7
   

Is Michael Dunn guilty?

 
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:35 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Remember that Dunn was coming from his son's wedding. He was probably somewhat drunk and acting irrationally because of this. Of course, being drunk is no excuse in the eyes of the law.

Is it an excuse in your eyes? How is drinking and carrying any better than drinking and driving?


I neither said nor implied that his drinking was an excuse. Also, driving while drunk would not excuse you should you kill someone.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2014 02:37 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Advocate wrote:
This is because, I believe, an increasing number of people are packing, and the person mouthing off just might get shot. Evidently, Davis's words to Dunn got him killed.

Would you say the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot? If Davis had indeed produced a gun and if Dunn had gotten killed as a result of mouthing off about the music?


The same principle applies. Race would not be the issue.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2014 03:06 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
but I don't pack. However, many people do, and it would be folly to take them on verbally


When I am armed I go far more out of my way to not get involved in any conflict of any type then I do when I am not armed.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2014 03:10 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
but I don't pack. However, many people do, and it would be folly to take them on verbally


When I am armed I go far more out of my way to not get involved in any conflict of any type then I do when I am not armed.


Do you think everyone is like you?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2014 03:20 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
Do you think everyone is like you?


Given the million or so Florida citizens that are legally packing and the low level of criminal conduct that fairly large numbers of armed citizens get involved in I would think that my behavior while armed is more common then not.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Feb, 2014 11:13 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Do you think everyone is like you?


Given the million or so Florida citizens that are legally packing and the low level of criminal conduct that fairly large numbers of armed citizens get involved in I would think that my behavior while armed is more common then not.


All you need are a small percentage of those who pack to create many Dunn-like situations. Don't quibble.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 04:33 am
@Advocate,
Quote:
All you need are a small percentage of those who pack to create many Dunn-like situations. Don't quibble.


However there had not been many such happening over the decades repeat decades since the law in Florida had allowed citizens with no criminal record to get carry licenses.

The word few seem to apply must more then the word many in this case.

People carrying firearms illegally are the real danger not lawful carry,

footnote in reference to the Dunn situation you had always been allow in Florida to have a firearm in the glove box of your car without a carry license for that matter. The law being that any gun need to be in a close container in your car to be legal such as a glove box.

The gun can not be on or under a car seat or such but a loaded gun is a glove box is just fine.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 04:35 am
@Advocate,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Do you think everyone is like you?


Given the million or so Florida citizens that are legally packing and the low level of criminal conduct that fairly large numbers of armed citizens get involved in I would think that my behavior while armed is more common then not.
Advocate wrote:
All you need are a small percentage of those who pack to create many Dunn-like situations. Don't quibble.
I REFUSE to relinquish or to diminish my rights,
with or without quibbling.





David
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 04:41 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I REFUSE to relinquish or to diminish my rights,
with or without quibbling.


True but that does not mean that we should not address falsehoods when express over the degree of danger that people legally carrying happen to be to the public.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 04:43 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:
People carrying firearms illegally are the real danger not lawful carry,
Any such law is un-Constitutional and legally void.
Such a law is a slap in the face to the US Constitution.





David
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 04:48 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Any such law is un-Constitutional and legally void.
Such a law is a slap in the face to the US Constitution.


Once more I am in total agreement however in my opinion it still does not do any harm to not allow the anti gun crowd to falsely paint a picture of great public danger from people legally carrying firearms when the record show otherwise.

footnote I see nothing unconstitutional about keeping ex-felons from carrying firearms and to legally carry you need to have the state do a criminal background check on you to show you are not an ex-felon who rights had not been restore.

That being the current state of Florida carry law.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 04:49 am
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I REFUSE to relinquish or to diminish my rights,
with or without quibbling.


True but that does not mean that we should not address falsehoods
when express over the degree of danger that people legally carrying
happen to be to the public.
I did not imply that u shud stifle yourself.
I point out an oxymoronic contradiction in terms qua gun control.

That has been beyond the jurisdiction of any government
since December 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 05:14 am

There IS the possibility
that decedent really DID aim a gun at defendant.

After departing from the gas station,
survivors were free to ditch the gun.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 08:48 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
There IS the possibility
that decedent really DID aim a gun at defendant.

After departing from the gas station,
survivors were free to ditch the gun.


Very very unlikely however first the claim weapon was a shotgun that his girlfriend did not see nor did he tell his girlfriend at the time that he open fire due to a shotgun.

Next he must had been super fast to be able after seeing a shotgun pointed at him to get his own gun into action before the trigger of this shotgun could be pull as there was no indication of a shotgun blast at the scene.

Nor have the police found anyone who knew these young men who stated that any of them own or have access to a shotgun.

Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 10:00 am
@BillRM,
For what it is worth, Dunn testified that he didn't go for his gun when he saw the shotgun. He went for it, he said, later when Davis said they were coming for him.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 10:08 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Reading your posts for sometime tells me that you would probably be the type of person, who is legally packing, who would shoot someone in a situation similar to what Dunn faced. Then, you would face a lifetime of terrible hurt for your actions.

You could wave your right to stand your ground endlessly, and still effectively forfeit your present good lifestyle.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 10:13 am
@Advocate,
Quote:
Reading your posts for sometime tells me that you would probably be the type of person, who is legally packing, who would shoot someone in a situation similar to what Dunn faced. Then, you would face a lifetime of terrible hurt for your actions.


Well you are free to come to any conclusion you care to but given that David is far from a young man and had been packing for decades my conclusion is not the same as your.

Running into people who are annoying and who disrespect you while annoying you is hardly that uncommon.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 09:33 pm
The jurors voted 9-3 that Dunn was guilty of murder in the first degree. Juror #4 has said that they thought Dunn got away with murder. Much like the jurors thought George Zimmerman did.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 09:56 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Much like the jurors thought George Zimmerman did.


Sorry but it took some very clever editing and questioning to get that famous statement from the one of the Zimmerman jurors all of whom found him
innocent.

Quote:


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joe-newby/2013/07/27/abc-news-accused-dishonestly-editing-zimmerman-juror-take-got-away-murder

According to all reports, Juror B29, the sole nonwhite juror on the George Zimmerman trial, said the neighborhood watch volunteer got away with murder. But Slate's William Saletan says not so fast, and accused the network on Friday of deceptive editing and manipulation to get the answers they wanted.

According to Saletan, the juror -- identified only by her first name, Maddy -- has "been framed as the woman who was bullied out of voting to convict Zimmerman."

But, he said, that's simply not true.

Saletan said she stands by the not guilty verdict.


"She yielded to the evidence and the law, not to bullying. She thinks Zimmerman was morally culpable but not legally guilty. And she wants us to distinguish between this trial and larger questions of race and justice," he wrote.

He went on to say the interview that ABC aired "has been cut and spliced in different ways, often so artfully that the transitions appear continuous."

The full, unedited video of the interview was not available when Saletan published his article.

But, he added, "the video that’s available already shows, on closer inspection, that Maddy has been manipulated and misrepresented."

For starters, he said the phrase "got away with murder" was put in her mouth.

“Some people have said, ‘George Zimmerman got away with murder. How do you respond to those people who say that?’" Robin Roberts asked.

"George Zimmerman got away with murder. But you can’t get away from God,” the juror responded.

But Saletan said that’s not quite how the exchange took place.

"In the unedited video, Roberts’ question is longer, with words that have been trimmed from the Nightline version, and Maddy pauses twice, for several seconds, as she struggles to answer it," he said.

Saletan said one has to watch the juror, not just listen to her words. According to Saletan, Maddy is trying to reconcile the premise of the question with her own sentiment, and repeats the quote, adding her own words to indicate that while Zimmerman was found not guilty, he would eventually have to answer to a higher authority.

"She thinks he’s morally culpable, not legally guilty," he added.

Saletan also said that while she stands by her verdict, ABC edited her response to make it appear as though she intended to say something else.

"I felt like I let a lot of people down, and I'm thinking to myself, 'Did I go the right way? Did I go the wrong way?'" she said in the online story published by ABC.

"But that's not the whole quote," Saletan said.

According to Saletan, she continued: “I know I went the right way, because by the law and the way it was followed is the way I went. But if I would have used my heart, I probably would have [gone for] a hung jury.”

He said she also made the same distinction in another clip.

“I stand by the decision because of the law. If I stand by the decision because of my heart, he would have been guilty,” she said.

Maddy also said she thought the trial was a publicity stunt and race was not an issue in the jury's deliberations.

“When the verdict was announced and she was released from sequestration, she was dismayed to discover the national outrage. ‘I didn’t know how much importance’ was attached to the trial, she says, ‘because I never looked at color. And I still don’t look at color,’” Saletan added.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joe-newby/2013/07/27/abc-news-accused-dishonestly-editing-zimmerman-juror-take-got-away-murder#ixzz2tpcG9gaL
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 10:33 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Reading your posts for sometime tells me that you would probably be the type of person, who is legally packing, who would shoot someone in a situation similar to what Dunn faced. Then, you would face a lifetime of terrible hurt for your actions.


Well you are free to come to any conclusion you care to but given that David is far from a young man and had been packing for decades my conclusion is not the same as your.

Running into people who are annoying and who disrespect you while annoying you is hardly that uncommon.


That is very true. It is well and good that I did not bear arms over the years. Living in DC, I was assaulted three times.
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 07/13/2020 at 12:30:48