• 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 found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial[W:292]

Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

Notice how he is still trying to take those WHO ACTUALLY SAW ALL THE EVIDENCE aka: the jury out of the picture. Like somehow it makes his whaaaa whaaaa argument any more credible. Just let it go. Best way to deal with arguments that are based on "I'm right because I say so!"


You not understanding that an appeal to their decision is a logical fallacy suits you just fine.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

You not understanding that an appeal to their decision is a logical fallacy suits you just fine.

No one is appealing anything. They had all the facts and you don't. End of story.

Thanks have a nice day!
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

Hasn't this been over for weeks now? What are you all still talking about?
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

No one is appealing anything. They had all the facts and you don't. End of story.

Thanks have a nice day!
Wrong.
We had what they heard and saw.
We watched it all as it was broadcast the first time. That evidence hasn't changed.
The only difference is that we had more time to review and evaluate it.
Dunn was reacting to a threat.

Not only was what you said wrong, it was also irrelevant, as juries get things wrong all the time.
 
Last edited:
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

Wrong.
We had what they heard and saw.
We watched it all as it was broadcast the first time. That evidence hasn't changed.
The only difference is that we had more time to review and evaluate it.
Dunn was reacting to a threat.

And the majority of people agree with the decision based on the evidence and their decision to convict. He was convicted not one once, but two twice. The only real question that is even the slightest bit iffy is the premeditation. Of course even the police thought is was premeditated. So what you think or your opinion is flawed. You assume incorrectly everything he said was the truth, he was shown to be a liar, end of story.

So keep the blinders on and have a good one!
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

Hasn't this been over for weeks now? What are you all still talking about?

If you are not interested in it, don't read it. No one is forcing you to read and/or participate in this thread.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

And the majority of people agree with the decision based on the evidence and their decision to convict. He was convicted not one once, but two twice. The only real question that is even the slightest bit iffy is the premeditation. Of course even the police thought is was premeditated. So what you think or your opinion is flawed. You assume incorrectly everything he said was the truth, he was shown to be a liar, end of story.

So keep the blinders on and have a good one!
And again it matters not to a discussion of the evidence.
And I have already admitted to being in the minority, so? That doesn't make me wrong. Funny that you think it does.

You again fail to realize that no evidence has shown his account to be false, which is not the same thing as "believing". That is your own absurd bias speaking again.


Nor was he found guilty twice of the same thing.
And as previously stated, the Jury really had no choice in regards to the first finding, but had he been found not guilty this time around that verdict would not have stood.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

Notice how he is still trying to take those WHO ACTUALLY SAW ALL THE EVIDENCE aka: the jury out of the picture. Like somehow it makes his whaaaa whaaaa argument any more credible. Just let it go. Best way to deal with arguments that are based on "I'm right because I say so!"

I don't plan to post anything more on the case, as there isn't much more to add. The vital facts, all widely reported, support the verdict. Based on the linked news stories, the claim of self-defense was unsustainable and lacked credibility. Therefore, the verdict was proper and the sentence well-deserved given the gravity of what took place.

Claims to the contrary are little more than articles of faith, as they are disconnected from the full body of evidence that came before the jury (actually two juries) and the juries' methodical work to reach conclusions as to what happened. I'm a lot more comfortable accepting the juries' evidence-based conclusions from what I've read (noting that the jury had far more complete information), with some links provided, than alternative narratives that lie outside of the body of available evidence.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

I don't plan to post anything more on the case, as there isn't much more to add. The vital facts, all widely reported, support the verdict. Based on the linked news stories, the claim of self-defense was unsustainable and lacked credibility. Therefore, the verdict was proper and the sentence well-deserved given the gravity of what took place.

Claims to the contrary are little more than articles of faith, as they are disconnected from the full body of evidence that came before the jury (actually two juries) and the juries' methodical work to reach conclusions as to what happened. I'm a lot more comfortable accepting the juries' evidence-based conclusions from what I've read (noting that the jury had far more complete information), with some links provided, than alternative narratives that lie outside of the body of available evidence.

Pretty head on review of the matter. There really isn't much more to say. Am certain Dunn and a few of his new friends in the house all think they were innocent.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

I don't plan to post anything more on the case, as there isn't much more to add. The vital facts, all widely reported, support the verdict. Based on the linked news stories, the claim of self-defense was unsustainable and lacked credibility. Therefore, the verdict was proper and the sentence well-deserved given the gravity of what took place.

Claims to the contrary are little more than articles of faith, as they are disconnected from the full body of evidence that came before the jury (actually two juries) and the juries' methodical work to reach conclusions as to what happened. I'm a lot more comfortable accepting the juries' evidence-based conclusions from what I've read (noting that the jury had far more complete information), with some links provided, than alternative narratives that lie outside of the body of available evidence.

Except that you are wrong and didn't even have the evidence correct.
:doh
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom