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

[Asclepias]

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.

He was in a car stupid. If somoone was attacking him without a gun he could just drive away.

 

[Czernobog]

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 ?

Affirmative Defense. As soon as you assert an Affirmative Defense, you do not have to prove that events happened exactly as you claim they do. However, you have accepted responsibility to prove that all of the elements exist to, at the very least, make your claim possible. In this case, that means there had to be a gun, witnesses to a gun, or a reasonable expectation that there was a gun; in the absence of a gun, your "self-defense" claim carries no legitimacy.

The reason it works this way is because if it didn't then no one could be convicted, ever. Because all anyone would ever have to do is shout, "I saw a gun!", and gun, or no gun, it would be "my word against yours", and I get the benefit of doubt.

 

[protectionist]

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

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??

Poor terrified kids, trying to get a way from some wacko shooting at them. Its just lucky he didn't murder more than one but those kids have to live with the memory of their friend being gunned down in front of them.

Dunn changed his story, lied and then changed his lie. He should have gotten the death penalty.

Poor Michael Dunn and his family. Having to defend himself (the facts indicate) from some loudmouth, racist, punky brat. It's just lucky he had his gun to stop Davis and any of the others from attacking him and his fiancee.
Now Dunn (even if he's freed after the appeal case), and his family will have to live with the memory of all this injustice, caused by punky thugs, race hustlers, and corrupt prosecutors.
Dunn's story in court was enough to warrant an acquittal based on INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, and you should get punishment just for saying Dunn should have gotten the death penalty.

It will serve you right if someday they give YOU the death penalty, without a case proven against you.

 

[protectionist]

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.

He was in a car stupid. If somoone was attacking him without a gun he could just drive away.

No he couldn't (and shouldn't) STUPID.

1. His fiancee was still inside the store and he was waiting for her.

2. There's no reason why he should keep quiet, or drive away. He did what he should do. Tell the F'n brats to

 

[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 ?

Affirmative Defense. As soon as you assert an Affirmative Defense, you do not have to prove that events happened exactly as you claim they do. However, you have accepted responsibility to prove that all of the elements exist to, at the very least, make your claim possible. In this case, that means there had to be a gun, witnesses to a gun, or a reasonable expectation that there was a gun; in the absence of a gun, your "self-defense" claim carries no legitimacy.

The reason it works this way is because if it didn't then no one could be convicted, ever. Because all anyone would ever have to do is shout, "I saw a gun!", and gun, or no gun, it would be "my word against yours", and I get the benefit of doubt.

FALSE! According to your scenario here, that put the bar very high for the self-defense claim. But in Florida, the bar for self-defense claims is extremely low, if existent at all. That has already been covered in this thread. Try reading it.

Also, there does not have to be a gun. Hundreds of SD cases have been dismissed in Florida where there was no gun. You didn't know what you're talking about. Just another voice in the ignorant crowd.

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/

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Dunn had none.

Correct.

Or more precisely, the jury rejected Dunn's self-defense claim, finding it without merit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And, Protectionist, your defendant could not even convince the jury with his low threshhold evidence. Hint: he had none.

 

[protectionist]

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

Dunn had none.

Correct.

Or more precisely, the jury rejected Dunn's self-defense claim, finding it without merit.

FALSE! The judge ACCEPTED the self-defense claim and the trial proceeded on that basis. All this has already been covered in this thread. It's really tiring seeing all you lazy idiots show up here with stupid stuff that's already been refuted. Besides that, I've made my case here.

Not a one of you has made any case at all in opposition to what I've said after 366 posts

I've already moved on to another new OP of mine. Stop wasting your time here showing off our ignorance, and check out my new OP.

Apartment Complex Owners - Society s Biggest Fools US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[protectionist]

And, Protectionist, your defendant could not even convince the jury with his low threshhold evidence. Hint: he had none.

Lying, corrupt, race-hustler panderers and YOU KNOW IT.

Apartment Complex Owners - Society s Biggest Fools US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Czernobog]

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 ?

Affirmative Defense. As soon as you assert an Affirmative Defense, you do not have to prove that events happened exactly as you claim they do. However, you have accepted responsibility to prove that all of the elements exist to, at the very least, make your claim possible. In this case, that means there had to be a gun, witnesses to a gun, or a reasonable expectation that there was a gun; in the absence of a gun, your "self-defense" claim carries no legitimacy.

The reason it works this way is because if it didn't then no one could be convicted, ever. Because all anyone would ever have to do is shout, "I saw a gun!", and gun, or no gun, it would be "my word against yours", and I get the benefit of doubt.

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.
something
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/

Therein lies your problem. "Because I said so" does not raise to the level of even a "scintilla". You actually have to provide something other than just your word. Dunn didn't.

 

[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 ?

Affirmative Defense. As soon as you assert an Affirmative Defense, you do not have to prove that events happened exactly as you claim they do. However, you have accepted responsibility to prove that all of the elements exist to, at the very least, make your claim possible. In this case, that means there had to be a gun, witnesses to a gun, or a reasonable expectation that there was a gun; in the absence of a gun, your "self-defense" claim carries no legitimacy.

The reason it works this way is because if it didn't then no one could be convicted, ever. Because all anyone would ever have to do is shout, "I saw a gun!", and gun, or no gun, it would be "my word against yours", and I get the benefit of doubt.

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.
something
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/

Therein lies your problem. "Because I said so" does not raise to the level of even a "scintilla". You actually have to provide something other than just your word. Dunn didn't.

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.
something
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/[/QUOTE]
Thread is over. I've made my message. you failed at yours I already refuted you.

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.
something
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/[/QUOTE]

 

[protectionist]

Apartment Complex Owners - Society s Biggest Fools US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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 ?

Affirmative Defense. As soon as you assert an Affirmative Defense, you do not have to prove that events happened exactly as you claim they do. However, you have accepted responsibility to prove that all of the elements exist to, at the very least, make your claim possible. In this case, that means there had to be a gun, witnesses to a gun, or a reasonable expectation that there was a gun; in the absence of a gun, your "self-defense" claim carries no legitimacy.

The reason it works this way is because if it didn't then no one could be convicted, ever. Because all anyone would ever have to do is shout, "I saw a gun!", and gun, or no gun, it would be "my word against yours", and I get the benefit of doubt.

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.
something
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/

Therein lies your problem. "Because I said so" does not raise to the level of even a "scintilla". You actually have to provide something other than just your word. Dunn didn't.

You'e already been refuted. Dunn didn't have to provide anything. Brunson did it for him. Read the thread, dumbass.

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.
something
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/

 

[JakeStarkey]

Spamming is against Board Rules, Protectionists.

Stop it.

 

[Czernobog]

Apartment Complex Owners - Society s Biggest Fools US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

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 ?

Affirmative Defense. As soon as you assert an Affirmative Defense, you do not have to prove that events happened exactly as you claim they do. However, you have accepted responsibility to prove that all of the elements exist to, at the very least, make your claim possible. In this case, that means there had to be a gun, witnesses to a gun, or a reasonable expectation that there was a gun; in the absence of a gun, your "self-defense" claim carries no legitimacy.

The reason it works this way is because if it didn't then no one could be convicted, ever. Because all anyone would ever have to do is shout, "I saw a gun!", and gun, or no gun, it would be "my word against yours", and I get the benefit of doubt.

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.
something
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/

Therein lies your problem. "Because I said so" does not raise to the level of even a "scintilla". You actually have to provide something other than just your word. Dunn didn't.

You'e already been refuted. Dunn didn't have to provide anything. Brunson did it for him. Read the thread, dumbass.

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.
something
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/

Okay...I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt (no pun intended). I'm trying to have an intelligent discussion here. That was one. don't digress to name calling again...please.

I'm confused. I get that evidence by the prosecution in support of a self-defense claim is all that is actually necessary in Florida. What evidence, exactly, to support that claim did Brunson provide?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The judge rightfully allowed him to present a defense.....no matter how ridiculous it was
The jury took it for what it was .......a pathetic plea from a guilty man

 

[Dana7360]

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 ?

Affirmative Defense. As soon as you assert an Affirmative Defense, you do not have to prove that events happened exactly as you claim they do. However, you have accepted responsibility to prove that all of the elements exist to, at the very least, make your claim possible. In this case, that means there had to be a gun, witnesses to a gun, or a reasonable expectation that there was a gun; in the absence of a gun, your "self-defense" claim carries no legitimacy.

The reason it works this way is because if it didn't then no one could be convicted, ever. Because all anyone would ever have to do is shout, "I saw a gun!", and gun, or no gun, it would be "my word against yours", and I get the benefit of doubt.

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.
something
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/

Therein lies your problem. "Because I said so" does not raise to the level of even a "scintilla". You actually have to provide something other than just your word. Dunn didn't.

Exactly.

The poster just takes what dunn said without any proof and expects that it's enough for him to be able to be found not guilty of murder.

That's just not how our system works.

A person has to have evidence and proof of their claims.

The jury is going to believe the police. The police testified that they didn't find any weapon.

You don't shoot people because you THOUGHT someone was reaching for a weapon. The man didn't even say he saw a weapon. Yet that conservative swears up and down there was a weapon. Even when dunn himself never said that.

No one can just make a claim in a court without any evidence or proof and still have the jury believe them.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Didn't follow the case, but if he gunned down another human being for loud music he's lucky he's not riding sparky as far as I'm concerned.

He fired 8 shots into a car of black teenagers because they pulled up next to him at the 7-11 and had loud music playing. All shots into the car doors which were never opened by the kids inside who were unarmed. He then left the scene, went back to his hotel and ordered a pizza.

Dear douchebag hare-brained "Protectionist"....do some research you fucking stupid idiot. You are surely one of the stupidest people on this board, especially after questioning this case of Michael Dunn...He's good company for fecal matter like yourself.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

"""
According to the statement from the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, Dunn told authorities that he had asked the teens to turn down loud music from their vehicle adjacent to his, as he waited while his girlfriend, who was returning with him from a wedding, went inside the gas station to make a purchase.

Dunn told police he felt threatened by the response from the teens, the statement said.

Dunn's attorney, Robin Lemonidis, told CNN Monday that Dunn told police that he reacted after having seen a gun barrel in the window of the teens' car and after hearing a profanity-laced string of threats against him and his girlfriend while the teens motioned they were opening the door.

Lemonidis said that was when Dunn reached for his gun and opened fire on the vehicle. She added that, "When all the evidence has been flushed out, I believe that it will be extremely clear that Mr. Dunn acted as any responsible firearm owner would have under the same circumstances."

Eight or nine shots were fired at the teens' car, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office statement added.

There were no guns found inside the teens' car, the statement said.

Lemonidis said her client and his girlfriend left the scene after the shooting, fearing that they had encountered gang members and that more would follow.

The couple went to a local hotel for the night, and saw the news the next morning that Davis had died. They returned to Dunn's home in Brevard County, where local police arrested him Saturday on an out-of-county warrant."""


This motherfucker just lied his ass off and thank god no one believed him.

And the O/P of this thread has his nose up this scumbag's ass based on pure unadulterated bigotry.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Here "Protectionist" you stupid idiot. Look what your hero did to the car these kids were sitting in. NOw sit down and STFU.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

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.

The judge rightfully allowed him to present a defense.....no matter how ridiculous it was
The jury took it for what it was .......a pathetic plea from a guilty man

The amazingly stupid O/P has just caught up with this story. It's been in the news for the last 2 years. He's a total tool.