Jury deliberating in Michael Dunn trial

[bianco]

5 counts?...they sure don't miss you.

All the more reason to be a retreater.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The judge has told the jury it cannot disagree about the law.

The day of the white vigilante is over, particularly if the jury ends up hung.

 

[J.E.D]

Here is what Judge Healey just read to the jurors:

 

[Gracie]

He's gonna walk.

 

[bianco]

The day of the white vigilante is over,......................

The White vigilante wouldn't be needed if the cops, govt man etc would do their jobs properly and protect him.

The White vigilante needs to work smarter, trade his gun for a pen in many cases...and vote out White politicians who refuse to get with the program...and replace them with White politicians who will get the program.

 

[Asclepias]

Running away only encourages the criminal behavior.

sparky, you are not a vigilante.

People have the right to defend themselves, idiot.

Thats what TM was doing and Z shot him.

 

[protectionist]

No proof of a gun by the victim or his friends.

Firing at least three shots at a fleeing car.

Death is not the punishment for loud music.

1. The absence of a gun is mitigated by the fact that of the SUV having left the shooting scene, long enough for a gun to be dumped, and police having not checked the area for 4 days. This leaves open the possiblility that the SUV guys had a gun (witnesses were inconsistent), and that being the case, it could have been self-defense, and certainly leaves saying it wasn't (beyond a reasonable doubt) impossible. (strike 1)

2. Just because a car is fleeing doesn't mean someone is no longer in danger of being shot (if there was a gun in the car) People can shoot from a fleeing car just as much as an approaching car. Also, the shooting started when the car was NOT fleeing, and it could have fled very quickly, while the shooter was still shooting. (strike 2)

3. If there was a gun in the car, THAT is the reason for the shooting, not loud music.
At this point, no one has shown me a shred of evidence that there was no gun in the car, visible to Dunn. (strike 3)

If anybody thinks they have that evidence, let's hear it.

The evidence was clearly presented by the prosecution that defendant did not have a gun.

The defendant had a legal obligation to stop firing when the supposed threat was eliminated, which was the case.

You are not on the jury, so your opinion is just that.

Murder 1 or Murder 2, kiddo.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Dunn is the defendant. He HAD a gun and he fired it, killing Jordan Davis.

What the prosecution had to prove was that nobody in the SUV has a gun (which would eliminate the self-defense contention). But the prosecution did NOT prove that, and even the prosecutor, John Guy, admitted there were "inconsistencies" in the witness accounts. Inconsistencies means no proof at all, and certainly not beyond a reasonable doubt.

As for when the defendant had to stop firing, that is also unproven. If there was a gun, someone in the car would have had the capability to fire at Dunn even when the car was leaving.

Murder 1 or 2 is legally impossible. The prosecution has not proved its case.

 

[protectionist]

You are talking if ands or maybes. The SUV could have left the scene to drive their friend to the hosptial not to dump a gun then thought it would be better to wait for an ambulance. The area was not searched due to Dunn not reporting the incident. His fault. The facts are there was no gun.

He committed a crime and used a weapon in the commission of that crime. if he was legit he would have called the police and told them he shot in self defense. That would have additionally prompted an immediate search of the area for a gun the kids supposedly dumped.

You dont know about the fiance because you wont touch it with a ten foot pole. He never told her. The main thing is he never called the cops. Even after he realized the kid was killed.

Changing a story is also a hallmark of lying through your teeth. If he was rational enough to call the pizza guy he should have been rational enough to get his story straight.

This is a very weak post and doesn't even come close to validating a conviction'

1. Yes, there are ifs and maybes. But until those ifs and maybe are erased (BY THE PROSECUTION), there still isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt, of a non-self defense shooting.

2. It doesn't matter WHERE the SUV went. The mere fact that it left and returned shows that the gun (if there was one) could have been dumped. Sure, there are "ifs", but even the prosecutors have not closed up those questions, and that is what uis necessary to have a conviction.

3. No Dunn not calling the cops and his fiancee is NOT the main thing. The main thing is that the prosecutors have not proved that there was not a gun in the car visible to Dunn. As it stands, it could have been self-defense. This make a legal, proper conviction impossible.

4. Changing a story happens frequently among criminal defendants, and often turns out to be just stress and confusion.

In case you don't know how criminal trials work, the defense does not have to prove anything. The burden of proof does not rest upon the defense to prove Dunn innocent, it rests upon the prosecution to prove Dunn guilty, which neither they or you, or anyone in this thread have done, so far.

So. I still say, if anyone thinks they can prove there was no gun in the SUV visible to Dunn, let's hear it.

1. The if and or buts are erased. There was no gun. Ever....like ever found.

2. The SUV driving away would be a normal reaction to having been shot at. Not too many people sit still if they can drive away. That has nothing to do with dumping a gun.

3. Yes Dunn not calling the cops will be the main thing if he is convicted. I will change my avatar for a week with a one of your choice if he is convicted and that is not mentioned as the defining element or one of the most defining reasons. Not quite as certain about not telling his fiance but I have almost the same amount of conviction.

4. Like I said early it also turns out that the person is lying. Yes I understand the defense has to prove their case. They have done so. Minus being there with a video camera that would mean no one would be convicted. "Reasonable doubt" is the criteria. Nothing is reasonable about his excuses.

It wouldn't matter if you listed ONE HUNDRED and four items in your list. You still do not show a shred of evidence that the SUV inhabitants did not have a gun. And as long as the SUV left, a gun holder could have dumped the gun, no matter for what reason they left. And as long as that is true, the prosecution needed to come up with some way to prove the SUV guys didn't have a gun. They didn't do that, and neither have you.

Dunn excuse is not what is the subject of reasonable doubt. He doesn't have to prove a thing. The prosecutor has to prove HIS case beyond a reasonable doubt , and his own words were there were "inconsistencies" among the witness accounts. There is clearly no proof here for conviction.

 

[protectionist]

sparky, you are not a vigilante.

People have the right to defend themselves, idiot.

Thats what TM was doing and Z shot him.

Nobody knows what Trayvon Martin was doing, except that he was attacking Zimmerman and punching him. It was Zimmerman who acted in self-defense as the trial jury concluded. But this is all OFF TOPIC, so back to the topic of the DUNN trial.

 

[S.J.]

And that is the problem with these laws. Dunn didn't have to actually see a gun. All he has to say is he feared for his life. So, this guy gave me a menacing look, he reached into his pocket for what could have been a gun, then I shot him because I feared for my life. That's a bit of an over-simplification; but a situation like that could very well take place - especially if people see that they can claim SYG for almost any situation and become more willing to do so as they see people getting away with what would be considered murder in any other state without a SYG law.

Now you're just being silly.

Brilliant retort. Brilliant, I say!

No other way to respond to such a ridiculous statement.

 

[S.J.]

sparky, you are not a vigilante.

People have the right to defend themselves, idiot.

Thats what TM was doing and Z shot him.

You got it backwards.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Got heeeeem! Guilty on the lesser four charges and can be re-tried on the hung murder 1 count.

The dusk of the evening of the white vigilante continues to darken.

Blessed be.

 

[Ali777]

Guilty.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

60+ years in jail.

Good.

 

[Moonglow]

How much will he cry now?

 

[Agit8r]

At least that piece of shit will be off the street for at least 20 years. Hopefully that will be enough to dissuade all the Dirty Harry wannabees down yonder from indulging their snuff fantasies.

 

[S.J.]

60+ years in jail.

Good.

Did you channel the judge or something?

 

[S.J.]

At least that piece of shit will be off the street for at least 20 years. Hopefully that will be enough to dissuade all the Dirty Harry wannabees down yonder from indulging their snuff fantasies.

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.

 

[Agit8r]

The other 3 who left the scene... will think twice about fucking with Whitey next time. I would say that overall this was a plus for society.

Could be, or the next time they see a dead-eyed middle age white guy, they may feel afraid for their lives and need to "stand their ground"

That is the slippery slope that the intemperate sans-culottes that run that state didn't stop to consider

 

[JakeStarkey]

At least that piece of shit will be off the street for at least 20 years. Hopefully that will be enough to dissuade all the Dirty Harry wannabees down yonder from indulging their snuff fantasies.

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.