7
   

Is Michael Dunn guilty?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 08:56 pm
@BillRM,
Its a disorderly way to run trials,
that trial counsel don t know
what thay r doing (prosecuting or defending
from felonies whereof there is no indictment).
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 08:56 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
White kids do the exact same thing... the only difference is that you don't call it wilding or looting.


footnote the term wilding came to be from a case of a woman attacked and raped in new york center park.

A group of young teenagers was charge and some confessing to the crime and after a decade or so it was found that the rape was done by one man with no connection to the teenagers.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 08:58 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDavid wrote:
LOOTING means the same thing,
no matter WHO does it.
I wud not let a white steal my stuff.

But people don't always call the same thing by the same word. Max can speak for himself, but I think his point was more along the lines of this jewel, retrieved from otherwise-reputable news agencies and their coverage of Hurricane Kathrina:

http://miami.media.indypgh.org/uploads/2005/10/aaaa.jpg
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 09:00 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Be that as it may florida juries can have the freedom to find someone guild of the crime but to a lessor degree then the state charge.

Once more this first degree charge seems to be an over reach and it should had been a second degree charge.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 09:11 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
It's not about the tone of voice as such.
When you claim self-defense, it matters whether or not
you provoked the trouble you're defending yourself against.
I agree that he cannot start a fight
and then claim self defense.




Thomas wrote:
Tone of voice, and any fighting Mr Dunn uttered, would have been evidence about his intentions.

That said, I was so absorbed with my imaginary videotape that I forgot there were witnesses.
In particular, when your own girlfriend testifies under oath you were not in danger when you shot,
that's pretty good evidence that you weren't.
In this case, I think that she hurt him
with her testimony. He 'd have been better off without her.


Note that this example
tells us a little something about the loyalty of our friends.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 09:15 pm
@Thomas,
I see what u mean.





David
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 09:15 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Note that this exampletells us a little something about the loyalty of our friends.

Perhaps she didn't want to be his friend anymore. Killing people for no good reason can have this effect on girlfriends, I suppose.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 09:17 pm
@Thomas,
Perhaps



that or something else
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 09:34 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

tells us a little something about the loyalty of our friends.


hopefully in court truth is valued more than loyalty

actually I think the truth is more important than loyalty in most situations - not just legal ones
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  4  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 10:06 pm
Hew was in a CAR in a PARKING LOT, for christsake. He COULD have simply driven to another parking spot, but no, he pulls his gun.

The police investigators found nine bullet holes in the SUV. That's NINE. and then he calmly drives away and goes to get pizza, and never rsays anything to the cops about the shooting, and claims he didn't think he hit anyone. And there was no gun or anything that could logically have been mistaken for a gun in the car.

He DESERVES to go to jail, hopefully for the full thirty years they've got him on already. the judge should throw the book at him. Then, no matter what happens in the retrial, this seeming sociopath won't be back on the streets to threaten anyone else til he's old and feeble.
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 10:36 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Good then. We agree. I have no problem with anyone who wants to criticize me as an anti racist.




I wouldn't so criticize you. However, I would criticize you foir being a quibbler and liar. BTW, when have whites rioted and looted?

It is interesting that Al Sharpton fomented a riot over a Jew owning, and operating a business in, a building in Harlem. One of Al's followers set the building on fire, killing the Jewish owner.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 10:40 pm
Has there been any discussion about the "stand your ground" law relative to the Dunn case? I understand that Dunn thinks that this law protects him. I am sure that his appeal will focus on that law.
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 10:40 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
BTW, when have whites rioted and looted?


Have you read Thomas' posts?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 10:41 pm
Here is an interesting piece on the consequences of the stand-your-ground law.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/02/13/the-deadly-consequences-of-stand-your-ground-laws/
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 10:47 pm
@MontereyJack,
Well he was found guilt of all the lessor charges and the state now is planning once more to try to retry him for first degree murder instead of second degree murder he is clearly guilt of!!!!

The state seems to be willing to harm their own cases by overcharging for political reasons.

We need to get political consideration out of our justice system somehow but at least the jury system seems to be working both in this case and the Zimmerman/Trayvon case.


Quote:
State Attorney Angela Corey said her office planned to retry Dunn on a first-degree murder charge, and she hoped jurors would come forward and tell prosecutors where they questioned their case. Jurors declined to talk to the media.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 10:57 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Has there been any discussion about the "stand your ground" law relative to the Dunn case?

Dunn shot his victim at a gas station that did not belong to him. In court, five witnesses, including Dunn's own girlfriend, contradicted Dunn's allegation that the victim had threatened him with a gun before Dunn shot him. No witness confirmed the allegation. What ground was there to stand?
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 11:03 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Has there been any discussion about the "stand your ground" law relative to the Dunn case?

Dunn shot his victim at a gas station that did not belong to him. In court, five witnesses, including Dunn's own girlfriend, contradicted Dunn's allegation that the victim had threatened him with a gun before Dunn shot him. No witness confirmed the allegation. What ground was there to stand?


Stand your ground law doesn't refer to the protection of his property. He would argue that it applies to his life. The merits of his arguments are for a jury.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 11:07 pm
advocate says:
Quote:
@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Has there been any discussion about the "stand your ground" law relative to the Dunn case?
Dunn shot his victim at a gas station that did not belong to him. In court, five witnesses, including Dunn's own girlfriend, contradicted Dunn's allegation that the victim had threatened him with a gun before Dunn shot him. No witness confirmed the allegation. What ground was there to stand?


Stand your ground law doesn't refer to the protection of his property. He would argue that it applies to his life. The merits of his arguments are for a jury.
0 Replies


The jury apparently didn't think too highly of the merits of his argument.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 11:08 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Stand your ground law doesn't refer to the protection of his property.

It's an extension of the Castle Doctrine, which does refer to the protection of his property. But even so, there was no ground to stand if nobody threatened Dunn with a gun. And the witnesses at trial consistently testified that nobody did so threaten him.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Feb, 2014 11:11 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Here is an interesting piece on the consequences of the stand-your-ground law.

http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/02/13/the-deadly-consequences-of-stand-your-ground-laws/
Quote:
So the question people ought to be asking is this:
Are the benefits of these laws to actual innocent victims sufficiently large
to justify an additional 600 violent deaths per year?
Answer: OF COURSE THAY ARE; otherwise, government woud be partnering up
with the violent predators
by terrorizing the victims into being un-armed,
or to turn their backs on the predator and run, if thay can.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

2016 moving to #1 spot - Discussion by gungasnake
Black Lives Matter - Discussion by TheCobbler
Racism? - Question by The UPS Man
Is 'colored people' offensive? - Question by SMickey
Obama’s Black Skin Privilege - Discussion by coldjoint
Obama, a Joke - Discussion by coldjoint
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
The ECHR and muslims - Discussion by Arend
Atlanta Race Riot 1906 - Discussion by kobereal24
Quote of the Day - Discussion by Tabludama
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/15/2020 at 11:28:54