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

[protectionist]

Did you ever answer my question? I don't see where you did. Do you live in Florida? Do you have a Florida CCW? Do you know the laws of my state?

1. Yes I live in Florida.

2. Yes I have a CCW permit (and I carry a Keltec .380)

3. Yes I know the laws of Florida.

Them you should know better.

Good choice of weapon, I too carry a Kel Tec P3AT

Know better about what ?

 

[PredFan]

Did you ever answer my question? I don't see where you did. Do you live in Florida? Do you have a Florida CCW? Do you know the laws of my state?

1. Yes I live in Florida.

2. Yes I have a CCW permit (and I carry a Keltec .380)

3. Yes I know the laws of Florida.

Them you should know better.

Good choice of weapon, I too carry a Kel Tec P3AT

Know better about what ?

You should know better than to take the position you have.

 

[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

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 know that you have not shown that Michael Dunn's claim of self-defense is false. Yet that is required for the prosecution to prove him guilty. Yet you claim he's guilty. Do you know how stupid you sound right now?

And NO, they did NOT prove there was no gun. You got some proof ? Let's hear it.

 

[Yarddog]

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.

We have to be satisfied he got a fair trial, I know very little about this case but we have to trust in the due process and the final verdict. If there was some bad evidence maybe an appeal can be made through the legal system. White people are just going to have to accept this, on the flip side, if the Ferguson cop is exhonerated by the Grand Jury or by trial then I think Black folks going to have to accept that as well.

 

[AceRothstein]

LINK??

The judge was right - Dunn threw away his own life. Very sad because it never should have happened. I hope it sends a message to others who think they'll get away with gunning down kids for loud music. Same with other, over-the-top, crazies who shoot someone for texting or throwing popcorn or knocking on your door.

Dunn claimed he saw a gun, and that he fired in SELF-DEFENSE. So you being the accuser, have the burden of proof to prove that he did not see a gun. Nobody in the trial proved that. Can you ?

For whatever it's worth, here's your link. >>

Life without parole for loud-music murderer in Florida - CNN.com

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

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

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

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

I know that you have not shown that Michael Dunn's claim of self-defense is false. Yet that is required for the prosecution to prove him guilty. Yet you claim he's guilty. Do you know how stupid you sound right now?

No gun = guilty Dunn.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

No you DON"T understand this as painful to me. It's just another issue, in the forum to me. Is it something more than that TO YOU ? And for the 50th time, they did NOT (and COULD NOT) prove "there was no gun there" which is impossible to do. Is this painful to you ?

The DAs have to prove no such thing. They proved that the car was fleeing, that no evidence of gunfire or threat from the car in flight, and that the accused was firing at the fleeing car.

He got possibility of parole. She should have to be in prison until he dies.

 

[PredFan]

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.

We have to be satisfied he got a fair trial, I know very little about this case but we have to trust in the due process and the final verdict. If there was some bad evidence maybe an appeal can be made through the legal system. White people are just going to have to accept this, on the flip side, if the Ferguson cop is exhonerated by the Grand Jury or by trial then I think Black folks going to have to accept that as well.

What the fuck does skin color have to do with this?

 

[protectionist]

Did you ever answer my question? I don't see where you did. Do you live in Florida? Do you have a Florida CCW? Do you know the laws of my state?

1. Yes I live in Florida.

2. Yes I have a CCW permit (and I carry a Keltec .380)

3. Yes I know the laws of Florida.

Them you should know better.

Good choice of weapon, I too carry a Kel Tec P3AT

Know better about what ?

You should know better than to take the position you have.

What a coincidence! I was just thinking the same thing about you.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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

It says right there in your link there was no gun.

Dunn claimed he acted in self-defense because he believed Davis was reaching for a gun. No weapon was found.

NOTHING proved that there was no gun. Some people have SAID there was no gun. That isn't proof.

Michael Dunn case Opening statements begin in loud music murder trial - CNN.com

I just quoted you as saying he saw a gun. No gun found means he was lying to cover himself.

Of course he said he saw a gun. But no gun found doesn't mean anything. It could have been ditched. We've been all through that here already. Read the thread.

An innocent person who had just shot someone in self-defense would stay around to explain what happened to police. Never would an innocent person flee the scene like Dunn did. He was hoping to get away with it.

 

[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

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.

Your accusations are unfounded, since you have no way of knowing if Dunn acted in self-defense or not. Got some proof he didn't see a gun ? NO, you don't.

Yes. There was no gun found and the witnesses say there was no gun. Dunn may have had a hallucination of a gun but he still has been found guilty and will spend the rest of his life in jail.

I had not heard of any witnesses saying they saw no gun (witness testimony is a joke anyway, we've covered that already) I did hear this however >> two witnesses initially told police the teens appeared to be "stashing" something.

Michael Dunn case Opening statements begin in loud music murder trial - CNN.com

Thats where you have screwed up then. Witnesses testified there was no gun. The prosecution presented this testimony as evidence of proof to the jury. The jury convicted Dunn. He will serve life in prison or be shanked in the shower. Again what is confusing you about this?

 

[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.

We have to be satisfied he got a fair trial, I know very little about this case but we have to trust in the due process and the final verdict. If there was some bad evidence maybe an appeal can be made through the legal system. White people are just going to have to accept this, on the flip side, if the Ferguson cop is exhonerated by the Grand Jury or by trial then I think Black folks going to have to accept that as well.

What the fuck does skin color have to do with this?

Sounds like you don't have a good focus on this. If Dunn was not even indicted (as should have been the case) what would the chance be of race rioting taking place ? You think Sharpton, Jackson, the New Black Panther idiots, and other race hustlers would let it pass by ?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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?

That is the topic of the thread. No evidence to prove the absence of a gun in the SUV. So why the conviction, without the evidence necessary for it ? Sounds like some kind of hanky panky .(problably revolving around race)

Okay, now THAT is funny.

EXACTLY how does one prove that something is not there?

I mean, do you lean into the window and LOOK?

I ask cuz I think they already tried that.

"No evidence to prove the absence of a gun in the SUV."

You're doing a good job of making my point. Thanks. I'm OK without your help, though (but it's the thought that counts)

So?

What does that mean?
What is the "evidence to prove the absence of a gun"?
How does one "prove the absence of a gun"?

 

[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

It says right there in your link there was no gun.

Dunn claimed he acted in self-defense because he believed Davis was reaching for a gun. No weapon was found.

NOTHING proved that there was no gun. Some people have SAID there was no gun. That isn't proof.

Michael Dunn case Opening statements begin in loud music murder trial - CNN.com

I just quoted you as saying he saw a gun. No gun found means he was lying to cover himself.

Of course he said he saw a gun. But no gun found doesn't mean anything. It could have been ditched. We've been all through that here already. Read the thread.

An innocent person who had just shot someone in self-defense would stay around to explain what happened to police. Never would an innocent person flee the scene like Dunn did. He was hoping to get away with it.

That's probably true, but it's nowhere near enough to convict on a murder charge.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He killed a black, unarmed teen.

He will be killed in prison, and it won't be quickly done.

 

[Asclepias]

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

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

Yes I have said something meaningful. That the prosecution didn't prove their case, and therefore it should have ended up as NOT GUILTY by INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. And I also said there is likely a racial component, in which some of the parties involved are afraid of possile race rioting.

But he got convicted which proves the prosecution proved there was no gun.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It says right there in your link there was no gun.

NOTHING proved that there was no gun. Some people have SAID there was no gun. That isn't proof.

Michael Dunn case Opening statements begin in loud music murder trial - CNN.com

I just quoted you as saying he saw a gun. No gun found means he was lying to cover himself.

Of course he said he saw a gun. But no gun found doesn't mean anything. It could have been ditched. We've been all through that here already. Read the thread.

An innocent person who had just shot someone in self-defense would stay around to explain what happened to police. Never would an innocent person flee the scene like Dunn did. He was hoping to get away with it.

That's probably true, but it's nowhere near enough to convict on a murder charge.

Yes, of course it is enough evidence. Based on what has been presented, the conviction is righteous

 

[protectionist]

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?

That is the topic of the thread. No evidence to prove the absence of a gun in the SUV. So why the conviction, without the evidence necessary for it ? Sounds like some kind of hanky panky .(problably revolving around race)

Okay, now THAT is funny.

EXACTLY how does one prove that something is not there?

I mean, do you lean into the window and LOOK?

I ask cuz I think they already tried that.

"No evidence to prove the absence of a gun in the SUV."

You're doing a good job of making my point. Thanks. I'm OK without your help, though (but it's the thought that counts)

So?

What does that mean?
What is the "evidence to prove the absence of a gun"?
How does one "prove the absence of a gun"?

One can't. Especially when the possible gun handlers drove 100 yards away, stayed there for a while, and the cops didn't even do any searching there for days. That's why there shouldn't have even been a trial.

 

[PredFan]

Did you ever answer my question? I don't see where you did. Do you live in Florida? Do you have a Florida CCW? Do you know the laws of my state?

1. Yes I live in Florida.

2. Yes I have a CCW permit (and I carry a Keltec .380)

3. Yes I know the laws of Florida.

Them you should know better.

Good choice of weapon, I too carry a Kel Tec P3AT

Know better about what ?

You should know better than to take the position you have.

What a coincidence! I was just thinking the same thing about you.

 

[protectionist]

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

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

Yes I have said something meaningful. That the prosecution didn't prove their case, and therefore it should have ended up as NOT GUILTY by INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. And I also said there is likely a racial component, in which some of the parties involved are afraid of possile race rioting.

But he got convicted which proves the prosecution proved there was no gun.

HA HA HA. Like nobody has ever been convicted wrongly, huh ? Getting desperate now ?

 

[Yarddog]

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.

We have to be satisfied he got a fair trial, I know very little about this case but we have to trust in the due process and the final verdict. If there was some bad evidence maybe an appeal can be made through the legal system. White people are just going to have to accept this, on the flip side, if the Ferguson cop is exhonerated by the Grand Jury or by trial then I think Black folks going to have to accept that as well.

What the fuck does skin color have to do with this?

Absolutely nothing , but it does to Protectionist. Im responding to him. He seems to think Dunn is being prosecuted because he is white and there are plenty of others who say Michael Brown was gunned down by a white cop because he was black. Im just saying both extremes need to be able to accept the outcome of a legal trial and they cant have it both ways