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

[rightwinger]

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.

1. Your "explanation" satisfies only yourself. It obviously didn't satisfy a jury
2 Yes it is the defenses job to convince a jury that there is not enough evidence to convict. The defense failed

 

[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

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.

Even the presence of a gun does not prove self defense
We have this second amendment thing that says you can carry one. You are not allowed to gun down anyone you see with a gun and claim self defense

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

1. Your "explanation" satisfies only yourself. It obviously didn't satisfy a jury
2 Yes it is the defenses job to convince a jury that there is not enough evidence to convict. The defense failed

2 Yes it is the defenses job to convince a jury that there is not enough evidence to convict

in self defense claims it is certainly the case

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

You are either deliberately lying or you are unaware of the rules of evidence.

Dunn was truly convicted on the evidence.

That you, for whatever reasons. disagree means nothing.

If Dunn claims self defense, the burden of proof falls on him. He could not prove it, other than he said so. The jury did not believe him

 

[Dana7360]

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.

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.

You mean the police are too stupid to actually look for the gun? They weren't smart enough to actually look at the route the vehicle took and looked along that route to find the gun?

Wow you must think that the police are even more stupid than you are. Which they aren't. Do you think that that was the first murder they investigated and didn't know to look along the route the vehicle took for the gun? I don't think so.

What I think is that you're stuck on something and won't let it go. No matter what. You're right and everyone else is wrong.

Well the odds of that are slim to none sparky.

Go ahead and and believe what you want. No amount of what I post or what anyone else posts will ever get through your pea brain. That's fine. I don't give a rat's ass. It makes no difference to me if you believe the truth of not.

Have fun in your make believe world. Meanwhile here in reality that murderer was found GUILTY and will rightly spend the rest of his miserable life behind bars in prison without any chance for parole. You don't matter. What you think doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what the jury believed. Which they didn't believe his lies and found him GUILTY.

Those are the facts. No matter what you argue. No matter how many names you call me or anyone else.

You can reply to this but I won't read it nor answer it. I lost all my patience with stupid years ago and you've gone way beyond stupid.

 

[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.

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

I'm not surprised that logic it way above your ability to grasp.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

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

Dana made a really excellent point that he "thought" he saw a gun, which is a clear indication of his guilt. If you are claiming self-defense, why on earth would you say you only thought you saw a gun and not that you definitely did see a gun? Because when you are caught in a lie, that is how people react by saying, "Well, I thought so."

Dunn says Davis threatened him, and he decided to take matters into his own hands upon seeing what he thought was the barrel of a gun sticking out of the Durango.

And also why on earth would he not have said there was gun to his fiancée?

Yet his fiancee, Rhonda Rouer, testified that Dunn had never mentioned any weapon to her -- be it a shotgun, a stick, a barrel or a lead pipe.

Michael Dunn convicted of attempted murder in loud music trial - CNN.com

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

I always go with the jury.

And, you don't shoot kids for being stupid young assholes.

 

[Roadrunner]

Yes, Dunn fired intentionally at the car as it fled.

He should be in jail for life without parole.

I don't want to feed and house him or any other lifers.

In a Republic of Virtue, it would be off with his head.

With a little societal anger thrown in.

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

He was found guilty by the people that saw all the evidence. Sorry retard but your boy is going to spend life in prison regardless of what you think. You cant imagine how happy it makes me that your feelings are hurt over it.

I'm looking at something illogical, and you haven't produced anything to show it to be logical, one iota. Come back when you think you've got something worth posting

If you are looking at something illogical you should cease looking in the mirror clown. The defense proved he shot and killed the kid, shot at the other kids, and they had no gun for him to use as a defense. He needed to prove that they had a gun not the otherway around.

Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time

Yep, and that is what you are supposed to do.

Do not inflame the situation then shoot.

That's a no-no.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

Dunn initiated contact and brought about the whole incident. None of that can be said about Davis. If you are saying Davis' foul protest was the instigation, then you are admitting Dunn shot him to shut him up.

instigator definition - Bing

instigator
[ ˈinstiˌgātər ]

noun: instigator · plural noun: instigators

1. 
   a person who brings about or initiates something
   
   

 

[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.

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

Appeals are made on specifics.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, Dunn fired intentionally at the car as it fled.

He should be in jail for life without parole.

I don't want to feed and house him or any other lifers.

In a Republic of Virtue, it would be off with his head.

With a little societal anger thrown in.

Hint: we live in the USA, not a libertarian hell hole.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

What I think is that you're stuck on something and won't let it go. No matter what. You're right and everyone else is wrong.

Everybody including the jury.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

He was found guilty by the people that saw all the evidence. Sorry retard but your boy is going to spend life in prison regardless of what you think. You cant imagine how happy it makes me that your feelings are hurt over it.

I'm looking at something illogical, and you haven't produced anything to show it to be logical, one iota. Come back when you think you've got something worth posting

If you are looking at something illogical you should cease looking in the mirror clown. The defense proved he shot and killed the kid, shot at the other kids, and they had no gun for him to use as a defense. He needed to prove that they had a gun not the otherway around.

Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time

Yep, and that is what you are supposed to do.

Do not inflame the situation then shoot.

That's a no-no.

Dunn told the kids to turn down their fucking music. The kids told him to go fuck himself
They were at a convenience store not outside his house. He could have gotten into his car and driven away from the offending music at any time
That is the way most of America would have handled the situation

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

He was found guilty by the people that saw all the evidence. Sorry retard but your boy is going to spend life in prison regardless of what you think. You cant imagine how happy it makes me that your feelings are hurt over it.

I'm looking at something illogical, and you haven't produced anything to show it to be logical, one iota. Come back when you think you've got something worth posting

If you are looking at something illogical you should cease looking in the mirror clown. The defense proved he shot and killed the kid, shot at the other kids, and they had no gun for him to use as a defense. He needed to prove that they had a gun not the otherway around.

Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time

Yep, and that is what you are supposed to do.

Do not inflame the situation then shoot.

That's a no-no.

Dunn told the kids to turn down their fucking music. The kids told him to go fuck himself
They were at a convenience store not outside his house. He could have gotten into his car and driven away from the offending music at any time
That is the way most of America would have handled the situation

And you just cannot do that sort of thing with a gun readily at your disposal!

 

[Barb]

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.

I refer you to the evidence brought forth in the courtroom.

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.

Apparently, the prosecution did so sufficiently for the jury. This is your thread, so it is YOU who should be offering the required proof for your own dissent.

 

[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

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.

You just proved my case. I've already said many times that it's impossible to prove there was no gun. And that's exactly why the prosecution didn't and couldn't have a case. No evidence to counter Dunn's claim. Same as Zimmerman case (with the same railroading prosecutors) Like Zimmerman, case should have been Not Guilty based on Insufficient Evidence.
Just because it's impossible to provide evidence, doesn't mean you get a pass on burden of proof. I once was an accuser in a case where the defendant lied about the facts. Proving the facts was impossible. He won because of insufficient evidence. Happens every day. Welcome to the real legal world in America.

 

[protectionist]

This idiot is still tryin t

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.

1. Case is NOT CLOSED. It is set for appeal.

2. No gun being found is irrelevant. Already explained why. Read the thread.

3, Eyewitness testimony proves Dunn to be not guilty. Read the thread.

4. The jury was wrong and stupid. As many juries are. What else is new ?

 

[protectionist]

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.

1. Your "explanation" satisfies only yourself. It obviously didn't satisfy a jury
2 Yes it is the defenses job to convince a jury that there is not enough evidence to convict. The defense failed

There was plenty of evidence to have a self-defense basis. It was accepted. Thereafter it is 100% the burden of the prosecution to prove IT'S case. the defense has no burdden of proof. Bottom lin > Prosecution didn't prove.