• 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!

Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial[W:336]

Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

This has to be a big event for Excon. Its like the super bowl for football players, Halloween for Party City stores, Valentine's day for chocolate peddlers. A black kid gets killed by a white guy for some absurd reason and Excon is right there, doing everything he can to play devil's advocate.

I wouldn't recommend feeding him, these are his greatest moments.:lol:
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

MaggieD said:
Since he was convicted of attempted murder, that makes no sense. Since it took so long for a verdict, I was suspecting nullification by one or more jurists. I don't think that happened . . . or it would have been a hung jury on all counts.



Apparently you don't understand an affirmative defense.



We are judged by the totality of our actions. His defense team asked the jury to believe that what was going on in his head was a fight for his life. The fact that he did a very unnatural thing, left the scene, didn't call the cops, is as fair to consider as his state of mind.



His explanation of why he left the scene isn't believable. But a high BAC would explain in. Nothing else does. She's a train wreck because . . . ?



You'll get no apology from me. The jury found him guilty. In a poll taken on this site, 31 of 33 people thought he was guilty. Ex doesn't think so. Ex thinks all someone has to say is, "I thought I saw a gun," and the prosecution has to disprove it. And if they can't? He walks. Well, the rest of the world disagrees with you.
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing this claiming he was innocent. BUT if he HAD stuck around it would be evidence that he wasn't afraid at all. What would be relevant is his not calling the police later. But had he not left the scene and with 3 still alive and his claim they had what looked like a gun to him, then his staying would prove he was not in fear whatsoever and prove he didn't really believe they had a gun.

One other thing... I ALWAYS do not agree when the police or prosecution try to prove something by claiming a person wasn't acting normally. That always is playing to xenophobia - that there must be something wrong with someone who doesn't act exactly like you do.

In his situation if it was as he claims it was - 4 people and with a gun and threatening him with it - I would not have stuck around - unless I WANTED to make certain I had killed all 4 or some other bad reason. How could he POSSIBLY claim he was afraid and thought they had a gun if he had stuck around?

Is your point you would have stayed to go over and make sure all 4 were dead or disabled shooting those who were not?

His not calling the police for hours is another matter.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Verax said:
This has to be a big event for Excon. Its like the super bowl for football players, Halloween for Party City stores, Valentine's day for chocolate peddlers. A black kid gets killed by a white guy for some absurd reason and Excon is right there, doing everything he can to play devil's advocate.

I wouldn't recommend feeding him, these are his greatest moments.:lol:
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual. :doh
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Excon said:
And you are wrong there as well.
Lets see?
Guy is screaming obscenities at you and verbally threatens your life.
Guy presents object (seen as a shotgun barrel) intended to present threat as real.
Guy then says it is going down now and starts getting out of the vehicle to carry through with said threat.​

The person being threatened with imminent death is not required to flee, and he is not required to be harmed first before responding to such an imminent threat.
Responding with deadly force is reasonable under such circumstances.
So you are just wrong.

It all boils down to belief of what he said.
The prosecution did not disprove his account as evidenced by the Jury not make a decision in regards to it.
Click to expand...

Re Bolded area

No gun was found, the guy was stating there was a gun only to use self defense in court. He shot at the guy because he got mad, and never told the police because he did not want to get arrested and hoped he would not be found out
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

joko104 said:
I'm not arguing this claiming he was innocent. BUT if he HAD stuck around it would be evidence that he wasn't afraid at all. What would be relevant is his not calling the police later. But had he not left the scene and with 3 still alive and his claim they had what looked like a gun to him, then his staying would prove he was not in fear whatsoever and prove he didn't really believe they had a gun.

One other thing... I ALWAYS do not agree when the police or prosecution try to prove something by claiming a person wasn't acting normally. That always is playing to xenophobia - that there must be something wrong with someone who doesn't act exactly like you do.

In his situation if it was as he claims it was - 4 people and with a gun and threatening him with it - I would not have stuck around - unless I WANTED to make certain I had killed all 4 or some other bad reason. How could he POSSIBLY claim he was afraid and thought they had a gun if he had stuck around?

Is your point you would have stayed to go over and make sure all 4 were dead or disabled shooting those who were not?

His not calling the police for hours is another matter.
Click to expand...

The reasonable man theory is an important part of our legal system. Always has been. I would say it's no more evident than in self-defense cases. In Dunn's case, it's the totality of what he did . . . not just that he didn't stay there. As I understand it, though, the kids drove away. He was firing at their car as they were doing so.

Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Bang. Shag girlfriend back into the car and book. Go back to the hotel and order a pizza. Find out a guy's dead. Watch a movie. Get some sleep. Drive home. Get arrested.

In my wildest imagination, using every scenerio I can think of, I cannot picture myself acting in such a manner.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Lord Tammerlain said:
Re Bolded area

No gun was found, the guy was stating there was a gun only to use self defense in court. He shot at the guy because he got mad, and never told the police because he did not want to get arrested and hoped he would not be found out
Click to expand...
Circumstantial evidence suggestion it did exist, so it matters not if it was found or wasn't.
And he did not shoot because he was mad. He shot because he was in fear for his life.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Excon said:
Circumstantial evidence suggestion it did exist, so it matters not if it was found or wasn't.
And he did not shoot because he was mad. He shot because he was in fear for his life.
Click to expand...

He was so afraid for his life that he did not mention the incident to his SO, or call the police.

That is not the action of a man who was afraid for his life and shot at someone with justification. It is the action of someone who realized he just fd up.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Lord Tammerlain said:
He was so afraid for his life that he did not mention the incident to his SO, or call the police.

That is not the action of a man who was afraid for his life and shot at someone with justification. It is the action of someone who realized he just fd up.
Click to expand...
Simply wrong.
Not everyone acts the same way after a traumatic experience. His GF remembering what he said matters not, especially as this was traumatic for her too. Nor was there a requirement to contact the police or remain in the area in fear for your life in an unfamiliar environment.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Excon said:
And you are wrong there as well.
Lets see?
Guy is screaming obscenities at you and verbally threatens your life.
Guy presents object (seen as a shotgun barrel) intended to present threat as real.
Guy then says it is going down now and starts getting out of the vehicle to carry through with said threat.​

The person being threatened with imminent death is not required to flee, and he is not required to be harmed first before responding to such an imminent threat.
Responding with deadly force is reasonable under such circumstances.
So you are just wrong.
Click to expand...

That's not the part I'm saying is unreasonable.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

molten_dragon said:
That's not the part I'm saying is unreasonable.
Click to expand...
Well then you are not speaking to the law. As the reasonable man standard that is written into the law goes towards his actions to what he perceived. Even the Jury instruction tells you that the threat need not be actual.
Just that the threat needs to appear to be so real to the defendant.

The reasonableness standard goes to his actions in response to it.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Excon said:
As the reasonable man standard that is written into the law goes towards his actions to what he perceived. Even the Jury instruction tells you that the threat need not be actual.
Just that the threat needs to appear to be so real to the defendant.

The reasonableness standard goes to his actions in response to it.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't really understand how the self-defense law works. Whether he perceived a threat is irrelevant. The standard is whether a reasonable person in the same situation would perceive a threat. And no reasonable person would perceive a car they had already fired several rounds into that was now fleeing from them to be a threat.

I'm done here though, this is pointless because you're just reiterating your same talking points over and over, regardless of how many times they get refuted. We know you think he's innocent, fortunately you weren't on the jury.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

molten_dragon said:
You obviously don't really understand how the self-defense law works.
Click to expand...
It is obviously you that does not.

molten_dragon said:
Whether he perceived a threat is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Read the Jury instruction.
The threat doesn't even have to be actual. Just appear to be so real to the defendant. And in this case it was.


molten_dragon said:
The standard is whether a reasonable person in the same situation would perceive a threat.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
The standard is if that which he is on trial for, his actions was reasonable. As written it clearly goes to the reasonableness of his reaction to threat.
Read the law.
It is clear.
and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.​

The reasonableness goes to the force used in return.
That is what the law requires.


molten_dragon said:
And no reasonable person would perceive a car they had already fired several rounds into that was now fleeing from them to be a threat.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
The distance was very limited.
The person being shot as was not driving.
Because of the vehicles tint, he had no idea if the threat was going to fire back at any moment.
Under such circumstances it is more than permissible to continue to fire until they are sufficiently out of range.


molten_dragon said:
I'm done here though, this is pointless because you're just reiterating your same talking points over and over, regardless of how many times they get refuted. We know you think he's innocent, fortunately you weren't on the jury.
Click to expand...
:doh
You are done because you are wrong and can not see the failing of your own arguments.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

AGENT J said:
1.) I agree and said so many times myself in many posts/threads.

what seems weird though is, say they did have a juror stuck on M2 or manslaughter, why didnt the rest of the jurors just come down to that lesser charge? I mean he is basically going to jail for life anyway.

this makes me think there was somebody mentally retarded enough on that jury to think he is innocent.
Click to expand...

Can the jury hand out a lesser charge if the state is only asking the jury is defendant guilty of first degree murder?
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

jamesrage said:
Can the jury hand out a lesser charge if the state is only asking the jury is defendant guilty of first degree murder?
Click to expand...

There were lesser charges included. the problem is all the jury members have to agree to the charges. they had a split jury IE only part of them agreed it was some form of murder and others did not.

now this lead to a mistrial which means he is still charged with murder 1 and the prosecution is going to retry.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

jamesrage said:
Can the jury hand out a lesser charge if the state is only asking the jury is defendant guilty of first degree murder?
Click to expand...

i dont know the answer to your question in general


but in this case the answer is yes, they were allowed to charge with M1, M2 or M3(manslaughter)

now I dont know if this has to be established before hand or is case by case or different in different states but it was true in this case

same with the charges they did decide on. THe original charges where M1 and attempted M1 and firing into an occupied vehicle.

They came back hung on M1 and on a lesser charge of attempted M2. This is also why they read it they way they do in court "a lesser charge"

but again i dont know the answer to your question in general
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Crosscheck said:
If you had a shotgun in your car and somebody had just killed your buddy and now is just standing there shooting at you what would you do with a powerful shotgun?
Click to expand...

If I am the driver and the shotgun is out of reach then I am driving off because the time it takes to reach for the gun can get me and everyone else killed. If I am one of the wounded passengers I might be in too much pain or in shock over the fact I was shot to worry about firing back. Or even if I wasn't one the injured I might be more concerned about the fact my friends were shot instead of worrying about firing back.


I would have blasted his ass in self defense to save myself.
Click to expand...

Unless of course all you had was a steel pipe. Plus you do not know what you would have done in that situation.Have you been in a similar situation?


There was no shotgun.
Click to expand...

You do not know that.You were not there.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

MaggieD said:
I agree with you about the Zimmerman comparison. There is none. If I'm not mistaken, the only person comparing it to the Zimmerman/Martin case was the defense attorney. Nice try.
Click to expand...

The author of the article compares it to the Zimmerman case and from what I heard on MSNBC they compare it to the Zimmerman case as well.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

jamesrage said:
The author of the article compares it to the Zimmerman case and from what I heard on MSNBC they compare it to the Zimmerman case as well.
Click to expand...

Only similarity in my mind is that the black guy ended up shot dead.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

jamesrage said:
If I am the driver and the shotgun is out of reach then I am driving off because the time it takes to reach for the gun can get me and everyone else killed. If I am one of the wounded passengers I might be in too much pain or in shock over the fact I was shot to worry about firing back. Or even if I wasn't one the injured I might be more concerned about the fact my friends were shot instead of worrying about firing back.




Unless of course all you had was a steel pipe. Plus you do not know what you would have done in that situation.Have you been in a similar situation?




You do not know that.You were not there.
Click to expand...

Correct neither of us were there and this is Monday quarterbacking. But I do know from past experiences I have jumped in for a friend who was being threaten to fight and have even jumped in before for a complete stranger.

But I do know there is that survivor mode we have in us and if somebody is shooting at me and I have a shotgun at my access I am going to fire back. If there was a shotgun, and I believe this story came out as an afterthought by Dunn, it was on the victim and the passenger could have easily picked it up. Even with them backing up he was firing into them. I just can't believe one of these guys who many described as gangster thugs wouldn't have grabbed that gun and fired back.

But the biggest red herring is that he did not immediately report this to the police that day or even the next.

Let me ask you this. If you had just shot the crap out of a car with 4 people in it , regardless if you were in the right or not , could you honestly just drive to a bed and breakfast and enjoy a pizza? I would be on the phone to the authorities and an attorney. I would not have any appetite that night worrying about my outcome when this is investigated.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

DiAnna said:
The jury was given the option (according to CNN) of choosing First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder or Manslaughter. At least one clueless idiot couldn't vote for any of 'em.
Click to expand...

Second degree and manslaughter were the other two options. They couldn't agree on any of the three. My guess is there was one hold out who was on Dunn's side refused to allow a unanimous vote. In fact, based on jury questions, it seems they unanimously agreed to attempted murder of the friends BEFORE the jury realized those counts could be rendered separately while being deadlocked on the primary charge. I honestly wonder if it had been realized he would go to prison for life, would the jury and my theory of a pro-Dunn advocate on the jury would have agreed unanimously on the other counts until it was too late.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

MaggieD said:
Only similarity in my mind is that the black guy ended up shot dead.
Click to expand...

That's completely understandable. However, the perspective of many blacks is different for a variety of compounding reasons.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

joko104 said:
His not calling the police for hours is another matter.
Click to expand...

It wasn't that he didn't call the police for hours. He never called the police at all, they called him.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Excon said:
Simply wrong.
Not everyone acts the same way after a traumatic experience. His GF remembering what he said matters not, especially as this was traumatic for her too. Nor was there a requirement to contact the police or remain in the area in fear for your life in an unfamiliar environment.
Click to expand...


Self defense is an affirmative defense and the burden of proof is on the defense to show clear and convincing evidence that the defendant's actions were reasonable. It is not enough to just claim that the situation was stressful or unfamiliar, he has to demonstrate that his use of deadly force was reasonable. "Reasonable" is not so broad a term as to be just what the defendant believes to be reasonable, but more narrow than that. And to the benefit of the defense the burden of proof is not even the same as the prosecution must demonstrate (beyond a reasonable doubt). All the defense needs to do is demonstrate clear and convincing evidence. In the Dunn case there was none of that.
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

MaggieD said:
The jury found that he didn't. You can harp the same old song as long as you'd like, Excon. You are in a distinct minority with them. I, for one, am grateful for that. The jury found that he was not acting in self-defense. From the bare-bones facts we have to work with, I agree with that finding. Your liberal views on what's self-defense and what's isn't don't even match those of the most liberal state of Florida. (Liberal not having political meaning here.)
Click to expand...
It almost seems like some folks believe that just because someone said they feared for their life...we have to believe them.

Can you imagine what horrible things could occur if we were obliged to believe what they said every time?:shock:
 
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

Texmex said:
This is the first I have heard of this case. From what I read Dunn is fortunate to get off this easy if this verdict stands. It is one thing to carry a firearm and use it in self-defense, it's another thing to shoot into a car full of people then leave the scene.

I am a CCL holder in the state of Texas. If I had been confronted with this situation, I would have attempted to leave before any shooting or fighting started.

Something else, a person carrying a firearm is not suppused to have any alcohol in their system at all, and you certainly aren't supposed to leave the scene of the incident.

On the surface this verdict seems to be a miscarriage of justice.
Click to expand...

Not sure about a miscarriage of justice - without throwing in a retrial (if it happens) on the murder charges - he will still be in jail for decades.

I have wondered about the alcohol issue as well.

Who knows, the guy has excuses for all of his deplorable behavior. Luckily the jury seemed to see right through it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom