• 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

That's not what the judge and jury decided.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

Who cares. His life is over.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

He can file an appeal.

How was what he did " premeditated " ?
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

He already had over 60 years (minimum) coming on the prior convictions. It is nice to know that one cannot be preemptively executed because someone thinks that they might have had a gun.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

That's not what the judge and jury decided.

The jury decided on his guilt. A judge can't do that in a trial.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

The jury decided on his guilt. A judge can't do that in a trial.



Judges run and control courtrooms.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

Judges run and control courtrooms.

Here's your quote:
That's not what the judge and jury decided.

That quote is wrong, so I gave you this answer:

"The jury decided on his guilt. A judge can't do that in a trial." And that is correct. Running a courtroom and judging a trial is not deciding guilt or innocence.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

1st degree kind of surprises me but a conviction in general doesn't. Hell, I'd have voted for 2nd degree.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

1st degree kind of surprises me but a conviction in general doesn't. Hell, I'd have voted for 2nd degree.

How does 1st degree surprise you? Nobody in the SUV was armed. Moreover, they were fleeing - so Dunn shot unarmed kids in the back. If Dunn said that there was a gun, then clearly he was lying and the jury thought so too.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

The vehicle that was riddle with bullets received justice ages ago. It's good to know that sometimes, with great difficulty, Blacks in Florida can get justice too.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

The vehicle that was riddle with bullets received justice ages ago. It's good to know that sometimes, with great difficulty, Blacks in Florida can get justice too.

And its about time. I'm starting to believe that anybody can shoot a black man and just say he thought they had a gun and get off.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

How does 1st degree surprise you? Nobody in the SUV was armed. Moreover, they were fleeing - so Dunn shot unarmed kids in the back. If Dunn said that there was a gun, then clearly he was lying and the jury thought so too.

It just struck me more as an act of depravity rather than an intentional thing. I don't believe that Dunn pulled into the spot planning to kill someone and he may not have planned to kill anyone even when he shot. In watching the trial I got the impression that he just got pissed off and started shooting without much thought at all for what he was doing.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

How does 1st degree surprise you? Nobody in the SUV was armed. Moreover, they were fleeing - so Dunn shot unarmed kids in the back. If Dunn said that there was a gun, then clearly he was lying and the jury thought so too.

Because Dunn's actions were not truly pre meditated. Rather, he had a general predispostion to escalate a situation where somebody disrespected him under certain circumstances. This predisposition to escalate may, or may not have led to murder (though in this case it did).

Basically, Dunn killed because he got an order refused and then got "Diss'ed" by a social inferior while buzzed on alcohol, while in the presence of his chick, while coming back from a stress event (wedding of his son to whom he had been estranged for years).

That is too many "ands" and "whiles" to show true pre meditation. Murder 2 would be the appropriate charge whether the shooter was a white software designer or another black teen ager.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

It just struck me more as an act of depravity rather than an intentional thing. I don't believe that Dunn pulled into the spot planning to kill someone and he may not have planned to kill anyone even when he shot. In watching the trial I got the impression that he just got pissed off and started shooting without much thought at all for what he was doing.

I would argue that his intention was to shoot somebody out of anger. That counts as premeditation. The fact that someone died as a result of his action makes it murder one, so he was tried as such.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

Because Dunn's actions were not truly pre meditated. Rather, he had a general predispostion to escalate a situation where somebody disrespected him under certain circumstances. This predisposition to escalate may, or may not have led to murder (though in this case it did).

Basically, Dunn killed because he got an order refused and then got "Diss'ed" by a social inferior while buzzed on alcohol, while in the presence of his chick, while coming back from a stress event (wedding of his son to whom he had been estranged for years).

That is too many "ands" and "whiles" to show true pre meditation. Murder 2 would be the appropriate charge whether the shooter was a white software designer or another black teen ager.

I would dissagree based on the experience itself at the time. He made a consious choice to shoot a person that was no threat to him at all: that person died. Therefore, I am arguing that murder one was the ight charge.

As to your point, the same then could have been argued in OJ Simpson's case: he was mad, at any number of things, decide to go over to ex's house adn found her in the company of a young handsome man, so he became so emotional and outraged that he took out his knife - and out his knife - and only intended to scare the tow, but she grabbed his hand and he went crazy - a crime of passion that got out of hand.

Should he then have been tried for murder two?

Ya'see Dunn could say anything he wanted about what happened, but it was clearly untrue, and cops and prosecutors very rarely go trial with something that won't stick. So - in my view, it all went the way it was supopsed to.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

I would dissagree based on the experience itself at the time. He made a consious choice to shoot a person that was no threat to him at all: that person died.

OK, under that definition, Murder 2 charges should not exist- every murder is a conscious decision of some level.

As to your point, the same then could have been argued in OJ Simpson's case: he was mad, at any number of things, decide to go over to ex's house adn found her in the company of a young handsome man, so he became so emotional and outraged that he took out his knife - and out his knife - and only intended to scare the tow, but she grabbed his hand and he went crazy - a crime of passion that got out of hand.

Should he then have been tried for murder two?
No, because OJ actively sought out his wife as an individual, thus murder 1. If Dunn had a prior encounter with the victim, then actively sought him out as an individual, it would be murder 1 as well.
 
Last edited:
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

OK, under that definition, Murder 2 charges should not exist- every murder is a conscious decision of some level.


No, because OJ actively sought out his wife as an individual, thus murder 1. If Dunn had a prior encounter with the victim, then actively sought him out as an individual, it would be murder 1 as well.



Ahh- but what IF - like Dunn, OJ defended hinself with that argument? Ya'see? I was just drawing a hypethetical comparrison.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

Ahh- but what IF - like Dunn, OJ defended hinself with that argument? Ya'see? I was just drawing a hypethetical comparrison.

Had OJ, after seeking out his wife as an individual used the "sudden rage" argument, it probably would have been rejected. Likewise, had Dunn sought the victim out as an individual (he did not), his "sudden rage" argument should be rejected as well.
 
Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial

He shouldn't have shot and killed that young man.

Hopefully this result will discourage other people from doing what this man did.

What he did is completely out of the ordinary to begin with. Most people don't need to be discouraged from doing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom