7
   

Is Michael Dunn guilty?

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Feb, 2014 10:40 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

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.


I would have a hard time convicting Dunn of murder in the first degree. He didn't go to the gas station with murder in mind. While technically there was premeditation, I think that murder in the second or aggravated manslaugher would be more appropriate.

I wonder now whether he will survive in prison. He will probably be a marked man.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 02:07 am
@Advocate,
Quote:
I would have a hard time convicting Dunn of murder in the first degree. He didn't go to the gas station with murder in mind. While technically there was premeditation, I think that murder in the second or aggravated manslaugher would be more appropriate.


Frankly I was shocked that according to the one interview of a jury member I saw three of the jury members was of the opinion he acted in self defense instead of first degree being an overcharge.

But if we learn anything from the Zimmerman trial the media will do cut and edit to have a jury member saying anything at all.

In fact if some of the jury members was indeed of the opinion that he acted in self defense in the killing how the hell could they had then found him guilt of attempted murders of the others?

If someone was causing/forcing you to open fire at a car to save your life the one guilt of any harm to others in that car should be on the shoulders of the attacker not the person who needed to protected himself.

The verdicts of attempted second degree murders and the statement of the one juror that some of the jury members was of the opinion that he acted in self defense in the killing just does no make any kind of sense to me.

Just to made my position clear I am of the opinion that this was not a case of self defense and he at the best guilt of at least second degree murder and reckless endangerment as far as the others are concern.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 11:41 am
@BillRM,
Who said that the charges under which Dunn was convicted have to make sense to you. To a large part, they were compromise charges, which are legal.

BTW, despite that Dunn was right on top of the SUV, some of his shots were not aimed at Davis, but were arguably aimed at the other three in the SUV. Thus, attempted murder for the shots at the other three is valid.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 12:10 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas,

Your selected answer sounds great, but it's erroneous.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/crime-law/zimmerman-protests-turn-violent-oakland/nYqFL/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/zimmerman-protests-heat-arrests-violence-days-verdict/story?id=19678644

0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 12:20 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I disagree, too. It's like saying a provocatively dressed woman asked for a rape.

You can be a complete asshole verbally, threaten, taunt tease... but never have any plan or preference to raise your hand to another person.

The same for the poor murdered boy. Talk all you like.

When a weapon is produced and you are being threatened with it - or when the first blow is struck - I think this is when you can righteously claim self-defense.

People talk smack in the street all the time. That doesn't equate with a legitimate claim to self-defense for their murderer.

I cannot believe the way this case ended.

I also hear people saying Dunn can be tried again. How does double indemnity not figure into this one?

I can't understand why Dunn wasn't found guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter in the very least.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Feb, 2014 01:50 pm
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
I disagree, too. It's like saying a provocatively dressed woman asked for a rape.

You can be a complete asshole verbally, threaten, taunt tease...
but never have any plan or preference to raise your hand to another person.

The same for the poor murdered boy. Talk all you like.

When a weapon is produced and you are being threatened with it -
or when the first blow is struck - I think this is when you can righteously claim self-defense.

People talk smack in the street all the time.
That doesn't equate with a legitimate claim to self-defense for their murderer.

I cannot believe the way this case ended.

I also hear people saying Dunn can be tried again.
How does double indemnity not figure into this one?

I can't understand why Dunn wasn't found guilty of second degree murder
or manslaughter in the very least.
Whether he can be tried again or not is un-certain,
but he was not acquitted of murder.

It remains to be seen whether double jeopardy
can be invoked defensively on his behalf.

Maybe the reason that he was not convicted
of murder is that some of the jurors considered
the possibility that Dunn REALLY WAS threatened with a gun
which was disposed of before the arrival of the police.

Apparently, decedent 's vehicle actually left the scene.
It is theoretically possible that its occupants
preferred that police not find guns in it
so soon after a killing.





David
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 © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2019 at 05:23:31