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

[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

Jordan Davis was also getting out of his car in the direction toward Michael Dunn. If he had a gun also, that would be enough to validate SD.

Wrong again my friend

The mere act of exiting a car does not represent a threat. Neither does posessing a weapon

 

[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.

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

Jordan Davis was also getting out of his car in the direction toward Michael Dunn. If he had a gun also, that would be enough to validate SD.

Wrong again my friend

The mere act of exiting a car does not represent a threat. Neither does posessing a weapon

You don't know the law. (in Florida)

 

[protectionist]

Since nobody here is bring anythng substantial to the table, I'll go back to my other things, and leave with a few things to ponder >>

Nathan Brown, 40, was released from a New Orleans prison in June after serving more than 16 years for a 1997 attempted rape of which he was innocent. On Tuesday, Judge Ray Steib of the 24th Judicial District Court apologized to Brown for the years that he lost while being locked away for a crime that he did not commit, and told Brown that he is entitled to $330,000 in wrongful conviction compensation from the state of Louisiana.
- See more at: Innocence Blog New Orleans Exoneree Will Receive State Compensation

There are plenty of convictions that are wrong. But Dunn DID shoot someone.

Shooting someone is not against the law.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Jordan Davis was also getting out of his car in the direction toward Michael Dunn. If he had a gun also, that would be enough to validate SD.

Wrong again my friend

The mere act of exiting a car does not represent a threat. Neither does posessing a weapon

You don't know the law. (in Florida)

You posted it

Look at the word "reasonably"

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another

 

[JakeStarkey]

Protectionist would be the worst defense lawyer in the world on a case like this. "Jury, my client had a gun, he said he thought the other guy had a gun, you have to acquit."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shooting someone is not against the law.

There was no self defense here, no stand your ground here.

 

[protectionist]

A woman who spent 17 years in prison for the death of a homeless man hugged her grandchild for the first time and did a dance of happiness on Friday after she was judged innocent of murder and freed.

"I always knew that one day God would bring the truth to the light," Susan Marie Mellen, 59, told reporters after she was released from a Torrance, CA courthouse.

 

[protectionist]

Shooting someone is not against the law.

There was no self defense here, no stand your ground here.

Nobody knows that. Including YOU.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The standard is beyond reasonable doubt, and the jury believes the evidence met that standard.

The convict can now appeal.

The end.

 

[WinterBorn]

Shooting someone is not against the law.

There was no self defense here, no stand your ground here.

Nobody knows that. Including YOU.

Considering that you have advocated having the cops execute motorcycle riders for speeding, your compassion for Dunn is almost laughable. He shot someone. Even if they had found the gun he SUPPOSEDLY saw, the other charges would have him in prison for 60+ years.

All these cases you are posting are innocent people who were wrongfully convicted. They did not DO what they were convicted of doing. Dunn DID shoot & kill someone.

 

[Asclepias]

A woman who spent 17 years in prison for the death of a homeless man hugged her grandchild for the first time and did a dance of happiness on Friday after she was judged innocent of murder and freed.

"I always knew that one day God would bring the truth to the light," Susan Marie Mellen, 59, told reporters after she was released from a Torrance, CA courthouse.

Going for the emotionally ploy to garner sympathy for Dunn is pretty classless even for you.

 

[Dana7360]

Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time

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

You have no way of knowing if "Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time"

If Davis had a gun and he was getting out of the car (as his buddy claimed), then Dunn might be dead now, if he had walked away. Also, Florida law prescribes that he is under no obligation to walk away, and has a right to shoot to defend himself.

See post # 275.

You stupid fuck. You know the law runs both ways. Right. Those kids in the SUV had a right to protect themselves in self defense. In this case, it would have been justified if those kids had blasted his ass all over the parking lot as soon as Dunn pulled out his gun.

To bad those kids didn't have a gun. Maybe we wouldn't be wasting all that money paying for Dunn to have a place to live. Worthless piece of shit that the guy is.

YOU are the stupid fuckhead. You can't say > "To bad those kids didn't have a gun", because nobody has any way of knowing if they did have one or not.

But you want to let a man get away with murder because he claimed he saw a gun?? lmao

He didn't even make that claim.

What he did claim is that he THOUGHT the teenager was reaching for a gun.

He didn't claim he saw a gun. Yet that idiot on this thread seems to think it's ok to change the words that dunn used.

That person can't debate honestly.

 

[zeke]

Shooting someone is not against the law.

There was no self defense here, no stand your ground here.

Nobody knows that. Including YOU.

Considering that you have advocated having the cops execute motorcycle riders for speeding, your compassion for Dunn is almost laughable. He shot someone. Even if they had found the gun he SUPPOSEDLY saw, the other charges would have him in prison for 60+ years.

All these cases you are posting are innocent people who were wrongfully convicted. They did not DO what they were convicted of doing. Dunn DID shoot & kill someone.[/QUOTE]


Winterborn, this guy (protecthisass) evidently is of a like mind to the shooter/murderer Dunn. In other words, our poster is of a mind set that he could shoot someone for the "crime" of loud music and mouth in a public space.
Because he felt "threatened".

These types of gun nutters are the reason people like me argue for restrictions in fire power and all the other arguments that have been made for better gun control.

Dunn equipped with a hi cap magazine was potentially more lethal than with the 10 he had.. If he had a second mag of hi cap he coulda/woulda really lit em up. Yea same with three 10s yadayada.

But it is still people like protecthisass and Dunn that are the best argument for more strict gun control. You do not want MORE firepower in the hands of guys like that.

Guy (Dunn) deserves jail forever just like you have advocated. We agreed on something.
Protecthisass, we'll have to see if he makes the news in FL..
Either he's crazy of just jerking everyone's chain.

 

[rightwinger]

A woman who spent 17 years in prison for the death of a homeless man hugged her grandchild for the first time and did a dance of happiness on Friday after she was judged innocent of murder and freed.

"I always knew that one day God would bring the truth to the light," Susan Marie Mellen, 59, told reporters after she was released from a Torrance, CA courthouse.

Nice old lady....maybe she can bake Dunn a cake with a hacksaw in it

 

[Czernobog]

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 ?

Actually, it's not. You see, "Self Defense" is what's known as an "affirmative" defense. What makes affirmative defenses different from passive defenses is that once the defense asserts an affirmative defense, it becomes the burden of the Defense to "prove" the elements of the defense make such a defense possible. For instance self-defense requires the physical evidence of a weapon, or assault. You don't get to just yell, "Self defense, I saw a gun!!!", and then with the next breath sneeringly challenge "Prove I didn't..."
Sorry. Affirmative defenses don't work that way.

 

[R.D.]

A woman who spent 17 years in prison for the death of a homeless man hugged her grandchild for the first time and did a dance of happiness on Friday after she was judged innocent of murder and freed.

"I always knew that one day God would bring the truth to the light," Susan Marie Mellen, 59, told reporters after she was released from a Torrance, CA courthouse.

Possibly a corrupt detective and a witness lied .....good luck finding that on Dunns case.

 

[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

If Dunn said he thought he saw a gun, that is enough to warrant a self-defense case and the judge agreed. Of course he did. It is the defendant's PERCEPTION that counts. As in all criminal cases there must be criminal INTENT. Know the law before you speak.

Here's the Florida self-defense statute >>

The 2014 Florida Statutes Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 776 JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE [TBODY] [/TBODY] 776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.— [TBODY] [/TBODY] [TBODY] [/TBODY]

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

"(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be."

Of course, it is enough to warrant a self-defense case. Any defense he wants to claim is warranted, but just saying "I thought this" or "I thought that" couldn't be weaker.

No one believed his "perception" but believed he shot Davis in a fit of anger.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

They did NOT prove the boys were unarmed, or that it was not SELF-DEFENSE. Can you ? They also did NOT prove that Dunn was in no personal jeopardy while he fired. Just because one guy at the wheel is driving away, doesn't mean another guy couldn't shoot from a fleeing vehicle. In road chases, cops have been killed by being shot by passengers in a fleeing vehicle,

If a shot had already been fired at Dunn, that might make sense but none had.

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing prevented Dunn from walking away from a confrontation he initiated

Hard to prove self defense

 

[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.

Yeah. Like no evidence presented by the prosecution.

That no (good) evidence was presented is an opinion and not a specific.