MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial
Of course, I disagree. Firing approximately multiple shots into an automobile moving away from you is NOT self-defense. "The teens drove off as Dunn began firing." I realize you're right and the rest of the world is wrong, but I'm sure that's not a new position for you.
I don't understand why they brought him up on 1st degree murder charges. Had they brought him up on some lesser charge, in my opinion, he would have been convicted. I don't think it was pre-meditated. Mistake.
However, self-defense, as you know damned well, is an affirmative defense. It is up to the defendant to show that he acted in self-defense. Not up to the prosecution to prove that he didn't. He failed.
Had I been on the jury, I would have been immediately suspect because he left the scene and didn't call the police. The idea that there's no need to contact the cops after you've unloaded ten rounds in self-defense is ludicrous. It has nothing to do with whether or not he broke some law in not doing so. And everything to do with those are not the actions of a reasonable man.
Another poster here was right. You are the poster child for irresponsible gun ownership. As is he.
There was no circumstantial evidence there was a gun. Only his word. And that? He didn't even happen to mention to his girlfriend. "Jesus. That guy pulled a gun on me." Nope. My guess he was drunk. That's why he left.
Liberal views? Utter nonsense. There is nothing liberal about it.
Harp? No MaggieD, I pointed out where your reasoning was wrong. Big difference.
If you fail to understand that a person does not have to wait until fired upon in order to use self defense, that is not my problem.
Of course, I disagree. Firing approximately multiple shots into an automobile moving away from you is NOT self-defense. "The teens drove off as Dunn began firing." I realize you're right and the rest of the world is wrong, but I'm sure that's not a new position for you.
There in no reliable evidence to suggest he is lying about what he saw. None. And while there is no direct evidence, there is circumstantial evidence to support that there was a weapon. But the jury could not reach a verdict on that charge. The other charges where absurd. So again. If he is later found not guilty, these current conviction will not stand, as his actions were in self defense which grants him immunity from all criminal actions in regards to his using such force.
I don't understand why they brought him up on 1st degree murder charges. Had they brought him up on some lesser charge, in my opinion, he would have been convicted. I don't think it was pre-meditated. Mistake.
However, self-defense, as you know damned well, is an affirmative defense. It is up to the defendant to show that he acted in self-defense. Not up to the prosecution to prove that he didn't. He failed.
Had I been on the jury, I would have been immediately suspect because he left the scene and didn't call the police. The idea that there's no need to contact the cops after you've unloaded ten rounds in self-defense is ludicrous. It has nothing to do with whether or not he broke some law in not doing so. And everything to do with those are not the actions of a reasonable man.
Another poster here was right. You are the poster child for irresponsible gun ownership. As is he.
There was no circumstantial evidence there was a gun. Only his word. And that? He didn't even happen to mention to his girlfriend. "Jesus. That guy pulled a gun on me." Nope. My guess he was drunk. That's why he left.