bmags Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) Just to reiterate what happened in this story: Man goes to gas station, girlfriend leaves the car and goes into store. Man sees car full of black teens with music blaring. Man drives up next to car and has words with teens. Teen driver initially turns down lyrics, but eventually turns it back up and words were exchanged. Man shoots gun into car full of black teens. Picks up girlfriend. Drives off. Man gets pizza, goes to motel and eats pizza. Man gets arrested. Man writes letters from prison that the reason the teen died was that he participated in thug culture. Man only gets convicted of 3 counts of attempted murder. I don't care whether the years applied to the sentence are lengthy, that you can't get convicted for murder with what happened above is infuriating. Edited February 18, 2014 by bmags Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 03:02 PM) I don't care whether the years applied to the sentence are lengthy, that you can't get charged for murder with what happened above is infuriating. Someone else will point this out if I don't, he was charged with murder, just not convicted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 blah blah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 01:55 PM) He wasn't convicted. He murdered a kid and wasn't convicted. He was convicted of three counts of attempted murder, meaning the jurors didn't buy that he shot those three kids out of self defense. It didn't work. As to the murder charge, it's a mistrial. It didn't work, it didn't not work. We don't know yet. They'll try again. Again though, you know all the facts. You heard all the testimony. You and Nancy Grace followed every minute of the testimony and examined every document like those jurors right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 01:55 PM) Thankfully this only goes one way right? Because that's been my position in this thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 This guy sure isnt helping himself by saying that he is the victim here. He killed a kid for no good reason, there is only one victim here and it isnt Dunn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 18, 2014 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 02:16 PM) He was convicted of three counts of attempted murder, meaning the jurors didn't buy that he shot those three kids out of self defense. It didn't work. But at least one juror bought that he shot and killed Jordan Davis out of self defense. edit: put another way, if you apply the juror's (or jurors') logic to a similar scenario where Jordan Davis was the only one in the car, Dunn gets convicted of nothing. Edited February 18, 2014 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 02:02 PM) Just to reiterate what happened in this story: Man goes to gas station, girlfriend leaves the car and goes into store. Man sees car full of black teens with music blaring. Man drives up next to car and has words with teens. Teen driver initially turns down lyrics, but eventually turns it back up and words were exchanged. Man shoots gun into car full of black teens. Picks up girlfriend. Drives off. Man gets pizza, goes to motel and eats pizza. Man gets arrested. Man writes letters from prison that the reason the teen died was that he participated in thug culture. Man only gets convicted of 3 counts of attempted murder. I don't care whether the years applied to the sentence are lengthy, that you can't get convicted for murder with what happened above is infuriating. I agree with you. HOWEVA, there was SOME evidence (however strong or credible) that the guy thought the kid pulled a gun out. I don't believe it based on what I've read, I think it's totally discredited by his wife who testified that he never told her about a gun, but whatever. I'm not about to sit here and claim that based on my reading of other peoples' summaries of testimony/reaction that I know exactly what evidence was offered and how a reasonable person should have voted. This guy isn't getting out of jail anytime soon, and the murder conviction is just a technicality at this point. He may or may not get convicted with another jury, but the end result is the same - the guy is spending the rest of his life behind bars for being a dumbass criminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 02:20 PM) But at least one juror bought that he shot and killed Jordan Davis out of self defense. OK? So in the history of trials there have never been bad jurors? If it worked, he would be a free man today. Edited February 18, 2014 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 18, 2014 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 02:21 PM) the murder conviction is just a technicality at this point. I wonder if you would feel the same if your kid had been shot to death for no reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 18, 2014 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 02:21 PM) I agree with you. HOWEVA, there was SOME evidence (however strong or credible) that the guy thought the kid pulled a gun out. I don't believe it based on what I've read, I think it's totally discredited by his wife who testified that he never told her about a gun, but whatever. I'm not about to sit here and claim that based on my reading of other peoples' summaries of testimony/reaction that I know exactly what evidence was offered and how a reasonable person should have voted. See, here's the thing. There shouldn't be any possibility whatsoever of Dunn's actions being legal. It is absurd to think that it could be legal to kill someone because you confronted them over loud music, went back to your car to obtain a gun, confronted them again and then shot them to death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 02:23 PM) I wonder if you would feel the same if your kid had been shot to death for no reason. I'm sure I wouldn't, but I also wouldn't be able to think rationally about the situation either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 09:21 PM) I agree with you. HOWEVA, there was SOME evidence (however strong or credible) that the guy thought the kid pulled a gun out. I don't believe it based on what I've read, I think it's totally discredited by his wife who testified that he never told her about a gun, but whatever. I'm not about to sit here and claim that based on my reading of other peoples' summaries of testimony/reaction that I know exactly what evidence was offered and how a reasonable person should have voted. This guy isn't getting out of jail anytime soon, and the murder conviction is just a technicality at this point. He may or may not get convicted with another jury, but the end result is the same - the guy is spending the rest of his life behind bars for being a dumbass criminal. But there was no gun. He'd get credit if there WAS a gun. But instead it was just a car full of teenagers being loud and he shot them. You don't get points for being that wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 02:25 PM) See, here's the thing. There shouldn't be any possibility whatsoever of Dunn's actions being legal. It is absurd to think that it could be legal to kill someone because you confronted them over loud music, went back to your car to obtain a gun, confronted them again and then shot them to death. Unless you're willing to get rid of self-defense protections, this is what you get. This same case brought 50 years ago is going to have the same issues. The jury doesn't get the instruction that he doesn't have the duty to retreat, but I don't think that was the deciding factor here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 02:27 PM) But there was no gun. He'd get credit if there WAS a gun. But instead it was just a car full of teenagers being loud and he shot them. You don't get points for being that wrong. I understand the frustration, but gun/no gun, real gun/toy gun, in the moment like that I don't think it's fair to let someone off if they were right, but convict them if they're wrong. At the time the decision to use deadly force is made, the fear of imminent harm is the same. Context matters in these situations. It's why we allow women to kill their abusive husbands in the moment, but not 2 hours after a fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted February 18, 2014 Author Share Posted February 18, 2014 (edited) It's not fair to Jordan Davis to be killed because Michael Dunn was wrong. edit: we don't allow wives to kill their husbands who have no history of abuse because they think they might be abused imminently. Edited February 18, 2014 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 02:43 PM) It's not fair to Jordan Davis to be killed because Michael Dunn was wrong. edit: we don't allow wives to kill their husbands who have no history of abuse because they think they might be abused imminently. I agree it's unfair. It's a s***ty situation. Referring to your edit, I don't think I claimed otherwise. My point was we have justified killings based on that reasonable fear of imminent harm/death. It's up to a jury to decide if that fear and action were reasonable in a given situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illinilaw08 Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 04:11 PM) I agree it's unfair. It's a s***ty situation. Referring to your edit, I don't think I claimed otherwise. My point was we have justified killings based on that reasonable fear of imminent harm/death. It's up to a jury to decide if that fear and action were reasonable in a given situation. IF the facts are as laid out by bmags, and there wasn't actually a gun in the car, then the only way to justify the reasonable far of imminent harm/death is that a carload of loud black teens is sufficient to justify making the inference that one of them is armed. That's an awful decision by the jury. Yeah, it's up to the jury to decide, but that doesn't excuse the fact that it is a bad result under those facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 18, 2014 -> 10:32 PM) IF the facts are as laid out by bmags, and there wasn't actually a gun in the car, then the only way to justify the reasonable far of imminent harm/death is that a carload of loud black teens is sufficient to justify making the inference that one of them is armed. That's an awful decision by the jury. Yeah, it's up to the jury to decide, but that doesn't excuse the fact that it is a bad result under those facts. Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 The Adam Dunn blame game has clearly gone too far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 It is amusing that this juror gives a face interview yet refuses to give her name to protect her family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 08:14 AM) It is amusing that this juror gives a face interview yet refuses to give her name to protect her family. On the subject of this thread, Zimmerman complained in an in-person CNN interview how he can't go outside without people recognizing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 07:57 AM) On the subject of this thread, Zimmerman complained in an in-person CNN interview how he can't go outside without people recognizing him. "STOP RECOGNIZING ME!" "HEY DMX LETS HAVE A TELEVISED BOXING MATCH" "THIS IS MY PAINTING. IT IS CALLED 'MURICA. BUY IT PLEASE" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 02:14 PM) It is amusing that this juror gives a face interview yet refuses to give her name to protect her family. Less amusing, that 2 people could actually believe self defense could be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted February 24, 2014 Share Posted February 24, 2014 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 19, 2014 -> 07:59 AM) "THIS IS MY PAINTING. IT IS CALLED 'MURICA. BUY IT PLEASE" ah so he's an artist now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts