Jury deliberating in Michael Dunn trial

[protectionist]

That's ludicrous.

What it creates is what the poster pointed out.

We now have a police force everywhere.

The time for the citizen to mete out justice has long passed.

And advocating a return to that is a fool's errand.

NONSENSE! There is no "return". Nothing's changed. The law in Florida (and other states) still is as always. Citizens have concealed weapons permits, carry loaded pistols, bullet in the chamber ready to fire, and those who attack these people WILL BE SHOT, in full protection of the self-defense laws that were properly enacted by the people, through their elected representitives. You are just talking out of your ass.

The kids did not attack the asshole.

He attacked them.

They didn't have to attack Dunn. Merely showing a gun is enough to warrant a self-defense. And IF they did show a gun, then Dunn was NOT attacking them - he would have been defending himself, as the defense contended. And you haven't shown a shred of evidence that that was not the case. Neither has anyone else in this thread, and neither has the prosecution, which is why it will likely be overturned in the appeals court (barring any jury intimidation factors)

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Relax. This is only the first round. The defense is appealing, and the whole thing will probably be thrown out due to insufficient evidence (inability to prove there was no gun in the SUV). The only thing that could save the prosecution's case is if white jurors get intimidated by black jurors knowing their identity, putting those white jurors in danger of retaliation from the black-racist, lunatic fringe. (as could very well have happened in THIS trial)

The 4 charges he was convicted on had plenty of evidence. It's easy to prove attempted murder and shooting or throwing a deadly missile when there are 9 bullet holes in the SUV.

HA! What a dumb post. It doesn't even come close to refuting the only thing that matters which is insufficient evidence (inability to prove there was no gun in the SUV), 9 bullets or 90 bullets. The only thing that has "plenty of evidence" is that you're not too good at presenting an argument for debate.

The charges he has been convicted on are 3 counts of attempted murder, and 1 count of shooting or throwing a deadly missile. If his attorney is stupid enough to try appealing those charges on lack of evidence, he will get his ass laughed out of the courtroom.

There are real grounds he could appeal on, but that's definitely not one of them.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

NONSENSE! There is no "return". Nothing's changed. The law in Florida (and other states) still is as always. Citizens have concealed weapons permits, carry loaded pistols, bullet in the chamber ready to fire, and those who attack these people WILL BE SHOT, in full protection of the self-defense laws that were properly enacted by the people, through their elected representitives. You are just talking out of your ass.

The kids did not attack the asshole.

He attacked them.

They didn't have to attack Dunn. Merely showing a gun is enough to warrant a self-defense. And IF they did show a gun, then Dunn was NOT attacking them - he would have been defending himself, as the defense contended. And you haven't shown a shred of evidence that that was not the case. Neither has anyone else in this thread, and neither has the prosecution, which is why it will likely be overturned in the appeals court (barring any jury intimidation factors)

If Jordan Davis did show a gun, then yes he has a self defense claim against that.

Nowhere in his testimony did he say the other 3 had guns, so he can't claim self defense for trying to kill them.

See how that works?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Relax. This is only the first round. The defense is appealing, and the whole thing will probably be thrown out due to insufficient evidence (inability to prove there was no gun in the SUV). The only thing that could save the prosecution's case is if white jurors get intimidated by black jurors knowing their identity, putting those white jurors in danger of retaliation from the black-racist, lunatic fringe. (as could very well have happened in THIS trial)

The 4 charges he was convicted on had plenty of evidence. It's easy to prove attempted murder and shooting or throwing a deadly missile when there are 9 bullet holes in the SUV.

HA! What a dumb post. It doesn't even come close to refuting the only thing that matters which is insufficient evidence (inability to prove there was no gun in the SUV), 9 bullets or 90 bullets. The only thing that has "plenty of evidence" is that you're not too good at presenting an argument for debate.

The defense theory is not evidence. It is not probative, nor is the defendant's claim of being afraid for his life. The defendant should have entered a plea of temporary insanity (or the Twinkie Defense) that would be believable, for only the insane would do what this jerk did.

My guess is he spent a lot of his time dreaming about being the hero, using a gun to save women and children from a black menace. We might call that the Zimmerman Disorder.

 

[protectionist]

Really matters little. He's not getting out of jail. A retrial is probably a good idea, they will probably win it as well.

My point is that the people who heard all of the testimony, saw all of the evidence, found him guilty. None of us are qualified to doubt them.

they will probably win it as well.

i would not be so sure of that

his defense missed many chances on this charge

and the jury still hung

on it being a self defense issue

Well, without knowing what they were hung up on, I can only speculate based on what I know. (I did say "Probably win") Seems to me that since they didn't find a gun, and he shot at a fleeing vehicle, and failed to call the police and report being threatened with a gun, I can't see how it isn't murder.

You can see it in at least a half dozen posts I've posted in this thread. Read Baby, Read!

 

[protectionist]

The 4 charges he was convicted on had plenty of evidence. It's easy to prove attempted murder and shooting or throwing a deadly missile when there are 9 bullet holes in the SUV.

HA! What a dumb post. It doesn't even come close to refuting the only thing that matters which is insufficient evidence (inability to prove there was no gun in the SUV), 9 bullets or 90 bullets. The only thing that has "plenty of evidence" is that you're not too good at presenting an argument for debate.

The defense theory is not evidence. It is not probative, nor is the defendant's claim of being afraid for his life. The defendant should have entered a plea of temporary insanity (or the Twinkie Defense) that would be believable, for only the insane would do what this jerk did.

My guess is he spent a lot of his time dreaming about being the hero, using a gun to save women and children from a black menace. We might call that the Zimmerman Disorder.

You're talking from the wrong side of the courtroom. The defense theory is not supposed to be evidence, it is merely a contention. The EVIDENCE that is critical in this case has to come from the PROSECUTION, not the defense. The burden of proof is upon them, not the defense. And they had to prove that there was no gun in the SUV. To be blunt, that's impossible.

With witness accounts being "inconsistencies", as the prosecutor John Guy admitted, there is no way the prosecution could have evidence to prove their case.

 

[protectionist]

The kids did not attack the asshole.

He attacked them.

They didn't have to attack Dunn. Merely showing a gun is enough to warrant a self-defense. And IF they did show a gun, then Dunn was NOT attacking them - he would have been defending himself, as the defense contended. And you haven't shown a shred of evidence that that was not the case. Neither has anyone else in this thread, and neither has the prosecution, which is why it will likely be overturned in the appeals court (barring any jury intimidation factors)

If Jordan Davis did show a gun, then yes he has a self defense claim against that.

Nowhere in his testimony did he say the other 3 had guns, so he can't claim self defense for trying to kill them.

See how that works?

NO, I don't see that. Here's why. The prosecution also has no reliable evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Dunn ever tried to shoot the other 3. We're talking about a situation where 4 people are tightly close together inside a vehicle, yet the other 3 were not hit. So why should anybody think Dunn was trying to kill them.

As a gun owner myself, I'm a bit surprised they didn't get shot just by accident, if Dunn was trying to shoot at 1 of the 4 who was holding a gun. I see no evidence to show that Dunn was trying to shoot the other 3, and to convict him of that is just assinine.

 

[protectionist]

The 4 charges he was convicted on had plenty of evidence. It's easy to prove attempted murder and shooting or throwing a deadly missile when there are 9 bullet holes in the SUV.

HA! What a dumb post. It doesn't even come close to refuting the only thing that matters which is insufficient evidence (inability to prove there was no gun in the SUV), 9 bullets or 90 bullets. The only thing that has "plenty of evidence" is that you're not too good at presenting an argument for debate.

The charges he has been convicted on are 3 counts of attempted murder, and 1 count of shooting or throwing a deadly missile. If his attorney is stupid enough to try appealing those charges on lack of evidence, he will get his ass laughed out of the courtroom.

There are real grounds he could appeal on, but that's definitely not one of them.

That definitely IS one of them and it's probably the ONLY one. What other "real grounds" you're referring to I have no idea. Whatever they might be, they would be nice, but not necessary. Prosecution's inabilty to prove an absence of a gun in the SUV is all that matters.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

They didn't have to attack Dunn. Merely showing a gun is enough to warrant a self-defense. And IF they did show a gun, then Dunn was NOT attacking them - he would have been defending himself, as the defense contended. And you haven't shown a shred of evidence that that was not the case. Neither has anyone else in this thread, and neither has the prosecution, which is why it will likely be overturned in the appeals court (barring any jury intimidation factors)

If Jordan Davis did show a gun, then yes he has a self defense claim against that.

Nowhere in his testimony did he say the other 3 had guns, so he can't claim self defense for trying to kill them.

See how that works?

NO, I don't see that. Here's why. The prosecution also has no reliable evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that Dunn ever tried to shoot the other 3. We're talking about a situation where 4 people are tightly close together inside a vehicle, yet the other 3 were not hit. So why should anybody think Dunn was trying to kill them.

As a gun owner myself, I'm a bit surprised they didn't get shot just by accident, if Dunn was trying to shoot at 1 of the 4 who was holding a gun. I see no evidence to show that Dunn was trying to shoot the other 3, and to convict him of that is just assinine.

He was firing indiscriminately at the vehicle, not caring where the bullets went. Davis was in the right rear seat, but they found bullet holes in the right front door and the ass end of the SUV.

Dunn didn't care if he hit the other 3 or not. He just kept blazing away until he couldn't get a clear shot.

 

[Asclepias]

And the piece of shit he plugged will be off the street permanently. The other 3 who left the scene to get rid of the shotgun (and change their pants) will think twice about fucking with Whitey next time. I would say that overall this was a plus for society.

Actually you had to go clean your shorts at the sentence.

Your day is over, sparky.

Relax. This is only the first round. The defense is appealing, and the whole thing will probably be thrown out due to insufficient evidence (inability to prove there was no gun in the SUV). The only thing that could save the prosecution's case is if white jurors get intimidated by black jurors knowing their identity, putting those white jurors in danger of retaliation from the black-racist, lunatic fringe. (as could very well have happened in THIS trial)

The scary Black people theory at work again huh? The reason Jordan was killed was because he was scary to an older white man. He saw no gun but imagined one and pissed himself and decided to shoot it out. He will get at least 75 years regardless of which I am ecstatic. What is sad is that he got more years for missing the other kids than killing Jordan Davis. Sad state of affairs.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Has anyone posted in this thread yet that they decided the fucker will die in a cell earlier?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is the general impression.

Mr. Dunn is never going home, never will be released, will never hold his loved ones again ever.

 

[Asclepias]

HA! What a dumb post. It doesn't even come close to refuting the only thing that matters which is insufficient evidence (inability to prove there was no gun in the SUV), 9 bullets or 90 bullets. The only thing that has "plenty of evidence" is that you're not too good at presenting an argument for debate.

The defense theory is not evidence. It is not probative, nor is the defendant's claim of being afraid for his life. The defendant should have entered a plea of temporary insanity (or the Twinkie Defense) that would be believable, for only the insane would do what this jerk did.

My guess is he spent a lot of his time dreaming about being the hero, using a gun to save women and children from a black menace. We might call that the Zimmerman Disorder.

You're talking from the wrong side of the courtroom. The defense theory is not supposed to be evidence, it is merely a contention. The EVIDENCE that is critical in this case has to come from the PROSECUTION, not the defense. The burden of proof is upon them, not the defense. And they had to prove that there was no gun in the SUV. To be blunt, that's impossible.

With witness accounts being "inconsistencies", as the prosecutor John Guy admitted, there is no way the prosecution could have evidence to prove their case.

YOu cant be this stupid. If the jury believed there was a gun in the car they would not have convicted on the other counts stupid. Wake up and shake the cobwebs out your brain.

 

[S.J.]

The defense theory is not evidence. It is not probative, nor is the defendant's claim of being afraid for his life. The defendant should have entered a plea of temporary insanity (or the Twinkie Defense) that would be believable, for only the insane would do what this jerk did.

My guess is he spent a lot of his time dreaming about being the hero, using a gun to save women and children from a black menace. We might call that the Zimmerman Disorder.

You're talking from the wrong side of the courtroom. The defense theory is not supposed to be evidence, it is merely a contention. The EVIDENCE that is critical in this case has to come from the PROSECUTION, not the defense. The burden of proof is upon them, not the defense. And they had to prove that there was no gun in the SUV. To be blunt, that's impossible.

With witness accounts being "inconsistencies", as the prosecutor John Guy admitted, there is no way the prosecution could have evidence to prove their case.

YOu cant be this stupid. If the jury believed there was a gun in the car they would not have convicted on the other counts stupid. Wake up and shake the cobwebs out your brain.

If the jury believed there was NOT a gun in the car they would have convicted him on the FIRST count, stupid. And they wouldn't have asked the judge about applying self defense to the other thugs in the car. Damn, you're dumb.

 

[Asclepias]

You're talking from the wrong side of the courtroom. The defense theory is not supposed to be evidence, it is merely a contention. The EVIDENCE that is critical in this case has to come from the PROSECUTION, not the defense. The burden of proof is upon them, not the defense. And they had to prove that there was no gun in the SUV. To be blunt, that's impossible.

With witness accounts being "inconsistencies", as the prosecutor John Guy admitted, there is no way the prosecution could have evidence to prove their case.

YOu cant be this stupid. If the jury believed there was a gun in the car they would not have convicted on the other counts stupid. Wake up and shake the cobwebs out your brain.

If the jury believed there was NOT a gun in the car they would have convicted him on the FIRST count, stupid. And they wouldn't have asked the judge about applying self defense to the other thugs in the car. Damn, you're dumb.

Sorry stupid. They were hung up on murder 1 or murder 2. The conviction on attempted murder proves they dont believe there was a gun otherwise he would have walked dummy.

 

[S.J.]

YOu cant be this stupid. If the jury believed there was a gun in the car they would not have convicted on the other counts stupid. Wake up and shake the cobwebs out your brain.

If the jury believed there was NOT a gun in the car they would have convicted him on the FIRST count, stupid. And they wouldn't have asked the judge about applying self defense to the other thugs in the car. Damn, you're dumb.

Sorry stupid. They were hung up on murder 1 or murder 2. The conviction on attempted murder proves they dont believe there was a gun otherwise he would have walked dummy.

If they didn't think there was a gun, the question of self defense would not have even been raised, moron. Do you need somebody to draw you a picture with some pretty bright crayons so you can understand?

 

[Asclepias]

If the jury believed there was NOT a gun in the car they would have convicted him on the FIRST count, stupid. And they wouldn't have asked the judge about applying self defense to the other thugs in the car. Damn, you're dumb.

Sorry stupid. They were hung up on murder 1 or murder 2. The conviction on attempted murder proves they dont believe there was a gun otherwise he would have walked dummy.

If they didn't think there was a gun, the question of self defense would not have even been raised, moron. Do you need somebody to draw you a picture with some pretty bright crayons so you can understand?

Not quite my illiterate, frightened friend. If Dunn thought there was a gun then it could be possibly be considered self defense in one or more of the jurors minds. The fact the self defense argument did not hold up with the other kids is because it was plain there was no gun or they would have fired it at Dunn in retaliation instead of driving off. Dunn continuing to fire after not receiving return fire was reasonably enough to establish the fact that there was no gun in the SUV. See how that works moron?

 

[S.J.]

Sorry stupid. They were hung up on murder 1 or murder 2. The conviction on attempted murder proves they dont believe there was a gun otherwise he would have walked dummy.

If they didn't think there was a gun, the question of self defense would not have even been raised, moron. Do you need somebody to draw you a picture with some pretty bright crayons so you can understand?

Not quite my illiterate, frightened friend. If Dunn thought there was a gun then it could be possibly be considered self defense in one or more of the jurors minds. The fact the self defense argument did not hold up with the other kids is because it was plain there was no gun or they would have fired it at Dunn in retaliation instead of driving off. Dunn continuing to fire after not receiving return fire was reasonably enough to establish the fact that there was no gun in the SUV. See how that works moron?

They drove off because they're pussies, like you, who talk tough but run like bitches when somebody stands their ground. See how that works, Leroy?

 

[TheOldSchool]

If they didn't think there was a gun, the question of self defense would not have even been raised, moron. Do you need somebody to draw you a picture with some pretty bright crayons so you can understand?

Not quite my illiterate, frightened friend. If Dunn thought there was a gun then it could be possibly be considered self defense in one or more of the jurors minds. The fact the self defense argument did not hold up with the other kids is because it was plain there was no gun or they would have fired it at Dunn in retaliation instead of driving off. Dunn continuing to fire after not receiving return fire was reasonably enough to establish the fact that there was no gun in the SUV. See how that works moron?

They drove off because they're pussies, like you, who talk tough but run like bitches when somebody stands their ground. See how that works, Leroy?

Dunn will likely serve the rest of his life in prison. What's the over/under on how many times he'll be raped in the showers? Does that exist? If it does I'll bet 8.

Anyone want to join the pool?

 

[Asclepias]

If they didn't think there was a gun, the question of self defense would not have even been raised, moron. Do you need somebody to draw you a picture with some pretty bright crayons so you can understand?

Not quite my illiterate, frightened friend. If Dunn thought there was a gun then it could be possibly be considered self defense in one or more of the jurors minds. The fact the self defense argument did not hold up with the other kids is because it was plain there was no gun or they would have fired it at Dunn in retaliation instead of driving off. Dunn continuing to fire after not receiving return fire was reasonably enough to establish the fact that there was no gun in the SUV. See how that works moron?

They drove off because they're pussies, like you, who talk tough but run like bitches when somebody stands their ground. See how that works, Leroy?

How can they be frightening thugs one moment and pussies the next? You got to make up your mind SJ.

Thugs would have fired the shotgun back at him for shooting at them. We all know you are just saying that because you are a moron that actually believe that the jurors think there was a gun. What a retard you are!