Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[Capt Caveman]

Dumb ass. He's going to jail and will get shredded. He handled everything wrong, doesn't mean he didn't lawfully shoot in self defense.

He has to. No evidence has backed-up his self-defense except his own testimony.

 

[HumblePie]

Well if he does go to jail, then he DIDN'T shoot lawfully in self defense.

Really? Ever heard of the Innocence Project? I guess that must mean those people are only dedicated to getting hardened criminals out of jail.

 

[HomerJS]

Just stumbled upon something claiming that this was the song playing in the Durango at the time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDh0FcJ1atA

Mostly just linking it as a curiosity. It's pretty much what you'd expect. Only real direct relevance it has to the case is that the song does in fact contain phrases which match Dunn's claim that he briefly had difficulty discerning if what he was hearing was part of the song, them singing along with it, or something directed at him (to be clear, he was very firm on the fact that the utterances which directly led to him opening fire were unquestionably directed at him, and that Jordan Davis was saying them to him face to face.)



I would seriously doubt it. I think Corey sees this as her second shot at Zimmerman by proxy. Doesn't want anything less than the maximum charge, maximum penalty.

Dunn jest testified he couldn't hear the lyrics yet he complained about the "thug music" He only heard the bass. He said his eardrums were shaking yet he had no problem parking next to them.

 

[cubby1223]

Just stumbled upon something claiming that this was the song playing in the Durango at the time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDh0FcJ1atA

Mostly just linking it as a curiosity. It's pretty much what you'd expect. Only real direct relevance it has to the case is that the song does in fact contain phrases which match Dunn's claim that he briefly had difficulty discerning if what he was hearing was part of the song, them singing along with it, or something directed at him (to be clear, he was very firm on the fact that the utterances which directly led to him opening fire were unquestionably directed at him, and that Jordan Davis was saying them to him face to face.)

Are you arguing it is okay to shoot someone dead if you incorrectly hear what the person was saying to you?

 

[Daverino]

Are you arguing it is okay to shoot someone dead if you incorrectly hear what the person was saying to you?

Wow, he is testifying that Jordan got fully out of the car.

 

[HumblePie]

Dunn is a stupid ass in taking the stand. No one will remember exactly what they said 14 months ago. Any inconsistency will be brought up by the prosecution, rightly or wrongly, to be used as a method to show he doesn't know what he's talking about and to get the jury to toss out most of his testimony.

Too many innocent people, not saying Dunn is at this point, but many innocent people have been put in jail for just that reason. They took the stand, screwed up, and ended up in jail for a crime they didn't commit. Which is, as I pointed out earlier, something the Innocence Project tries to rectify if they can. Because once you are in prison, it's harder proving you were innocent of the crime than before you get put in there. Mainly because of mentalities already demonstrated by those like classy.

 

[HomerJS]

Dunn is a stupid ass in taking the stand. No one will remember exactly what they said 14 months ago. Any inconsistency will be brought up by the prosecution, rightly or wrongly, as be used as a method to show he doesn't know what he's talking about and to get the jury to toss out most of his testimony.

Too many innocent people, not saying Dunn is at this point, but many innocent people have been put in jail for just that reason. They took the stand, screwed up, and ended up in jail for a crime they didn't commit. Which is, as I pointed out earlier, something the Innocence Project tries to rectify if they can. Because once you are in prison, it's harder proving you were innocent of the crime than before you get put in there. Mainly because of mentalities already demonstrated by those like classy.

Isn't that usually the defense lawyers decision?

 

[HumblePie]

Isn't that usually the defense lawyers decision?

No. The lawyer can highly recommend the defendant not take the stand, but they can't stop them.

 

[spidey07]

Isn't that usually the defense lawyers decision?

It's ultimately up the defendant, the lawyer can tell him it's a bad idea all day long, but it is the defendant's right and why the judge will ask the defendant directly if they want to testify or not reminding them it is their constitutional right to not testify.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Dunn had no choice but to take the stand if he wanted to get a self defense instruction included in the jury instruction.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/02/live-coverage-loud-music-murder-trial-day-5/

The second witness, I expect, will be the defendant, Michael Dunn himself. At present there seems insufficient–meaning no–evidence of self-defense necessary for the defense to meet its burden of production on the issue of self-defense. If they fail to meet this burden the jury will not be instructed on self-defense and a conviction is certain.

 

[HomerJS]

Dunn had no choice but to take the stand if he wanted to get a self defense instruction included in the jury instruction.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/02/live-coverage-loud-music-murder-trial-day-5/

I'm listening to this and the cross is going to be a bitch. So many things to refute.

 

[HumblePie]

The defense on this case is doing a terrible job from what I can tell.

 

[Vic]

Dunn had no choice but to take the stand if he wanted to get a self defense instruction included in the jury instruction.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/02/live-coverage-loud-music-murder-trial-day-5/

I've been following the trial from that site BTW. Branca definitely knows his self-defense law. I've even been thinking about sending spidey a copy of his book.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I've been following the trial from that site BTW. Branca definitely knows his self-defense law. I've even been thinking about sending spidey a copy of his book.

I started following him during the Zimmerman trial and he's quite knowledgeable in self defense laws/defense team tactics.

 

[HumblePie]

Dunn had no choice but to take the stand if he wanted to get a self defense instruction included in the jury instruction.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/02/live-coverage-loud-music-murder-trial-day-5/

The thing that stands out, is that Branca claims the only way that a self defense instruction will be read is if Dunn gets on the stand and claims self defense and just utters those words. Which is silly because he uttered those words in his initial deposition and testimony. Evidence entered for a self defense claim is just entering his previous testimony into evidence at this point. He doesn't actually have to take the stand at all.

I'll point out again that the defense in this case is absolutely horrible.

 

[classy]

Man, defendants should never take the stand.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Man, defendants should never take the stand.

Wow. He's frying himself.

 

[classy]

This dude is clearly a little off.

 

[classy]

Zim skipped town, but this dude is headed to the pokey for a long time.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Then again should the jury believe that Dunn's testimony/explanation is sincere and believable it could result in an acquittal.

 

[classy]

Then again should the jury believe that Dunn's testimony/explanation is sincere and believable it could result in an acquittal.

This man killed someone in cold blood, how some of you people still hold out hope that people like this get away with murder is just so pathetic.

 

[HumblePie]

This man killed someone in cold blood, how some of you people still hold out hope that people like this get away with murder is just so pathetic.

He may or he may not have. There is evidence of self defense and not enough evidence of it being a old blooded premeditated 1st degree murder. At the same time the defense is doing a terrible job of presenting their evidence in the trial. Sloppy presentation doesn't mean he's guilty. I would like to say I would be surprised if he gets convicted, appeals, and fires off his defense. However, the way Dunn seems to have handled everything thus far means I think he might just take whatever is handed to him at the end of this trial.

 

[HomerJS]

He may or he may not have. There is evidence of self defense and not enough evidence of it being a old blooded premeditated 1st degree murder. At the same time the defense is doing a terrible job of presenting their evidence in the trial. Sloppy presentation doesn't mean he's guilty. I would like to say I would be surprised if he gets convicted, appeals, and fires off his defense. However, the way Dunn seems to have handled everything thus far means I think he might just take whatever is handed to him at the end of this trial.

Maybe its because the defense attorney doesn't have much to work with?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

This man killed someone in cold blood, how some of you people still hold out hope that people like this get away with murder is just so pathetic.

I was stating a potential outcome based on a defendant taking the stand but as usual you try misrepresenting someone's thoughts or beliefs based on the persons post.

I've already stated I felt the odds were 85% conviction, 10% acquittal, and 5% hung jury.

 

[HumblePie]

Maybe its because the defense attorney doesn't have much to work with?

I don't think so. Here is all the evidence they needed to get an acquittal. It has been pointed out several times in this thread.

1) Dunn claims that Davis was verbally threatening his life. Prosecution can disprove this because none of the witnesses claimed they could here exactly what Davis and Dunn were saying to each other on account of the loud music.

2) Dunn claims Davis tried to exit the vehicle after pulling what looked to him like a gun off the floor of the vehicle. A camera tripod was found on the floor of the SUV which could be construed as a gun and was under Davis's seat. The other witnesses claim that Davis was working at the handle of the vehicle in an attempt to get out.


That's it. If the defense had just stuck to those facts an brought in witnesses from the party to attest that Dunn did not drink enough to be inebriated then he gets off these charges. Simple and straightforward self defense. If the prosecution attempts to use Davis's character as a defense that he a good boy that would never threaten anyone else, the defense can then use the fact he was hanging out with known felons and helping assist a known felon in breaking his probation. None of which would be the actions of a good kid.