• 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

:doh
:lamo

Given the insults, I'll respond a final time on this matter, but will ignore the insults in the future. Such insults illustrate the remarkably shallow nature of the claim made for Dunn's "innocence" and the need to suspend legal principles and evidence to sustain such a claim.

The repeated insults are entirely the result of an absence of concrete substance and appropriate legal principles to rebut the jury's verdict. They represent an inability to overcome the reality that Dunn's shooting was unlawful. In effect, the claim that Dunn was "innocent" is nothing more than an emotional personal preference.

Dunn's version of events has been discredited. Dunn claimed he had seen a shotgun. No weapons were found. None of the witnesses to the incident observed a shotgun. Dunn never even mentioned a gun to his fiancé at the time. Dunn claimed that Davis posed a serious threat to him. Instead, Davis was seated when shot by Dunn. Dunn claimed he had acted in self-defense. He never contacted the police following the shooting, even as rational and reasonable people who believed that they had acted in self-defense would have done so as soon as any actual or perceived threat had ended.

Evasion of critical facts, including those above, documented in the linked news accounts with unsourced opinion is not a substitute for the lack of factual basis for claims of Dunn's "innocence." Such a basis did not exist to the extent that there would have been the "reasonable doubt" necessary for the jury to acquit Dunn.

#145 sums up the critical evidence of the case and includes appropriate links (in stark contrast to the repeated unsourced claims, not to mention baseless attempts to discredit the Medical Examiner, Dunn's fiancé, etc.). Consideration of the documented evidence and application of the criteria required for a successful self-defense argument provide a good understanding as to why the jury found as it did.

The claim that Dunn was "innocent" relies on ignoring the key evidence (provided in the linked news sources), not understanding the criteria required for self-defense (an actual imminent threat to one's life or of serious harm or a case where a reasonable person would perceive such an imminent threat, emphasis on "reasonable person"), and/or taking a position as an article of faith regardless of the evidence. Given the evidence laid out in the news stories, including but not limited to Davis' being seated when shot, even if a perceived threat had existed, that perceived threat had ended when Dunn opened fire. Dunn had no legitimate or lawful basis to open fire on the unarmed teens. Therefore, the jury's verdict was logical, consistent with the principles of the law, and wholly expected among those who followed the case giving reasonable attention to the evidence and applicable principles of law.

Finally, the evidence for Dunn's actions having been unlawful was so strong that Judge Healey remarked during the sentencing phase, "Our justice system works. This case demonstrates that our justice system does work.” The weight of the evidence and the jury's proper application of legal principles makes a successful appeal of the verdict and sentence very unlikely.
 
Last edited:
Given the insults, I'll respond a final time on this matter, but will ignore the insults in the future.
Figures.
Still with the dishonesty and going in circles with crap that has already been dispelled.

Facts are not insults. Stop trying to confuse the two.

You have been dishonest.
You have ignored the actual evidence.
You have engaged in irrational thought.
You have engaged in logical fallacies.
You have avoided addressing the actual evidence.
And have repeatedly shown you are ignorant of the actual evidence.

All the while failing to recognize that the logical fallacy you rely on, is a logical fallacy, and is irrelevant to a discussion of the actual evidence.

Such behavior illustrates the remarkably shallow nature of your position.
Your arguments are entirely the result of an absence of concrete substance and appropriate legal principles to rebut what the evidence actually supports, all in an effort to support your illogical emotional personal preferences.


Dunn's version of events has been discredited.
Wrong.
Dunn's account is the only account supported by the evidence, as you have been shown, yet continually avoid addressing.


Dunn claimed he had seen a shotgun. No weapons were found. None of the witnesses to the incident observed a shotgun.
Already dispelled by the actual circumstances around the event.
The evidence allows for Davis to have been armed.
That is your failure in not recognizing that.
The evidence also allows for Dunn to have incorrectly identified a phone as a gun, which we all know police officers are cleared all the time for such errors. Even though they had not been verbally threatened as Dunn was.


Dunn never even mentioned a gun to his fiancé at the time.
Already dispelled.
He did.
Her, an emotional disturbed person, not remembering what she was told after a traumatic experience in no way means he did not tell her.
It is ridiculously absurd and unrealistic to hold to any other position.


Dunn claimed that Davis posed a serious threat to him. Instead, Davis was seated when shot by Dunn.
False.
Again, this is your failure to know the actual evidence even though you have already been informed of it.
That is called being dishonest.
That fact that you have already been informed yet still cling to a failed argument speaks clearly, not only to your dishonesty, but to the shallow nature of your claims and your need to cling to your illogical emotional personal preferences.


Dunn claimed he had acted in self-defense. He never contacted the police following the shooting, even as rational and reasonable people who believed that they had acted in self-defense would have done so as soon as any actual or perceived threat had ended.
Already dispelled, and again showing a desire to cling to your illogical emotional personal preferences.
He was not required to do so.
Rational and reasonable people all act differently, especially after traumatic experiences. There is no set way a person does, or must act. Reasonable people understand that.
Unreasonable and cynical people who want to find guilt assume it means something nefarious.


Evasion of critical facts,
:doh
You are the only one engaging in such behavior.

including those above, documented in the linked news accounts with unsourced opinion is not a substitute for the lack of factual basis for claims of Dunn's "innocence." Such a basis did not exist to the extent that there would have been the "reasonable doubt" necessary for the jury to acquit Dunn.
Wrong.
You have already been proven wrong, as three jurors from the first trial wanted to acquit him, as well as a significant minority that believes his account.

All it really boils down to was the capability of the Lawyer to frame and make the arguments.


#145 sums up the critical evidence of the case and includes appropriate links (in stark contrast to the repeated unsourced claims,
Wrong. Your argument, as well on reliance on irrelevant reports was dispelled in the reply.


not to mention baseless attempts to discredit the Medical Examiner,
Baseless attempts?
What a laugh.
You again are just showing your ignorance of the evidence.
She was discredited during the trial, by the not having been given all the evidence to draw her conclusions from, to the rebuttal by an actual expert, which she clearly was not.


The claim that Dunn was "innocent" relies on ignoring the key evidence
Said the person ignoring the actual evidence. :doh
Your claim is pathetic given that the actual evidence actually dispels your claim and clearly puts it in the category of false.


(provided in the linked news sources),
Opinions and reports of the actual evidence is not the actual evidence or a substitute for it.


not understanding the criteria required for self-defense (an actual imminent threat to one's life or of serious harm or a case where a reasonable person would perceive such an imminent threat, emphasis on "reasonable person"),
Any lack of understanding, as previously shown, is on your end.
And we already know that three jurors wanted to acquit him from the first trial. Which just shows your position is again wrong.


and/or taking a position as an article of faith regardless of the evidence.
Which is what you have repeatedly shown you are doing.
You are absurdly relying on an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
Have repeatedly shown you are ignorant of the evidence, and have relied on reports and opinion which are not the actual evidence.


including but not limited to Davis' being seated when shot,
Another failed and dispelled argument.
It was shown during trial that he was not seated.


even if a perceived threat had existed, that perceived threat had ended when Dunn opened fire.
Already dispelled, as it did not and could not cease to exist within the circumstances until the threat was far enough away to make any return fire from the threat ineffective.
Which is the only way such a moving threat could become a non-threat.

This just shows that you, as well as the juror, failed to recognize reality and exemplifies one reason why Juries get things wrong all the time.


Dunn had no legitimate or lawful basis to open fire on the unarmed teens.
Wrong.
And opened fire on the threat which was Davis.


Therefore, the jury's verdict was logical, consistent with the principles of the law, and wholly expected among those who followed the case giving reasonable attention to the evidence and applicable principles of law.
Given the evidence, you are again speaking nonsense.


Finally, the evidence for Dunn's actions having been unlawful was so strong that Judge Healey remarked during the sentencing phase, "Our justice system works. This case demonstrates that our justice system does work.” The weight of the evidence and the jury's proper application of legal principles makes a successful appeal of the verdict and sentence very unlikely.
:doh
More illogical reliance on a logical fallacy.
The Judges remarks mean absolutely nothing to this discussion. Had he been found not guilty the Judges remarks would have fit that verdict as well.
 
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.

Nope. Servicemen have a job and aren't outsourced/funded for hire by other entities to do their dirty work. Sorry... Try again.
 
Nope. Servicemen have a job and aren't outsourced/funded for hire by other entities to do their dirty work. Sorry... Try again.

Servicemembers are contracted to The United States Government, for a price. Blackwater employees are contracted to The United States government, for a price. Nope, by your logic, there is no difference.

Now, according to international law, Blackwater employees aren't mercenairies. You're always hoisting the laws of war on high and demanding they be followed to the letter. The time has come for you to abide by the same standard you demand from everyone else.
 
Servicemembers are contracted to The United States Government, for a price. Blackwater employees are contracted to The United States government, for a price. Nope, by your logic, there is no difference.

Now, according to international law, Blackwater employees aren't mercenairies. You're always hoisting the laws of war on high and demanding they be followed to the letter. The time has come for you to abide by the same standard you demand from everyone else.

Not even remotely close. Try again.
 
Face it, bro; you're wrong. Blackwater employees aren't mercenaries.

I served in desert storm. When we pushed Iraq out of Kuwait the returning leader of Kuwait offered to pay money to each service member in gratitude. HW Bush turned it down and said we were not mercenaries. We are hired by the US to defend our country and its interests. Had we taken that other money it could be seen as mercenary for hire. We didn't. Insert a private institution for hire to pull triggers... That's mercenary.

Quit failing and embarrassing yourself.
 
I served in desert storm. When we pushed Iraq out of Kuwait the returning leader of Kuwait offered to pay money to each service member in gratitude. HW Bush turned it down and said we were not mercenaries. We are hired by the US to defend our country and its interests. Had we taken that other money it could be seen as mercenary for hire. We didn't. Insert a private institution for hire to pull triggers... That's mercenary.

Quit failing and embarrassing yourself.

Thank you for your service.

Right, that money would have come from a foreign government. Blackwater employees are American citizens, working for and paid by The United States government.

You can't just make up your own definition of what a mercenary is and claim victory.
 
Blackwater mercenaries are sub-contractors, paid by their boss, who is paid by the US government. They're not government employees.
 
Thank you for your service.

Appreciate that.

apdst said:
Right, that money would have come from a foreign government. Blackwater employees are American citizens, working for and paid by The United States government.

You can't just make up your own definition of what a mercenary is and claim victory.

Privatizing war contracts to pull the trigger can never be equated in any way to the contract the servicemen of our country signed. We take an oath.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.​

Contractors do not. Contractors, no matter their personal feelings or intent, work for profit. That is mercenary work.
 
Figures.
Still with the dishonesty and going in circles with crap that has already been dispelled.

Facts are not insults. Stop trying to confuse the two.

You have been dishonest.
You have ignored the actual evidence.
You have engaged in irrational thought.
You have engaged in logical fallacies.
You have avoided addressing the actual evidence.
And have repeatedly shown you are ignorant of the actual evidence.

All the while failing to recognize that the logical fallacy you rely on, is a logical fallacy, and is irrelevant to a discussion of the actual evidence.

Such behavior illustrates the remarkably shallow nature of your position.
Your arguments are entirely the result of an absence of concrete substance and appropriate legal principles to rebut what the evidence actually supports, all in an effort to support your illogical emotional personal preferences.


Wrong.
Dunn's account is the only account supported by the evidence, as you have been shown, yet continually avoid addressing.


Already dispelled by the actual circumstances around the event.
The evidence allows for Davis to have been armed.
That is your failure in not recognizing that.
The evidence also allows for Dunn to have incorrectly identified a phone as a gun, which we all know police officers are cleared all the time for such errors. Even though they had not been verbally threatened as Dunn was.


Already dispelled.
He did.
Her, an emotional disturbed person, not remembering what she was told after a traumatic experience in no way means he did not tell her.
It is ridiculously absurd and unrealistic to hold to any other position.


False.
Again, this is your failure to know the actual evidence even though you have already been informed of it.
That is called being dishonest.
That fact that you have already been informed yet still cling to a failed argument speaks clearly, not only to your dishonesty, but to the shallow nature of your claims and your need to cling to your illogical emotional personal preferences.


Already dispelled, and again showing a desire to cling to your illogical emotional personal preferences.
He was not required to do so.
Rational and reasonable people all act differently, especially after traumatic experiences. There is no set way a person does, or must act. Reasonable people understand that.
Unreasonable and cynical people who want to find guilt assume it means something nefarious.


:doh
You are the only one engaging in such behavior.

Wrong.
You have already been proven wrong, as three jurors from the first trial wanted to acquit him, as well as a significant minority that believes his account.

All it really boils down to was the capability of the Lawyer to frame and make the arguments.


Wrong. Your argument, as well on reliance on irrelevant reports was dispelled in the reply.


Baseless attempts?
What a laugh.
You again are just showing your ignorance of the evidence.
She was discredited during the trial, by the not having been given all the evidence to draw her conclusions from, to the rebuttal by an actual expert, which she clearly was not.


Said the person ignoring the actual evidence. :doh
Your claim is pathetic given that the actual evidence actually dispels your claim and clearly puts it in the category of false.


Opinions and reports of the actual evidence is not the actual evidence or a substitute for it.


Any lack of understanding, as previously shown, is on your end.
And we already know that three jurors wanted to acquit him from the first trial. Which just shows your position is again wrong.


Which is what you have repeatedly shown you are doing.
You are absurdly relying on an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
Have repeatedly shown you are ignorant of the evidence, and have relied on reports and opinion which are not the actual evidence.


Another failed and dispelled argument.
It was shown during trial that he was not seated.


Already dispelled, as it did not and could not cease to exist within the circumstances until the threat was far enough away to make any return fire from the threat ineffective.
Which is the only way such a moving threat could become a non-threat.

This just shows that you, as well as the juror, failed to recognize reality and exemplifies one reason why Juries get things wrong all the time.


Wrong.
And opened fire on the threat which was Davis.


Given the evidence, you are again speaking nonsense.


:doh
More illogical reliance on a logical fallacy.
The Judges remarks mean absolutely nothing to this discussion. Had he been found not guilty the Judges remarks would have fit that verdict as well.

What thread am I on? :shock:
 
What thread am I on? :shock:
Never said I was immune from engaging in replies to off-topic bs, as I am certainly more than willing to correct it when I see it.

Had you noticed though, the off-topic discussion had stopped roughly 2 days and 6 hours ago, and yet here you are. :doh
 
Appreciate that.



Privatizing war contracts to pull the trigger can never be equated in any way to the contract the servicemen of our country signed. We take an oath.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.​

Contractors do not. Contractors, no matter their personal feelings or intent, work for profit. That is mercenary work.

Blackwater employees take an oath to The United States, too.
 
Blackwater employees take an oath to The United States, too.

For profit.

Operating on and for a completely different and unrelated bottom line.
 
Back
Top Bottom