausible item that could be reversed, and even that appears less likely than not, could be the element of premeditation.

    Several points:

    1. The news story unequivocally points to Dunn's starting the whole affair seeking that the music be turned down (LA Times). He didn't like the music, describing it as "thug" music (NY Times). And given Dunn's description of the music as "thug" music, one can't automatically assume that Dunn didn't use derogatory descriptions of the music. A transcript of what exactly was said has not been published.

    2. The teens rejected his demand, as they were free to do, and a "dispute" or "argument" ensued (NY Times and Washington Post). When they turned down his request, he could have walked away.

    3. Dunn claimed that a teen pointed a shotgun at him and purportedly attempted to exit the vehicle. In fact, the teens were unarmed. Furthermore, the teens were fired upon when trying to leave the scene, not go after Dunn. (NY Times)

    4. Afterward, Dunn went back to his hotel and the next day went home. He never reported his shooting to the police even as he, himself, stated he fired 'again and again' at the teens. (NY Times) Were it self-defense, he would have reported his shooting, as he would have asserted that he was compelled to use his gun to defend himself. He didn't. Only after his arrest did he suddenly assert "self-defense." Had he not been apprehended, he would almost certainly have never reported the shooting, as he had more than ample time to have done so prior to his arrest.

    Key questions in the case:

    1. Was it self-defense? No. First, the teens never pointed a shotgun at Davis. Second, the teens were attempting to leave the scene when they were shot at by Dunn. Third, Dunn never reported his shooting to the police despite more than ample time to have done so. He simply left the scene.

    2. Would a reasonable person in Dunn's position feel threatened? Almost certainly not. The teens were attempting to leave the scene when he fired upon them. Earlier insults as part of an argument don't constitute a continuing "threat" when the party is trying to leave the scene.

    3. Did Dunn make up an alibi of self-defense. Almost certainly, as it amounted to perhaps his only chance to escape conviction and prison. Moreover, he very likely did it some time after the incident. Dunn complained to his fiance about "thug" music. He never said anything about a gun having been pointed at him, even as she would have been the person most likely to have been told if such a situation occurred. Therefore, at some point afterward, possibly after his arrest (because he never reported the shooting), he came up with the alibi. Furthermore, a shotgun is large. To say he saw a shotgun when the teens were unarmed stretches the imagination. In any case, his former fiance's testimony shattered his thin alibi and demolished his credibility.

    In sum, his actions were unnecessary. There was no need for him to have fired at the teens, much less 10 times. He killed an unarmed teen and could have injured or killed others. Most likely, his actions were the result of his being enraged that the teens refused his request to turn down their music (as was their right) and disrespected him. Disrespect and insults do not warrant one's being shot repeatedly. Dunn retaliated with unlawful and excessive use of force. Worse, he did so, even as the teens were trying to extricate themselves from the situation and were trying to leave. Afterward, Dunn became a fugitive, leaving the scene and never reporting the incident to the police.

    The jury held him accountable for his violence as it properly should have. The jury, more than any person here or in the general public had complete access to all the evidence. Based on what was described in news accounts, even as that information is more limited than what the jury had available to it, there's no rational basis for disagreeing with the verdict. The judge's sentence reflects the jury's finding. Davis, not Dunn, was the victim of a savage and unwarranted attack. The perpetrator of the attack was convicted and is being held accountable for his crime.

    That's the end of it. The jury made an evidence-based decision.

    Sources:

    LA Times: Florida man sentenced to life in prison over loud-music killing - LA Times
    NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/us...c-dispute.html
    Washington Post: Michael Dunn sentenced to life without parole for ‘loud music’ killing of Jordan Davis - The Washington Post

    You are again showing you do not know the evidence,
    As you were already told and obviously ignored, Dunn did not make a demand. He asked, and his request was granted.
    Damn near everything you have said is disputed by the evidence itself. And yet here you are talking nonsense, all because you do not know what it is.

    The fact that you do not even know that, means there is no reason to continue this discussion until you learn the actual evidence.

    Like I also previously told you; "I do not care if you have a different opinion of the evidence than I do, we can debate that, but at least know what it is before attempting to discuss."
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  6. #596
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    You are again showing you do not know the evidence,
    As you were already told and obviously ignored, Dunn did not make a demand. He asked, and his request was granted.
    Damn near everything you have said is disputed by the evidence itself. And yet here you are talking nonsense, all because you do not know what it is.

    The fact that you do not even know that, means there is no reason to continue this discussion until you learn the actual evidence.

    Like I also previously told you; "I do not care if you have a different opinion of the evidence than I do, we can debate that, but at least know what it is before attempting to discuss."
    The NY Times reported:

    In the end, the jury found that Mr. Dunn intended to kill Mr. Davis and acted with premeditation as he reached into his glove compartment for his gun and fired 10 times at Mr. Davis and the Durango, even as it pulled away to evade the gunfire. Three bullets hit Mr. Davis.

    This was an unnecessary shooting of unarmed teens who were trying to leave the scene. That one does not like the verdict does not mean that it isn't based on evidence. If it were, overturning it on appeal would be a slam dunk. To date, no glaring errors or other material issues that could lead to the verdict's being reversed have been reported.

    If you can find credible evidence that the teens were not trying to leave when shot, they were armed, or Dunn reported his shooting to the police, please provide it. A complete Lexis Nexis search finds no, repeat, no such information. Those are the vital facts. That Dunn triggered the whole sequence of events with his request that the teens turn down their music is secondary. The vital issues are that there was no rational basis for Dunn to have fired at the teens. Therefore, I believe the jury ruled appropriately. This was not an example of "self-defense" but a case of a savage attack that claimed the life of a teenager.

    If new and credible information arises that raises doubt over the key factors that led to the jury's verdict, I've course I'll be interested in such information. For now, there is no such information.

  7. #597
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The NY Times reported:

    It matters not what they reported.
    This discussion is about the evidence (You know, that stuff which you showed you do not know.), not what the Jury decided, especially as Juries get things wrong all the time.
    And any reliance on what the Jury decided, as an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy.

    And yet, even though this has all been previously stated, here you come engaging in the same irrelevant bs, while not even knowing the damn evidence.


    As for any appeals.. Appeals are not based on evidence unless it is significant and wasn't and couldn't have been known at the time of trial.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  8. #598
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    It matters not what they reported.
    This discussion is about the evidence (You know, that stuff which you showed you do not know.), not what the Jury decided, especially as Juries get things wrong all the time.
    And any reliance on what the Jury decided, as an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy.

    And yet, even though this has all been previously stated, here you come engaging in the same irrelevant bs, while not even knowing the damn evidence.


    As for any appeals.. Appeals are not based on evidence unless it is significant and wasn't and couldn't have been known at the time of trial.
    I'm not the one in denial about the verdict, which I also happen to believe is the right one given the facts of the case. Moreover, as you claim I don't know, please provide credible evidence that:

    1. Dunn had a shotgun pointed at him
    2. Dunn did not shoot an unarmed teen
    3. Dunn did not shoot the teen while the Durango was leaving
    4. Dunn notified the police

    Given what was reported, I am highly confident that Dunn had not acted in self-defense. That two juries with all the evidence reached the same conclusion carries even greater weight.

    The possibility that the news coverage of the critical facts was inherently flawed by all the major sources, not to mention the Lexis Nexis data base, is remote. The jury reached its judgment based on concrete and relevant evidence. It didn't, for example, buy the uncorroborated claim of a shotgun's having been pointed at the suspect (no gun was found and none of the witnesses saw a gun) and other speculation aimed at undercutting its analysis of the case. The legal process was conducted fairly. The jury analyzed the whole body of evidence in a meticulous and objective fashion. That two juries that reviewed the same evidence found that Mr. Dunn had not acted in self-defense speaks for itself. On the given body of evidence, there's no compelling legal argument that the jury acted in a flawed fashion and no evidence of procedural errors or misconduct. That's my point. The jury reached a sound decision acting in a proper fashion in determining that Dunn was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Any chance of the case's being overturned now depends on material, credible new evidence. Considering what's known and the time that had been available for discovery, the probability of such new evidence is very low.

    The verdict will stand and the individual responsible for killing an unarmed teen will be held accountable for his crime.

  9. #599
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I'm not the one in denial about the verdict,
    Neither am I. So stop speaking nonsense.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    which I also happen to believe is the right one given the facts of the case.

    A statement you make despite not knowing the evidence. That is hilarious.


    And again.
    This discussion is about the evidence (You know, that stuff which you showed you do not know.), not what the Jury decided, especially as Juries get things wrong all the time.
    And any reliance on what the Jury decided, as an appeal to authority, is a logical fallacy.

    And yet, even though this has all been previously stated, here you come engaging in the same irrelevant bs, while not even knowing the damn evidence.

    When you decide to rely solely on the evidence, let me know.
    You can start by admitting you were wrong, that he didn't make a demand and that his request was honored.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  10. #600
    King Of The Dog Pound
    Black Dog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    South Florida
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    34,516

    Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I'm not the one in denial about the verdict, which I also happen to believe is the right one given the facts of the case. Moreover, as you claim I don't know, please provide credible evidence that:

    1. Dunn had a shotgun pointed at him
    2. Dunn did not shoot an unarmed teen
    3. Dunn did not shoot the teen while the Durango was leaving
    4. Dunn notified the police

    Given what was reported, I am highly confident that Dunn had not acted in self-defense. That two juries with all the evidence reached the same conclusion carries even greater weight.

    The possibility that the news coverage of the critical facts was inherently flawed by all the major sources, not to mention the Lexis Nexis data base, is remote. The jury reached its judgment based on concrete and relevant evidence. It didn't, for example, buy the uncorroborated claim of a shotgun's having been pointed at the suspect (no gun was found and none of the witnesses saw a gun) and other speculation aimed at undercutting its analysis of the case. The legal process was conducted fairly. The jury analyzed the whole body of evidence in a meticulous and objective fashion. That two juries that reviewed the same evidence found that Mr. Dunn had not acted in self-defense speaks for itself. On the given body of evidence, there's no compelling legal argument that the jury acted in a flawed fashion and no evidence of procedural errors or misconduct. That's my point. The jury reached a sound decision acting in a proper fashion in determining that Dunn was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Any chance of the case's being overturned now depends on material, credible new evidence. Considering what's known and the time that had been available for discovery, the probability of such new evidence is very low.

    The verdict will stand and the individual responsible for killing an unarmed teen will be held accountable for his crime.
    Notice how he is still trying to take those WHO ACTUALLY SAW ALL THE EVIDENCE aka: the jury out of the picture. Like somehow it makes his whaaaa whaaaa argument any more credible. Just let it go. Best way to deal with arguments that are based on "I'm right because I say so!"
    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Benjii likes the protests...he'd be largely irrelevant without them. So he needs to speak where he knows there will be protests against him and that makes him responsible for the protests.
    Quote Originally Posted by Absentglare View Post
    You can successfully wipe your ass with toilet paper, that doesn't mean that you should.

Page 60 of 61 FirstFirst ... 105058596061 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
  •