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

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?

I didn't like the way he was looking at me

 

[Camp]

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

They didn't have to prove a gun. Showing or brandishing is not an automatic excuse to use deadly force in self defense when other options are available. A verbal threat coupled with seeing the barrel of a gun does not give an automatic excuse to fire on a car load of kids.

 

[PredFan]

Our Florida courts did fuck up the Casey Anthony case, badly, but we got the Zimmerman and Dunn cases right at least.

 

[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.

He was found guilty by the people that saw all the evidence. Sorry retard but your boy is going to spend life in prison regardless of what you think. You cant imagine how happy it makes me that your feelings are hurt over it.

First of all, it doesn't do you any good to engage in verbal abuse, and it only weakens your status, showing you to be someone who can't rely on his content to support his point (if you have one). Hope this doesn't hurt YOUR feelings, but my feelings are not involve in this. I'm looking at something illogical, and you haven't produced anything to show it to be logical, one iota. Come back when you think you've got something worth posting

 

[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 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

You can't prove a negative: that's logic 101. There has to be proof there was a gun. There is no proof the boys had a gun.

 

[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 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

Just because the killer says he thought he saw a gun, that does not mean the prosecution has to prove there was no gun. You cannot prove a negative. They can only prove there was a gun, but there was no evidence of that.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

He was found guilty by the people that saw all the evidence. Sorry retard but your boy is going to spend life in prison regardless of what you think. You cant imagine how happy it makes me that your feelings are hurt over it.

I'm looking at something illogical, and you haven't produced anything to show it to be logical, one iota. Come back when you think you've got something worth posting

If you are looking at something illogical you should cease looking in the mirror clown. The defense proved he shot and killed the kid, shot at the other kids, and they had no gun for him to use as a defense. He needed to prove that they had a gun not the otherway around.

 

[protectionist]

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.

Took a life that wasn't his to take. Instead of sucking up some loud music for a few moments he initiated the altercation. Any threat he then faced was of his own choosing. And his overreaction resulted in someone dying. Lucky he only got life without parole, I've have sentened him to death. "Baliff, take this fucker out back and put a bullet in his brain."

NONSENSE! Nothing you've said here was proven in court. Dunn had a perfect right to request that the music be lowered. If he faced the threat of a gun, that was NOT of his choosing, and you don't have a shred of evidence o show that he overreacted in any way. On top of sounding foolish, you sound like a fascist too.

 

[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.

But nobody in the trial ever proved he did that.

Yes they did. Thats why he is going to jail for life. Dont you keep up on current events?

Don't YOU keep up on current events ? They did NOT prove that Dunn did not shot in self-defense. They simply didn't. You think YOU can ? If so, let's hear it.

 

[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.

He was found guilty by the people that saw all the evidence. Sorry retard but your boy is going to spend life in prison regardless of what you think. You cant imagine how happy it makes me that your feelings are hurt over it.

I'm looking at something illogical, and you haven't produced anything to show it to be logical, one iota. Come back when you think you've got something worth posting

If you are looking at something illogical you should cease looking in the mirror clown. The defense proved he shot and killed the kid, shot at the other kids, and they had no gun for him to use as a defense. He needed to prove that they had a gun not the otherway around.

Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Took a life that wasn't his to take. Instead of sucking up some loud music for a few moments he initiated the altercation. Any threat he then faced was of his own choosing. And his overreaction resulted in someone dying. Lucky he only got life without parole, I've have sentened him to death. "Baliff, take this fucker out back and put a bullet in his brain."

NONSENSE! Nothing you've said here was proven in court. Dunn had a perfect right to request that the music be lowered. If he faced the threat of a gun, that was NOT of his choosing, and you don't have a shred of evidence o show that he overreacted in any way. On top of sounding foolish, you sound like a fascist too.

Its only fair because you sound like a fool.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

But nobody in the trial ever proved he did that.

Yes they did. Thats why he is going to jail for life. Dont you keep up on current events?

Don't YOU keep up on current events ? They did NOT prove that Dunn did not shot in self-defense. They simply didn't. You think YOU can ? If so, let's hear it.

Yes they did prove it. Not only did they prove it once, this is the second time they have proven it. Your refusal to accept the facts only points to a lose of sanity brought on by extreme duress your hero did not go free. That makes this all the more sweeter to be honest.

 

[protectionist]

Hopefully one of the inmates does something to earn the tax dollars spent on his upkeep and rids the earth of this feral scum. Seems like he is just another whining, confused racist. In one of his letters he complains how the system is biased towards Black people but in the same breath says the jail is full of Blacks. How stupid can you be?

"It's spooky how racist everyone is up here and how biased toward blacks the courts are. This jail is full of blacks and they all act like thugs," he noted. He went on to say, "This may sound a bit radical but if more people would arm themselves and kill these **** idiots when they're threatening you, eventually they may take the hint and change their behavior."

If he said that I would tend to agree with him. And that anti-white racism (based on fear of Black rioting), appears to be what got him convicted, not a fair trial, based on evidence.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

He was found guilty by the people that saw all the evidence. Sorry retard but your boy is going to spend life in prison regardless of what you think. You cant imagine how happy it makes me that your feelings are hurt over it.

I'm looking at something illogical, and you haven't produced anything to show it to be logical, one iota. Come back when you think you've got something worth posting

If you are looking at something illogical you should cease looking in the mirror clown. The defense proved he shot and killed the kid, shot at the other kids, and they had no gun for him to use as a defense. He needed to prove that they had a gun not the otherway around.

Dunn could have walked away from the situation at any time

Or he could have driven away and parked somewhere else.

 

[Asclepias]

Hopefully one of the inmates does something to earn the tax dollars spent on his upkeep and rids the earth of this feral scum. Seems like he is just another whining, confused racist. In one of his letters he complains how the system is biased towards Black people but in the same breath says the jail is full of Blacks. How stupid can you be?

"It's spooky how racist everyone is up here and how biased toward blacks the courts are. This jail is full of blacks and they all act like thugs," he noted. He went on to say, "This may sound a bit radical but if more people would arm themselves and kill these **** idiots when they're threatening you, eventually they may take the hint and change their behavior."

If he said that I would tend to agree with him. And that anti-white racism (based on fear of Black rioting), appears to be what got him convicted, not a fair trial, based on evidence.

You tend to agree because you are stupid like him. You dont see the contradiction in what he said?

Evidence shows he shot and killed an unarmed kid, shot at other unarmed kids. What exactly are you missing in this?

 

[rightwinger]

Hopefully one of the inmates does something to earn the tax dollars spent on his upkeep and rids the earth of this feral scum. Seems like he is just another whining, confused racist. In one of his letters he complains how the system is biased towards Black people but in the same breath says the jail is full of Blacks. How stupid can you be?

"It's spooky how racist everyone is up here and how biased toward blacks the courts are. This jail is full of blacks and they all act like thugs," he noted. He went on to say, "This may sound a bit radical but if more people would arm themselves and kill these **** idiots when they're threatening you, eventually they may take the hint and change their behavior."

If he said that I would tend to agree with him. And that anti-white racism (based on fear of Black rioting), appears to be what got him convicted, not a fair trial, based on evidence.

Actually shooting unarmed men who were no threat got him convicted

 

[protectionist]

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.

You weren't on that jury so what you think doesn't matter at all.

That jury listened to the arguments. Saw the evidence and ruled those kids were no threat to him. The kids didn't have any weapons and that man's life wasn't threatened. It was the other way around. That man had a gun and threatened those kids. He murdered one and tried to murder the other ones. He murdered that boy just because his music was loud.

If that shooter had been black and the victim white, that black man would be sitting on death row now. The man is white so he gets to spend the rest of his life in prison.

It seems to me you don't like our justice system very much.

I don't like it when it convicts a man without the prosecution proving their case. They didn't, and you haven't either. You said "The kids didn't have any weapons". Problem is you aren't presenting a shred of evidence to support that (and neither did the prosecution).

Yeah. I know how the case went down. We all know that. But that's not what the thread is about. It's about the failure of the prosecution to prove their case, yet the guy was convicted. That is IMPROPER.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

You weren't on that jury so what you think doesn't matter at all.

That jury listened to the arguments. Saw the evidence and ruled those kids were no threat to him. The kids didn't have any weapons and that man's life wasn't threatened. It was the other way around. That man had a gun and threatened those kids. He murdered one and tried to murder the other ones. He murdered that boy just because his music was loud.

If that shooter had been black and the victim white, that black man would be sitting on death row now. The man is white so he gets to spend the rest of his life in prison.

It seems to me you don't like our justice system very much.

I don't like it when it convicts a man without the prosecution proving their case. They didn't and you haven;t either. You said "The kids didn't have any weapons". Problem is you aren't presenting a shred of evidence to support that (and neither did the prosecution).

Yeah. I know how the case went down. we all know that. that's not what the thread is about. it's about the failure of the prosecution to prove their case, yet the guy was convicted. That is IMPROPER.

Everyone keeps telling you they did prove it. They proved he shot at the kids and there was no gun there. I understand this is painful for you but facts are facts.

 

[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.

They may have not proved their case to you but you don't matter at all. You weren't on that jury.

Meanwhile the case was proved to the people sitting on that jury who do matter. They found that murderer guilty of murdering that teenage boy who didn't have a gun or any weapon for that matter.

The only people whose lives were threatened were the kids in that car.

You don't have to like the verdict. You don't have to agree with it. You DO have to accept it.

No, the case was NOT proved to the people sitting on that jury (or anyone else). And a case prosecution case could not be proven at all, since the SUV left the scene, travelled 100 yards away, there was ample time fora gun to be ditched, and the cops didn't search the area for days. To render a conviction in these circumstances is preposterous.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

They may have not proved their case to you but you don't matter at all. You weren't on that jury.

Meanwhile the case was proved to the people sitting on that jury who do matter. They found that murderer guilty of murdering that teenage boy who didn't have a gun or any weapon for that matter.

The only people whose lives were threatened were the kids in that car.

You don't have to like the verdict. You don't have to agree with it. You DO have to accept it.

No, the case was NOT proved to the people sitting on that jury (or anyone else). And a case prosecution case could not be proven at all, since the SUV left the scene, travelled 100 yards away, there was ample time fora gun to be ditched, and the cops didn't search the area for days. To render a conviction in these circumstances is preposterous.