Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 164

Thread: Jury: Ex-Blackwater contractors guilty in 'outrageous' Nusoor Square shooting

  1. #141
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Jury: Ex-Blackwater contractors guilty in 'outrageous' Nusoor Square shooting

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Because the jury did not accept the self-defense alibi. Had it accepted it, Dunn would have been acquitted. He wasn't.
    Three members of that Jury accepted his account and wanted to acquit.
    What is it you do not understand about that?


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Your insults cannot compensate for the glaring lack of evidence you have furnished.
    Your lie do not substitute for febate of the evidence I have provided.

    So try addressing it.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I had stated that the jury didn't accept Dunn's self-defense alibi. You said I was wrong. I asked for the link. You provided none.
    And you are wrong as three members did.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I said that the Medical Examiner revealed that Davis was seated. And from CBS News:
    ANd you were again wrong as to the actual evidence.
    As shown.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The state's medical examiner testified that the trajectory of Dunn's bullets into Davis' body showed that Davis was sitting down when he was shot.

    Michael Dunn verdict: Jury deadlocks on murder charge - CBS News
    Already dispelled with what was presented at trial.
    What is apparent though it that you absurdly believe that an ME is credible when making her findings fit the information she was given. Especially as it was incomplete.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Notions that she made her ruling based on a desire to fit what others told her is utterly incorrect. She made her ruling based on the trajectory of the bullet as noted in the above CBS story.
    You are being dishonest again.
    Her findings were based on incomplete set of evidence. Period. That makes her finding incredible.
    And she is not a gun shot wound expert or trajectory analysis expert.
    So stop talking nonsense.
    She wasn't credible.
    Had you watched the trial you would have known that.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Only your opinion. Nothing more.
    That she was shown to not know all the evinced regarding the gun shots. No it isn't.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Had this been the case, then Dunn would have had a legitimate claim of self-defense and would have been acquitted.
    That is nothing more than your opinion.
    But it is an example of why Juries get things wrong all the time.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I'm not pretending anything. The Medical Examiner, who has the requisite professional expertise to make such judgments says that Davis was seated. Indeed, if a credible alternative account were accurate, his blood would have been outside the Durango on the street. No reports to that effect exist. If they do, post the news story.
    And again you are wrong.
    Yes you are pretending. She did not have all the information to draw any accurate conclusion.
    And given the evidence (you know, that stuff you have no clue about), you can not make any such claim.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Juries can sometimes err. Prove that this jury erred. One's personal opinion is not such proof. Dunn's alibi isn't such proof either.

    I have already shown how evidence was misinterpreted form the first trial.
    He did not resume shooting when the vehicle was leaving the area. He resumed shooting because the vehicle stopped right behind him as the person in it was still a threat, and he continued to shoot as it then pulled away until it was far enough away.
    And a person is still a threat regardless if they are in a vehicle that is moving away until that vehicle it is far enough away to make any fire from the threat ineffective.

    If you do not understand that, that is your problem.

    So, what is it you did not understand about the previously asked question to you? I have asked multiple times.
    The only conclusion one can draw from it is that Dunn's account was accurate.
    Davis was the only one angry and irate and it was focused on Dunn.
    Davis was outside of the vehicle.
    He certainly didn't get out to give Dunn a kiss.
    He was continuing with his threaten behavior.

    Dunn had thought he saw a gun, while his Davis's friend testified that he had a phone in his hand.
    Cops make the same mistake, which usually doesn't involve prior threats to kill you, yet are cleared.
    There is no reason Dunn shouldn't have been cleared either.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    As noted previously, if the jury made an error, legitimate grounds for a successful appeal exist. I highly doubt that there will be a successful appeal.
    You clearly do not know of what you speak. A jury's interpretation of the provided evidence is not grounds for appeal.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I posted links from multiple news sources
    Sorry it doesn't work that way. Especially when you are providing an reporters opinion.
    Especially as the actual evidence disputes what you provided as shown. Multiple time already.

    You have provided nothing relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    In contrast, I'm still waiting for the links I've asked you to provide.
    More dishonesty from you as what was spoken about was already provided.
    So again as already provided.
    Three jurors wanted to acquit. That is not the jury finding as you claimed.
    Your claim was wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Again, this doesn't change the actual facts of the case that the jury felt demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn did not act in self-defense.
    Said the guy who has demonstrated that he does not know the actual facts, and when presented with them actually ignores them. That is dishonesty.
    And your appeal to authority is illogical, as you already know.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    In the end, it's clear that the claim that Dunn was "innocent" is entirely personal opinion.

    Unlike your opinion, mine is based on the actual facts. Not someone else's opinion like your's is. D'oh!


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    It has little or nothing to do with the facts and evidence of the case

    Your opinion has nothing to do with the actual evidence because you ignore it.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    (the teens were unarmed,
    Again, Davis is the only one who it was claimed was armed. Not the other young adults.
    Secondly, you do not know that as the evidence allows for that claim to be true.
    And juror's from the first trial believed his account.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Davis was seated in the vehicle when he was murdered,
    He died while seated. That is all. He was shot jumping back into the vehicle.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    the Durango was attempting to drive away when Dunn attacked the teens).
    How many time do you need to be corrected. What you said isn't true. Not only that but he was firing at Davis, not the other young adults. And the fact that you keep calling them teens is laughable. The driver was 20.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    It solely depends on Dunn's account being credible, something that it wasn't.
    Of course it was. That is why three jurors from the first trial wanted to acquit.
    That is why others also believe he should have been acquitted.
    So you are just again speaking nonsense.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  2. #142
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Jury: Ex-Blackwater contractors guilty in 'outrageous' Nusoor Square shooting

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    He never told his fiancé about any shotgun,
    An emotionally unstable person not remembering what happened during a traumatic event does not mean he did not tell her. As you were already told.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    because he very likely created the narrative of a shotgun sometime later.
    No evidence supports your speculative opinion.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    He didn't report the incident to the police,
    Didn't have to.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    even as any rational person who acts in self-defense would do so believing that they had acted reasonably.

    Even the next day, he simply left for home when no conceivable "threat" could have existed and didn't tell the police about the shooting.
    Different people act differently. Especially after traumatic experiences.
    His account of why was more than plausible and reasonable.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The case against him was devastating.
    Said the guy who doesn't know the actual evidence and ignores it when it is presented.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    His account was filled with gaps that precluded a successful self-defense argument.
    Wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    His conduct afterward in not reporting the shooting, even a day later, further undercut that he had acted in self-defense.
    It may have, but three reasonable folks in the first trial saw otherwise and wanted to acquit.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    at least a measure of justice was served.
    Not in accordance with the actual evidence. It was a miscarriage.
    And if any juror found him guilty for the same reasons that the juror from the first trial said they wanted to, it is a clear miscarriage of justice.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  3. #143
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Jury: Ex-Blackwater contractors guilty in 'outrageous' Nusoor Square shooting

    Quote Originally Posted by radioman View Post
    Excon believes firing 10 shots into an SUV is reasonable.
    Radioman does not.

    Excon believes the shooter's own delusions are sufficient cause for emptying one's magazine.
    Radioman does not.

    Excon believes the unarmed dead victim was the real thug.
    Radioman does not.

    Excon believes a convicted murderer is the victim.
    Radioman does not.

    Excon is dizzy from so much spinning.
    Radioman retains his equilibrium.

    Excon has chronic back pain as a result of bending over backwards to defend the indefensible.
    Radioman does not.

    I will leave it to our fellow posters to decide who's dwelling in a bizarro world.
    You clearly know not of what you speak.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  4. #144
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Jury: Ex-Blackwater contractors guilty in 'outrageous' Nusoor Square shooting

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    An emotionally unstable person not remembering what happened during a traumatic event does not mean he did not tell her. As you were already told.
    It is illogical to assume that those who did not back Dunn's account are not credible.

  5. #145
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Jury: Ex-Blackwater contractors guilty in 'outrageous' Nusoor Square shooting

    The facts of the Dunn Case: Final Post

    Did Dunn and Davis have an argument?

    Yes. They had a “verbal back and forth.” (CBS News and The Washington Post)

    Were the teens armed?

    No. The police did not find any weapons. Witnesses did not see a shotgun. (The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and CNN)

    Was Davis or any of the teens shot while attacking or trying to attack Dunn?

    No. The teens were fired upon as they were trying to leave. (The New York Times)

    Was Davis outside the Durango when he was shot three times by Dunn?

    No. The Medical Examiner found that based on the bullets’ trajectory, he was shot while seated inside the vehicle. (CBS News)

    Did Dunn report the shooting to the police?

    No. Even after any conceivable actual or perceived threat no longer existed, he did not report the shooting. (The New York Times)

    Did Dunn call the police after learning that one of the teens had died?

    No. He never contacted the police. (The New York Times)

    Did the Judge instruct the jury as to circumstances in which the shooting would have been lawful?

    Yes. The jury was instructed on a broad range of grounds by which it could find Dunn’s actions lawful. CNN reported:

    Killing Davis was lawful, Healey told the jury, if Dunn acted in the heat of passion or if he unintentionally caused Davis' death. The jury could also find Dunn not guilty if he was in danger, acted in self-defense and exacted a justifiable use of force, the judge instructed. (CNN)

    In sum, the above is the critical evidence. Dunn faced no actual threat. The teens were not armed. An argument does not necessarily indicate the kind of imminent threat to one’s life or of serious injury. Moreover, the teens were trying to drive away when fired upon, a situation that would be tantamount to shooting someone who was in flight in the back. Moreover, Davis was seated inside the Durango when he was hit three times. Afterward, Dunn never reported his shooting to the police. As there was no actual threat and the shooting occurred when any perceived threat had ceased to exist, the criteria for self-defense were not met.

    Given the above information and links, there’s no real need to continue to try to explain the verdict. Given the above evidence and the requirements for self-defense to be sustained, arguments that Dunn was "innocent" are entirely a matter of belief, not an evidence-based assessment. Matters of belief are articles of faith. Hence, evidence is not persuasive when dealing with erroneous conclusions based solely on belief.

  6. #146
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Jury: Ex-Blackwater contractors guilty in 'outrageous' Nusoor Square shooting

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    It is illogical to assume that those who did not back Dunn's account are not credible.


    It's illogical given her emotional instability to assume she remembers correctly, especially after such a traumatic incident.
    And btw, there is a big difference between a person being credible, and not remembering.


    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    The facts of the Dunn Case: Final Post

    Did Dunn and Davis have an argument?

    Yes. They had a “verbal back and forth.” (CBS News and The Washington Post)

    Were the teens armed?

    No. The police did not find any weapons. Witnesses did not see a shotgun. (The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and CNN)

    Was Davis or any of the teens shot while attacking or trying to attack Dunn?

    No. The teens were fired upon as they were trying to leave. (The New York Times)

    Was Davis outside the Durango when he was shot three times by Dunn?

    No. The Medical Examiner found that based on the bullets’ trajectory, he was shot while seated inside the vehicle. (CBS News)

    Did Dunn report the shooting to the police?

    No. Even after any conceivable actual or perceived threat no longer existed, he did not report the shooting. (The New York Times)

    Did Dunn call the police after learning that one of the teens had died?

    No. He never contacted the police. (The New York Times)

    Did the Judge instruct the jury as to circumstances in which the shooting would have been lawful?

    Yes. The jury was instructed on a broad range of grounds by which it could find Dunn’s actions lawful. CNN reported:

    Killing Davis was lawful, Healey told the jury, if Dunn acted in the heat of passion or if he unintentionally caused Davis' death. The jury could also find Dunn not guilty if he was in danger, acted in self-defense and exacted a justifiable use of force, the judge instructed. (CNN)

    In sum, the above is the critical evidence. Dunn faced no actual threat. The teens were not armed. An argument does not necessarily indicate the kind of imminent threat to one’s life or of serious injury. Moreover, the teens were trying to drive away when fired upon, a situation that would be tantamount to shooting someone who was in flight in the back. Moreover, Davis was seated inside the Durango when he was hit three times. Afterward, Dunn never reported his shooting to the police. As there was no actual threat and the shooting occurred when any perceived threat had ceased to exist, the criteria for self-defense were not met.

    Given the above information and links, there’s no real need to continue to try to explain the verdict. Given the above evidence and the requirements for self-defense to be sustained, arguments that Dunn was "innocent" are entirely a matter of belief, not an evidence-based assessment. Matters of belief are articles of faith. Hence, evidence is not persuasive when dealing with erroneous conclusions based solely on belief.
    Still with the irrelevant and nothing of substance routine huh?
    Just more nonsense from you relying on irrelevant reports and not the actual evidence or that presented to you.
    That is dishonesty. And since you were already told that your continued use of the irrelevant just shows you are purposely being dishonest.
    Especially in your logical fallacy argument of appealing to authority.

    You have nothing but your own biased opinion, which you do not support with actual evidence, but on someone else's opinion. D'oh!

    Being threatened is not having an argument.


    The actual evidences allows for Davis to have been armed. As you have been repeatably told.
    Which puts the claim of no weapon in perspective.


    The claim that they were only fired upon as they left is also false. As you have been repeatably told.


    The medical examiner was not credible. She didn't even have all the evidence to draw any conclusions about it.
    And the forensics and trajectory analysis showed her findings to be wrong.
    As you have been repeatably told.


    Dunn not calling the police is irrelevant, as everybody acts differently, especially after traumatic experiences.
    Do you really dispute that?


    The perceived threat did exist, and continued to exist until the threat was far enough away to render any return fire ineffective.
    Do you really dispute that?


    Irrelevant. Dunn intended to make contact. But he was contacted first.

    You really should have learned the actual evidence before getting into an argument and relying on the opinion of others to make your absurd claims.


    So again, back to the stuff you keep avoiding, actual undisputed evidence.

    Lets see if you will at least be honest here. (so far you have failed)

    The evidence says that Davis was the only one angry and irate and it was directed towards Dunn.
    It also shows that Davis got out of the Durango as Dunn stated.

    So for what purpose do you suppose the angry and irate Davis got out of the vehicle?
    The only logical conclusion from the evidence would be to carry through with his threats to Dunn.
    No other reason exists.
    Try debating the actual evidence presented to you.
    You know, that evidence that actually refutes and/or shows the conclusion reported are debatable.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  7. #147
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,855

    Re: Jury: Ex-Blackwater contractors guilty in 'outrageous' Nusoor Square shooting

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    At least, when Americans murder women and children, there is an American judicial system that will make them pay for their heinous crimes. Let the title of "baby killers" rest with ISIS, who truly deserve the name. Americans hold themselves to a higher standard, and woe to those who violate it. Excellent verdict.

    Article is here.
    Privatizing war. What a brilliant concept. /sarcasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  8. #148
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,855

    Re: Jury: Ex-Blackwater contractors guilty in 'outrageous' Nusoor Square shooting

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_State View Post
    For me, this situation is the reason I don't want contractors in a war zone. I know they are cost effective, but war zones should be for combat troops. Not private security.
    Thing is they are not cost effective. They are basically political kickbacks. The military is self sustaining for the most part. Contractors in country kill morale in that they get these giant government contracts to do what the military is already doing and the military folk know that. Here is our military watching these asshats doing the same work for beucoup more bucks but when the real danger comes up the contractors can just opt out and let the low paid grunts clear the way. Perhaps for some superfulous outside fringe jobs but to supplant work already done by the military... Dan is right... there is no real accountability for them while the military has the USMJ holding them to high standards. And when the contractors freak out and do crap like these did in the OP... the people in that country just see "Americans" doing it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  9. #149
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    34,855

    Re: Jury: Ex-Blackwater contractors guilty in 'outrageous' Nusoor Square shooting

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Your link...

    A mercenary[1] is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire for private gain."[2][3]

    For profit IS for personal gain.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  10. #150
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,315

    Re: Jury: Ex-Blackwater contractors guilty in 'outrageous' Nusoor Square shooting

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Your link...

    A mercenary[1] is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire for private gain."[2][3]

    For profit IS for personal gain.
    If you'd read the entire source, you would leaned that all conditions must exist to meet the definition of a mercenary. By your interpretation, US servicemen can be defined as mercenaries.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 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
  •