• 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 retrial verdict predictions

What will be the verdict in the Michael Dunn retrial?

  • Guilty

    Votes: 13 100.0%

  • Not Guilty

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Another mistrial

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    13
Beaudreaux said:
Evil comes in many forms. This particular evil apparition will be off the streets for a long time, even with just the current guilty verdicts. Maybe we can get him off the streets permanently with the next trial.
Click to expand...

Maybe we can prevent someone else from dying with the next trial.
 
Beaudreaux said:
AgentJ let me know that. I only know that the latest juror to come forward, stated that they argued over whether he was guilty of M1 or not.

Maybe that means that they deadlocked over M1 or M2 or something similar, and not whether he was guilty; rather what he was actually guilty of.
Click to expand...

If their reasoning that he was innocent or M1 was self defense believing the shot gun bit, then arguing over M2 and manslaughter is irrelevant. ???

I agree with Davis' mom. Stand Your Ground makes some gun owner cocky. It emboldens them to be aggressive often initiating conflict and then if things escalate they feel safe in shooting thinking the law is on their side.
 
MaggieD said:
According to CBS News, lesser charges were included:



"Loud Music" Murder Case: Did prosecutors "overcharge" Michael Dunn in killing of Florida teen Jordan Davis? - CBS News

If that's true, then I'm thinking two (or was it three) jurists weren't convinced he wasn't telling the truth about thinking that he saw a gun.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, it's hard to understand just why jurors believe the things that they do believe. I think you're right that a couple of them thought there might have been a shotgun.

We've had members of DP who seem to have believed the same thing.

That said, it looks to me like second degree murder.

Edit: I went back and voted in the poll. Interesting. There are 11 guilty and 1 not guilty votes. Exactly what would be needed for another hung jury.
 
year2late said:
Exactly.

And frankly, if one does use a weapon in such a manner, there should be something written into the law that it is only applicable if you report it immediately . A reasonable person would anyway. It would allow for immediate collection and retrieval of corroborating evidence and witness statements.
Click to expand...

At a minimum Dunn should have gotten manslaughter because he was getting boozed up on hard liquor all afternoon. He arrived at the crime scene by drunk driving.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Evil comes in many forms. This particular evil apparition will be off the streets for a long time, even with just the current guilty verdicts. Maybe we can get him off the streets permanently with the next trial.
Click to expand...

at his age thats probably already true

at this point i want justice for the victims family and a message sent to any nutballs like him
 
Smeagol said:
If their reasoning that he was innocent or M1 was self defense believing the shot gun bit, then arguing over M2 and manslaughter is irrelevant. ???

I agree with Davis' mom. Stand Your Ground makes some gun owner cocky. It emboldens them to be aggressive often initiating conflict and then if things escalate they feel safe in shooting thinking the law is on their side.
Click to expand...
And they can lie to high heavens under oath before the judge and jury as long as they uttered the magic word "I was in fear of my life or great bodily harm" then anything he said about the victim is kosher and believable. And the shooter can make whatever accusations about the deceased victim, however far fetched, such as victim threatening him with a star-wars energized particle blaster and the prosecutor has the burden to prove the negative. If there is no evidence of such weapon found then to some stupid jurors it proved the shooter's account correct. After all some gullible jurors would go by the letter of the law that it is the killer's reasonable belief that matter and prosecution has to prove he didn't reasonably belief his life was in danger. How the heck can anybody prove his belief (short of showing that the victims had no weapon and they were fleeing for their life from hell fire coming from behind) without getting into his mind?
 
Last edited:
Whether Dunn would be found guilty or not guilty or hung in the retrial very much depends on jury selection. Some people just will not find the defendant guilty no matter how much concrete proof you put before them for whatever personal reason they harbored inside them. They have the law on their side and say if Michael Dunn said he reasonable belief his life was being threatened that's all they need to acquit no matter what evidence, fact or proof there are that laid before them.
 
year2late said:
Maybe we can prevent someone else from dying with the next trial.
Click to expand...

He's going to jail for a very long time as it is. He seriously doubt he will be a threat to society if he lives long enough to get out of prison, even without the next trial.

But, I agree.
 
Smeagol said:
If their reasoning that he was innocent or M1 was self defense believing the shot gun bit, then arguing over M2 and manslaughter is irrelevant. ???

I agree with Davis' mom. Stand Your Ground makes some gun owner cocky. It emboldens them to be aggressive often initiating conflict and then if things escalate they feel safe in shooting thinking the law is on their side.
Click to expand...

SYG isn't the problem. A crazy, evil person will kill either way.

Criminals don't give a crap about SYG.

And this case, was not about SYG. It was about "imminent fear" and the right to defend yourself, period.
 
Beaudreaux said:
SYG isn't the problem. A crazy, evil person will kill either way.

Criminals don't give a crap about SYG.

And this case, was not about SYG. It was about "imminent fear" and the right to defend yourself, period.
Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line for abuse? Anyone can say "imminent fear" and shoot anyone they want. At some point, especially outside of your home, there has to be at least some common sense duty to retreat and some commonsense duty NOT to instigate a situation that may escalate.

There has to be some middle ground. Someone should not be able to get off 10 rounds, hit an occupied vehicle 9 times and not IMMEDIATLY report it to the police.
 
year2late said:
Where do you draw the line for abuse? Anyone can say "imminent fear" and shoot anyone they want.
Click to expand...
Nowhere in any law, including SYG, is there a warrant that allows anyone to shoot anyone they want, for ANY reason.
year2late said:
At some point, especially outside of your home, there has to be at least some common sense duty to retreat and some commonsense duty NOT to instigate a situation that may escalate.
Click to expand...
That's too simple. When you're in imminent fear, noting is simple. There has always been, and still is a duty to attempt to retreat, if possible, even in SYG. Most SYG laws, like the one in my state, the reference to duty to retreat states that you still have the duty except upon imminent threats to life. In other words, if a guy has gun pointed at you, you don't have to turn around and let him shoot you in the back of your head, just because some law said you have a duty to retreat.

Instigate a situation that may escalate? SYG doesn't cover the instigator.

SYG only gives you the rights back that have been the right of everyone in this country since day one but have been limited in the past; protect your life and/or those of your loved ones with deadly force if required.

As I said before:

SYG isn't the problem. A crazy, evil person will kill either way.

Criminals don't give a crap about SYG.
Click to expand...

year2late said:
There has to be some middle ground.
Click to expand...
there is no middle ground when your life is in danger.

year2late said:
Someone should not be able to get off 10 rounds, hit an occupied vehicle 9 times and not IMMEDIATLY report it to the police.
Click to expand...
Agreed. There is, it's called the law, and that's why this stupid evil bastard is going to jail. But again, criminals don't give a crap about laws, or they wouldn't be criminals.

If we repeal all SYG laws, that will not prevent criminals from doing a drive-by, firing guns into houses or cars or groups of people on the street. It happens every day, and happened before any of the Castle Doctrine Laws (what people inaccurately call Stand Your Ground laws) were expanded to include areas outside your own house.

Law abiding citizens, are not the problem, and never have been.

Blame the people, not the law.

The Castle Doctrine Laws are in place to allow US citizens to protect their lives and those of their families from imminent threats to life by criminals.

What this guy did was not influenced by any law, but rather by him being an ignorant evil hateful person that misused a weapon and took a reportedly innocent life.

We have to have laws that allow people to protect themselves. Because the government cannot.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Nowhere in any law, including SYG, is there a warrant that allows anyone to shoot anyone they want, for ANY reason
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't.

But the fact that someone can a day later be tracked down and come up with the excuse is just preposterous.

I am looking for common sense. There is plenty of room for common ground, but DUnn's behavior is not the common ground.

If you discharged your weapon because of an imminent threat situation, it should be obligatory to report immediately to the police. Why all the jurors didn't see this as a "yeah, right" situation is beyond me.
 
year2late said:
Of course it doesn't.

But the fact that someone can a day later be tracked down and come up with the excuse is just preposterous.

I am looking for common sense. There is plenty of room for common ground, but DUnn's behavior is not the common ground.

If you discharged your weapon because of an imminent threat situation, it should be obligatory to report immediately to the police. Why all the jurors didn't see this as a "yeah, right" situation is beyond me.
Click to expand...

As I've said in this thread; I wasn't in the jury, didn't watch the trial and have no idea what the jurors were allowed to see and hear by the judge and what they weren't... and since I've been a juror on two murder trials, I have a hard time blaming the jurors for a verdict I don't agree with.

The prosecutor should be blamed if I think there should have been a conviction and I blame the defense attorney if I thought it should have been an acquittal.

What I do know about this case tells me the guy is guilty as hell. But I refuse to second guess or blame the jury or a law that had nothing to do with the case.

IMO, There's no way in hell anyone that shoots at someone, or shoots into an occupied car, or actually shoots someone wouldn't call the police and wait for them to arrive. Law abiding citizens don't discharge a firearm toward another person and then run away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom