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

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

It is not the burden of the defense to produce a gun. It is the burden of prosecution to prove there was NOT A GUN. They did NOT do that.

 

[protectionist]

Took a while...but justice has been served

Let's see you prove that.

 

[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

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

It is not the burden of the defense to produce a gun. It is the burden of prosecution to prove there was NOT A GUN. They did NOT do that.

How did they get a guilty verdict if they didnt prove 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.

It is not the burden of the defense to produce a gun. It is the burden of prosecution to prove there was NOT A GUN. They did NOT do that.

You just don't get it. You can't prove a negative. Logic 101. You're an idiot.

 

[protectionist]

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.

And it is precisely that evidence (and LACK of it) that is the crux of the case. Should have been ruled NOT GUILTY, based on INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Other than the fact that there were not any weapons?

 

[Asclepias]

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.

And it is precisely that evidence (and LACK of it) that is the crux of the case. Should have been ruled NOT GUILTY, based on INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE.

How did they get a guilty verdict if they didnt prove it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

YOU were not on the Jury, end of story.

 

[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

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

Oh yeah ? HA HA HA. And how did they prove there was no gun ? Did they prove that during the time spent 100 yards from the shooting location, a gun was not ditched ? How could they have done that ? It is IMPOSSIBLE. They didn't even search the area until DAYS later. A dumpster was dumped. The gun could have been buried. The kids could have even gone back and got it, and brought it home with them some days before the cops went there to search.

Everyone in this thread is claiming Dunn was fairly convicted. Nobody has proven it.

 

[rightwinger]

Took a while...but justice has been served

Let's see you prove that.

Dunn is in prison for life

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Dunn was found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers, he was and is afforded comprehensive due process rights, including the right to appeal the verdict and sentence.

Dunn's actions were reckless, unwarranted, and stupid, completely failing to comport with Florida self-defense jurisprudence – he has only himself to blame.

 

[protectionist]

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

They did NOT prove the boys were unarmed, or that it was not SELF-DEFENSE. Can you ? They also did NOT prove that Dunn was in no personal jeopardy while he fired. Just because one guy at the wheel is driving away, doesn't mean another guy couldn't shoot from a fleeing vehicle. In road chases, cops have been killed by being shot by passengers in a fleeing vehicle,

 

[Asclepias]

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

They did NOT prove the boys were unarmed, or that it was not SELF-DEFENSE. Can you ? They also did NOT prove that Dunn was in no personal jeopardy while he fired. Just because one guy at the wheel is driving away, doesn't mean another guy couldn't shoot from a fleeing vehicle. In road chases, cops have been killed by being shot by passengers in a fleeing vehicle,

How did they get a guilty verdict if they didnt prove it?

 

[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

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

Oh yeah ? HA HA HA. And how did they prove there was no gun ? Did they prove that during the time spent 100 yards from the shooting location, a gun was not ditched ? How could they have done that ? It is IMPOSSIBLE. They didn't even search the area until DAYS later. A dumpster was dumped. The gun could have been buried. The kids could have even gone back and got it, and brought it home with them some days before the cops went there to search.

Everyone in this thread is claiming Dunn was fairly convicted. Nobody has proven it.

They proved there was no gun with the testimony of the other passengers in the car testifying there was no gun. You just refuse to except the testimony of the witnesses. The jury that was present at the time of the testimonies believed the witnesses and did not believe the testimony of the murderer.

 

[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

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.

FALSE! Threatening talk coupled with the showing of a gun is more than enough to warrant a shooting self-defense. I live in Florida (where this case occurred). Where do you live ?

 

[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

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.

FALSE! Threatening talk coupled with the showing of a gun is more than enough to warrant a shooting self-defense. I live in Florida (where this case occurred). Where do you live ?

But no one believes thats what happened. Therefore the prosecution proved their case to the jury. How do you think he was found guilty?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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

Yep.
He made the choice to shoot at people and now he's paying the price.
He took a life and he should have gotten the death penalty. He murdered an innocent, unarmed kid and tried to murder others.

Like I said, I hope others like him will think before they pull the trigger.

 

[protectionist]

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

Zimmerman case went right. Casey Anthony case, I don't know. If they couldn't prove their case, then it becomes NOT GUILTY based on INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. But then, the dead person in the Casey Anthony case wasn't Black, was she ?

 

[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

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.

It absolutely DOES mean just that. Prosecution contends the shooting was not self-defense. It's not enough for them to contend it. They must PROVE it. They could not prove a negative. That's true. That's why there was insufficient evidence, and no proof to convict. They really could only have convicted him if Dunn had stated that he did not see a gun, but that isn't what he said.

 

[rightwinger]

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

They did NOT prove the boys were unarmed, or that it was not SELF-DEFENSE. Can you ? They also did NOT prove that Dunn was in no personal jeopardy while he fired. Just because one guy at the wheel is driving away, doesn't mean another guy couldn't shoot from a fleeing vehicle. In road chases, cops have been killed by being shot by passengers in a fleeing vehicle,

Afraid the absence of a weapon constitutes proof

Dunn also was never in grave danger and could have walked away at any time. A key element of self defense