• 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!

Michael Dunn Murder Trial of Jordan Davis guilty or not?

So far do you think Michael Dunn is guilty of murder?

  • Total voters
    40
Crosscheck said:
I love watching liars get tangled up in their own lies. I can't believe he was dumb enough to take the stand.
Click to expand...

Some people claim he had no choice. Unfortunately by doing so it allowed the racist at worst letters he wrote to be brought up because those letter contradicted a lot of what he told the police. It also allowed his first police interview to be brought up: where he never mentioned a gun or weapon of any sort.

Furthermore he contradicted his own previous testimony a lot. I've been looking online and I can't find the entire cross examination on video.
 
reinoe said:
Some people claim he had no choice. Unfortunately by doing so it allowed the racist at worst letters he wrote to be brought up because those letter contradicted a lot of what he told the police. It also allowed his first police interview to be brought up: where he never mentioned a gun or weapon of any sort.

Furthermore he contradicted his own previous testimony a lot. I've been looking online and I can't find the entire cross examination on video.
Click to expand...
:doh
Yes he did mention the gun in the first interview.

Nor are his letters racist.
Prejudicial towards the black thug idiots he is surrounded by, yes, which anybody, except those like minded, would be.
But not racist.
 
joko104 said:
^ A racist message. Racists look at everyone thru racial eyes - as your message does.
Click to expand...

My post is about ONE white man not white men in general, one man who openly displayed his racism in writing through the letters he penned in jail as well as his actions when he killed Jordan Davis. Try to stay focused please.
 
opendebate said:
My post is about ONE white man not white men in general, one man who openly displayed his racism in writing through the letters he penned in jail as well as his actions when he killed Jordan Davis. Try to stay focused please.
Click to expand...

I will use your logic. Obviously the African Americans were racist intent to murder him because one of them called him a "cracker." Therefore, in YOUR reasoning the incident was entirely racial and started by aggressive black racists.

The case is a simple one. It concerns him believing he saw a shotgun or gun being aimed at him. If so, he has a defense. If not, I doubt it, though I am not micro watching any of this and only read the article. Why would I watch or read the trial?
 
joko104 said:
I will use your logic. Obviously the African Americans were racist intent to murder him because one of them called him a "cracker." Therefore, in YOUR reasoning the incident was entirely racial and started by aggressive black racists.

The case is a simple one. It concerns him believing he saw a shotgun or gun being aimed at him. If so, he has a defense. If not, I doubt it, though I am not micro watching any of this and only read the article. Why would I watch or read the trial?
Click to expand...

Here's the difference. I am not speculating about intent. I am referencing actions. Big difference.
 
Excon said:
:doh
Yes he did mention the gun in the first interview.

Nor are his letters racist.
Prejudicial towards the black thug idiots he is surrounded by, yes, which anybody, except those like minded, would be.
But not racist.
Click to expand...

How do you know they were "black thug idiots?"...
You may feign being neutral, but you're biased too.
 
opendebate said:
Here's the difference. I am not speculating about intent. I am referencing actions. Big difference.
Click to expand...
:naughty
No, you are speculating on what you think his actions meant.
You speculate racism when none is present.
Being prejudicial towards the idiots he is surrounded by is not racist even if he were speaking of only blacks, as anybody of sound mind would be, and should be, prejudiced against such idiot thugs.
Now had he said all blacks were idiot thugs, then, and only then would you have a valid claim. But as that is not what he said, you have none.
 
Fruityfact said:
How do you know they were "black thug idiots?"...
You may feign being neutral, but you're biased too.
Click to expand...
iLOL
:doh
Supposedly that is what he called them.
He said nothing about the non idiot, non thug, black folks did he?


And my bias is to factual information.
 
Excon said:
iLOL
:doh
Supposedly that is what he called them.
He said nothing about the non idiot, non thug, black folks did he?


And my bias is to factual information.
Click to expand...

You stated those words as your own. Obviously you must have forgotten your quotation (""):roll::peace
 
Fruityfact said:
You stated those words as your own. Obviously you must have forgotten your quotation (""):roll::peace
Click to expand...
:doh
I am speaking about his letter and you think I am speaking about myself. Strange.

So you do not know how to interpret what you read either. Good to know.
 
One strange thing is the court ruled that Dunn's parents have to pay his legal fees because the court won't.

So I guess his parents are being fined too for being his parents. I can't recall a court every ruling an adult on trial for murder doesn't get an attorney because his parents can pay his legal fees.

I wonder how far we are all now liable for the legal fees of relatives? What about nephews and nieces? Grandchildren?

The judge of course is a lawyer. The legal industry apparently is now ruling it will just get its money from anyone they can think of and order relatives pay or they'll put their relatives to death in a trial for murder with no defense attorney.
 
opendebate said:
Here's the difference. I am not speculating about intent. I am referencing actions. Big difference.
Click to expand...


I understand that many believe a person has to right to self defense until after they are shot or stabbed. In short, that there really isn't any right to self defense - the duty to die for the common good.

I wasn't there and don't know what happened. I'm not on the jury and won't spend my life watching it. IF what I read he claimed happened is what happened he has a defense. I don't know if what I read he claimed is true or not, therefore I don't know if he should be found guilty or not.

I have no problems with his letters and candidly I don't think they should have gone into evidence or been able to be used against him. He had not been found guilty of anything yet and I don't agree with the premise that a person summarily loses all rights and privacy upon an arrest and pre-trial imprisonment.
 
joko104 said:
One strange thing is the court ruled that Dunn's parents have to pay his legal fees because the court won't.

So I guess his parents are being fined too for being his parents. I can't recall a court every ruling an adult on trial for murder doesn't get an attorney because his parents can pay his legal fees.

I wonder how far we are all now liable for the legal fees of relatives? What about nephews and nieces? Grandchildren?

The judge of course is a lawyer. The legal industry apparently is now ruling it will just get its money from anyone they can think of and order relatives pay or they'll put their relatives to death in a trial for murder with no defense attorney.
Click to expand...

What on Earth are you talking about?
 
Paleocon said:
What on Earth are you talking about?
Click to expand...

His lawyer asked the court to pay his legal fees since Dunn is obviously unemployed being in jail and can't pay. The judge ruled he didn't qualify because his parents have the money.
 
Nice

not even one person is silly enough to think he is innocent
 
AGENT J said:
Nice

not even one person is silly enough to think he is innocent
Click to expand...

There are 3 NOs and 2 Others. I'm an other. I don't know.
 
Paleocon said:
It was the same one as in Zimmerman. Their chances of success in this case are substantially greater on account of the fact that they have evidence this time.
Click to expand...

Definitely a stronger case! Zimmerman had numerous assault head injuries and only fired once at point-blank range. This fella apparently opened up on another vehicle.
 
joko104 said:
There are 3 NOs and 2 Others. I'm an other. I don't know.
Click to expand...

no there are ZERO NOs

anonymous votes dont count because of spammers thats the whole reason to make polls public.
The actual count is
23 YES
0 NO
1 Other

not surprising since the evidence against him is overwhelming at this point
 
joko104 said:
There are 3 NOs and 2 Others. I'm an other. I don't know.
Click to expand...
Let me guess. Someone actually thinks certain votes don't count.
Like there is a rule or something that says such nonsense.
 
AGENT J said:
no there are ZERO NOs

anonymous votes dont count because of spammers thats the whole reason to make polls public.
The actual count is
23 YES
0 NO
1 Other

not surprising since the evidence against him is overwhelming at this point
Click to expand...

I see a couple of "no" votes. And this isn't public poll.
 
Excon said:
Let me guess. Someone actually thinks certain votes don't count.
Like there is a rule or something that says such nonsense.
Click to expand...

yes anonymous votes do not count because of spamming.

and yes that is the rule this is why any good poll is public because MODS have had to tell us what the REAL votes are for polls when they get spammed.

For example, what often happens is we cant see the votes but when the mods look, 5 members actually voted for item A, but then magically there 40 anonymous votes making the vote 45

and then theres 40 member votes for item B and 2 anonymous votes making the total 42

that poll was spammed



BUT by all means if you would like to include the spammed votes im more then fine with 64 yes (92.75%) and 3 no (4.35%) and 2 others LMAO

and ill gladly make a new statement that nobody was silly enough to publicly vote no
 
reinoe said:
I see a couple of "no" votes. And this isn't public poll.
Click to expand...

yes it is all you have to do is click on the numbers of votes and then it shows who voted

there are no public no votes

people that have been here no to ignore the anonymous votes because of spammers i was taught this 4 years ago by a mod.
 
So someone does think that.
Too bad there is no rule that says such.
:lamo
 
Excon said:
So someone does think that.
Too bad there is no rule that says such.
:lamo
Click to expand...

yes anonymous votes do not count because of spamming.

and yes that is the rule this is why any good poll is public because MODS have had to tell us what the REAL votes are for polls when they get spammed.

For example, what often happens is we cant see the votes but when the mods look, 5 members actually voted for item A, but then magically there 40 anonymous votes making the vote 45

and then theres 40 member votes for item B and 2 anonymous votes making the total 42

that poll was spammed



BUT by all means if you would like to include the spammed votes im more then fine with 64 yes (92.75%) and 3 no (4.35%) and 2 others LMAO

and ill gladly make a new statement that nobody was silly enough to publicly vote no
 
Wow. Someone does think that.
Too bad there is no rule that says such.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom