• 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 Murder Trial of Jordan Davis guilty or not?

So far do you think Michael Dunn is guilty of murder?


  • Total voters
    40
car-bullets.jpg

This is with the rear door closed. Which lines up with the M.E.s description of the path of the bullets in Davis' body.
 
I think Muhammed is deliberately trying to be argumentative. I'm watching closing arguments. There's plastic all in the backseat of the car, where the bullets were fired into the back door. If the door had been opened, the plastic from the door would have been on the ground outside the car, not on the inside of the car seat.

Also, the trajectory is clear.

trajectory.jpg
 
Last edited:
If the door was open, as you are claiming, then they would have went into the inner door jamb, or into the seat close to the door. They wouldn't have went into the right side of Davis' chest, through his diaphragm, liver, lungs then his aorta. That was the path of one bullet.
It's certainly possible for that to happen with the door open.

What is impossible is for the bullets to go into the rear door at that angle if Dunn was shooting from the front seat as was reported by witnesses.
 
.................

I understand that many believe a person has to right to self defense until after they are shot or stabbed. In short, that there really isn't any right to self defense - the duty to die for the common good.
I understand that it is easier for some people to make sweeping generalizations and assumptions about someone so they find it easier to dismiss them

I wasn't there and don't know what happened. I'm not on the jury and won't spend my life watching it. IF what I read he claimed happened is what happened he has a defense. I don't know if what I read he claimed is true or not, therefore I don't know if he should be found guilty or not.
Then I'm glad to hear you won't be on the jury

I have no problems with his letters
Then I'm glad to hear you won't be on the jury
 
I understand that it is easier for some people to make sweeping generalizations and assumptions about someone so they find it easier to dismiss them


Then I'm glad to hear you won't be on the jury


Then I'm glad to hear you won't be on the jury

I would likely always be struck from a criminal jury pool as a discretionary strike that both sides is allowed. One side or the other would not like my employment and one, the other or both would not like how I would answer some questions.

Your message is extreme. You do not want juries to hear evidence - just read newspapers and blogs - to then make socially political left rulings. And you make it clear you would disavow law to make that ruling. You would make "social left platitude-goodness" decisions. I'm glad you're not on the jury too.
 
If I were the parent of an 11th grader I would not consider my child an adult. I would have him on a curfew, make sure he did his homework and ground him from using the Nintendo if he brings home bad grades. Why? Because he's a child. On the other hand if I were the parent of a 47 year old man I would not do any of those things because he's a grown a55 man. That said, I understand everybody is different and some people might treat them as in the same age group with similar parental roles toward both the 11th grader and the 47 year old. ???

I don't know if this matters to anyone but I think it is relevant to this debate with regard to the legitimacy of calling Jordan Davis a boy.

"... the changes that happen between 18 and 25 are a continuation of the process that starts around puberty, and 18 year olds are about halfway through that process. Their prefrontal cortex is not yet fully developed. That's the part of the brain that helps you to inhibit impulses ......."


Is this idea that the brains of 18 year olds aren't fully developed a matter of settled science?

Yes"

Brain Maturity Extends Well Beyond Teen Years : NPR

So, technically speaking at 17 yrs of age his brain was only about halfway through the development process in some of the most critical areas of the brain. So having the same expectations of a 17 yr old when it comes to his ability to make judgments and control his behavior as you have from a man over 50yrs of age is like challenging a toddler to leg race. While we hope our kids are able to practice self control despite this disadvantage they often don't, especially boys. An inability to function at the same level as a man over 50 does not necessarily reflect the same on the character of that boy as it does of a man Dunns age.

Bottom line, I would have expected more from a grown man and Jordan Davis was just a boy.
 
I would likely always be struck from a criminal jury pool as a discretionary strike that both sides is allowed. One side or the other would not like my employment and one, the other or both would not like how I would answer some questions.

Your message is extreme. You do not want juries to hear evidence - just read newspapers and blogs - to then make socially political left rulings. And you make it clear you would disavow law to make that ruling. You would make "social left platitude-goodness" decisions. I'm glad you're not on the jury too.

Making blind accusations to inflame the debate appears to be a consistent technique on your part. I refuse to take responsibility for your wild eyed accusations about my positions. So stop it.
 
another posted lie, let me know when you can quote me saying the lie you made up until you to it will continue being a lie and your posts will continue to be destroyed.
Facts win again
There you lie is again.
I quoted you saying exactly what you said. You,in reply to a specific post replied and stated the storys were factually false. When none of what I said was factually false.
You said it and I quoted it. Post #159. So stop being untruthful.
 
I don't know if this matters to anyone but I think it is relevant to this debate with regard to the legitimacy of calling Jordan Davis a boy.

"... the changes that happen between 18 and 25 are a continuation of the process that starts around puberty, and 18 year olds are about halfway through that process. Their prefrontal cortex is not yet fully developed. That's the part of the brain that helps you to inhibit impulses ......."


Is this idea that the brains of 18 year olds aren't fully developed a matter of settled science?

Yes"

Brain Maturity Extends Well Beyond Teen Years : NPR

So, technically speaking at 17 yrs of age his brain was only about halfway through the development process in some of the most critical areas of the brain. So having the same expectations of a 17 yr old when it comes to his ability to make judgments and control his behavior as you have from a man over 50yrs of age is like challenging a toddler to leg race. While we hope our kids are able to practice self control despite this disadvantage they often don't, especially boys. An inability to function at the same level as a man over 50 does not necessarily reflect the same on the character of that boy as it does of a man Dunns age.

Bottom line, I would have expected more from a grown man and Jordan Davis was just a boy.

I think Excon's issue was by my referring to the occupants of the SUV as "kids," I was making the incident look more tragic.

By the way. Michael Dunn called them kids too during his post arrest interrogation. The prosecution mentioned that he changed from calling them "kids" to some other descriptive like; angry and menacing men or something similar, forget what exactly but apparently after getting legal advice.
 
I think Excon's issue was by my referring to the occupants of the SUV as "kids," I was making the incident look more tragic.

I think alot of people here that take issue with calling them kids have that same perspective. I don't see it as a dramatization though. It's reality. I think it softens the reality for them if they can discourage it. It's gotta sting more when you recognize that you are defending someone who killed a kid. But, it is in fact more tragic because he was only 17 and if they can't just take that punch in the gut to their position, that's too bad in my mind

By the way. Michael Dunn called them kids too during his post arrest interrogation. The prosecution mentioned that he changed from calling them "kids" to some other descriptive like; angry and menacing men or something similar, forget what exactly but apparently after getting legal advice.

That's interesting. So clearly the defense thought that reality was relevant enough to redirect their client.
 
I don't know if this matters to anyone but I think it is relevant to this debate with regard to the legitimacy of calling Jordan Davis a boy.

"... the changes that happen between 18 and 25 are a continuation of the process that starts around puberty, and 18 year olds are about halfway through that process. Their prefrontal cortex is not yet fully developed. That's the part of the brain that helps you to inhibit impulses ......."


Is this idea that the brains of 18 year olds aren't fully developed a matter of settled science?

Yes"

Brain Maturity Extends Well Beyond Teen Years : NPR

So, technically speaking at 17 yrs of age his brain was only about halfway through the development process in some of the most critical areas of the brain. So having the same expectations of a 17 yr old when it comes to his ability to make judgments and control his behavior as you have from a man over 50yrs of age is like challenging a toddler to leg race. While we hope our kids are able to practice self control despite this disadvantage they often don't, especially boys. An inability to function at the same level as a man over 50 does not necessarily reflect the same on the character of that boy as it does of a man Dunns age.

Bottom line, I would have expected more from a grown man and Jordan Davis was just a boy.
It shouldn't matter to anyone.
If Dunn's account of what Davis said and did is accurate, this information does not excuse him in the slightest.
 
It shouldn't matter to anyone.
If Dunn's account of what Davis said and did is accurate, this information does not excuse him in the slightest.

It's not about providing an excuse. It's about having factual information to base your opinions and expectations on instead of basing them on nothing more then just more opinion
 
It's not about providing an excuse. It's about having factual information to base your opinions and expectations on instead of basing them on nothing more then just more opinion
Factual information?
Not!

It is information that does not excuse or even mitigate his actions. Period.
It is irrelevant.
Lets see just how irrelevant it was ok? Was such information given to the Jurors? What was that?

Yeah... That is what I thought. :doh
It is irrelevant.
 
I think Muhammed is deliberately trying to be argumentative. I'm watching closing arguments. There's plastic all in the backseat of the car, where the bullets were fired into the back door. If the door had been opened, the plastic from the door would have been on the ground outside the car, not on the inside of the car seat.

Also, the trajectory is clear.

View attachment 67161919
Superfly, thats just not true. If the door was partially opened enough for the trajectory of the bullet holes in the back door to match up with the shots in the front door, as the most credible witness reported, then the plastic, glass and the bullets would have went inside of the Durango, just as they did.

There was also very little glass in the Durango or in the parking lot. This also contradicts the 3 thugs' claims that the window was only about 3 inches open. Where is all the glass?

It is inside the door because the window was wide open when the bullets went through the door.
 
Factual information?
Not!

It is information that does not excuse or even mitigate his actions. Period.
It is irrelevant.
Lets see just how irrelevant it was ok? Was such information given to the Jurors? What was that?

Yeah... That is what I thought. :doh
It is irrelevant.

Are you holding your breath and stamping your feet right now? It doesn't work with my kids and it won't work for you.
 
Are you holding your breath and stamping your feet right now? It doesn't work with my kids and it won't work for you.
You are speaking nonsense.
Was it submitted to the Jury or not.
You know that answer. And that answer shows just how irrelevant the information you provided was.
And as it is irrelevant, it was nothing more than an attempt by you to excuse his actions.
So stamp your feet all you want. It doesn't change the fact that it was irrelevant info.
 
You are speaking nonsense.
Was it submitted to the Jury or not.
You know that answer. And that answer shows just how irrelevant the information you provided was.
And as it is irrelevant, it was nothing more than an attempt by you to excuse his actions.
So stamp your feet all you want. It doesn't change the fact that it was irrelevant info.

Don't confuse the conversation about what someone basis their personal opinion on with what may or may not be considered as fact or evidence during a trial. Calm down little kitty, all you're hair is gonna fall out.
 
My post is about ONE white man not white men in general, one man who openly displayed his racism in writing through the letters he penned in jail as well as his actions when he killed Jordan Davis. Try to stay focused please.
I've read reporst the letters and they don't seem racist at all. In fact I recall reading reports of one where he expresses some disdain for racism.
 
I don't know if this matters to anyone but I think it is relevant to this debate with regard to the legitimacy of calling Jordan Davis a boy.
If anything regarding age is relevant it is the fact that his age group is among the most likely to commit serious violent crime.
 
There you lie is again.
I quoted you saying exactly what you said. You,in reply to a specific post replied and stated the storys were factually false. When none of what I said was factually false.
You said it and I quoted it. Post #159. So stop being untruthful.

another post and ZERO quote and another lie as usual
we are all waiting for you to quote me saying "" you haven't made your position made."
until you can you got nothing and your post is destroy again, let us know
FACTS WIN AGAIN lol
 
awesome publicially there are

25 yes
0 no
1 other

his goose is cooked

hes gonna see some inches of shotgun go in his tailpipe in prison lol
 
another post and ZERO quote and another lie as usual
we are all waiting for you to quote me saying "" you haven't made your position made."
until you can you got nothing and your post is destroy again, let us know
Another post with you denying reality, purposely misstating what has been said, and telling untruths.
Figure
The FACTS WIN AGAIN .
 
Another post with you denying reality, purposely misstating what has been said, and telling untruths.
Figure
The FACTS WIN AGAIN .

no quote = facts win again
 
no quote = facts win again
:doh
That is you misrepresenting what has already been done.
What you said was quoted. which to you obviously ='s a win
Those are the facts that you wish to be untruthful about.
 
Back
Top Bottom