The repeated insults are entirely the result of an absence of concrete substance and appropriate legal principles to rebut the jury's verdict. They represent an inability to overcome the reality that Dunn's shooting was unlawful. In effect, the claim that Dunn was "innocent" is nothing more than an emotional personal preference.
Dunn's version of events has been discredited. Dunn claimed he had seen a shotgun. No weapons were found. None of the witnesses to the incident observed a shotgun. Dunn never even mentioned a gun to his fiancé at the time. Dunn claimed that Davis posed a serious threat to him. Instead, Davis was seated when shot by Dunn. Dunn claimed he had acted in self-defense. He never contacted the police following the shooting, even as rational and reasonable people who believed that they had acted in self-defense would have done so as soon as any actual or perceived threat had ended.
Evasion of critical facts, including those above, documented in the linked news accounts with unsourced opinion is not a substitute for the lack of factual basis for claims of Dunn's "innocence." Such a basis did not exist to the extent that there would have been the "reasonable doubt" necessary for the jury to acquit Dunn.
#145 sums up the critical evidence of the case and includes appropriate links (in stark contrast to the repeated unsourced claims, not to mention baseless attempts to discredit the Medical Examiner, Dunn's fiancé, etc.). Consideration of the documented evidence and application of the criteria required for a successful self-defense argument provide a good understanding as to why the jury found as it did.
The claim that Dunn was "innocent" relies on ignoring the key evidence (provided in the linked news sources), not understanding the criteria required for self-defense (an actual imminent threat to one's life or of serious harm or a case where a reasonable person would perceive such an imminent threat, emphasis on "reasonable person"), and/or taking a position as an article of faith regardless of the evidence. Given the evidence laid out in the news stories, including but not limited to Davis' being seated when shot, even if a perceived threat had existed, that perceived threat had ended when Dunn opened fire. Dunn had no legitimate or lawful basis to open fire on the unarmed teens. Therefore, the jury's verdict was logical, consistent with the principles of the law, and wholly expected among those who followed the case giving reasonable attention to the evidence and applicable principles of law.
Finally, the evidence for Dunn's actions having been unlawful was so strong that Judge Healey remarked during the sentencing phase, "Our justice system works. This case demonstrates that our justice system does work.” The weight of the evidence and the jury's proper application of legal principles makes a successful appeal of the verdict and sentence very unlikely.