Dunn Sentenced to Life w/o Parole. Was He Even Guilty ?

[Dana7360]

LINK??

The judge was right - Dunn threw away his own life. Very sad because it never should have happened. I hope it sends a message to others who think they'll get away with gunning down kids for loud music. Same with other, over-the-top, crazies who shoot someone for texting or throwing popcorn or knocking on your door.

Dunn claimed he saw a gun, and that he fired in SELF-DEFENSE. So you being the accuser, have the burden of proof to prove that he did not see a gun. Nobody in the trial proved that. Can you ?

For whatever it's worth, here's your link. >>

Life without parole for loud-music murderer in Florida - CNN.com

It says right there in your link there was no gun.

Dunn claimed he acted in self-defense because he believed Davis was reaching for a gun. No weapon was found.

NOTHING proved that there was no gun. Some people have SAID there was no gun. That isn't proof.

Michael Dunn case Opening statements begin in loud music murder trial - CNN.com

Ok so the murderer has to be believed when he said he thought that the victim was reaching for a gun. Just because he said so.

But when the police and all the other witnesses say there was no gun they aren't to be believed because they said so.

The fact that there was no gun found in that vehicle isn't enough proof to you either.

Seriously here, do you realize how ridiculous you are? You say something isn't true just because someone said it but you say that what the murderer said is true just because he said it.

The murderer has no proof there was any gun.

The police do have proof there was no gun.

It doesn't matter what you wish was true. It doesn't matter what you think. You mean zero in that situation.

What does mean something is the evidence presented to the jury and their ruling. They ruled GUILTY.

No amount of your lies, stamping your feet and throwing a hissy fit is going to change those facts.

You don't have to like it. You don't have to agree with it. You do have to accept it.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The jury accepted the prosecution's story: that is PROOF.

No one has to show you anything. You have created a false standard, which Dunn's defense team tried and failed.

That a white man can shoot a black person and go to jail is what you are horrified about to your tippy toes.

Juries accept prosecution stories all the time, only to have an innocent man be freed after being in prison for 25 years. The Innocence Project has a long list of these cases. That a jury accepted the prosecution's tale, doesn't rate a hill of beans in this case.

Yes you do have to show something. You have to show that there was not a gun in the SUV, AND YOU CAN'T.

That a white man can shoot a black person, and be freed from jail in an appeal trial, is what you are horrified about to your tippy toes.

There has to be some really glaring inconsistencies present for a judge to grant an appeal.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

A Duval County judge in Florida sentenced Michael Dunn to Life w/o possibility of parole, for killing Jordan Davis, a young black boy, who was in an SUV with 3 friends. The judge and others in the trial all seem to have concluded that Dunn was guilty without any shadow of reasonable doubt.

The judge told Dunn >> "Mr. Dunn, your life is effectively over," ...What is sad... is that this case exemplifies that our society seems to have lost its way." This statement may be true, but in what way ? Did Angela Corey, the prosecutor (and famous for her attempted kangeroo court lynching of George Zimmerman) ever PROVE that Dunn did not shoot in self-defense ? I don't think she did. And based on that, I don't see how Dunn could have even been convicted, much less get life w/o parole.

So is this a case of society losing it's way because of someone shooting recklessly, or is it a case of more pandering to the race hustler loudmouths, and their perpetual threat of riots ? Would Dunn have been convicted and sentenced to life w/o parole, if he were black and Davis was white ?

It looks like Dunn may have gotten a raw deal here, just because he's white, and the kid he killed was black.

no collaborating evidence and flight from the scene

indicated a guilty verdict

And was the instigator.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the prosecution has to show nothing now: the case is over.

Now the defense has to show something, and I predict that it will fail miserably.

The case is going to be appealed. And whether YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS (and mine) will be trampled on again, will depend on WHO is handling the case. You have a very lackadasical attitude to your freedom (to be innocent until proven guilty) being scrubbed away.

My defense of freedom remains sharp and precise. The killer acted out of hubris and hatred, got caught, and now pays the appropriate price. You simply want to shoot your gun and peoples of color and not be held liable.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The prosecution cannot and did not disprove Dunn's claim of self-defense. You are all jus too villainizing of Dunn to allow yourself to let go of the position you have been comfortable with before seeing this thread. For whatever the reason of the failure of the prosecution to prove the absence of a gun, the fact is they failed in that, and couldn't prove this wasn't self-defense.

I am comfortable with him spending his life in jail.

 

[R.D.]

Dunn was guilty as hell. That was pretty plain as soon as the facts came out.

No, it was not. And you haven't shown a shred of evidence to prove it either. If you have some, let's hear it.

There was no gun. It was never found...he lied.

You've been refuted 100 times in this thread before you even entered it. In the future, try not to be an idiot OK ? Thanks.

By you? Giggle, uh-huh ok.

 

[rightwinger]

LINK??

The judge was right - Dunn threw away his own life. Very sad because it never should have happened. I hope it sends a message to others who think they'll get away with gunning down kids for loud music. Same with other, over-the-top, crazies who shoot someone for texting or throwing popcorn or knocking on your door.

Dunn claimed he saw a gun, and that he fired in SELF-DEFENSE. So you being the accuser, have the burden of proof to prove that he did not see a gun. Nobody in the trial proved that. Can you ?

For whatever it's worth, here's your link. >>

Life without parole for loud-music murderer in Florida - CNN.com

Dunn was found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers, he was and is afforded comprehensive due process rights, including the right to appeal the verdict and sentence.

Dunn's actions were reckless, unwarranted, and stupid, completely failing to comport with Florida self-defense jurisprudence – he has only himself to blame.

Your accusations are unfounded, since you have no way of knowing if Dunn acted in self-defense or not. Got some proof he didn't see a gun ? NO, you don't.

Dunn is a person who should have been allowed to have a gun

 

[rightwinger]

LINK??

The judge was right - Dunn threw away his own life. Very sad because it never should have happened. I hope it sends a message to others who think they'll get away with gunning down kids for loud music. Same with other, over-the-top, crazies who shoot someone for texting or throwing popcorn or knocking on your door.

Dunn claimed he saw a gun, and that he fired in SELF-DEFENSE. So you being the accuser, have the burden of proof to prove that he did not see a gun. Nobody in the trial proved that. Can you ?

For whatever it's worth, here's your link. >>

Life without parole for loud-music murderer in Florida - CNN.com

Dunn was found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers, he was and is afforded comprehensive due process rights, including the right to appeal the verdict and sentence.

Dunn's actions were reckless, unwarranted, and stupid, completely failing to comport with Florida self-defense jurisprudence – he has only himself to blame.

Your accusations are unfounded, since you have no way of knowing if Dunn acted in self-defense or not. Got some proof he didn't see a gun ? NO, you don't.

Yes. There was no gun found and the witnesses say there was no gun. Dunn may have had a hallucination of a gun but he still has been found guilty and will spend the rest of his life in jail.

Dunn had hallucinations about black kids giving him lip

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dunn ended up exactly where his life's choices about hubris, race, and firearms led him.

 

[rightwinger]

Let me check:

Trayvon Martin is still dead, George Zimmerman is still not in jail, and Dunn is going to jail. It's three wins for justice. Now if we can free the cop in Fergusson, jail the looters there and send Al and Jesse to North Korea, all will be right with the world.

FALSE! They didn't prove their case against Dunn, and you haven't here either. You are trying to take credit for what you have not achieved.

Evidently, they did prove it

 

[rightwinger]

Neither have you. He is in prison for life. Nothing you can do but start up a fund to get him out.

Yes I have said something meaningful. That the prosecution didn't prove their case, and therefore it should have ended up as NOT GUILTY by INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. And I also said there is likely a racial component, in which some of the parties involved are afraid of possile race rioting.

But he got convicted which proves the prosecution proved there was no gun.

HA HA HA. Like nobody has ever been convicted wrongly, huh ? Getting desperate now ?

Yes, you are, indeed.

Why would I be desperate ? No need to be, I'm just reciting a fact. That the prosecution never PROVED that Dunn didn't act in self-defense, as is their burden to do. They never proved his claim to be false. FACT, not opinion.

The prosecution does not have to prove there was no self defense
They proved murder.....self defense is an explanation of the defense
If the jury does not believe the claim of self defense, that is not a problem for the prosecution

 

[protectionist]

It is not the burden of the defense to produce a gun. It is the burden of prosecution to prove there was NOT A GUN. They did NOT do that.

You just don't get it. You can't prove a negative. Logic 101. You're an idiot.

Then you don't have a case. Cases require proof. Didn't you know ?

You cannot prove a negative. How many times do I have to tell you? What an idiot.

He doesn't know that means. Give him an example and have him try to prove it.

I've already agreed with that 10 times over in this thread, you boob. Try reading it before coming in here and making a fool out of yourself. And I've already addressed that point repeatedly.

Then, like I said, you haven't shown a shred of evidence to prove it, because they didn't bring the evidence needed, in the courtroom. They didn't prove their case.

I don't have to show evidence. You are wrong, apparently they DID prove their case. Guilty.

Yes you do have to show evidence. In this thread you are the accuser. Burden of proof is always on the accuser. Show me how the prosecution proved their case. I say they did not do that (and in fact, they COULD NOT do that) This is a case where it is impossible to prove there was no gun.

If that is the rules then I again refer you to the evidence and testimony in the courts. That is the ONLY evidence that matters. Unless someone in this thread was actually there when it happened.

And it is precisely that evidence (and LACK of it) that is the crux of the case. Should have been ruled NOT GUILTY, based on INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

What you think means nothing.

What the jury thought means everything. Obviously the prosecution proved that the teenagers didn't have a gun by the fact that there was no gun found in the vehicle by the police. If there had been a gun the police would have found it and it would have been entered into evidence. Since there was no gun entered into evidence or presented as evidence, there was no gun. The only person who had a gun was the murderer. Even the murderer admits there was no gun. He said he THOUGHT they had a gun. That's a huge difference from actually having one.

The fact that he was found guilty proves that yes he did what he admitted he did do. That's the facts of this situation. The man admitted what he did. Now you're saying he lied when he admitted to what he did. Wow. You weren't at the crime scene. You don't know the murderer or any of the victims. You weren't in the court room. You aren't a lawyer working on the case.

Yet you insist that you know more than everyone who was there at the time of the crime, everyone who was in the court room, everyone who worked on the case and even the murderer himself.Wow.
Can you tell me what color the sky is in your world?

What I can tell you is you have just distinguished yourself here, as a complete IMBECILE. Like a few others before you, you come tumbling in here with what you think is an impressive, smart post, and the dumbest thing going, which has been refuted 100 times in this thread.

If fools like you would only READ THE THREAD befor eyou com eursting in here fill of energy and empty of knowledge of the subject matter, you wouldn'.t now be a class A fool in this thread. Go back and read my posts. I've been shooting down what you said all day long today. Sheeeeeshh!!

You are posting misinformation. You say Dunn confessed to the crime of murder. NO he did NOT.

And I never said that I know more than everyone who was there at the time of the crime, or everyone who was in the court room, or everyone who worked on the case. And I don't have to know more than them. All anyone has to know is that the prosecution never proved that there was no gun in the car. They had to do that, and they didn't. You don't have a clue of what your're talking about.

As for the cops you say would have found a gun if there was one, here's a hint for you > 100 yards. Don't know what that means do you ? HA HA HA.

 

[protectionist]

Hopefully one of the inmates does something to earn the tax dollars spent on his upkeep and rids the earth of this feral scum. Seems like he is just another whining, confused racist. In one of his letters he complains how the system is biased towards Black people but in the same breath says the jail is full of Blacks. How stupid can you be?

"It's spooky how racist everyone is up here and how biased toward blacks the courts are. This jail is full of blacks and they all act like thugs," he noted. He went on to say, "This may sound a bit radical but if more people would arm themselves and kill these **** idiots when they're threatening you, eventually they may take the hint and change their behavior."

If he said that I would tend to agree with him. And that anti-white racism (based on fear of Black rioting), appears to be what got him convicted, not a fair trial, based on evidence.

You tend to agree because you are stupid like him. You dont see the contradiction in what he said?

Evidence shows he shot and killed an unarmed kid, shot at other unarmed kids. What exactly are you missing in this?

I'm missing you and the others providing proof that the kid was unarmed. Just saying it isn't good enough. You have to prove it. That is simply impossible.

The police proved it by not finding any weapon in the vehicle. If there had been a weapon then the police would have found it in the vehicle.

I'm sure the investigating officer took the stand and testified that they found no weapon in that vehicle.

Are you saying that the police lied on the stand?

You can't be that obtuse can you?

So for you it's not enough to show off your stupidity in one post. You have to come back and same the same exact IDIOTIC thing in another post right ? Pheeeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle; eyes rolling around in head)

 

[rightwinger]

Defense did not prove their claim of self defense

 

[protectionist]

Yes I have said something meaningful. That the prosecution didn't prove their case, and therefore it should have ended up as NOT GUILTY by INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. And I also said there is likely a racial component, in which some of the parties involved are afraid of possile race rioting.

But he got convicted which proves the prosecution proved there was no gun.

HA HA HA. Like nobody has ever been convicted wrongly, huh ? Getting desperate now ?

Yes, you are, indeed.

Why would I be desperate ? No need to be, I'm just reciting a fact. That the prosecution never PROVED that Dunn didn't act in self-defense, as is their burden to do. They never proved his claim to be false. FACT, not opinion.

The prosecution does not have to prove there was no self defense
They proved murder.....self defense is an explanation of the defense
If the jury does not believe the claim of self defense, that is not a problem for the prosecution

FALSE! The prosecution dioes indeed have to prove there was no self-defense. You are simply WRONG. As I said before in Post # 197 (can't you read ?) >>

Where the defendant in a Florida criminal case presents any evidence of self-defense, the State must overcome the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO RAISE A SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM

The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case...fense-florida/

 

[protectionist]

Defense did not prove their claim of self defense

They don't have to. The requirement for the defense is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable.

As in all trials the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to prove it was not self-defense. They didn't. (nor did you)

 

[protectionist]

217 posts into the thread and not one person has presented a shred of evidence that there was not a gun in the SUV. Of course not. It can't be proven. And that's why Dunn could not be indicted much less convicted. Racial politics. Plain as day.

 

[rightwinger]

Defense did not prove their claim of self defense

They don't have to. The requirement for the defense is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable.

As in all trials the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to prove it was not self-defense. They didn't. (nor did you)

Yes they do

Prosecution proves murder....Defense claims it was not murder, it was self defense
Jury does not believe the defenses theory and convicts

Case closed

 

[protectionist]

217 posts into the thread and not one person has presented a shred of evidence that there was not a gun in the SUV. Of course not. It can't be proven. And that's why Dunn could not be indicted much less convicted. Racial politics. Plain as day.

PS - A liberal and a conservative enter a room. There WERE 10 cookies on the table, but the liberal gave then all away to immigrants (most of them here illegally)

 

[rightwinger]

But he got convicted which proves the prosecution proved there was no gun.

HA HA HA. Like nobody has ever been convicted wrongly, huh ? Getting desperate now ?

Yes, you are, indeed.

Why would I be desperate ? No need to be, I'm just reciting a fact. That the prosecution never PROVED that Dunn didn't act in self-defense, as is their burden to do. They never proved his claim to be false. FACT, not opinion.

The prosecution does not have to prove there was no self defense
They proved murder.....self defense is an explanation of the defense
If the jury does not believe the claim of self defense, that is not a problem for the prosecution

FALSE! The prosecution dioes indeed have to prove there was no self-defense. You are simply WRONG. As I said before in Post # 197 (can't you read ?) >>

Where the defendant in a Florida criminal case presents any evidence of self-defense, the State must overcome the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

EVIDENCE REQUIRED TO RAISE A SELF-DEFENSE CLAIM

The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.

http://www.husseinandwebber.com/case...fense-florida/

Did you read what you posted?

It says the defendant is entitled to a jury instruction of the potential of self defense
It does not say the jury has to believe it