Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[soundforbjt]

So if I say "Fuck you" you're allowed to shoot me?

In spidey's mind, yes. :\ He doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word "reasonable".

 

[Pens1566]

Note the word IMMINENT, the teens were in their car and unarmed (as far as we know and all evidence shows), they couldn't do jack sheit to hurt him without at the very least getting out of their vehicle so he was in NO IMMINENT DANGER.

Also the word "reasonably'. A concept that no one would ever suggest that spidey is capable of adhering to or even recognizing.

 

[SheHateMe]

Do you think you'd react exactly the same way to this story if it was a 45 year old black businessman and a car full of white kids?

I want you to seriously think about this and not just auto-respond "yes of course!"

And if you come up with a "yes" to that, now change it to 4 white skinheads.

So, now you are asking me to be racial biased just like you.

I would respond exactly the same. I'm not racially prejudiced like you, Geo. Nice try.

 

[spidey07]

Also the word "reasonably'. A concept that no one would ever suggest that spidey is capable of adhering to or even recognizing.

Disparity of force is automatic for reasonable threat, I suggest you go research it more.

 

[spidey07]

So if I say "Fuck you" you're allowed to shoot me?

No, as that is not an imminent threat to my life. This is all covered in concealed carry classes which are generally provided by the state, sanctioned by the state's attorney general. Are you telling me they lied when they included this in the state sanctioned training material?

Let me put it another way. Do you think ANY of the following is not a crime and/or felony?

1) Verbally threatening another's life, aka, a death threat
2) Death threats
3) Death threats over the telephone
4) Death threats via letter

 

[soundforbjt]

Disparity of force is automatic for reasonable threat, I suggest you go research it more.

So, if more than one person tells you to fuck off, you're good to shoot...got it. 🙄

 

[soundforbjt]

No, as that is not an imminent threat to my life. This is all covered in concealed carry classes which are generally provided by the state, sanctioned by the state's attorney general. Are you telling me they lied when they included this in the state sanctioned training material?

Let me put it another way. Do you think ANY of the following is not a crime and/or felony?

1) Verbally threatening another's life, aka, a death threat


How would you prove the threat was made towards you?

 

[spidey07]

So, if more than one person tells you to fuck off, you're good to shoot...got it. 🙄

No, I've specifically explained this to you dozens of times, you are making shit up again and maintaining willfully ignorance.

It must be a THREAT against life or great bodily injury. The disparity of force just adds to the reasonably believes part. I suggest you research it more before spouting off more nonsense like you're doing. You're wrong, i'm right and that's all there is to it.

 

[CVSiN]

So if I say "Fuck you" you're allowed to shoot me?

no but if you said " kill that fool" or "I'm gonna kill you"..

then yes I can and WILL shoot you..

 

[spidey07]

How would you prove the threat was made towards you?

Sworn statement to police. AKA - Evidence.

 

[surfsatwerk]

So, if more than one person tells you to fuck off, you're good to shoot...got it. 🙄

I cleared everyone out of my office so I can tell you to fuck off, because your idea sounds absurd.

 

[CVSiN]

No, I've specifically explained this to you dozens of times, you are making shit up again and maintaining willfully ignorance.

It must be a THREAT against life or great bodily injury. The disparity of force just adds to the reasonably believes part. I suggest you research it more before spouting off more nonsense like you're doing. You're wrong, i'm right and that's all there is to it.

don't even bother with them.
they are so blind and ignorant of the law it's not even funny..

here in Texas it is exactly the same.. threaten my life and I can shoot you.
just make sure you have a reliable witness or a cell phone vid running to capture the evidence.

 

[surfsatwerk]

don't even bother with them.
they are so blind and ignorant of the law it's not even funny..

here in Texas it is exactly the same.. threaten my life and I can shoot you.
just make sure you have a reliable witness or a cell phone vid running to capture the evidence.

Don't suppose a drunk girlfriend would make a good witness. Better to run and hope nobody writes down your plates.

 

[soundforbjt]

Sworn statement to police. AKA - Evidence.

So, in your world a shooter never lies?

 

[soundforbjt]

Don't suppose a drunk girlfriend would make a good witness. Better to run and hope nobody writes down your plates.

Especially since she was inside and didn't hear it.

 

[spidey07]

So, in your world a shooter never lies?

So, now that I've shown you the law that specifically states you can shoot via verbal threat to life you're going to change the subject?

That's how I know you're beaten.

Sworn statements are evidence and are truth until such is shown they are not.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Sworn statement to police. AKA - Evidence.

And the statements from the other teenagers in the vehicle and other witnesses are not evidence? And no evidence of a gun. Keep talking shit.

 

[QueBert]

So, now that I've shown you the law that specifically states you can shoot via verbal threat to life you're going to change the subject?

That's how I know you're beaten.

Sworn statements are evidence and are truth until such is shown they are not.

Yet you'll say until you're blue in the face that the other THREE people who were involved in this incident lied and were coached what to say. Why does Dunn get the luxury of his statement being the truth, yet the 3 who were in the SUV don't?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

So, now that I've shown you the law that specifically states you can shoot via verbal threat to life you're going to change the subject?

That's how I know you're beaten.

Sworn statements are evidence and are truth until such is shown they are not.

So, they didn't threaten him then and that is *truth* if the passengers of the SUV say so?

 

[spidey07]

So, they didn't threaten him then and that is *truth* if the passengers of the SUV say so?

That is also evidence and would give conflicting testimonies, which comes down to he said she said crap. But common sense would dictate that the guy would shoot only if he was threatened, and likely believed there to be a shotgun shown. That makes much more sense than the conspiracies being thrown around.

That the thugs had a chance to ditch the weapon gives more credence to Dunn's story.

 

[soundforbjt]

So, now that I've shown you the law that specifically states you can shoot via verbal threat to life you're going to change the subject?

That's how I know you're beaten.

Sworn statements are evidence and are truth until such is shown they are not.

They've already been proven false thus far, no gun or gun-like object found. Shooter looks to be lying so far and is in custody and denied bail.

 

[QueBert]

That is also evidence and would give conflicting testimonies, which comes down to he said she said crap. But common sense would dictate that the guy would shoot only if he was threatened, and likely believed there to be a shotgun shown. That makes much more sense than the conspiracies being thrown around.

That the thugs had a chance to ditch the weapon gives more credence to Dunn's story.

Sorry, there's no credence to the story of a man who fled the scene and had no intention of ever reporting what he did. Guilty people run, and he ran. But of course you already know the kids were thugs without any proof even.

There's no use trying to talk to you about anything logical or reasonable. *IF* they actually did have a gun and Dunn's not lying out of his ass, him calling the police immediately after the shooting would have probably lead to the cops finding this mythical weapon.

 

[soundforbjt]

That is also evidence and would give conflicting testimonies, which comes down to he said she said crap. But common sense would dictate that the guy would shoot only if he was threatened, and likely believed there to be a shotgun shown. That makes much more sense than the conspiracies being thrown around.

That the thugs had a chance to ditch the weapon gives more credence to Dunn's story.

Where's this evidence that the kids left and came back? I'd like to see the links. This guy claims to know a shotgun when he sees one. How'd the "expert" get it wrong? Someone suggested empty toilet rolls, could he be that dumb/paranoid of an expert to mistake that for a shotgun?

 

[Geosurface]

If they had a shotgun, illegally, and had in fact pointed it at this man for asking them to turn their music down, and had in fact threatened his life verbally as well, then he shot at them and left, and they knew cops were on the way... driving off, dumping it down a storm drain a couple blocks away, and then lying completely about the events leading up to Dunn shooting.... is precisely the behavior you'd expect.

And why in the world would they ever come clean?

Especially due to Dunn stupidly being absent from the scene and not in contact with police by phone.

He was absent from the equation as the initial police narrative was solidifying. Big mistake.

Their entire posture toward the 3 surviving kids, how they searched the truck, and surrounding area... how they questioned witnesses, all would've been different had Dunn been in communication with them by phone, turned himself in, etc.

As it stands now, regardless of what happened or didn't happened, he is probably completely fucked.

As I've said before, it is definitely possible he's a loon and shot for no good reason. If that's the case, I want him to rot in jail.

But anyone who isn't at least entertaining the notion that these kids exploded into a lot of bluster, threat, and indignation upon being asked to turn their music down, and that one or more of them MAY have crossed the line and said something threatening, is a dip shit for not at least considering that possibility.

Boil it down to this, which is more likely:

1.) 45 year old business man coming from his son's wedding, waiting for his gf to return to the car, decides to bring his life as he knows it to an end in order to get revenge upon complete strangers for not immediately lowering their music volume.

2.) 4 late teens black youths who like to blast music at annoying volumes dropped some verbal threats when asked to turn down said music. Took said threats too far.

I personally find scenario 2 FAR more believable.

Question in my mind is, was their reaction enough to really put Dunn in legitimate fear, or was he itching for a reason to "stand his ground"? That's an interesting question, and I have no idea.

 

[HumblePie]

If they had a shotgun, illegally, and had in fact pointed it at this man for asking them to turn their music down, and had in fact threatened his life verbally as well, then he shot at them and left, and they knew cops were on the way... driving off, dumping it down a storm drain a couple blocks away, and then lying completely about the events leading up to Dunn shooting.... is precisely the behavior you'd expect.

Not saying this is what did happen, but when you consider that at least one of the guys in the SUV was on parole and would go back immediately to jail if found in possession of a firearm, it makes sense that if there was a gun in the SUV they would have ditched it before the police arrived.