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

[protectionist]

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.[/ .Shut up, you fool. This thread is OVER. I've delivered my message. Everything needing to be said, has been, 300 times over. For those who can't accept it, that's your problem not mine If you want to talk to me, you can do it in the current thread. >>

 

[protectionist]

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.

This thread was OVER long before you got here, imbecile. You and your bold print are no better than all the other idiots I've refuted 300 times in this thread. NO one can prove the punks didn't have a gun in their car (including you ASSHOLE) AND IT WAS PROVEN THAT dAvis got out of the SUV. Now and here's what you get for talking like an IDIOT >>

1.
2.

 

[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.

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.

STOP LYING. I never said a word that "there was a weapon."

you said that, you lying mother fuckin' SCUMBAG.

 

[protectionist]

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

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?

NO, you don't give benefit of doubt. There is no "doubt". And if you had read the thread before coming in here empty-headed, you'd know that. READ THE THREAD, bonehead. It's been posted in there a dozen times already. (MR. KNOW-NOTHING)

 

[protectionist]

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

You don't even know how trials are conducted. It's the PROSECUTION who presented THEIR case, dumbbell. And they presented ZERO proof.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

If he had been attacked. He wasn't. In fact, did he even SEE a gun? Or did he claim he thought they were reaching for a gun?

And Dunn continued to fire as the van was leaving. Shooting at someone fleeing is NOT self-defense.

 

[protectionist]

Spamming is against Board Rules, Protectionists.

Stop it.

FAGGOT.

 

[WinterBorn]

Looks like Protectionist is doing what he did once before. He goes ballistic and gets banned for a bit. That lets this thread fade away without him having to defend the lunacy of his claim.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

If there have been so many and you are so familiar with them, you should not have any trouble posting just one of these cases.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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.

Boo fucking hoo!

 

[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.

If he had been attacked. He wasn't. In fact, did he even SEE a gun? Or did he claim he thought they were reaching for a gun?

So you're not even aware of the Brunson statement to the police. You're a real winner aren't you ?

Looks like Protectionist is doing what he did once before. He goes ballistic and gets banned for a bit. That lets this thread fade away without him having to defend the lunacy of his claim.

Shut up imbecile. I've made my points crystal clear and NO ONE (including you) has even come close to refuting it.

Looks like Protectionist is doing what he did once before. He goes ballistic and gets banned for a bit. That lets this thread fade away without him having to defend the lunacy of his claim.

You and everyone here has been given opportunity by the forum to try to refute my contention that the burden of proof is on the prosecution (as always) and they did not accomplish that, as they could not, and did not present one shred of evidence that there was no gun in the car. As it still stands, there could have been a gun in the SUV + there's the Brunson statement. All point to >> NOT GUILTY because of INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

All you and the others here are doing is making yourselves look like idiots.

I'm out of the thread. If you want to address me any further, you can at >> Apartment Complex Owners - Society s Biggest Fools US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

If he had been attacked. He wasn't. In fact, did he even SEE a gun? Or did he claim he thought they were reaching for a gun?

So you're not even aware of the Brunson statement to the police. You're a real winner aren't you ?

Looks like Protectionist is doing what he did once before. He goes ballistic and gets banned for a bit. That lets this thread fade away without him having to defend the lunacy of his claim.

Shut up imbecile. I've made my points crystal clear and NO ONE (including you) has even come close to refuting it.

Looks like Protectionist is doing what he did once before. He goes ballistic and gets banned for a bit. That lets this thread fade away without him having to defend the lunacy of his claim.

You and everyone here has been given opportunity by the forum to try to refute my contention that the burden of proof is on the prosecution (as always) and they did not accomplish that, as they could not, and did not present one shred of evidence that there was no gun in the car. As it still stands, there could have been a gun in the SUV + there's the Brunson statement. All point to >> NOT GUILTY because of INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

All you and the others here are doing is making yourselves look like idiots.

I'm out of the thread. If you want to address me any further, you can at >> Apartment Complex Owners - Society s Biggest Fools US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

A jury of his peers saw it differently. And since you were not there and did not hear all that was presented to the jury, you really have no grounds on which to dispute the verdict.

But go pout if that makes you feel better.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Dunn, wearing an orange jumpsuit, showed no emotion.

Orange is definitely his color! LOL!

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

Juries do not always believe the police.

Every jury I was ever on listened to both sides, and believed the more believable.

Shooting up a car full of kids because you "thought" you saw a gun in not a believable defense.

He got what he has coming, and that is why we have juries.

 

[Roadrunner]

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.

If he had been attacked. He wasn't. In fact, did he even SEE a gun? Or did he claim he thought they were reaching for a gun?

So you're not even aware of the Brunson statement to the police. You're a real winner aren't you ?

Looks like Protectionist is doing what he did once before. He goes ballistic and gets banned for a bit. That lets this thread fade away without him having to defend the lunacy of his claim.

Shut up imbecile. I've made my points crystal clear and NO ONE (including you) has even come close to refuting it.

Looks like Protectionist is doing what he did once before. He goes ballistic and gets banned for a bit. That lets this thread fade away without him having to defend the lunacy of his claim.

You and everyone here has been given opportunity by the forum to try to refute my contention that the burden of proof is on the prosecution (as always) and they did not accomplish that, as they could not, and did not present one shred of evidence that there was no gun in the car. As it still stands, there could have been a gun in the SUV + there's the Brunson statement. All point to >> NOT GUILTY because of INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

All you and the others here are doing is making yourselves look like idiots.

I'm out of the thread. If you want to address me any further, you can at >> Apartment Complex Owners - Society s Biggest Fools US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

A jury of his peers saw it differently. And since you were not there and did not hear all that was presented to the jury, you really have no grounds on which to dispute the verdict.

But go pout if that makes you feel better.

I almost always support jury decisions.

OJ case was an exception.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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

YOU shut the fuck up, asshole. Those loudmouth scumbags brought it on themselves. Now go fuck your family members, faggot.

Dunn will never see the light of day, as a free man. That asshole brought it on himself. I hope that sends a message to other racist loons.

 

[SmedlyButler]

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.

Somebody already pointed out that using your "logic" nobody could ever be convicted of murder. All they have to do is claim they thought they saw a weapon and cased closed, self defense. Something tells me though that this legal maneuver is only applicable to a white person killing a black, in your system of "justice". I suspect you think if a black person is within a quarter mile of a white person they're automatically a deadly threat and gunning them down is a reasonable response to their proximity.

 

[SmedlyButler]

It looks like Dunn shot multiple times at a van that was driving away from him. if that is true then he deserves his punishment.

The one thing I wonder about, is if he really did think one of them was drawing a gun on him, was it reasonable to shoot??? I don't know.

What I find particularly damning is how he simply went about his business and didn't call or contact anyone. Not the police, nobody. That makes no sense.

The prosecution also thought his fleeing the scene showed consciousness of guilt...

"Prosecutors seized on Dunn’s decision the following morning to make the two-and-a-half hour drive to his home in Satellite Beach, Florida, without contacting authorities, and accused him of lying for insisting in court that he saw Davis brandishing a shotgun during their encounter".
"Investigators found no evidence of a weapon in the youths’ car or at the crime scene, and Dunn’s fiancee Rhonda Rouer testified that he never said to her that he had seen the teenager with a gun during several conversations they had about the incident"
.
“It’s very gratifying to come to this day and see closure for our victims. We felt strongly that it was first-degree murder, it seemed clear cut to us,” said state attorney Angela Corey, the lead prosecutor.
“We felt Michael Dunn’s flight to avoid prosecution would be the most striking thing about this case. If you are defending your life you don’t then run from the scene. His was, quite frankly a ridiculous story.”

 

[SmedlyButler]

It looks like Dunn shot multiple times at a van that was driving away from him. if that is true then he deserves his punishment.

The one thing I wonder about, is if he really did think one of them was drawing a gun on him, was it reasonable to shoot??? I don't know.

What I find particularly damning is how he simply went about his business and didn't call or contact anyone. Not the police, nobody. That makes no sense.

The prosecution also thought his fleeing the scene showed consciousness of guilt...

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.

And I've done just that, by showing that the prosecution did not prove their case.

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.

And I've done just that, by showing that the prosecution did not prove their case.

All you've shown to us is an overwhelming bigotry towards the black victim. According to you everybody who disagrees with your opinion is a stupid fuck. I guess that includes the 12 jurors who were unanimous in their disagreement with your assertion that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. (As a self-exposed racist it should be significant to you that 10 of those jurors were white).

"Prosecutors seized on Dunn’s decision the following morning to make the two-and-a-half hour drive to his home in Satellite Beach, Florida, without contacting authorities, and accused him of lying for insisting in court that he saw Davis brandishing a shotgun during their encounter".
"Investigators found no evidence of a weapon in the youths’ car or at the crime scene, and Dunn’s fiancee Rhonda Rouer testified that he never said to her that he had seen the teenager with a gun during several conversations they had about the incident"
.
“It’s very gratifying to come to this day and see closure for our victims. We felt strongly that it was first-degree murder, it seemed clear cut to us,” said state attorney Angela Corey, the lead prosecutor.
“We felt Michael Dunn’s flight to avoid prosecution would be the most striking thing about this case. If you are defending your life you don’t then run from the scene. His was, quite frankly a ridiculous story.”

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

Dunn started the confrontation. He shot and killed a young man. If he was going to get away with it, it is up to him to prove he had reason to fear for his life. The fact that he left the scene and did not contact police is evidence that he knew he was in the wrong.

But if you want to go with the "Welcome to the real legal world in America", then Dunn was convicted by a jury of his peers. He can appeal. But he is doing time until the appeal is heard, and staying in prison unless it is successful.

even if he is successful on appeal (unlikely)he still has 60 + years for the other sentences

which in of itself at his age is a life sentence

Which works for me if you are willing to shoot people for playing load music at a convenience store and talking trash.

fine by me as well