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

[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)

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

Until the appeal case reopens it. Until then it is a case of injustice, like the many cases in the Innocence Project.

The Innocence Project - Home

 

[protectionist]

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

Did YOU read what I posted ? It says >> "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."

 

[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

Until the appeal case reopens it. Until then it is a case of injustice, like the many cases in the Innocence Project.

The Innocence Project - Home

You can't appeal the fact that a jury didn't believe your bogus claim

 

[rightwinger]

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

Did YOU read what I posted ? It says >> "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."

Evidently they did

 

[Rikurzhen]

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.

Steps for a perfect murder.

1.) Murder someone.
2.) When cops arrest you, claim self defense and that the victim had a gun.
3.) Go to trial.
4.) Prosecutor can't prove that there wasn't a gun, because your word takes precedence over finding no gun near the body.
5.) Fry in the electric chair.

Hey, something went wrong with the perfect plan!

 

[protectionist]

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.

I AM a person of color, you idiot. And you just want to shoot your gun at a white man who is in confrontation with a black man, and not be held liable.

 

[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.

Steps for a perfect murder.

1.) Murder someone.
2.) When cops arrest you, claim self defense and that the victim had a gun.
3.) Go to trial.
4.) Prosecutor can't prove that there wasn't a gun, because your word takes precedence over finding no gun near the body.
5.) Fry in the electric chair.

Hey, something went wrong with the perfect plan!

In the great majority of cases, the deceased is lying on the ground, and has not movec from the shooting location. Get it ? Or do you need more explanation ?

 

[protectionist]

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.

Your posts are TOO STUPID to warrant a response. Seriously.

 

[protectionist]

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.

The loud music combined with Davis' foul mouth was the instigator.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Yeah. Like the prosecution being required to present evidence (AND THEY DIDN'T)

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Yeah. Like the prosecution being required to present evidence (AND THEY DIDN'T)

They did provide evidence that no weapon was found and the jury accepted it

 

[protectionist]

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

Did YOU read what I posted ? It says >> "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."

Evidently they did

The word "evidently" comes from the word "evidence", which is exactly what they did NOT do. HA HA.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Yeah. Like the prosecution being required to present evidence (AND THEY DIDN'T)

They did provide evidence that no weapon was found and the jury accepted it

Oh yeah ? Let's hear you tell us what that evidence was. Let's hear it. Right now. HA HA.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Yeah. Like the prosecution being required to present evidence (AND THEY DIDN'T)

They did provide evidence that no weapon was found and the jury accepted it

Oh yeah ? Let's hear you tell us what that evidence was. Let's hear it. Right now. HA HA.

The evidence is no weapon being found
The Defense claimed the victim had a weapon. There was no weapon. The defense was unable to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, that there actually was a weapon
Case closed

 

[rightwinger]

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

Did YOU read what I posted ? It says >> "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."

Evidently they did

The word "evidently" comes from the word "evidence", which is exactly what they did NOT do. HA HA.

Evidently, the jury disagreed

 

[protectionist]

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.

Yeah. Like the prosecution being required to present evidence (AND THEY DIDN'T)

They did provide evidence that no weapon was found and the jury accepted it

Oh yeah ? Let's hear you tell us what that evidence was. Let's hear it. Right now. HA HA.

The evidence is no weapon being found
The Defense claimed the victim had a weapon. There was no weapon. The defense was unable to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, that there actually was a weapon
Case closed

Dumb response.

1. That they didn't find a weapon means nothing. I've explained 100 times in this thread why. Have you read it ? Hint: 100 yards.

2. It's not the defense's job to convince a jury. The prosecution has that burden. I've repeated that 100 times here too.

 

[protectionist]

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

Did YOU read what I posted ? It says >> "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."

Evidently they did

The word "evidently" comes from the word "evidence", which is exactly what they did NOT do. HA HA.

Evidently, the jury disagreed

The word "evidently" comes from the word "evidence", which is exactly what they did NOT do. HA HA.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

Absolutely ridiculous. How does one prove that someone else did not see a gun? They can say there was no gun recovered, or whatever. But there is no way possible to prove he did not see something.

But a jury of his peers found him guilty of the charge. So he is going away for the rest of his life.

 

[Asclepias]

This idiot is still tryin t

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.

Yeah. Like the prosecution being required to present evidence (AND THEY DIDN'T)

They did provide evidence that no weapon was found and the jury accepted it

Oh yeah ? Let's hear you tell us what that evidence was. Let's hear it. Right now. HA HA.

Here is the evidence.

No gun was found.
The eyewitness testimony said there was no gun.

The jury believed the evidence submitted to them by the prosecution and disbelieved the lack of evidence presented by the defense.

Dunn is a prisoner for the rest of his soon to be living in pain life.

Case closed.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the only thing i saw close to evidence in his favor

was the rear door

you can see the shots went through the door while it was open

but it could have been open for a variety of reasons

his leaving the scene and absence of corroborating evidence

led to his guilty conviction