Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[SpatiallyAware]

Get control of yourself.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/witnes...oting/-/475880/20790378/-/1g82ut/-/index.html


"One was on his cellphone looking back, and it looked like they were pretty much just -- I don't know if they were trying to stash something in the car or look for something or what, but it looked like they got out, kind of brushed themselves off and then they got back in,"


Sounds like they were stashing something to me. Who drives away from a crime scene (after the shooter has left!), "brushes themselves off", and then returns to the scene???? If they were scared, why didn't they stay somewhere safe and wait for the police? Maybe they felt guilty....?

Again, cell phone records will come out. If they show calls to buddies, then dunn will walk.


(Note to everyone else in this thread, I apologize for the excessive level of logic and the rage it induces on overly emotional people who know in their soft little hearts that the big ole evil white man is guilty)

 

[fskimospy]

Get control of yourself.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/witnes...oting/-/475880/20790378/-/1g82ut/-/index.html


"One was on his cellphone looking back, and it looked like they were pretty much just -- I don't know if they were trying to stash something in the car or look for something or what, but it looked like they got out, kind of brushed themselves off and then they got back in,"


Sounds like they were stashing something to me. Who drives away from a crime scene (after the shooter has left!), "brushes themselves off", and then returns to the scene???? If they were scared, why didn't they stay somewhere safe and wait for the police? Maybe they felt guilty....?

Again, cell phone records will come out. If they show calls to buddies, then dunn will walk.


(Note to everyone else in this thread, I apologize for the excessive level of logic and the rage it induces on overly emotional people who know in their soft little hearts that the big ole evil white man is guilty)

I'm pretty sure everyone here wishes you would employ a little logic instead of twisting yourself into knots in order to arrive at the outcome you want emotionally.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Listen to that 911 call. Chilling. And that will be played for the jury?


This is like zimmerman vs trayvon all over again. Same exact feelings-based conclusions, same emotions, same craziness.

I have no doubt that no matter the outcome, justice will prevail. Again.

 

[thraashman]

Get control of yourself.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/witnes...oting/-/475880/20790378/-/1g82ut/-/index.html


"One was on his cellphone looking back, and it looked like they were pretty much just -- I don't know if they were trying to stash something in the car or look for something or what, but it looked like they got out, kind of brushed themselves off and then they got back in,"


Sounds like they were stashing something to me. Who drives away from a crime scene (after the shooter has left!), "brushes themselves off", and then returns to the scene???? If they were scared, why didn't they stay somewhere safe and wait for the police? Maybe they felt guilty....?

Again, cell phone records will come out. If they show calls to buddies, then dunn will walk.


(Note to everyone else in this thread, I apologize for the excessive level of logic and the rage it induces on overly emotional people who know in their soft little hearts that the big ole evil white man is guilty)

You haven't used the tiniest but of logic.

Same witness you mentioned

In his sworn statements to the state attorney's office the following month, the man from The Loop clarified that he did not see the men try to hide anything.

"Just so it's clear, the whole time you saw the vehicle, you never saw them throw anything out of the vehicle?" an investigator asked.

"Correct," the man said.

"And you never saw any weapons of any kind?" the investigator asked.

"Correct," the man said.

So while it may sound to you like they were stashing something, it sounds to THE WITNESS HIMSELF that they did nothing of the sort.

It's like arguing with the bet welcher cybrsage. Repeating the same lies over and over while ignoring the mountains of proof that he's wrong. At least that asshole got banned.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Look it doesn't matter if the witness can't specifically say "I saw them dig a hole behind these xy coordinates and bury a remington shotgun approximately 2 feet in the soft earth"


All that matters is reasonable doubt. And for a crew running with felons, who are being accused of pointing a shotgun at someone, the mere fact that a witness saw them "maybe stash something" is absolutely enough to cause reasonable doubt.


Again..... If these were a group of all A superstars then it probably wouldn't be enough. But I promise you, the defense is going to rip this all apart. And he doesn't have to PROVE that there was or was not a shotgun... Just create doubt. And considering all the details, that will be VERY easy to do.

 

[Geosurface]

Keep in mind Dunn could be making up the shotgun and still not have broken any law in what he did.

If one or more occupants of the car said "let's kill this cracka" or "who this bitch think he is? this fool bout to die" or whatever, and especially if one or more doors on the truck started to open along with those threats, my understanding is that Dunn was at that point legally able to do what he did.

He may have decided to lie about thinking he saw a gun to try to put himself even more deeply into the safe zone.

Or he could be a hot headed, short tempered murderous thug piece of shit who decided to gun down some kids and keep firing at their truck even as it sped away, simply because he hadn't been shown the proper amount of "respect" he thought he deserved from them when he told them to turn down their music.

I honestly don't know, but I will point out a few things which make me hesitate to embrace that second narrative:

1. People at the wedding party including a black DJ said he had hardly had any alcohol and left early to take care of his dog, and was very happy.
2. He was coming from his son's wedding he'd just started to reunite with, not a time where being murderous makes sense to me.
3. Does a man who has made it to middle age and has a successful business suddenly decide to just throw it away over some music?
4. Does a man decide to shoot up another car while his girlfriend is inside the store, and he'll be away from the loudness in a minute anyway, and when this could endanger her or force him to leave without her?
5. Wouldn't he have assumed that she was in there using a credit card in all likelihood, with her name on it, that she was on CCTV, and that he likely was too? And that his license plate was likely on tape?
6. If you're going to lie and say they had a gun, why would you make up a shotgun of all things? Why make up something that would be harder for the cops to have missed? Why not say a small pistol, it's more typical of what young gangsta types would carry, and the cops would second guess whether the kids might have been able to conceal it from them.
7. The fact that one of the few witnesses who called 911 mentioned "stashing something" which is pretty damned coincidental given what Dunn claimed.
8. The fact that seemingly cops did no search for what, more than a day? Of the area in that parking lot where they stopped and got out.
9. When I listened to Dunn's interviews with police and those of his girlfriend, I did not get the impression AT ALL that he was the type to do that.

None of these are definitive, they just are reasons why I find this a hard one to call.

 

[spidey07]

That's where common sense comes into play. What's more likely to have happened?

1) A felon thug crew verbally threaten a man's with credibility to follow up that threat via disparity of force?

2) A businessman coming home from a wedding decides to throw away his life just to shoot somebody

How the mind of the skittles works to twist what seems overwhelmingly obvious is a study in mental illness for sure. Just like the martin thread, they will avoid logic at all costs and rely strictly on their racist emotions.

 

[mugs]

Wow, only if you ignore pretty much everything about the case.


To a jury, coming from the defense, they will point out the fact that a witness though he saw them stashing something.

Stop repeating that lie. It is a lie. It has been pointed out to you many times that it is a lie, and you haven't provided any counter-argument. It is a fact, an undeniable fact, that the 911 caller did not say he thought he saw them stashing something. His actual words were, "One was on his cellphone looking back, and it looked like they were pretty much just -- I don't know if they were trying to stash something in the car or look for something or what, but it looked like they got out, kind of brushed themselves off and then they got back in".

You picked out the two words that you think support your point of view and ignored that he was clearly and undeniably speculating, a fact (an actual fact) that he confirmed when he spoke to police.

That they left the scene, returned, and neglected to share that info,

This is another lie that you have repeated many, many times in this thread despite the fact that it has been repeatedly debunked. This time it was Dunn's attorney who was speculating that maybe they didn't tell the police they left the scene, when Dunn's attorney did not know whether that was the case or not. This was debunked on page 39 of the police report.

It would probably be giving you too much credit to assume that you are feigning ignorance here, just repeating your same tired lies and your same tired racist dog whistles to get people riled up. But if you were doing that, in a case where a boy was murdered, that would be sociopathic behavior.
So what I'm saying is, I would probably be giving you too much credit to assume that you (and spidey, and geosafari, and the rest of your cross burning crew) are sociopaths.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Hate it as much as you want, but that's how the defense will present it to the Florida jury.

 

[Capt Caveman]

That's where common sense comes into play. What's more likely to have happened?

1) A felon thug crew verbally threaten a man's with credibility to follow up that threat via disparity of force?

2) A businessman coming home from a wedding decides to throw away his life just to shoot somebody

How the mind of the skittles works to twist what seems overwhelmingly obvious is a study in mental illness for sure. Just like the martin thread, they will avoid logic at all costs and rely strictly on their racist emotions.

And one of the above ran to only be caught by the cops and has been denied bail.

Another group that took off to evade the man shooting at them and then came back to the scene of the crime. Yes, thugs come back to the scene of the crime.

 

[mugs]

Hate it as much as you want, but that's how the defense will present it to the Florida jury.

You know it's funny, you seem to have changed your position from "he's innocent" to "his lawyer can create reasonable doubt." So that implies to me that you no longer think he was actually innocent. I guess that's a step in the right direction, but then why do you seem to still be rooting for him to be acquitted?

 

[Geosurface]

Something to keep in mind regarding the interview with the "stashing something" witness:

Police at that point seemed to have decided who they felt was the bad guy, that being Dunn. They don't like when they have to come get you with the SWAT team, and when you fled the scene and didn't call them. That puts them in an adversarial posture toward you right out of the gate. So does the fact that you created a problem and a dead body for them. So does the fact that if your story is correct, they missed a weapon during their search, AND they could look pretty bad for not searching the parking lot for 4 days.

So when I listen to the policewoman in that recording, talking to the witness, and she says "just to be clear you didn't see them throw anything correct?" I have to wonder (and maybe I should listen to the full interview again to check) if she is not deliberately crafting her question (or even unconsciously doing so) to get a "no" out of him.

If I were the detective interviewing him and I really wanted to get to the bottom of it, with no bias, I'd say "alright, so you didn't see them throw anything. Was there anything near where they parked in terms of bushes, a trash can, or ANYTHING AT ALL which a weapon could have been concealed in or around?" and the follow up: "Alright just one last question. I know you didn't see a weapon, but given what you did see them doing, and where you saw it, is there any possibility in your mind that either as they drove over there, or once they were there and got out of the vehicle, that one of them could have ditched something over there?"

I think it's highly likely the witness would have said something like "I can't be sure, I can't rule it out" but as the interview stands, at least the part the news played, and again I should listen to the full thing again... it sounds like the cops just want a "no" out of him and leave it at that.

You can bet that if I was Dunn's attorney this is a method I'd be using questioning both that witness, and the police. I'd say things like:

"And Officer so and so, one of the many unfortunate things about my client not calling you all that night was that you had no information that he was claiming these young men had had a gun, correct?"

"That's correct, due to Mr. Dunn's failure to contact us we were not made aware that night of any aspect of his version of events."

"And is it safe to say, officer, that had you been informed that my client was claiming to have seen a weapon, you would have approached the situation with more of a posture of looking for one?"

"I believe that if a weapon had been present on any of the young men, or in the vehicle, we would have found it."

"Ah, and why is that officer? Were the three remaining boys patted down? Was the area where they'd driven their truck to searched thoroughly? And when was that search conducted? Four days later? Would that not have provided MORE THAN ENOUGH time for either these boys or a friend of theirs to return to that scene and retrieve that weapon, or for the trash to be collected if it was in a trash can? In fact, isn't it true that it could have been retrieved that very night? When were these boys released from questioning that night, was any police presence still at the scene of the shooting at that hour?"

etc, etc, etc.

Also there's the other factor that was huge in the Trayvon case. Witnesses sounded less and less pro-Zimmerman as you got further from the night in question. Why? Because the news was full of stories painting Trayvon as the innocent victim. That influences their memory, their perception, and their desire to be a bad guy who is telling it otherwise.

 

[Vic]

And there was an eyewitness who initially claimed that the felon thug crew appeared to be stashing something.


So, both cases had shaky witnesses. Which produces reasonable doubt. Which results in shooters walking.

Because in this country, we try not to let lynch mobs incarcerate victims.

We don't let hot heads open fire just because they lost their temper either.

 

[mugs]

You don't even need the police interview to know that the 911 caller didn't see them "stash something," you just need a basic understanding of English. It's clear from his call that he didn't see that.

 

[Vic]

That's where common sense comes into play. What's more likely to have happened?

1) A felon thug crew verbally threaten a man's with credibility to follow up that threat via disparity of force?

2) A businessman coming home from a wedding decides to throw away his life just to shoot somebody

How the mind of the skittles works to twist what seems overwhelmingly obvious is a study in mental illness for sure. Just like the martin thread, they will avoid logic at all costs and rely strictly on their racist emotions.

#2.. no doubt of it. People just like Dunn make bad decisions just like that all the time, although usually they use a car instead of a gun as their weapon.

I like your use of charged words, as it shows how obviously biased and emotionally involved you are in this.

 

[CitizenKain]

That's where common sense comes into play. What's more likely to have happened?

1) A felon thug crew verbally threaten a man's with credibility to follow up that threat via disparity of force?

2) A businessman coming home from a wedding decides to throw away his life just to shoot somebody

How the mind of the skittles works to twist what seems overwhelmingly obvious is a study in mental illness for sure. Just like the martin thread, they will avoid logic at all costs and rely strictly on their racist emotions.

3) Drunk racist shoots at black people because he's that kind of person.
I can see why you like him.

 

[Geosurface]

You don't even need the police interview to know that the 911 caller didn't see them "stash something," you just need a basic understanding of English. It's clear from his call that he didn't see that.

What you say is true IF we are using the very strict sense of "did he or did he not see one of the young men get out of the car with a shotgun, which he recognized from that great distance to be a shotgun, and did he then see that young man conceal that shotgun in the area around the truck?"

If that is how literal we're being about "didn't see them stash something" then you're right.

However, you need to keep some things in mind:

1.) Something about what he saw happening over there with those young men getting out of that truck, brought the idea of "stashing something" into his head. That's why he said it. Maybe is just an awful racist like Dunn must be, and so he automatically assumed that three young black men must be stashing something. Must be up to something. OR something about their posture, demeanor, and movements called "stashing something" to his mind as he watched it.

2.) "Stashing something in the truck" can mean two different things. It can mean you taking something which was already in the truck and/or on someone's person who was in the truck, and moving it to a different area in the truck in the hopes of concealing its presence. It can ALSO MEAN taking something which was in the truck and stashing it wherever. On someone's person, in the surrounding area, whatever.

It reminds me of Witness 6, John Good, in the Zimmerman/Trayvon case. He initially said very clearly and without any hesitation that he had seen Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, "raining down blows" on him. Some time later he remained very clear on that. As it got EVEN LATER though, and the national narrative about the incident was everywhere on the news, and the idea of being the key witness who exonerated Zimmerman became a less and less appealing position to be in, he started hedging and saying things like "Well I didn't see actual punches, I saw hand movements which I interpreted as punches but he also could have been holding him down." He also dialed back his certainty on it being Zimmerman screaming.

But it didn't really matter because we had independent evidence which told us what he saw even if he'd lost the spine to do so. Namely, and most importantly: Zimmerman's injuries. But also his testimony which just happened to perfectly match what Witness 6 had said that night.

In this case, it's similar with "stash something" witness guy. He may be going through a similar (though less intense) version of what John Good did. Losing his taste for being Dunn's star witness against his own will. This may make him very anxious to make it VERY CLEAR that he did not actually see them stash anything. Especially when the prosecutor is fervently trying to help him say exactly that through her questioning methods.

Nonetheless, as I said, SOMETHING about what he saw going on over in that parking lot in and around that truck, made the notion of "stashing something" pop into his head, even so much so that he said it out loud to the dispatch operator. So whether he knows he saw them stash something or not, and whether he doesn't WANT to have seen that or not, and whether he wishes every night he hadn't said it, he may still have seen it.

 

[Geosurface]

And again I return to the question which I'd really like anyone who's absolutely convinced of Dunn's guilt to take a crack at:

If you are going to knowingly lie about seeing a gun which was not there, and which you know was not there, and which you therefore know the cops CANNOT HAVE FOUND, why would you choose a shotgun, which is large, long (even sawed off), and hard to miss/conceal? And which is also less typical of what you'd expect young gangsta types to have.

The stereotypical kind of gun for young gangstas to pack is a "glock" or a "gat" - some kind of pistol. Right? A pistol also just happens to be a LOT easier to conceal and/or miss during a search than a shotgun is.

And Dunn apparently knew his guns well.

So can anyone tell me why he would choose to say shotgun, if he was purely pulling this out of his ass and could have said any gun he felt like saying? Including a very small pistol the cops would be forced to wonder whether they'd missed being concealed on one of the surviving three's person?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Dunn will not be acquitted, so that's a moot point. This 'reasonable doubt' about the shotgun is something a few tools on the Internet made up and then keep insisting is real. There are no witnesses who will be testifying that there was a shotgun.

I remember those who said the same thing in the Zimmerman trial. It's very possible that the defense can sway the jury and cause them to have reasonable doubt whether there was a gun or not. The fact the police failed to secure the area and search it for 4 days may very well be a major issue in the case as there's far too much time for evidence to disappear.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what is presented to the jury and what their decision is in the case.

 

[Geosurface]

I remember those who said the same thing in the Zimmerman trial. It's very possible that the defense can sway the jury and cause them to have reasonable doubt whether there was a gun or not. The fact the police failed to secure the area and search it for 4 days may very well be a major issue in the case as there's far too much time for evidence to disappear.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what is presented to the jury and what their decision is in the case.

Yea it amuses me that the people who are absolutely sure that Dunn is guilty as sin and just popped off on these kids for no better reason than irritation and loud music... AND who are absolutely certain about the outcome of the trial... fancy themselves to be the rational, reasonable ones in this thread.

Meanwhile, I have said numerous times and I will say again: I honestly don't know which version of events happened and I think both are possible. I also have no idea what will happen at trial, though if I were a betting man I'd wager Dunn is done.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

You know it's funny, you seem to have changed your position from "he's innocent" to "his lawyer can create reasonable doubt." So that implies to me that you no longer think he was actually innocent. I guess that's a step in the right direction, but then why do you seem to still be rooting for him to be acquitted?

My position has always been that you can't prove the guy innocent.

But I also think it's pretty obvious that you can't prove the guilty either.

I think it's probable that they pointed something at him. I believe he did legitimately fear for his life. I think he's an idiot, and likely started their interaction by asking him to turn down the music, but that isn't illegal. And they likely replied in a way that caused him to legitimately fear for his life.

Do you really think that a group of young kids who are blasting music at a gas station and run with people who have 3 felony convictions are just going to ignore some old white guy demanding they turn down their music? Replace these kids listening to rap with a group of deep woods redneck white kids, one with 3 recent felony convictions, and I would feel the same way.

I also think they stashed something, based on witness testimony. Twist it all you want, but the bottom line is that the witness was suspicious of them.

 

[mugs]

However, you need to keep some things in mind:

1.) Something about what he saw happening over there with those young men getting out of that truck, brought the idea of "stashing something" into his head. That's why he said it. Maybe is just an awful racist like Dunn must be, and so he automatically assumed that three young black men must be stashing something. Must be up to something. OR something about their posture, demeanor, and movements called "stashing something" to his mind as he watched it.

I'll grant that something about the situation brought the idea of "stashing something" into his head; not necessarily something he saw. Remember that there were gunshots, and he saw their SUV flee from the direction of the gunshots. And since the cross burning crew thinks it's reasonable to assume people are criminal just because they're black and maybe dressed a certain way, it's relevant here too - the witness saw who they were. So putting all of that together, his first guess was probably that they were the ones who fired the gun. I think anyone would agree that he made that assumption. But his statements about what he actually saw where "One was on his cellphone looking back" and "it looked like they got out, kind of brushed themselves off and then they got back in." If he saw a gun, surely he would have mentioned it?

2.) "Stashing something in the truck" can mean two different things. It can mean you taking something which was already in the truck and/or on someone's person who was in the truck, and moving it to a different area in the truck in the hopes of concealing its presence. It can ALSO MEAN taking something which was in the truck and stashing it wherever. On someone's person, in the surrounding area, whatever.

I'm not arguing with that.

 

[Vic]

I remember those who said the same thing in the Zimmerman trial. It's very possible that the defense can sway the jury and cause them to have reasonable doubt whether there was a gun or not. The fact the police failed to secure the area and search it for 4 days may very well be a major issue in the case as there's far too much time for evidence to disappear.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what is presented to the jury and what their decision is in the case.

What part about these cases are not similar except that a 17 year old black kid got killed in Florida is so hard for some people to understand?

In the meantime, Dunn is hardly the first murder defendant to claim he saw a gun and acted in self defense, and then no such gun is ever found. Go look up that case law and precedent and get back to us.

 

[Geosurface]

What part about these cases are not similar except that a 17 year old black kid got killed in Florida is so hard for some people to understand?

In the meantime, Dunn is hardly the first murder defendant to claim he saw a gun and acted in self defense, and then no such gun is ever found. Go look up that case law and precedent and get back to us.

I readily and completely acknowledge Dunn might be a psycho, racist, asshole killer who went "Dirty Harry" on these kids and lied about them having a gun.

Definitely a possibility.

Can you acknowledge that they could've had a gun or he could've thought they did (and they might've even wanted him to think they did) and that they might've made real, credible threats on his life (even if they meant them only to intimidate and seem tough to one another) and that he COULD HAVE fired in self-defense?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Meanwhile, I have said numerous times and I will say again: I honestly don't know which version of events happened and I think both are possible. I also have no idea what will happen at trial, though if I were a betting man I'd wager Dunn is done.

I'm going to say there's a 90% chance of Dunn being convicted of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter and 10% chance of acquittal.