Actually, I've provided news links on multiple occasions.
Which has nothing to do with what I said,
You keep avoiding the actual evidence and keep going to stuff like a reporters
opinion which is irrelevant.
Obviously you purposely left it out of what you quoted because you want to avoid it.
So again, back to the stuff you keep avoiding, the actual evidence.
Lets see if you will at least be honest here. (so far you have failed)
The evidence says that Davis was the only one angry and irate and it was directed towards Dunn.
It also shows that Davis got out of the Durango as Dunn stated.
So for what purpose do you suppose the angry and irate Davis got out of the vehicle?
The only logical conclusion from the evidence would be to carry through with his threats to Dunn.
No other reason exists.
I've asked for links for your statements that the jury did not reject the self-defense alibi. I received none.
:doh
Stop with the dishonesty.
I just provided you the information which was being spoken about.
There were jurors who believed his account the first time.
Which is why the crap you spew is nonsense.
I've posted news stories that revealed that the teens were unarmed,
:lamo
And?
A reporter's opinion means absolutely squat. The actual evidence
(you know, that stuff you wont discuss and continually avoid) leaves open the possibility that Davis had been armed.
Davis was sitting inside the vehicle when shot, the Durango was attempting to drive away when the shots were fired, Dunn never reported the shooting, etc.
:doh
And as already pointed out to you, her testimony wasn't even credible, and it was destroyed on cross. The angle of the entry wounds does not suggest he was sitting there.
You again have nothing and instead argue nonsense, all because you do not know the evidence.
I've also noted that Dunn was not a credible witness.
Which isn't true, as previously pointed out there were those jurors who did believe him and people who still do.
You have nothing but false claims.
He claimed Davis was outside and posed a threat to him.
Learn the evidence and stop ignoring it when it is provided to you.
Davis got out of the vehicle.
It is a claim that is supported by testimony of Davis's friend.
The Medical Examiner revealed that Davis was inside the vehicle and sitting when shot.
Irrelevant as it was shown during trial that that wasn't true.
Sometime after the incident Dunn concocted a story that a shotgun had been pointed at him.
Just another false claim by you.
His fiance told the court that Dunn never mentioned a gun to her.
Still going in circles.
Her, an emotionally unstable person, not remembering what she was told means absolutely nothing.
The teens were found to have been unarmed and none of the witnesses saw a gun.
Yet their suspicious activity in the other parking lot, and in leaving that area leaves open the possibility that there was a gun. Especially as they didn't bother to tell the police about being in the other parking lot.
Suuuuurrrrrrrreeeee! :doh
That's why jurors from the first trial believed him and other folks still do.
You speak nonsense.
Moreover, even if a theoretical actual or perceived threat existed (it didn't), the threat had ended when the teens were attempting to drive away.
Bs!
Davis wasn't the driver. His being a threat doesn't just magically disappear because the vehicle he jumped back into backed up and stopped immediately behind you,. THat put the threat just feet away. D'oh! That is still a threat.
The threat could only have ended once the vehicle was far enough away making any possible return fire ineffective.
Which just shows that jurors do get things wrong all the time.
The two juries, both of which had the full set of information rather than the more limited information that was published by the media, also drew the conclusion that he did not act in self-defense.
This is you not paying attention and not understanding what occurred, leading you to again make a false claim.
Members of the first jury did believe him, as shown, that is why the jury was hung.
The first juries decision on the other charges is irrespective of the first, especially as he could not claim self defense as they did nothing to warrant the use of self defense. Your continued failure to understand that is your problem.
If he had, there would have been no convictions as the bullets would have been deemed to have been fired at the alleged threat not indiscriminately at the others. So no, the jury didn't by the self-defense claim.
Simply wrong, all because you do not know what you are talking about.
There were 3 jurors who wanted to acquit. That is why the jury was hung.
Nor would have an acquittal changed any verdict the jury rendered in regards to the other charges. Only the trial Judge or the appellate process could have overturned them.
That two juries reached the same conclusion that Dunn deserved to be convicted on at least second degree murder reduces the probability of jury error.
Said the guy who knows not of what he speaks.
The Juries decisions are separate and distinct from each other and deal with two separate set of facts and law.
There is no reduction in the probability of Jury error. What an absurd claim to make.
The notion that the juries didn't "understand the evidence" in reaching their verdict is a vast stretch.
More nonsense from you.
It has already been shown that jurors from the first trial did not understand evidence and based their decisions outside of the law.
