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

[Camp]

Dunn sealed his fate when he continued firing at the SUV as it fled the first flurry of shots with four additional shots and fled the scene himself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

He should be in jail for life without parole.

 

[auditor0007]

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

This is where you are completely wrong about the law. If you are going to use self-defense as an argument, then you must prove that you thought you saw a gun. According to your thinking, anyone who shoots and kills another person just has to claim they thought they saw a gun, and then they get off because prosecutors could never prove what they thought they saw. The only truly screwed up thing about this way of thinking is that it does get bad cops off when they gun down unarmed defenseless people, even when they have their hands in the air. If we began to send the killer cops to prison in the same way, cops would probably think twice before blowing their victims away.

 

[Asclepias]

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

This is where you are completely wrong about the law. If you are going to use self-defense as an argument, then you must prove that you thought you saw a gun. According to your thinking, anyone who shoots and kills another person just has to claim they thought they saw a gun, and then they get off because prosecutors could never prove what they thought they saw. The only truly screwed up thing about this way of thinking is that it does get bad cops off when they gun down unarmed defenseless people, even when they have their hands in the air. If we began to send the killer cops to prison in the same way, cops would probably think twice before blowing their victims away.

If Dunn had been a cop they would be throwing him a welcome home celebration party right now.

 

[Camp]

If Dunn had been a cop they would be throwing him a welcome home celebration party right now.

And he would be getting a tattoo to celebrate and memorialize the killing of the victim.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

Well, since he killed a black kid, of course he wasn't guilty.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

 

[Esmeralda]

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

There were never any guns found. The boys did not have any guns.

 

[rightwinger]

Took a while...but justice has been served

 

[protectionist]

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.

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.

 

[PredFan]

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.

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.

 

[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

There was no gun recovered. You can't prove something that doesn't exist.

On the side of the defense, I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING. Burden of proof lies with the prosecution. THEY have to prove there was no gun. They didn't

 

[protectionist]

Funny that a guy who wasn't there is disputing the testimony of both the people who were there and the forensic experts. Comical really.

Nothing funny. Nothing comical. And if you think you can show evidence that there was no gun in the SUV, let's hear it. Being short of that, you've said nothing here.

 

[PredFan]

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

There was no gun recovered. You can't prove something that doesn't exist.

On the side of the defense, I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING. Burden of proof lies with the prosecution. THEY have to prove there was no gun. They didn't

Yes, they did. Hence the guilty verdict. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it false.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

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.

They proved that Dunn fired the shots
They proved the boys were unarmed and no threat to him
They proved he kept firing even though he was in no personal jeopardy
They proved he is a dick

 

[protectionist]

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.

Do you know how stupid you sound?

Do you know how stupid YOU sound? Without a shred of evidence to show that there was no gun in the SUV ?
Come back with that evidence, and then I'll say that YOU don't sound stupid. Fair enough ?

 

[PredFan]

Funny that a guy who wasn't there is disputing the testimony of both the people who were there and the forensic experts. Comical really.

Nothing funny. Nothing comical. And if you think you can show evidence that there was no gun in the SUV, let's hear it. Being short of that, you've said nothing here.

I don't have to prove anything. It was done in the courts.

 

[AceRothstein]

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

There was no gun recovered. You can't prove something that doesn't exist.

On the side of the defense, I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING. Burden of proof lies with the prosecution. THEY have to prove there was no gun. They didn't

In a self-defense case where no gun was recovered? Yes, they did prove there was no gun.

In your world, every single person who murders someone would be able to use self-defense as their defense. Do you know how stupid you sound right now?

 

[AceRothstein]

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.

Do you know how stupid you sound?

Do you know how stupid YOU sound? Without a shred of evidence to show that there was no gun in the SUV ?
Come back with that evidence, and then I'll say that YOU don't sound stupid. Fair enough ?

You can't provide evidence of something that doesn't exist. Are you really this dumb?

 

[Asclepias]

Being short of that, you've said nothing here.

Neither have you. He is in prison for life. Nothing you can do but start up a fund to get him out.