Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[soundforbjt]

Umm, his attorney says there is proof of both the teens leaving/returning, as well as attempting to exit their car before Dunn started shooting. We'll see once the evidence discovery starts. Hopefully it won't be like the Zimmerman case where it takes over a year before the defense gets to see any real evidence.

Dunn left as well and didn't come back. Without the "shotgun" he's still toast...no law against getting out of a vehicle.

 

[SheHateMe]

Umm, his attorney says there is proof of both the teens leaving/returning, as well as attempting to exit their car before Dunn started shooting. We'll see once the evidence discovery starts. Hopefully it won't be like the Zimmerman case where it takes over a year before the defense gets to see any real evidence.

His attorney says....what do the witnesses say? He has no video or witness testimony to back up this claim as we know...

Hes fucked.

 

[spidey07]

His attorney says....what do the witnesses say? He has no video or witness testimony to back up this claim as we know...

Hes fucked.

There is evidence of the teens leaving and returning, there is evidence the teens attempted to get out of the car and begin their attack in his occupied vehicle after multiple verbal threats to his life.

That means it's a lawful self defense shooting, disparity of force and all that.

 

[HumblePie]

Dunn left as well and didn't come back. Without the "shotgun" he's still toast...no law against getting out of a vehicle.

No, that's where he is not fucked.

He claims there was a gun as well as threatening comments made. Threatening comments come back to a he said/she said in terms of character trustworthiness. However, the gun would have been hard evidence in Dunn's favor had one been found. However, since the teen's left the scene and there was no gun found, it all comes back down to he said/she said. The teens will claim there was no gun and no threats. Dunn will claim threats and a gun was there then dumped. If there eye witness testimony can't be shown to prove definitively if there were or were not threats/gun then it comes down to their word versus his.

Then guess what happens? Character value comes into play. Dunn besides a DUI is squeaky clean. The teens are not. Guess who is going to win that court battle if it comes down to a case of their word versus his?

The prosecution is going to have to either come up with evidence that shows definitively there were no threats and no gun, or evidence to bring fault's to Dunn's character trustworthiness. Without that, they are not going to win the case. That is NOT to say that Dunn is innocent, just that the prosecution is screwed if they don't have evidence that I just stated.

 

[soundforbjt]

Florida CCW rules says the following:

1. Never display a handgun to gain "leverage" in an argument. Threatening someone verbally while possessing a handgun, even licensed, will land you in jail for three years. Even if the gun is broken or you don't have bullets, you will receive the mandatory three-year sentence if convicted. The law does not allow any possibility of getting out of jail early.

2. A license to carry a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly force to stop him, because you would no longer be "preventing" a crime. If use of deadly force is not necessary, or you use deadly force after the crime has stopped, you could be convicted of manslaughter.

3. The amount of force that you use to defend yourself must not be excessive under the circumstances.

Never use deadly force in self-defense unless you are afraid that if you don't, you will be killed or seriously injured;
Verbal threats never justify your use of deadly force;
If you think someone has a weapon and will use it unless you kill him, be sure you are right and are not overreacting to the situation.

4. The law permits you to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Carrying a concealed weapon does not make you a free-lance policeman or a "good samaritan."

For Spidey: What do you think of this?

 

[soundforbjt]

No, that's where he is not fucked.

He claims there was a gun as well as threatening comments made. Threatening comments come back to a he said/she said in terms of character trustworthiness. However, the gun would have been hard evidence in Dunn's favor had one been found. However, since the teen's left the scene and there was no gun found, it all comes back down to he said/she said. The teens will claim there was no gun and no threats. Dunn will claim threats and a gun was there then dumped. If there eye witness testimony can't be shown to prove definitively if there were or were not threats/gun then it comes down to their word versus his.

Then guess what happens? Character value comes into play. Dunn besides a DUI is squeaky clean. The teens are not. Guess who is going to win that court battle if it comes down to a case of their word versus his?

The prosecution is going to have to either come up with evidence that shows definitively there were no threats and no gun, or evidence to bring fault's to Dunn's character trustworthiness. Without that, they are not going to win the case. That is NOT to say that Dunn is innocent, just that the prosecution is screwed if they don't have evidence that I just stated.

There's always manslaughter, right, or not?

A DUI will hurt him, IMO. It's already been proven he had been drinking. I'm sure no one can prove definitely how much he had.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

LOL so the teens did leave, and they were leaving their car to attack dunn.

I can't wait for the backpedaling once we get the gas station video.

 

[spidey07]

A verbal threat against your life is a forcible felony and covered by florida law. I've explained this to you, it has to be a direct and imminent threat to your life and you have to reasonably believe they mean to carry it out. Disparity of force counts as a weapon in this case to back up the verbal, direct, credible and imminent threats to his life in his occupied vehicle.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Not only that, but the thugs are accused of leaving their vehicle to attack dunn. Doubt he or his lawyer would say that unless the tapes back it up.


So we have dunn, a middle aged business who dared ask some thugs to turn down their offensive music... compared to an suv with someone on felony probation, someone out after their probation curfew, with 17 year olds in the same vehicle, someone who attempted to break into over 30 vehicles, and on and on and on...




I can't WAIT for this to go to trial. ROFL.


Some of you guys need to wake up. Society doesn't care about thug trash. If you're hanging around felons, carrying guns, pointing them at people... Don't be surprised when some old man shoots you, and definitely don't be surprised when society and the court system does not care about your dead thug life.

 

[HumblePie]

There's always manslaughter, right, or not?

A DUI will hurt him, IMO. It's already been proven he had been drinking. I'm sure no one can prove definitely how much he had.

No. It's all or none.

And the old DUI does NOT hold the same weight for detriment of character trustworthiness as compared to being a convicted felon out on probation for burglary.

In a court of law, if it comes down to his word versus the 3 teens, he will win solely because Tommie Stormes can be shown to not be a trusted source. Thus that taints everything the other 2 teens can claim due to their association with Tommie. To counter act that, the prosecution either has to come up with solid evidence that there were zero threats OR that Dunn has something just as bad for trustworthiness. An old DUI does not cut it for this case. I can promise you that.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Quote from neighbor:
"She [Nancy Lanza] used to give me a hard time, you know, because I put out all these Christmas lights, and she said, 'I put out mine, too, but you can't even see them,'" said Rhonda Cullens, who lives one street over.

Quote:

Marsha Lanza described Nancy Lanza as a good mother.
"If he had needed consulting, she would have gotten it," Marsha Lanza said. "Nancy wasn't one to deny reality."

Marsha, you know you're stupid when every statement out of your mouth is wrong.

 

[HumblePie]

Quote:

Marsha, you know you're stupid when every statement out of your mouth is wrong.

ummm..... that was a random post in this thread.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Also.... once the tapes come out showing how everything went down, and it comes up that the teens also left to ditch the gun... it will only be a matter of time before one of those thugs rolls on the others. Probably the one already on probation, which he violated by being out after curfew and possessing a firearm.

 

[Quakester]

Is it worth murder one?

Let me see now, the death could have been avoided. By either side. One side chose not to avoid the confrontation and can no longer speak. The other side however, also chose to not avoid the confrontation and may possibly do life. Arguably both sides were wrong I'll admit that. Which side won?

 

[Geosurface]

If it is as Dunn describes, his choice "not to avoid the confrontation" basically amounts to not asking the kids to turn down their music. While many of us wouldn't do that, it certainly isn't anything compared to the choice "not to avoid the confrontation" which is represented by making verbal threats of death and flashing a shotgun and getting out of their truck to come after Dunn for asking them to turn their music down.

If it's as Dunn describes, exactly as he describes, my only regret is that the other 3 didn't die too.

 

[soundforbjt]

Let me see now, the death could have been avoided. By either side. One side chose not to avoid the confrontation and can no longer speak. The other side however, also chose to not avoid the confrontation and may possibly do life. Arguably both sides were wrong I'll admit that. Which side won?

Neither "side" won, they both lose.

 

[soundforbjt]

No. It's all or none.

And the old DUI does NOT hold the same weight for detriment of character trustworthiness as compared to being a convicted felon out on probation for burglary.

In a court of law, if it comes down to his word versus the 3 teens, he will win solely because Tommie Stormes can be shown to not be a trusted source. Thus that taints everything the other 2 teens can claim due to their association with Tommie. To counter act that, the prosecution either has to come up with solid evidence that there were zero threats OR that Dunn has something just as bad for trustworthiness. An old DUI does not cut it for this case. I can promise you that.

You're still leaving out the fact that he was drinking, his gf was buying more alcohol, etc.

Also forgot that a person with a DUI is more likely to continue to drive under the influence than a regular person.

 

[HumblePie]

You're still leaving out the fact that he was drinking, his gf was buying more alcohol, etc.

Also forgot that a person with a DUI is more likely to continue to drive under the influence than a regular person.

No I did not leave that out. Again, I pointed out where the cops HAVE available evidence of how much he had consumed, IF ANY, prior to the incident. I explained this in great detail. If he had been drunk, he would have been charged with THAT as well. You see the part where none of the charges brought against him have anything to do with alcohol? The FACT is he was not drunk and had very little if any alcohol in his system at the time of the shooting. I will BET $100 on that. When they go after someone for Murder 1, they throw the book at them. Which means everything possible little thing they could conceivably charge him with they did. Which if you look ended up MORE than just a single Murder 1 count with three attempted murders at his arraignment.

He has many witnesses from the party, including the people actually working the party who testified that he did not drink much. So unless he stopped off at a bar on the way to the gas station to pound down a bunch of crap real fast, it is very doubtful he was under the influence.


Again, my premise of law still stands. Either the prosecution has evidence that there were zero possible threats made to Dunn beyond the word of the 3 teens in the car, or they have character defamation evidence showing Dunn had criminal intent with something in his life, then it will come down to a case of he said/she said. At which point Dunn will win. REGARDLESS if he is innocent or not. That is how the justice system works. The State has to find evidence to PROVE guilty. People are assumed innocent of a crime until proven guilty. And even with murder 1 charge, it takes far more than witness testimony today to prove a charge like that. When you factor in that the testimony is coming from a FELONY ON PROBATION then that testimony is worthless. Even if the three teens were telling the absolute and complete truth. Dunn could be the biggest dirtbag in all of the world. None of that matters unless it can be PROVEN. With what we know now, that doesn't look likely. But since discovery hasn't really started and all we have is a few bits of leaked evidence from the police and various attorney's, we'll have to wait a see what both sides have.

 

[HomerJS]

drunk, stupid rednecks don't know how to handle any situation other then to start shooting.

Only gun thug at the scene, Dunn

 

[Corporate Thug]

Assuming the DUI was a misdemeanor, it would be inadmissible as it is not a crime of moral turpitude.

 

[Corporate Thug]

No I did not leave that out. Again, I pointed out where the cops HAVE available evidence of how much he had consumed, IF ANY, prior to the incident. I explained this in great detail. If he had been drunk, he would have been charged with THAT as well. You see the part where none of the charges brought against him have anything to do with alcohol? The FACT is he was not drunk and had very little if any alcohol in his system at the time of the shooting. I will BET $100 on that. When they go after someone for Murder 1, they throw the book at them. Which means everything possible little thing they could conceivably charge him with they did. Which if you look ended up MORE than just a single Murder 1 count with three attempted murders at his arraignment.

He has many witnesses from the party, including the people actually working the party who testified that he did not drink much. So unless he stopped off at a bar on the way to the gas station to pound down a bunch of crap real fast, it is very doubtful he was under the influence.


Again, my premise of law still stands. Either the prosecution has evidence that there were zero possible threats made to Dunn beyond the word of the 3 teens in the car, or they have character defamation evidence showing Dunn had criminal intent with something in his life, then it will come down to a case of he said/she said. At which point Dunn will win. REGARDLESS if he is innocent or not. That is how the justice system works. The State has to find evidence to PROVE guilty. People are assumed innocent of a crime until proven guilty. And even with murder 1 charge, it takes far more than witness testimony today to prove a charge like that. When you factor in that the testimony is coming from a FELONY ON PROBATION then that testimony is worthless. Even if the three teens were telling the absolute and complete truth. Dunn could be the biggest dirtbag in all of the world. None of that matters unless it can be PROVEN. With what we know now, that doesn't look likely. But since discovery hasn't really started and all we have is a few bits of leaked evidence from the police and various attorney's, we'll have to wait a see what both sides have.

Prosecutors will almost never filed a DUI charge unless the suspect is caught red handed. Even if the wedding goers said he drank heavily, it would be a difficult charge to prove without blood alcohol test. Practically speaking, with pending murder 1 charges, it would be a complete waste of time to even file DUI charges.

 

[HumblePie]

Prosecutors will almost never filed a DUI charge unless the suspect is caught red handed. Even if the wedding goers said he drank heavily, it would be a difficult charge to prove without blood alcohol test. Practically speaking, with pending murder 1 charges, it would be a complete waste of time to even file DUI charges.

I didn't say DUI, because one has to be caught with that. But public intoxication and disorderly conduct under the influence he would certainly be charged with.

 

[Quakester]

Neither "side" won, they both lose.

Ok I'll give you that one for being a troll. To make it simpler for even you to understand...which one lost MORE?

 

[soundforbjt]

Ok I'll give you that one for being a troll. To make it simpler for even you to understand...which one lost MORE?

Depends, which would be worse to you? Instant death or life in prison with the possibility of a being murdered or worse in prison?

 

[Quakester]

Depends, which would be worse to you? Instant death or life in prison with the possibility of a being murdered or worse in prison?

I wasn't aware Dunn's trial already had a guilty verdict. But go ahead and troll some more Einstein.