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

[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.

Juries don't always get it right. That's why we have appeals courts. Read the website of the Innocence Project.

The Innocence Project - Home

In trials where there is overwhelming evidence like this one, yes, they always get it right.

 

[protectionist]

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

The judge accepted that he "reasonably" believed it. That's why it proceeded as a SD case. I'll go with the judge on that.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Juries don't always get it right. That's why we have appeals courts. Read the website of the Innocence Project.

The Innocence Project - Home

In trials where there is overwhelming evidence like this one, yes, they always get it right.

There was NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. You don't even know what evidence is in question. It was whether there was gun in the SUV. ZERO evidence of that.

 

[protectionist]

There are dozens of cases in Florida where the shooter didn't even get charged (which we don't hear about). But the ones like the Dunn case, involve a Black guy getting shot by a non-black guy, and therefore the possibiity of rioting, once the race hustlers start jacking it up.

 

[protectionist]

Nothing prevented Dunn from walking away from a confrontation he initiated

Hard to prove self defense

I already showed you the law in Florida which is that proving self-defense is very easy. Are you dense ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Horse crap, Protectionists. Dunn said there was a gun. (1) No gun or evidence of a gun was found. (2) He was discharging a gun at a fleeing vehicle from which no gun fire ever emerged. (3) Dunn flatly convicted himself.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Oh so we should all wait until we've got a bullet in our chest before we take self-defense actin, huh ? Good thing Florida legislators aren't dumb enough to think like that. Same as saying you're not OK for a self-defense claim unless you're dead.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Self defense evidence is easy in FL if you have the evidence you need.

Dunn had none.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Oh so we should all wait until we've got a bullet in our chest before we take self-defense action, huh ? Good thing Florida legislators aren't dumb enough to think like that. Same as saying you're not OK for a self-defense claim unless you're dead.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Protectionist, go looking for the scenario that happened to Dunn.

There will be dozens of them on 4 from Tampa to Orlando.

If you do and get involved, and if you live, you will go to prison.

 

[protectionist]

Self defense evidence is easy in FL if you have the evidence you need.

Dunn had none.

He didn't need any. He was the defendant, stupid.

 

[protectionist]

Protectionist, go looking for the scenario that happened to Dunn.

There will be dozens of them on 4 from Tampa to Orlando.

If you do and get involved, and if you live, you will go to prison.

Doesn't make sense. Who cares ? You don't have a clue on this.

 

[protectionist]

Horse crap, Protectionists. Dunn said there was a gun. (1) No gun or evidence of a gun was found. (2) He was discharging a gun at a fleeing vehicle from which no gun fire ever emerged. (3) Dunn flatly convicted himself.

Horse crap, Jake. How many times have you been educated in this thread that the absence of a gun DOESN'T MATTER.
REMEMBER 100 Yards ? Or do you just pay attention to whatever will feed your ludicrous position ?

 

[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.

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

There is no need for luck Angela Corey and John Guy make their livings by lying and pandering to the race hustlers (Sharpton, Jackson, New Black Panther idiots, etc)

 

[protectionist]

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."

You left out the part about the prosecution not proving the other guy had a gun.

 

[protectionist]

Shooting someone is not against the law.

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

You are not entitled to claim that, because you have no evidence to base it on.

 

[protectionist]

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.

If you accept that he was threatened with a gun, he is justified in shooting. But continuing to fire at the van as it drove away destroys that. There was no threat from a van fleeing his assault.

Not necessarily.

He was in a very public place, he could have simply shown his own gun or called for help. And not have run away

Refuted in the previous post. .

No. Why are you so angry an animal got his just deserts?

Not angry, although I'd be in my rights if I was. This is a dangerous precedent that lessens our rights. All of us.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shooting someone is not against the law.

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

You are not entitled to claim that, because you have no evidence to base it on.

As much right as you do, son.

 

[protectionist]

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

Read the law (post # 275) oh unknowing one.

And why, if he was claiming he saw a gun, was he firing at the van as it drove away? Where was the threat then??

From the SUV. You think shots can't be fired from a vehicle just because it's driving away ?
Guess how many cops have been shot at from cars that they were chasing after. Answer: Thousands.

The people in the van had not fired a single shot! He was in no danger.

EARTH TO WB: People in Florida have shot and killed others who threatened them, and merely walked toward them after being warned to stop, and they weren't even charged. There have been dozens of these cases, if not hundreds.

If someone comes at you, you shoot, whether they are armed or not. It is the act of them attacking you that is the crux, not if they have a gun, or anythng else.

 

[Asclepias]

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."

You left out the part about the prosecution not proving the other guy had a gun.

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."

You left out the part about the prosecution not proving the other guy had a gun.

I think you meant you left out the part about the defense proving there was a gun.