• 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!

Jury: Ex-Blackwater contractors guilty in 'outrageous' Nusoor Square shooting

Stop with the dishonesty.
I just provided you the information which was being spoken about.

I didn't make the claim that the jury accepted his self-defense alibi. It didn't. It is that claim that is nonsense.

Had the jury accepted his claim, Dunn would have been acquitted. He wasn't.

There is no link because the claim that the jury accepted his self-defense alibi is without foundation. No matter how much one repeats that claim or tries to evade the facts by claiming others 'don't know what they're talking about,' the reality remains the same. Dunn's self-defense alibi was rejected by both juries, with the only difference being his conviction on first degree murder by the second jury.

Also, the condescending notion that the jury somehow didn't understand the evidence is completely absurd. The jury made a decision that was wholly consistent with the law. It is no surprise that the second jury reached exactly the same conclusion on the charges for which the first one convicted Dunn, even as it also convicted him of premeditated murder. Both juries had sufficient evidence.

Had one or the other jury erred, there would have been legitimate basis not only to file an appeal but to prevail in that appeal. That won't happen.

I realize some might have difficulty accepting the reality that Dunn's actions were outside the parameters of self-defense, but that's strictly their opinion.

The evidence says otherwise. Both juries, which had all the evidence, not just the more limited amount that was published or broadcast by the media, reached similar conclusions. Dunn had not acted in self-defense. He killed an unarmed teen who was seated even as the teens were leaving. He didn't even report the shooting (almost certainly, because he feared the consequences of doing so; any rational person who acted in self-defense would immediately have reported his or her actions). In the end, he was held accountable for his crime.
 
You can't even refute the arguments made, and instead want to make completely untrue assertions. That is a demonstration of addled reasoning. :lamo

When I first read your response, I was hurt......hurt and confused.....hurt and confused and sad....hurt, confused, sad and misunderstood.
My post was intended to be a homage to your always reasonable thinking.
I'm surprised you, a clear-thinking, rational self-defense advocate didn't see my intent.
Clearly, we agree on the salient points in the Dunn case.....

#1---The shooter's version of the story should always be accepted. Shooters don't lie.

#2---Indiscriminately emptying your pistol into a van is a smart move. Dunn should have had a larger magazine.

#3---The shooter's mere perception of a deadly threat is enough to warrant deadly force. Shoot first and ask questions later is my motto. This type of philosophy will lead to a more civil society.

#4---The true thug in this case is the dead guy. Sure he was unarmed and had no criminal record, but mouthy punks will invariably become criminals.

#5---Loud "rap crap" is a threat in of itself.

Now, if you'll excuse me, since I've cleared up this misunderstanding, I'm going to cruise to the mini-mart, top down on my 'vette, volume AND bass
blasting, listening to "ABBA'S GREATEST HITS"

"Dancing Queen" is my fave.....I hope nobody shoots me.
 
When I first read your response, I was hurt......hurt and confused.....hurt and confused and sad....hurt, confused, sad and misunderstood.
My post was intended to be a homage to your always reasonable thinking.
I'm surprised you, a clear-thinking, rational self-defense advocate didn't see my intent.
Clearly, we agree on the salient points in the Dunn case.....

#1---The shooter's version of the story should always be accepted. Shooters don't lie.

#2---Indiscriminately emptying your pistol into a van is a smart move. Dunn should have had a larger magazine.

#3---The shooter's mere perception of a deadly threat is enough to warrant deadly force. Shoot first and ask questions later is my motto. This type of philosophy will lead to a more civil society.

#4---The true thug in this case is the dead guy. Sure he was unarmed and had no criminal record, but mouthy punks will invariably become criminals.

#5---Loud "rap crap" is a threat in of itself.

Now, if you'll excuse me, since I've cleared up this misunderstanding, I'm going to cruise to the mini-mart, top down on my 'vette, volume AND bass
blasting, listening to "ABBA'S GREATEST HITS"

"Dancing Queen" is my fave.....I hope nobody shoots me.
Typical absurd response of one who can not rationally debate the evidence.
 
Last edited:
I didn't make the claim that the jury accepted his self-defense alibi. It didn't.
More dishonesty from you.
I provided the link showing that at least three jurors from the first trial accepted his account.
It is your failure for not accepting the truth.

The fact that you keep appealing to the juries decision, which is a logical fallacy, after being told the discussion was about the actual evidence, just tells us you are not interested in actually discussing the evidence.


Had the jury accepted his claim, Dunn would have been acquitted. He wasn't.
You are dishonestly tap dancing around what was claimed and proven.

There is no link because the claim that the jury accepted his self-defense alibi is without foundation. No matter how much one repeats that claim or tries to evade the facts by claiming others 'don't know what they're talking about,' the reality remains the same. Dunn's self-defense alibi was rejected by both juries, with the only difference being his conviction on first degree murder by the second jury.
More dishonesty and straight up lies.
The reality is -
Three jurors accepted his account. As previously shown.
Jurors did get the the evidence wrong.
And he had no claim to self defense to the other charges.​
Your failure again for not understanding these things even though they have repeatedly been pointed out to you. That is all on you.


Also, the condescending notion that the jury somehow didn't understand the evidence is completely absurd. The jury made a decision that was wholly consistent with the law. It is no surprise that the second jury reached exactly the same conclusion on the charges for which the first one convicted Dunn, even as it also convicted him of premeditated murder. Both juries had sufficient evidence.
Totally and utterly absurd.
We are speaking about the first trial, and it has been pointed out that evidence was gotten wrong. Which you have been unable to refute.
It was also pointed out that had he been found guilty for the reasoning that juror spoke about it would have been a misapplication of the law and miscarriage of justice. Which you have been unable to refute. Which yes, their being hung was consistent with the law. :doh
All you are going is speaking nonsense because you do not know what you are talking about . You never have.
And you can stop confusing the first trial where he was not found guilty of murder with the second one where he was. The two are separate and distinct as well as the charges for which he was found guilty.


Had one or the other jury erred, there would have been legitimate basis not only to file an appeal but to prevail in that appeal. That won't happen.
This is what you get for not paying attention.
The jury was hung on the charge. That does not offer any avenue for appeal. Or do you really not know that?
Stop talking nonsense.


I realize some might have difficulty accepting the reality that Dunn's actions were outside the parameters of self-defense, but that's strictly their opinion.
This is you being dishonest again, as his actions were not. It is also why you refuse to discuss the actual evidence, because his actions were not.


The evidence says otherwise.
NO it doesn't. Which is why you keep avoidong discussing 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.
Try debating the actual evidence for once.


Both juries, which had all the evidence, not just the more limited amount that was published or broadcast by the media, reached similar conclusions.
Your continued appeal to authority is absurd and makes your argument a failure from the get.
Your argument also fails as we saw the same evidence (you know, that stuff you wont actually discuss.) and had far more time to review and comprehend it.


appeal to th Dunn had not acted in self-defense. He killed an unarmed teen who was seated even as the teens were leaving. He didn't even report the shooting (almost certainly, because he feared the consequences of doing so; any rational person who acted in self-defense would immediately have reported his or her actions). In the end, he was held accountable for his crime.
Davis was not seated but outside of the vehicle when he was shot. That is the evidence.
Dunn didn't have to report the shooting and his reason for not doing so immediately is more than credible.
You saying what a rational person would do is arrogant. As rational people act differently, especially after such a traumatic experience

You have provided nothing but nonsense, lies, logical fallacy, and made false comparisons, all the while avoiding actual evidence that continually keeps getting pointed out to you.
That is called failing.
 
More dishonesty from you.

You have shown no links that the jury exonerated Dunn. It didn't. A few jurors were undecided on the first degree murder charge. That's vastly different from stating that the jury accepted Dunn's self-defense claim.

Davis was not seated but outside of the vehicle when he was shot. That is the evidence.

And that is incorrect and not the evidence (and also unsourced). From CBS News:

The state's medical examiner testified that the trajectory of Dunn's bullets into Davis' body showed that Davis was sitting down when he was shot.

Michael Dunn verdict: Jury deadlocks on murder charge - CBS News

You have provided nothing but nonsense, lies, logical fallacy, and made false comparisons...

It's kind of ironic that for all this bluster, none of which gets to the heart of the evidence, I've provided links regarding the key evidence:

1. Dunn shot unarmed teens. No one pointed a shotgun at Dunn.
2. Davis was inside the vehicle when shot.
3. The vehicle was attempting to drive away when Dunn opened fire.
4. Dunn never reported his shooting to the police.

As The New York Times reported:

In the end, the jury found that Mr. Dunn intended to kill Mr. Davis and acted with premeditation as he reached into his glove compartment for his gun and fired 10 times at Mr. Davis and the Durango, even as it pulled away to evade the gunfire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/u...h-of-florida-youth-in-loud-music-dispute.html

I'm still waiting for the link that the first jury accepted Dunn's self-defense alibi and acquitted him. There will be no such link, because that's not what happened. Instead, there was a deadlock on the premeditated murder charge.
 
You have shown no links that the jury exonerated Dunn.
More dishonesty on your part. You are purposely misrepresenting the argument.
It was about specific Jurors who believed his account, as they wanted to acquit.


A few jurors were undecided on the first degree murder charge. That's vastly different from stating that the jury accepted Dunn's self-defense claim.
More dishonesty from you, which is to be expected in every post you make.
I already provided the information that three jurors wanted to acquit. Do you not know what the word acquit means.
Wanting to acquit is vastly different from being undecided. They are the reason the jury was hung.

So all you are doing again is showing that you do not pay attention, and are dishonest.


And that is incorrect and not the evidence (and also unsourced). From CBS News:
Irrelavent.
A news report is not evidence.
As you were already told, she was not credible.
She was destroyed on cross and by the testimony of another expert.
Your fault again for not knowing the actual evidence.
He was not seated when shot.

And as this argument has already been had on this site, as you were told, it has already been sourced.


It's kind of ironic that for all this bluster, none of which gets to the heart of the evidence, I've provided links regarding the key evidence:
:doh
You have not actually provided evidence.
You actually keep avoiding it.
A reporters opinion is not evidence.


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.
Try debating the actual evidence for once.


1. Dunn shot unarmed teens. No one pointed a shotgun at Dunn. Wrong again. He shot one person who had something in his hand which Dunn interpreted as a gun.

2. Davis was inside the vehicle when shot. Already shown to be false in trial.

3. The vehicle was attempting to drive away when Dunn opened fire. No. The vehicle backed up and stopped behind him, feet away. Which is when he opened fire on the threat again. Stopping behind him is not attempting to drive away.

4. Dunn never reported his shooting to the police. Irrelevant. People act differently.


As The New York Times reported:

In the end, the jury found that Mr. Dunn intended to kill Mr. Davis and acted with premeditation as he reached into his glove compartment for his gun and fired 10 times at Mr. Davis and the Durango, even as it pulled away to evade the gunfire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/u...h-of-florida-youth-in-loud-music-dispute.html
:lamo:doh:lamo
A reporters opinion is irrelevant.
Funny you do not know that even though it has repeatedly been pointed pout to you.


I'm still waiting for the link that the first jury accepted Dunn's self-defense alibi and acquitted him. There will be no such link, because that's not what happened. Instead, there was a deadlock on the premeditated murder charge.
You again are misrepresenting the argument.
All because you do not know what you are talking about.
Three jurors wanted to acquit him.
And yes, you were already given the link to it.
So stop with the dishonesty and lies already.
 
Last edited:
Using my newfound powers of rationality and non-absurdity, I shall address your points.....

1. Dunn shot unarmed teens. No one pointed a shotgun at Dunn.
The courageous Dunn allegedly THOUGHT they did though, that's good enough for me.

2. Davis was inside the vehicle when shot.
Using the armored vehicle to re-load his non-existent weapon, no doubt.

3. The vehicle was attempting to drive away when Dunn opened fire.
That's because they were trying to perpetrate one of those drive-by shooting thingys. They're very popular with teens nowadays.

4. Dunn never reported his shooting to the police.
He was too drunk.

.
 
Using my newfound powers of rationality and non-absurdity, I shall address your points.....
:doh
Which of course are powers of absurdity and non-rationality.
 
More dishonesty on your part. You are purposely misrepresenting the argument.
It was about specific Jurors who believed his account, as they wanted to acquit.

After repeated requests, it's pretty clear the claim that a jury had accepted Dunn's self-defense alibi is without any basis in fact. what one had seen was a deadlock on premeditated murder (not a unanimous position either). Given no link has been furnished about the jury--not individual jurors' views--it's abundantly clear that the claim is without foundation.

More dishonesty from you, which is to be expected in every post you make.

More evasion. Just post the link.

I already provided the information that three jurors wanted to acquit. Do you not know what the word acquit means.

Three is not all jurors. Three jurors is not the jury. As noted previously, there was a deadlock on the premeditated murder charge.

She was destroyed on cross and by the testimony of another expert.
Your fault again for not knowing the actual evidence.

Only your opinion. Had she been "destroyed," the self-defense alibi would have been sustained and Dunn would be a free man today.

He was not seated when shot.

According to the Medical Examiner, he was seated.

So again, back to the stuff you keep avoiding, the actual evidence.

I've posted links to the news stories covering the trial disclosing key elements: 1. Davis and the teens were unarmed; 2. Davis was seated when shot; 3. The Durango was trying to drive away when Dunn opened fire.

Lets see if you will at least be honest here. (so far you have failed)

Rather than making the issue about my "honesty," I've provided the links including those from CBS News, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, etc., reporting the major facts of the case. From the reported evidence, there was no actual imminent threat to Dunn's life or of serious harm, had there been a perceived threat, it had ended as the teens were trying to drive away. The conditions for self-defense were not met. Dunn was correctly convicted.

A reporters opinion is irrelevant.
Funny you do not know that even though it has repeatedly been pointed pout to you.

The news pages and editorial pages are different. I've noted that distinction before. The articles I have posted are from the news pages, not editorial page or op-ed columnists. A quick summary on the difference between the journalistic side of a newspaper and the editorial side is below:

http://www.flalib.org/value_of_libraries_files/value_campaign_FAQ.pdf
 
After repeated requests, it's pretty clear the claim that a jury had accepted Dunn's self-defense alibi is without any basis in fact. what one had seen was a deadlock on premeditated murder (not a unanimous position either). Given no link has been furnished about the jury--not individual jurors' views--it's abundantly clear that the claim is without foundation.
More nonsense form you.
"not individual jurors' views" Yes individual juror's views, as that was what was being tallied about.
Not the view of the whole jury as you want it to be, as it can't be as it was hung.
Or do yo not understand what "hung" means?
And the link was provided. So stop lying and characterizing the argument made.
It was about the juror's believing his account. Which has been proven.


More evasion. Just post the link.
Yes, more evasion from you as it was already provided.


Three is not all jurors. Three jurors is not the jury. As noted previously, there was a deadlock on the premeditated murder charge.
No there wasn't, nor could there have been with three wanting to acquit.


Only your opinion. Had she been "destroyed," the self-defense alibi would have been sustained and Dunn would be a free man today.

According to the Medical Examiner, he was seated.
While it is an opinion, what you just said is wrong.
It doesn't mean any such thing you say.

She wasn't even told that Davis was out of the vehicle or of any of Dunn's account. She was told by investigators that Davis was sitting in the vehicle when he was shot so she made her finding in accord with what she was told.

Then she was further destroyed by an expert.
Her findings were not in accord with the trajectory analysis.
She was not credible.

You can pretend all you want, but he was not seated when he was shot.

But then again, you do not know the evidence, so how would you know you are speaking nonsense.

Juries get things wrong all the time.
This is just another example that they did.


I've posted links to the news stories covering the trial disclosing key elements: 1. Davis and the teens were unarmed; 2. Davis was seated when shot; 3. The Durango was trying to drive away when Dunn opened fire.
You posted?
iLOL
You haven't posted anything of relevance.

That is not the evidence and those claims have been corrected with the actual evidence.
Yet you keep ignoring the actual evidence, which is dishonest.


Rather than making the issue about my "honesty," I've provided the links including those from CBS News, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, etc., reporting the major facts of the case. From the reported evidence, there was no actual imminent threat to Dunn's life or of serious harm, had there been a perceived threat, it had ended as the teens were trying to drive away. The conditions for self-defense were not met. Dunn was correctly convicted.
No your dishonesty goes directly to what you are posting.
You have not discussed the actual evidence. The reports are irrelevant especially when the information they provided has been corrected.
Yet you dishonestly do not pay attention to the corrections.

So again, back to the stuff you keep avoiding, the actual evidence.
And this evidence is undisputed.
So try to address it for once.
Or are you just going to dishonestly deflect again?

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.



The news pages and editorial pages are different. I've noted that distinction before. The articles I have posted are from the news pages, not editorial page or op-ed columnists. A quick summary on the difference between the journalistic side of a newspaper and the editorial side is below:
Still irrelevant.
Funny you do not know that even though it has repeatedly been pointed pout to you.

You posted an opinion. Not a fact.
Nothing you just said refutes that.
 
Not the view of the whole jury as you want it to be, as it can't be as it was hung.

Because the jury did not accept the self-defense alibi. Had it accepted it, Dunn would have been acquitted. He wasn't.

Or do yo not understand what "hung" means?

Your insults cannot compensate for the glaring lack of evidence you have furnished.

And the link was provided. So stop lying and characterizing the argument made.
It was about the juror's believing his account.

I had stated that the jury didn't accept Dunn's self-defense alibi. You said I was wrong. I asked for the link. You provided none.

While it is an opinion, what you just said is wrong.

I said that the Medical Examiner revealed that Davis was seated. And from CBS News:

The state's medical examiner testified that the trajectory of Dunn's bullets into Davis' body showed that Davis was sitting down when he was shot.

Michael Dunn verdict: Jury deadlocks on murder charge - CBS News

She wasn't even told that Davis was out of the vehicle or of any of Dunn's account. She was told by investigators that Davis was sitting in the vehicle when he was shot so she made her finding in accord with what she was told.

Notions that she made her ruling based on a desire to fit what others told her is utterly incorrect. She made her ruling based on the trajectory of the bullet as noted in the above CBS story.

Then she was further destroyed by an expert.
Her findings were not in accord with the trajectory analysis.
She was not credible.

Only your opinion. Nothing more. Had this been the case, then Dunn would have had a legitimate claim of self-defense and would have been acquitted. That didn't happen. Rather, he was convicted.

You can pretend all you want, but he was not seated when he was shot.

I'm not pretending anything. The Medical Examiner, who has the requisite professional expertise to make such judgments says that Davis was seated. Indeed, if a credible alternative account were accurate, his blood would have been outside the Durango on the street. No reports to that effect exist. If they do, post the news story.

But then again, you do not know the evidence, so how would you know you are speaking nonsense.

More insults. No sources. Just empty rhetoric.

Juries get things wrong all the time.
This is just another example that they did.

Juries can sometimes err. Prove that this jury erred. One's personal opinion is not such proof. Dunn's alibi isn't such proof either.

As noted previously, if the jury made an error, legitimate grounds for a successful appeal exist. I highly doubt that there will be a successful appeal.

You posted?
iLOL
You haven't posted anything of relevance.

I posted links from multiple news sources including The New York Times and CBS News. You don't like the evidence so you suggest that it is "irrelevant." Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

In contrast, I'm still waiting for the links I've asked you to provide.

Yet you keep ignoring the actual evidence, which is dishonest.

More insults. No sources. No evidence. Again, this doesn't change the actual facts of the case that the jury felt demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn did not act in self-defense.

In the end, it's clear that the claim that Dunn was "innocent" is entirely personal opinion. It has little or nothing to do with the facts and evidence of the case (the teens were unarmed, Davis was seated in the vehicle when he was murdered, the Durango was attempting to drive away when Dunn attacked the teens). It solely depends on Dunn's account being credible, something that it wasn't. He never told his fiancé about any shotgun, because he very likely created the narrative of a shotgun sometime later. He didn't report the incident to the police, even as any rational person who acts in self-defense would do so believing that they had acted reasonably. Even the next day, he simply left for home when no conceivable "threat" could have existed and didn't tell the police about the shooting.

The case against him was devastating. His account was filled with gaps that precluded a successful self-defense argument. His conduct afterward in not reporting the shooting, even a day later, further undercut that he had acted in self-defense. Not surprisingly, he was convicted. While the conviction and life sentence won't bring back an innocent person, at least a measure of justice was served.
 
The claim resides in your bizarro world.

Good one!!
I see what you did there.....turning my own post against me.
You're a clever guy....what's next from you?
Will it be...."I know you are, but what am I?", "I'm not listening to you" or maybe the ever popular "I accept you surrender"?
The possibilities are endless.
However, your "bizarro world" accusation deserves in-depth thoughtful analysis.
Let's see now....

Excon believes firing 10 shots into an SUV is reasonable.
Radioman does not.

Excon believes the shooter's own delusions are sufficient cause for emptying one's magazine.
Radioman does not.

Excon believes the unarmed dead victim was the real thug.
Radioman does not.

Excon believes a convicted murderer is the victim.
Radioman does not.

Excon is dizzy from so much spinning.
Radioman retains his equilibrium.

Excon has chronic back pain as a result of bending over backwards to defend the indefensible.
Radioman does not.

I will leave it to our fellow posters to decide who's dwelling in a bizarro world.;)
 
At least, when Americans murder women and children, there is an American judicial system that will make them pay for their heinous crimes. Let the title of "baby killers" rest with ISIS, who truly deserve the name. Americans hold themselves to a higher standard, and woe to those who violate it. Excellent verdict. :)

Article is here.

I'm against blackwater, however progressives don't have any standards. They go with the flow/ethics (when in Rome live like a Roman) rather than morals. In short they cant make moral (individualist) decisions because they don't have morals - they have ethics (collectivist).

In short it's not what YOU feel is wrong - it's what EVERYONE ELSE feels is whats wrong...... So much for that **** called "diversity."
 
Because the jury did not accept the self-defense alibi. Had it accepted it, Dunn would have been acquitted. He wasn't.
Three members of that Jury accepted his account and wanted to acquit.
What is it you do not understand about that?


Your insults cannot compensate for the glaring lack of evidence you have furnished.
Your lie do not substitute for febate of the evidence I have provided.

So try addressing it.


I had stated that the jury didn't accept Dunn's self-defense alibi. You said I was wrong. I asked for the link. You provided none.
And you are wrong as three members did.


I said that the Medical Examiner revealed that Davis was seated. And from CBS News:
ANd you were again wrong as to the actual evidence.
As shown.


The state's medical examiner testified that the trajectory of Dunn's bullets into Davis' body showed that Davis was sitting down when he was shot.

Michael Dunn verdict: Jury deadlocks on murder charge - CBS News
Already dispelled with what was presented at trial.
What is apparent though it that you absurdly believe that an ME is credible when making her findings fit the information she was given. Especially as it was incomplete.


Notions that she made her ruling based on a desire to fit what others told her is utterly incorrect. She made her ruling based on the trajectory of the bullet as noted in the above CBS story.
You are being dishonest again.
Her findings were based on incomplete set of evidence. Period. That makes her finding incredible.
And she is not a gun shot wound expert or trajectory analysis expert.
So stop talking nonsense.
She wasn't credible.
Had you watched the trial you would have known that.


Only your opinion. Nothing more.
That she was shown to not know all the evinced regarding the gun shots. No it isn't.


Had this been the case, then Dunn would have had a legitimate claim of self-defense and would have been acquitted.
That is nothing more than your opinion.
But it is an example of why Juries get things wrong all the time.


I'm not pretending anything. The Medical Examiner, who has the requisite professional expertise to make such judgments says that Davis was seated. Indeed, if a credible alternative account were accurate, his blood would have been outside the Durango on the street. No reports to that effect exist. If they do, post the news story.
And again you are wrong.
Yes you are pretending. She did not have all the information to draw any accurate conclusion.
And given the evidence (you know, that stuff you have no clue about), you can not make any such claim.


Juries can sometimes err. Prove that this jury erred. One's personal opinion is not such proof. Dunn's alibi isn't such proof either.
:doh
I have already shown how evidence was misinterpreted form the first trial.
He did not resume shooting when the vehicle was leaving the area. He resumed shooting because the vehicle stopped right behind him as the person in it was still a threat, and he continued to shoot as it then pulled away until it was far enough away.
And a person is still a threat regardless if they are in a vehicle that is moving away until that vehicle it is far enough away to make any fire from the threat ineffective.

If you do not understand that, that is your problem.

So, what is it you did not understand about the previously asked question to you? I have asked multiple times.
The only conclusion one can draw from it is that Dunn's account was accurate.
Davis was the only one angry and irate and it was focused on Dunn.
Davis was outside of the vehicle.
He certainly didn't get out to give Dunn a kiss.
He was continuing with his threaten behavior.

Dunn had thought he saw a gun, while his Davis's friend testified that he had a phone in his hand.
Cops make the same mistake, which usually doesn't involve prior threats to kill you, yet are cleared.
There is no reason Dunn shouldn't have been cleared either.


As noted previously, if the jury made an error, legitimate grounds for a successful appeal exist. I highly doubt that there will be a successful appeal.
You clearly do not know of what you speak. A jury's interpretation of the provided evidence is not grounds for appeal.


I posted links from multiple news sources
Sorry it doesn't work that way. Especially when you are providing an reporters opinion.
Especially as the actual evidence disputes what you provided as shown. Multiple time already.

You have provided nothing relevant.

In contrast, I'm still waiting for the links I've asked you to provide.
More dishonesty from you as what was spoken about was already provided.
So again as already provided.
Three jurors wanted to acquit. That is not the jury finding as you claimed.
Your claim was wrong.


Again, this doesn't change the actual facts of the case that the jury felt demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn did not act in self-defense.
Said the guy who has demonstrated that he does not know the actual facts, and when presented with them actually ignores them. That is dishonesty.
And your appeal to authority is illogical, as you already know.


In the end, it's clear that the claim that Dunn was "innocent" is entirely personal opinion.
:doh
Unlike your opinion, mine is based on the actual facts. Not someone else's opinion like your's is. D'oh!


It has little or nothing to do with the facts and evidence of the case
:naughty
Your opinion has nothing to do with the actual evidence because you ignore it.


(the teens were unarmed,
Again, Davis is the only one who it was claimed was armed. Not the other young adults.
Secondly, you do not know that as the evidence allows for that claim to be true.
And juror's from the first trial believed his account.


Davis was seated in the vehicle when he was murdered,
He died while seated. That is all. He was shot jumping back into the vehicle.


the Durango was attempting to drive away when Dunn attacked the teens).
How many time do you need to be corrected. What you said isn't true. Not only that but he was firing at Davis, not the other young adults. And the fact that you keep calling them teens is laughable. The driver was 20.


It solely depends on Dunn's account being credible, something that it wasn't.
Of course it was. That is why three jurors from the first trial wanted to acquit.
That is why others also believe he should have been acquitted.
So you are just again speaking nonsense.
 
He never told his fiancé about any shotgun,
An emotionally unstable person not remembering what happened during a traumatic event does not mean he did not tell her. As you were already told.


because he very likely created the narrative of a shotgun sometime later.
No evidence supports your speculative opinion.


He didn't report the incident to the police,
Didn't have to.


even as any rational person who acts in self-defense would do so believing that they had acted reasonably.

Even the next day, he simply left for home when no conceivable "threat" could have existed and didn't tell the police about the shooting.
Different people act differently. Especially after traumatic experiences.
His account of why was more than plausible and reasonable.


The case against him was devastating.
Said the guy who doesn't know the actual evidence and ignores it when it is presented.


His account was filled with gaps that precluded a successful self-defense argument.
Wrong.


His conduct afterward in not reporting the shooting, even a day later, further undercut that he had acted in self-defense.
It may have, but three reasonable folks in the first trial saw otherwise and wanted to acquit.


at least a measure of justice was served.
Not in accordance with the actual evidence. It was a miscarriage.
And if any juror found him guilty for the same reasons that the juror from the first trial said they wanted to, it is a clear miscarriage of justice.
 
Excon believes firing 10 shots into an SUV is reasonable.
Radioman does not.

Excon believes the shooter's own delusions are sufficient cause for emptying one's magazine.
Radioman does not.

Excon believes the unarmed dead victim was the real thug.
Radioman does not.

Excon believes a convicted murderer is the victim.
Radioman does not.

Excon is dizzy from so much spinning.
Radioman retains his equilibrium.

Excon has chronic back pain as a result of bending over backwards to defend the indefensible.
Radioman does not.

I will leave it to our fellow posters to decide who's dwelling in a bizarro world.;)
You clearly know not of what you speak.
 
An emotionally unstable person not remembering what happened during a traumatic event does not mean he did not tell her. As you were already told.

It is illogical to assume that those who did not back Dunn's account are not credible.
 
The facts of the Dunn Case: Final Post

Did Dunn and Davis have an argument?

Yes. They had a “verbal back and forth.” (CBS News and The Washington Post)

Were the teens armed?

No. The police did not find any weapons. Witnesses did not see a shotgun. (The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and CNN)

Was Davis or any of the teens shot while attacking or trying to attack Dunn?

No. The teens were fired upon as they were trying to leave. (The New York Times)

Was Davis outside the Durango when he was shot three times by Dunn?

No. The Medical Examiner found that based on the bullets’ trajectory, he was shot while seated inside the vehicle. (CBS News)

Did Dunn report the shooting to the police?

No. Even after any conceivable actual or perceived threat no longer existed, he did not report the shooting. (The New York Times)

Did Dunn call the police after learning that one of the teens had died?

No. He never contacted the police. (The New York Times)

Did the Judge instruct the jury as to circumstances in which the shooting would have been lawful?

Yes. The jury was instructed on a broad range of grounds by which it could find Dunn’s actions lawful. CNN reported:

Killing Davis was lawful, Healey told the jury, if Dunn acted in the heat of passion or if he unintentionally caused Davis' death. The jury could also find Dunn not guilty if he was in danger, acted in self-defense and exacted a justifiable use of force, the judge instructed. (CNN)

In sum, the above is the critical evidence. Dunn faced no actual threat. The teens were not armed. An argument does not necessarily indicate the kind of imminent threat to one’s life or of serious injury. Moreover, the teens were trying to drive away when fired upon, a situation that would be tantamount to shooting someone who was in flight in the back. Moreover, Davis was seated inside the Durango when he was hit three times. Afterward, Dunn never reported his shooting to the police. As there was no actual threat and the shooting occurred when any perceived threat had ceased to exist, the criteria for self-defense were not met.

Given the above information and links, there’s no real need to continue to try to explain the verdict. Given the above evidence and the requirements for self-defense to be sustained, arguments that Dunn was "innocent" are entirely a matter of belief, not an evidence-based assessment. Matters of belief are articles of faith. Hence, evidence is not persuasive when dealing with erroneous conclusions based solely on belief.
 
It is illogical to assume that those who did not back Dunn's account are not credible.
:doh
:lamo
It's illogical given her emotional instability to assume she remembers correctly, especially after such a traumatic incident.
And btw, there is a big difference between a person being credible, and not remembering. :doh


The facts of the Dunn Case: Final Post

Did Dunn and Davis have an argument?

Yes. They had a “verbal back and forth.” (CBS News and The Washington Post)

Were the teens armed?

No. The police did not find any weapons. Witnesses did not see a shotgun. (The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and CNN)

Was Davis or any of the teens shot while attacking or trying to attack Dunn?

No. The teens were fired upon as they were trying to leave. (The New York Times)

Was Davis outside the Durango when he was shot three times by Dunn?

No. The Medical Examiner found that based on the bullets’ trajectory, he was shot while seated inside the vehicle. (CBS News)

Did Dunn report the shooting to the police?

No. Even after any conceivable actual or perceived threat no longer existed, he did not report the shooting. (The New York Times)

Did Dunn call the police after learning that one of the teens had died?

No. He never contacted the police. (The New York Times)

Did the Judge instruct the jury as to circumstances in which the shooting would have been lawful?

Yes. The jury was instructed on a broad range of grounds by which it could find Dunn’s actions lawful. CNN reported:

Killing Davis was lawful, Healey told the jury, if Dunn acted in the heat of passion or if he unintentionally caused Davis' death. The jury could also find Dunn not guilty if he was in danger, acted in self-defense and exacted a justifiable use of force, the judge instructed. (CNN)

In sum, the above is the critical evidence. Dunn faced no actual threat. The teens were not armed. An argument does not necessarily indicate the kind of imminent threat to one’s life or of serious injury. Moreover, the teens were trying to drive away when fired upon, a situation that would be tantamount to shooting someone who was in flight in the back. Moreover, Davis was seated inside the Durango when he was hit three times. Afterward, Dunn never reported his shooting to the police. As there was no actual threat and the shooting occurred when any perceived threat had ceased to exist, the criteria for self-defense were not met.

Given the above information and links, there’s no real need to continue to try to explain the verdict. Given the above evidence and the requirements for self-defense to be sustained, arguments that Dunn was "innocent" are entirely a matter of belief, not an evidence-based assessment. Matters of belief are articles of faith. Hence, evidence is not persuasive when dealing with erroneous conclusions based solely on belief.
Still with the irrelevant and nothing of substance routine huh?
Just more nonsense from you relying on irrelevant reports and not the actual evidence or that presented to you.
That is dishonesty. And since you were already told that your continued use of the irrelevant just shows you are purposely being dishonest.
Especially in your logical fallacy argument of appealing to authority.

You have nothing but your own biased opinion, which you do not support with actual evidence, but on someone else's opinion. D'oh!

Being threatened is not having an argument.


The actual evidences allows for Davis to have been armed. As you have been repeatably told.
Which puts the claim of no weapon in perspective.


The claim that they were only fired upon as they left is also false. As you have been repeatably told.


The medical examiner was not credible. She didn't even have all the evidence to draw any conclusions about it.
And the forensics and trajectory analysis showed her findings to be wrong.
As you have been repeatably told.


Dunn not calling the police is irrelevant, as everybody acts differently, especially after traumatic experiences.
Do you really dispute that?


The perceived threat did exist, and continued to exist until the threat was far enough away to render any return fire ineffective.
Do you really dispute that?


Irrelevant. Dunn intended to make contact. But he was contacted first.​

You really should have learned the actual evidence before getting into an argument and relying on the opinion of others to make your absurd claims.


So again, back to the stuff you keep avoiding, actual undisputed 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.
Try debating the actual evidence presented to you.
You know, that evidence that actually refutes and/or shows the conclusion reported are debatable.
 
At least, when Americans murder women and children, there is an American judicial system that will make them pay for their heinous crimes. Let the title of "baby killers" rest with ISIS, who truly deserve the name. Americans hold themselves to a higher standard, and woe to those who violate it. Excellent verdict. :)

Article is here.

Privatizing war. What a brilliant concept. /sarcasm
 
For me, this situation is the reason I don't want contractors in a war zone. I know they are cost effective, but war zones should be for combat troops. Not private security.

Thing is they are not cost effective. They are basically political kickbacks. The military is self sustaining for the most part. Contractors in country kill morale in that they get these giant government contracts to do what the military is already doing and the military folk know that. Here is our military watching these asshats doing the same work for beucoup more bucks but when the real danger comes up the contractors can just opt out and let the low paid grunts clear the way. Perhaps for some superfulous outside fringe jobs but to supplant work already done by the military... Dan is right... there is no real accountability for them while the military has the USMJ holding them to high standards. And when the contractors freak out and do crap like these did in the OP... the people in that country just see "Americans" doing it.
 
Your link...

A mercenary[1] is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire for private gain."[2][3]​

For profit IS for personal gain.

If you'd read the entire source, you would leaned that all conditions must exist to meet the definition of a mercenary. By your interpretation, US servicemen can be defined as mercenaries.
 
Back
Top Bottom