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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Only your opinion. Nothing more.
That she was shown to not know all the evinced regarding the gun shots. No it isn't.
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.
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.
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.
:doh
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the end, it's clear that the claim that Dunn was "innocent" is entirely personal opinion.
:doh
Unlike your opinion, mine is based on the actual facts. Not someone else's opinion like your's is. D'oh!
It has little or nothing to do with the facts and evidence of the case
:naughty
Your opinion has nothing to do with the actual evidence because you ignore it.
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.
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.
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.
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.