Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[Daverino]

Or I guess we could just put a new law on the books which says you are entitled to a jury of your racial peers.

Yup, I stand vindicated in lumping you in with Spatial and Incorruptible. You are just a plain-old regular racist. And the problem about being a racist is that it tarnishes everything you say to the point that it's really not worth giving a fuck about.

 

[blankslate]

Additionally, this has been overcharged, it should be manslaughter charge not 1st degree murder.

I'm wondering why they're going with Murder one too.

This doesn't seemed planned, and if it was it can't have been more than a quick one or two minute plan. I don't see how it rises to murder one unless they're counting extenuating circumstances like fleeing the scene and (in the most damning interpretation) apparently hoping no one tracks him down.

A conspiracy minded person might suggest the prosecution is setting the bar high because they're sure the judge is unlikely to allow the jury to consider lesser charges so as to make the defense's job easier.

Who knows?

Personally the highest I could see it going is murder two because Mr. Dunn drove 160 miles to reach home and didn't report the shooting before being picked up by police could be circumstances that bump up the alleged crime from manslaughter to murder.


.....

 

[SpatiallyAware]

No different than the trayvon case..... They trump up the charges, to make it appear to the layperson like they did everything possible to get a conviction.

In reality, anyone who knows the details of the case and the laws that protect self defense and the requirement to prove guilt knows he will likely walk.

 

[Vic]

I've been watching the whole trial, it's not in dispute that Dunn was in his vehicle and communicating with them through his car window. They were in their truck and Davis' window was halfway down. Dunn never got out of his car through the entire thing other than possibly while shooting.

Not trying to sound douchey btw, just trying to help clarify.

Dunn got out of the car.

Both vehicles were parked side by side and facing forward towards the door of the gas station convenience store. The Durango with the kids was on the driver's side of Dunn's Jetta. Dunn was in the driver's seat of his car, Davis was in the right rear passenger seat of his.
From the driver's seat, Dunn opened the glove box, removed the handgun inside, chambered a round, and fired 3 shots in rapid succession into the rear passenger door, all 3 striking Davis, 2 in the legs and 1 in the abdominal aorta, killing him (death by exsanguination would have taken about 4 minutes).
Almost without pausing, Dunn then fired 4 more shots in rapid succession at the front passenger door, all of which missed the passenger in that seat (although not from lack of trying, investigators have stated that at least one of the bullets struck the side impact reinforcement beam inside the door).
At this point, the driver of the SUV is now backing out of the parking spot. Dunn now exits his vehicle, squats down and takes careful aim at the rear of the fleeing vehicle, firing 4 more shots in rapid succession, at least one of those shots shattering the rear window and lodging in the headliner near the driver's head.

That's 10 shots total. 9 struck the SUV. The "felon thug crew" did not return fire, most likely because they were unarmed. Nor did any of the victims get out of their vehicle until after Dunn had fled the scene, going back to his hotel to order pizza and presumably drink some more.

Let's get this all straight. Dunn was drunk. He was driving. He pulled up to the store and his GF went in to buy more alcohol. Then the "thugs" pulled up blaring their music. Dunn asked for them to turn it down, and they complied, but not without a lot of foul language. Dunn is then overheard by a witness issuing a threat, "You're not going to talk to me like that, " and then opened fire.

Perhaps the most telling thing about this trial, to me, was when the jury said on Saturday that they wanted to hear more on Sunday (the judge refused it). I've served jury duty on several occasions, and that tells me that they are eager to deliver their verdict. In any event, I predict a short deliberation.

 

[HumblePie]

Didn't know about the big camera tripod on the floor of the vehicle that was found. The witnesses claim already that it looked like Jordan may have tried to exited the vehicle as well when cussing at Dunn.

So if Jordan threatened Dunn's life, raised the camera tripod up, and made to exit the vehicle... that's all Dunn needs to show his claim of self defense is credible. None of the rest of it matters for murder.

Now he might get attempted murder or reckless endangerment for continuing to fire at a fleeing vehicle. That's a different story and I posted that before. He'll have to prove that he felt threatened they weren't fleeing but going to get friends or something. So long as he shows that he felt still threatened by them and that a reasonable person would still be threatened by their past actions then he won't be guilty of those charges either.

However, I think those are going to be the harder charges to disprove.

 

[HomerJS]

Didn't know about the big camera tripod on the floor of the vehicle that was found. The witnesses claim already that it looked like Jordan may have tried to exited the vehicle as well when cussing at Dunn.

So if Jordan threatened Dunn's life, raised the camera tripod up, and made to exit the vehicle... that's all Dunn needs to show his claim of self defense is credible. None of the rest of it matters for murder.

Now he might get attempted murder or reckless endangerment for continuing to fire at a fleeing vehicle. That's a different story and I posted that before. He'll have to prove that he felt threatened they weren't fleeing but going to get friends or something. So long as he shows that he felt still threatened by them and that a reasonable person would still be threatened by their past actions then he won't be guilty of those charges either.

However, I think those are going to be the harder charges to disprove.

What do you mean "may have tried to exit vehicle" If they were witnesses that would have been easy to discern.

Also how do you perform the leap from "may have been trying to exit" to "threatening" Dunn's life??

 

[spidey07]

What do you mean "may have tried to exit vehicle" If they were witnesses that would have been easy to discern.

Also how do you perform the leap from "may have been trying to exit" to "threatening" Dunn's life??

If there are verbal threats to Mr. Dunn's life with the capability to carry those out (and in this case disparity of force) then Mr. Dunn is lawfully allowed to use deadly force to stop the imminent threat to his life.

If he was attempting to exit the vehicle only lands more credibility that the verbal threat to Mr. Dunn's life was being followed up by action and approaching the victim Mr. Dunn further proving self defense was lawful and warranted.

 

[Daverino]

Jordan may have said something and may have tried exiting the vehicle which may have been a threat. Therefore you must acquit.

Sounds legit to me.

 

[HumblePie]

What do you mean "may have tried to exit vehicle" If they were witnesses that would have been easy to discern.

Also how do you perform the leap from "may have been trying to exit" to "threatening" Dunn's life??

"May have" would be attempting to open the door. Or partially opening the door. Even so far as trying to remove his seatbelt. All those imply Jordan was attempting to exit the vehicle. The fact he didn't get out yet doesn't mean he wasn't attempting it.

Dunn stated that Jordan was threatening his life. The others in the vehicle said that Jordan was cussing loudly and angrily at Dunn, but specifically all teens in the car said the radio was so loud that they couldn't hear what Jordan was yelling at Dunn. Which means there is NO ONE to state the opposite of what Dunn claims. That Jordan was threatening his life. The prosecution must disprove that evidence which Dunn's testimony is. This is like Zimmerman and Trayvon case. TESTIMONY IS EVIDENCE. The prosecution must present evidence that disproves or counters defense evidence. If they can't do it, then the defense evidence is the only thing that stands. The prosecution right now has failed to disprove the evidence presented that Jordan was making threats on Dunn's life. It is a simple concept to understand.

 

[Vic]

If there are verbal threats to Mr. Dunn's life with the capability to carry those out (and in this case disparity of force) then Mr. Dunn is lawfully allowed to use deadly force to stop the imminent threat to his life.

If he was attempting to exit the vehicle only lands more credibility that the verbal threat to Mr. Dunn's life was being followed up by action and approaching the victim Mr. Dunn further proving self defense was lawful and warranted.

Hey, stupid, the only threat attested to by any witness was issued by Dunn. "You're not going to talk to me like that. "

 

[bshole]

"May have" would be attempting to open the door. Or partially opening the door. Even so far as trying to remove his seatbelt. All those imply Jordan was attempting to exit the vehicle. The fact he didn't get out yet doesn't mean he wasn't attempting it.

Dunn stated that Jordan was threatening his life. The others in the vehicle said that Jordan was cussing loudly and angrily at Dunn, but specifically all teens in the car said the radio was so loud that they couldn't hear what Jordan was yelling at Dunn. Which means there is NO ONE to state the opposite of what Dunn claims. That Jordan was threatening his life. The prosecution must disprove that evidence which Dunn's testimony is. This is like Zimmerman and Trayvon case. TESTIMONY IS EVIDENCE. The prosecution must present evidence that disproves or counters defense evidence. If they can't do it, then the defense evidence is the only thing that stands. The prosecution right now has failed to disprove the evidence presented that Jordan was making threats on Dunn's life. It is a simple concept to understand.

Wow! There is NO testimony that supports this. Dunn has to actually testify first. He may or may not testify. You are assuming facts not in evidence. What Dunn said to the police is irrelevant unless the prosecution introduces is it as evidence or use it to impeach Dunn should he decide to testify.

 

[Vic]

"May have" would be attempting to open the door. Or partially opening the door. Even so far as trying to remove his seatbelt. All those imply Jordan was attempting to exit the vehicle. The fact he didn't get out yet doesn't mean he wasn't attempting it.

Dunn stated that Jordan was threatening his life. The others in the vehicle said that Jordan was cussing loudly and angrily at Dunn, but specifically all teens in the car said the radio was so loud that they couldn't hear what Jordan was yelling at Dunn. Which means there is NO ONE to state the opposite of what Dunn claims. That Jordan was threatening his life. The prosecution must disprove that evidence which Dunn's testimony is. This is like Zimmerman and Trayvon case. TESTIMONY IS EVIDENCE. The prosecution must present evidence that disproves or counters defense evidence. If they can't do it, then the defense evidence is the only thing that stands. The prosecution right now has failed to disprove the evidence presented that Jordan was making threats on Dunn's life. It is a simple concept to understand.

Do courts and juries normally consider the testimony of a witness who was intoxicated at the time of the incident to be reliable?

 

[Geosurface]

Yup, I stand vindicated in lumping you in with Spatial and Incorruptible. You are just a plain-old regular racist. And the problem about being a racist is that it tarnishes everything you say to the point that it's really not worth giving a fuck about.

Uh oh, looks like someone didn't bother to pay attention to the conversational flow which led to that post of mine you quoted, and that same someone isn't real clear on the typical implication of the emoticon either.

Someone else (with presumably a similar mindset to your own) was complaining about how white the jury on this trial is. I was pointing out the silliness of what he was saying by taking it to its logical extreme.

Capisce?

 

[HumblePie]

Hey, stupid, the only threat attested to by any witness was issued by Dunn. "You're not going to talk to me like that. "

That quote has only come from two sources thus far in the trial. Guy's opening argument and the mother of Jordan Davis. It's not evidence that he said that yet by one of the witnesses. Dunn only stated he said, "Are you talking to me?" and I believe in the witness testimony of the other teens of the vehicle have backed up that by Dunn. It's a charged statement that thus far doesn't have any credibility to it.

 

[spidey07]

Do courts and juries normally consider the testimony of a witness who was intoxicated at the time of the incident to be reliable?

Do the courts and the juries normally consider the testimony of a convicted felon who was violating probation at the time of the threat to Mr. Dunn's life was issued?

 

[Daverino]

"May have" would be attempting to open the door. Or partially opening the door. Even so far as trying to remove his seatbelt. All those imply Jordan was attempting to exit the vehicle. The fact he didn't get out yet doesn't mean he wasn't attempting it.

Dunn stated that Jordan was threatening his life. The others in the vehicle said that Jordan was cussing loudly and angrily at Dunn, but specifically all teens in the car said the radio was so loud that they couldn't hear what Jordan was yelling at Dunn. Which means there is NO ONE to state the opposite of what Dunn claims. That Jordan was threatening his life. The prosecution must disprove that evidence which Dunn's testimony is. This is like Zimmerman and Trayvon case. TESTIMONY IS EVIDENCE. The prosecution must present evidence that disproves or counters defense evidence. If they can't do it, then the defense evidence is the only thing that stands. The prosecution right now has failed to disprove the evidence presented that Jordan was making threats on Dunn's life. It is a simple concept to understand.

Man oh man, South Park has you covered too. So instead of the 'Chewbacca Defense' you're going with the 'it's coming right for us!' defense.

This is Poe's Law in reverse. People have already MADE the stupid parodies of the logic you're using. Half this thread reads like a neocon version of The Onion without the irony.

 

[HumblePie]

Do courts and juries normally consider the testimony of a witness who was intoxicated at the time of the incident to be reliable?

Evidence of intoxication? The person has to be proven to be intoxicated and then their testimony of events is taken in light of that. Without that proof, then his testimony is considered to be given by someone of sound mind at the time. The prosecution can not prove he was intoxicated, and they tried, by asking everyone at the wedding how much he had drunk. Multiple witnesses state he didn't drink anything at all or sipped on possibly one drink. Dunn claims he had one along with his girlfriend. Which all was hours before the encounter with Dunn. The likelyhood of him being intoxicated is an implausibility at this point. There is no evidence for it. To use that as a legal argument at this stage in the game is not very smart.

This is how the law works. The prosecution has to present evidence that overcomes the hurdle of self defense claim and any evidence for that claim. They have to disprove what Dunn said was false or incorrect on some account. So far they haven't done that and in fact much of the evidence helps corroborate his story.

 

[Daverino]

Uh oh, looks like someone didn't bother to pay attention to the conversational flow which led to that post of mine you quoted, and that same someone isn't real clear on the typical implication of the emoticon either.

Someone else (with presumably a similar mindset to your own) was complaining about how white the jury on this trial is. I was pointing out the silliness of what he was saying by taking it to its logical extreme.

Capisce?

Then you've saved yourself for another round. That's the dilemma you'll face when the other people who are supporting you in the thread genuinely believe your suggestion is a good one. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, based on Poe's Law. Just use a <sarcasm> tag in the future instead of

 

[Vic]

Evidence of intoxication? The person has to be proven to be intoxicated and then their testimony of events is taken in light of that. Without that proof, then his testimony is considered to be given by someone of sound mind at the time. The prosecution can not prove he was intoxicated, and they tried, by asking everyone at the wedding how much he had drunk. Multiple witnesses state he didn't drink anything at all or sipped on possibly one drink. Dunn claims he had one along with his girlfriend. Which all was hours before the encounter with Dunn. The likelyhood of him being intoxicated is an implausibility at this point. There is no evidence for it. To use that as a legal argument at this stage in the game is not very smart.

This is how the law works. The prosecution has to present evidence that overcomes the hurdle of self defense claim and any evidence for that claim. They have to disprove what Dunn said was false or incorrect on some account. So far they haven't done that and in fact much of the evidence helps corroborate his story.

Which trial are you watching? Dunn's GF testified that he had 3 to 4 rum and cokes just prior to the incident.

 

[HumblePie]

Man oh man, South Park has you covered too. So instead of the 'Chewbacca Defense' you're going with the 'it's coming right for us!' defense.

This is Poe's Law in reverse. People have already MADE the stupid parodies of the logic you're using. Half this thread reads like a neocon version of The Onion without the irony.

I know the parody that south park made on that. Doesn't mean that it changes how the laws work just because someone made a parody cartoon about it.

The point being that Dunn made the statement that Jordan was threatening his life. A threat isn't credible evidence for self defense as Jordan has to present a credible threat which goes beyond mere words. Dunn then stated that Jordan reach down to get something off the floor of the vehicle which looked like a shotgun from his vantage point. That Jordan than looked to be attempting to exit the vehicle as he pulled out his gun and fired.

The claim that Jordan was making threats to his life has not been disproven by the prosecution. The testimony of the other teens only corroborate that Davis could have made those threats since the music was too loud for them to hear Davis clearly. The other teens also stated he may have tried to get out of his seat. The fact there was a large camera tripod found in the vehicle is enough evidence that Dunn could have construed that as a weapon, possibly a long gun like a shotgun, if Davis had picked it up. All three of those pieces of evidence present a credible threat scenario. That's how the law works. Those are all pieces of evidence. The prosecution must now show evidence that counters those pieces of evidence. If the prosecution can, then Dunn will be found guilty of murder. If not, then he won't.

 

[HumblePie]

Which trial are you watching? Dunn's GF testified that he had 3 to 4 rum and cokes just prior to the incident.

I was going by her previous testimony to cops that I watched. I'm at work and am not watching the trial. I read about it later as I can. Did the GF state that on the stand?

EDIT searched, yep looked like the GF said Dunn had 3 or 4 "cocktails" at the wedding reception on the stand. Which is strange as it is different than her original testimony to the cops when they interviewed her.

 

[Vic]

Do the courts and the juries normally consider the testimony of a convicted felon who was violating probation at the time of the threat to Mr. Dunn's life was issued?

You realize that there are more witnesses, right?

And seriously, how often does it need to be pointed out to you that there is no credible evidence of any threat against Dunn?

 

[Vic]

I was going by her previous testimony to cops that I watched. I'm at work and am not watching the trial. I read about it later as I can. Did the GF state that on the stand?

Yes, she did.

 

[bshole]

Which trial are you watching? Dunn's GF testified that he had 3 to 4 rum and cokes just prior to the incident.

The fucker was trashed. I drink a single rum and coke every night and it gives me a nice buzz. 4 rum and cokes and you are fucked up. A typical rum and coke is the equivalent of TWO normal mixed drinks - 8-10 shots.

So Humble, their is your testimony UNDER OATH. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. His intoxication explains damn near everything I need to know.

From the trial notes:

5:14 p.m. update (By Andrew Pantazi): Rhonda Rouer, Michael Dunn's fiancée, finished her testimony, which proved to be the most emotional of the day.
She held onto tissues throughout her testimony and drank from a Styrofoam cup.

She first accidentally raised her left hand and then raised her shaking right hand.

She said at Dunn's son's wedding she had two to three rum-and-coke drinks and a glass of wine. She said she believes Dunn had three or four rum-and-coke drinks and no champagne.

 

[HumblePie]

Yes, she did.

I made an edit to my previous post. This will get shredded by the defense if that is what she said on the stand considering her original testimony during her original deposition.