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

[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

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.

You keep missing they did prove it. Why did the jury find him guilty if they did not prove it?

 

[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.

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.

Oh! So the jury found him innocent then?

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

He does not look like the type who's going to have an easy time in prison. Hope he suffers.

 

[PredFan]

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.

Apparently you need to rethink.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Apparently you need to rethink.

First he actually has to start thinking in order to re-think.

 

[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.

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.

The prosecutor did.

 

[PredFan]

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,

Oh so he was found not guilty then?

 

[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.

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.

HA HA HA. You might try learning something about the law, before coming in here and posting. All you're doing is showing us all how much you don't know. First you said >> "The defense proved he shot and killed the kid"
NO, the prosecution proved that (defense attorneys don't testify against their own client). Secondly, you said "they had no gun for him to use as a defense" As I've been saying all through this thread, it's not the defense's burden to show they had a gun. It's the prosecution's burden to show that they did NOT have one (to nullify the self-defense claim) You've got it backwards. Burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.

 

[protectionist]

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.

The prosecutor did.

Show me how. Right here. Right now.

 

[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.

Its only fair because you sound like a fool.

HA HA HA> After what you've just posted here, I need not even respond to that. HA HA.

 

[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.

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.

HA HA HA. You might try learning something about the law, before coming in here and posting. All you're doing is showing us all how much you don't know. First you said >> "The defense proved he shot and killed the kid"
NO, the prosecution proved that (defense attorneys don't testify against their own client). Secondly, you said "they had no gun for him to use as a defense" As I've been saying all through this thread, it's not the defense's burden to show they had a gun. It's the prosecution's burden to show that they did NOT have one (to nullify the self-defense claim) You've got it backwards. Burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.

That's ironic coming from you. Considering your arguments here.

 

[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.

HA HA HA. You might try learning something about the law, before coming in here and posting. All you're doing is showing us all how much you don't know. First you said >> "The defense proved he shot and killed the kid"
NO, the prosecution proved that (defense attorneys don't testify against their own client). Secondly, you said "they had no gun for him to use as a defense" As I've been saying all through this thread, it's not the defense's burden to show they had a gun. It's the prosecution's burden to show that they did NOT have one (to nullify the self-defense claim) You've got it backwards. Burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.

Actually, the defense was based on there being a gun. They had no proof of their defense which leaves it up to the jury to decide if the victim was armed
The jury found his claim to be unwarranted

 

[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.

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.

Not only did they not prove it but as both I and Esmeralda both said, They COULDN'T PROVE IT. You can't prove a negative.

 

[PredFan]

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.

The prosecutor did.

Show me how. Right here. Right now.

Pssssst! Hey man, come closer, I want to tell you a secret. He was found guilty.

 

[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.

HA HA HA. You might try learning something about the law, before coming in here and posting. All you're doing is showing us all how much you don't know. First you said >> "The defense proved he shot and killed the kid"
NO, the prosecution proved that (defense attorneys don't testify against their own client). Secondly, you said "they had no gun for him to use as a defense" As I've been saying all through this thread, it's not the defense's burden to show they had a gun. It's the prosecution's burden to show that they did NOT have one (to nullify the self-defense claim) You've got it backwards. Burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the defense.

The prosecution satisfied their burden of proof and thats why the jury convicted him. What is confusing you about this?

 

[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.

Not only did they not prove it but as both I and Esmeralda both said, They COULDN'T PROVE IT. You can't prove a negative.

So how did the jury find him guilty if they didnt prove it?

 

[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.

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?

I'm missing you and the others providing proof that the kid was unarmed. Just saying it isn't good enough. You have to prove it. That is simply impossible.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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 ?

Loud music and no gun.

He did this to himself.

No to mention that he changed his story.

Justice was served but that won't bring back a young man who did not deserve to be gunned down. My heart goes out to his family.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

The prosecutor did.

Show me how. Right here. Right now.

We have shown you. He was convicted and sentenced.

 

[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.

Actually shooting unarmed men who were no threat got him convicted

And convicted IMPROPERLY, since there was no proof they were "unarmed".