Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[They Live]

Not his wife first off.

Secondly, he didn't say ANYTHING to her after the shooting really either according to her testimony. She basically stated that he didn't want to talk about the incident with her immediately after. His lack of communication to her is not indication of a lie on his part.

This is false.

When asked by police about the conversation in the car on the way to the hotel Dunn's girlfriend told police Dunn told her he was scared because the occupants of the vehicle were making threats and he believed they were starting to "advance on him".
According to the police report, "She stated the suspect did not say anything about seeing any weapons."

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topst...tion-audio-released-from-Jordan-Davis-killing

 

[spidey07]

So it looks like the girlfriend backs up dunn's testimony. Dunn's account hasn't wavered. So we have verbal threats, advancement/threatening/aggressiveness by the thugs, disparity of force with the shooter in his occupied vehicle. Still looks like lawful self defense.

Some of the big points we've found in the documents so far, include that Dunn's story hasn't changed. Dunn told investigators from the start, the shooting was self-defense.

 

[They Live]

So it looks like the girlfriend backs up dunn's testimony. Dunn's account hasn't wavered. So we have verbal threats, advancement/threatening/aggressiveness by the thugs. Still looks like lawful self defense.

Actually, not really.

She only backs up that he told her about "threats" (doesn't say what type of threats, nor does it say she heard the threats herself).

Thus far, none of the evidence corroborates Dunn's account. I know you want him to be innocent, due to racism, but thus far nothing supports innocence. The only eye witness that we know of thus far HURTS his account. And the fact that he never told his wife about any shotgun, gun barrel, whatever, hurts his credibility.

 

[HumblePie]

This is false.




http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topst...tion-audio-released-from-Jordan-Davis-killing

Ugh, what I meant by talking with her is he did not discuss the event with her. He said a few terse words, probably in response to a couple questions, and that was it.

 

[HumblePie]

Actually this news article has links at the bottom to various released Discovery evidence in relation to this case including redacted police and investigation reports.

http://www.wokv.com/news/news/local/evidence-dunn-didnt-tell-girlfriend-he-saw-gun/nXBSz/


Scroll to the bottom and look them over. I am doing so right now.

 

[spidey07]

Actually, not really.

She only backs up that he told her about "threats" (doesn't say what type of threats, nor does it say she heard the threats herself).

Thus far, none of the evidence corroborates Dunn's account. I know you want him to be innocent, due to racism, but thus far nothing supports innocence. The only eye witness that we know of thus far HURTS his account. And the fact that he never told his wife about any shotgun, gun barrel, whatever, hurts his credibility.

Actually yes really as her testimony mirrors what he told police he told to her with what little he said to her. And of course she wouldn't hear the verbal threats to his life with accompanying disparity of force when in his occupied vehicle. She was in the store when the threats and following self defense shots were fired.

 

[They Live]

Ugh, what I meant by talking with her is he did not discuss the event with her. He said a few terse words, probably in response to a couple questions, and that was it.

But, he DID tell her about the supposed threats (though he never explains what kind of threats), and tells her he "thought they were advancing on him", so why leave out the part about the supposed gun? Is that not a HUGE detail to leave out?

Again, he tells his wife about the supposed threats, and them supposedly advancing on him, but never AT ALL mentions anything about this gun, until the next day to police. That doesn't help his case at all.

 

[They Live]

Actually yes really as her testimony mirrors what he told police he told to her with what little he said to her. And of course she wouldn't hear the verbal threats to his life with accompanying disparity of force when in his occupied vehicle. She was in the store when the threats and following self defense shots were fired.

Actually, it doesn't.

He mentioned a gun to the police.

He never mentioned a gun to her.

Also, no other witnesses thus far have corroborated hearing these supposed verbal threats. Not even the eye witness who heard Dunn talking, and saw him firing his gun.

 

[HumblePie]

But, he DID tell her about the supposed threats (though he never explains what kind of threats), and tells her he "thought they were advancing on him", so why leave out the part about the supposed gun? Is that not a HUGE detail to leave out?

Again, he tells his wife about the supposed threats, and them supposedly advancing on him, but never AT ALL mentions anything about this gun, until the next day to police. That doesn't help his case at all.

Because when a significant event like that occurs, people can internalize a lot of things. Sometimes they think they say something when they don't and vice versa.

He's lack of explanatory communication right afterwards is not a sign of anything more than a man with too much on his mind at the time. Whether he was innocent or guilty of murder, a person is going to be mostly introverted in their actions at shooting at another person in the aftermath.

 

[mugs]

Well I sure as hell am not going to believe a convicted felon in the car with the other thugs.

And he's not lying about the gun, he is saying he saw a gun. Doesn't mean there was a gun, but he reasonably believed a weapon was being presented.

Not that a weapon was necessary for him to lawfully shoot. Get it?

Except that he didn't believe a weapon was "being presented." He would have mentioned that to his girlfriend.

What "disparity of force" are you talking about? Did the kids ever leave their "occupied vehicle" and "advance on" the thug? The only disparity of force was Dunn's gun against the mean words of the kids. It's too bad they didn't have a gun, they'd have been totally justified in saving the state the cost of trying and housing Dunn. Because you know, he shot at them.

I have a hard time believing even you believe this disparity of force bullshit you're spewing. Mean words do not justify a shooting.

 

[spidey07]

Except that he didn't believe a weapon was "being presented." He would have mentioned that to his girlfriend.

What "disparity of force" are you talking about? Did the kids ever leave their "occupied vehicle" and "advance on" the thug? The only disparity of force was Dunn's gun against the mean words of the kids. It's too bad they didn't have a gun, they'd have been totally justified in saving the state the cost of trying and housing Dunn. Because you know, he shot at them.

I have a hard time believing even you believe this disparity of force bullshit you're spewing. Mean words do not justify a shooting.

Disparity of force can be defined as the following. It can be a key element in self defense and what justifies use of deadly force.

Male against female or elderly = disparity of force
Many against one = disparity of force

Disparity of force means exactly what it means. 4 guys threatening you on the street is also a classic case of disparity of force.

In this case the disparity of force presents itself as 4 able bofied young males against an older single person.

Are you really going to argue disparity of force wasn't present?

 

[HumblePie]

Except that he didn't believe a weapon was "being presented." He would have mentioned that to his girlfriend.

What "disparity of force" are you talking about? Did the kids ever leave their "occupied vehicle" and "advance on" the thug? The only disparity of force was Dunn's gun against the mean words of the kids. It's too bad they didn't have a gun, they'd have been totally justified in saving the state the cost of trying and housing Dunn. Because you know, he shot at them.

I have a hard time believing even you believe this disparity of force bullshit you're spewing. Mean words do not justify a shooting.

Reading the reports right now. He was very terse to a couple of questions she asked and then they did not talk about the incident further. Not while driving to the hotel they were staying at nor when they were at the hotel. His girlfriend said she stated to him on the drive to the hotel that she did not think he hit anyone since the Durango had continued to keep on driving away when Dunn had stopped firing. That it had continued to drive away as they also left.

When they arrived home the next morning, a neighbor said that Dunn came over to him and asked their advice. The neighbor stated that Dunn said he shot at someone the day before in self defense, but thinks he might have killed the person he shot at.

This was before a detective called him at home. Dunn while on the phone with the detective stated before the detective could he knew the reason for the call. That he shot at a group of kids in self defense and that he was heading to the nearest county sheriff office to turn himself in on his "own terms." However, county sheriff was already en route and picked him up right after the phone call.


Dunn not saying anything except a few quick terse words is not indicative of a lie at all.

 

[HumblePie]

Wow, so many businesses nearby that parking lot with cameras either not working, or no cameras pointing at the parking lot in front of the strip mall. That is crazy! This despite tons of signs stating the area is under video surveillance.

Instead of a new post, just an edit...

XXXXXXX saw a red Dodge Durango screeching tires and backing up in the parking lot.
...
XXXXXXX stated the Dodge Durango returned to the parking lot after approximately five minutes.

So they left really fast. Which if they are truly victims and are trying to flee the scene, that is quite understandable. They drove north to a nearby strip mall, and pulled into the lot. According to Tommy (using deductive reasoning from the redacted police reports since we now know he was the driver), he stepped out of his car to check for damages. He said that when checking for damages that was when he realized that his friend was shot. He said at that point he contacted police over 911 and started to drive back to the gas station.


To me that's a bit fishy. To a point maybe he didn't know while driving his friend had been shot, but I can also visualize that he was focused upon just getting the fuck out of there that he tunnel visioned. Still, once you've pulled over and called for 911 why drive back? Especially if you don't know if the man that was shooting at you was still there? If a person is innocent and just witnessed a crazy man nuts shooting at them, does it seem normal to go back to where you last saw the crazy person while he was shooting at you? That right there is the only real inconsistency.

What I want to see is if police grabbed their phone records at that time or shortly after. If there was a gun that they dumped in that strip mall area to be picked up discretely by a friend, that person had to have been contacted immediately after that incident. Phone records from those 4 will show if there is any other calls beyond the call made to 911. That follow-up investigation into the phone records is the only thing they police I see failed on.

The other thing is the timeline from the witness perspective. I put a quote of one witness stating it was 5 minutes when the Durango pulled back in. Another stated it was 2 minutes. Another stated it was 30 seconds after. Which only goes to show that people's sense of time can get really distorted in a highly stressful situation. However, it is easy physically figure out how long it was approximately. Tommy and the other passengers in the Durango all stated they drove north to the strip mall before stopping. That Tommy got out of the vehicle, checked for damage to the car, and then got back in before calling 911. Then they returned to the gas station. All that can be calculated to see how much time it would have taken to that approximately.

 

[mugs]

Reading the reports right now. He was very terse to a couple of questions she asked and then they did not talk about the incident further. Not while driving to the hotel they were staying at nor when they were at the hotel. His girlfriend said she stated to him on the drive to the hotel that she did not think he hit anyone since the Durango had continued to keep on driving away when Dunn had stopped firing. That it had continued to drive away as they also left.

When they arrived home the next morning, a neighbor said that Dunn came over to him and asked their advice. The neighbor stated that Dunn said he shot at someone the day before in self defense, but thinks he might have killed the person he shot at.

This was before a detective called him at home. Dunn while on the phone with the detective stated before the detective could he knew the reason for the call. That he shot at a group of kids in self defense and that he was heading to the nearest county sheriff office to turn himself in on his "own terms." However, county sheriff was already en route and picked him up right after the phone call.


Dunn not saying anything except a few quick terse words is not indicative of a lie at all.

Bullshit. He said they threatened him. He said he thought they were "advancing on" him. But he just forgot to mention the most important reason he had for shooting the kids?

You guys are way too willing to accept everything this thug says at face value. If there was even inconclusive evidence that might corroborate his claim, you'd be justified in accepting it. But right now he's making an obviously self-serving claim that is not corroborated by anything and even he didn't mention it until the next day. If you just accept that, you are gullible enough to be a juror.

You know Dunn's goose is cooked when grand wizard spidey has given up believing that the shotgun existed, and now he's arguing that Dunn just thought he saw it.

At what point are you going to accept that maybe this thug didn't have a good reason to shoot at those kids?

- He left the scene and didn't report the shooting. No problem.
- He claims they had a gun, no gun was found, and the kids were never out of sight of the store. No problem.
- He never mentioned a gun until it was evident that he would have to justify the shooting to the police. No problem.

What more is it going to take for you to entertain the possibility that these kids were innocent victims of the thug? I'm willing to change my view if any evidence backs Dunn up, but so far everything that is coming out is working against him.

And why is it that you're willing to accept anything Dunn says at face value, but anything the kids say is a lie?

 

[Jodell88]

He Dunn goofed!

 

[HumblePie]

Bullshit. He said they threatened him. He said he thought they were "advancing on" him. But he just forgot to mention the most important reason he had for shooting the kids?

You guys are way too willing to accept everything this thug says at face value. If there was even inconclusive evidence that might corroborate his claim, you'd be justified in accepting it. But right now he's making an obviously self-serving claim that is not corroborated by anything and even he didn't mention it until the next day. If you just accept that, you are gullible enough to be a juror.

You know Dunn's goose is cooked when grand wizard spidey has given up believing that the shotgun existed, and now he's arguing that Dunn just thought he saw it.

At what point are you going to accept that maybe this thug didn't have a good reason to shoot at those kids?

- He left the scene and didn't report the shooting. No problem.
- He claims they had a gun, no gun was found, and the kids were never out of sight of the store. No problem.
- He never mentioned a gun until it was evident that he would have to justify the shooting to the police. No problem.

What more is it going to take for you to entertain the possibility that these kids were innocent victims of the thug? I'm willing to change my view if any evidence backs Dunn up, but so far everything that is coming out is working against him.

And why is it that you're willing to accept anything Dunn says at face value, but anything the kids say is a lie?

Bullshit yourself. I am arguing both sides of this. I am reading over the police reports as they are right now. The reports do not show enough for either side of the equation. Dunn could have blown his top to Davis telling him, "Fuck you!" while "talking" with his right hand. If that's the case Dunn deserves to rot in prison for a very long time. There is also enough inconsistent evidence to show that they may have also threatened Dunn. For example Tommy stated that the child locks on the Durango were broken and that there was no way to lock or unlock the vehicle from the other seats. That there was no way for Davis to have been able to look like he was opening the door to get out. Later evidence shows this to be incorrect. That the other doors were unlocked and Davis could have opened his. Whether he did attempt to open the door or did not I don't know.

If Dunn's claim about a gun are in any way true, and that the teens tried to dump it to be picked up later by a friend then that evidence could come from the phone records. At the release of that report, we do not see any records of their phones during and shortly after the shooting.

 

[spidey07]

Bullshit. He said they threatened him. He said he thought they were "advancing on" him. But he just forgot to mention the most important reason he had for shooting the kids?

You guys are way too willing to accept everything this thug says at face value. If there was even inconclusive evidence that might corroborate his claim, you'd be justified in accepting it. But right now he's making an obviously self-serving claim that is not corroborated by anything and even he didn't mention it until the next day. If you just accept that, you are gullible enough to be a juror.

You know Dunn's goose is cooked when grand wizard spidey has given up believing that the shotgun existed, and now he's arguing that Dunn just thought he saw it.

At what point are you going to accept that maybe this thug didn't have a good reason to shoot at those kids?

- He left the scene and didn't report the shooting. No problem.
- He claims they had a gun, no gun was found, and the kids were never out of sight of the store. No problem.
- He never mentioned a gun until it was evident that he would have to justify the shooting to the police. No problem.

What more is it going to take for you to entertain the possibility that these kids were innocent victims of the thug? I'm willing to change my view if any evidence backs Dunn up, but so far everything that is coming out is working against him.

And why is it that you're willing to accept anything Dunn says at face value, but anything the kids say is a lie?

Convicted felon in the car. Forgetting that?

They are not kids. They were criminals.

 

[mugs]

Convicted felon in the car. Forgetting that?

They are not kids. They were criminals.

One of them was a convicted felon. What makes the rest of them criminals?

 

[spidey07]

One of them was a convicted felon. What makes the rest of them criminals?

He aggravated assault they commited upon the shooter.

 

[HumblePie]

Convicted felon in the car. Forgetting that?

They are not kids. They were criminals.

No, Tommy was the one in the store at the time of the shooting. He was no apart of the altercation in any way. Was Tommy a convicted felon? sure, but his involvement in the argument was zero at least.

That is not to say Tommy did not have a gun in his vehicle. However, Tommy's felony is over theft and burglary. Not something violent.

To me one thing that stands out is that Tommy did say the other 3 boys were all arguing with Dunn and heard/watched them doing so as he stopped outside his car door to pop some gum in his mouth and dance a little to the music coming from his car. However, the other 2 boys state that only Davis was talking with Dunn. It is a tiny bit of a inconsistency, but certainly could be considered one of perception. Davis was probably the most vocal and the other 2 boys didn't think their actions constituted as part of the verbal altercation.

 

[mugs]

He aggravated assault they commited upon the shooter.

You're begging the question. You're arguing that their account of this incident can't be trusted because they're criminals, and they're criminals because of this incident.

It doesn't even matter if the kids are credible, the only piece of information we ever needed from them was that they didn't have a gun. We now have eyewitness evidence that they didn't have a gun (from multiple disinterested third parties).

 

[HumblePie]

I will state one thing that, unfortunately, spidey is right on.

If Jordan Davis or anyone else in the vehicle at the time said anything in a threatening manner to Dunn, legally speaking what he did was self defense. However, saying "Fuck you!" is not a threat. Even if Dunn interpreted that statement as a threat, that is his fault for mis interpreting what was being said as a threat. In which case his actions are that of a murderer.

Dunn does have on major hurdle right now. That of his statement that he saw a firearm. There isn't a whole lot of corroborating evidence to his claim. The only bit of evidence to back that up is that the boys did drive off before stopping in the Dillards parking lot of a the nearby strip mall. That Tommy said only he got out of the car to check for damage, but a witness in the same parking lot said he saw both the driver and the driver's side passenger exit the Durango. The witness said he saw them from a distance but did not see anything but a phone in their hands. That is not the same as saying there was no gun, only that he didn't see it. The little inconsistency in the statement that one exited, but a witness saw two exit the vehicle is a bit odd. That and they drove back to the gas station when they fled it originally for safety.

Dunn's defense is going to be casting enough doubt about the actions of Tommy and friends along with what they did when they entered the Dillard's parking lot before driving back to the gas station. If he can reasonably argue that the actions of the boys in the parking lot there was done so they could get rid of evidence of something they used to threaten him with, he may be able to cast enough doubt to claims he flew off the handle and murdered Davis. If he or his lawyer can't reasonably argue that, then the claim he saw a shotgun is going to backfire and show his testimony is unreliable. In which case he'll be nailed for murder charges.

Right now, this evidence of this case is too close to call either way.

 

[spidey07]

You're begging the question. You're arguing that their account of this incident can't be trusted because they're criminals, and they're criminals because of this incident.

It doesn't even matter if the kids are credible, the only piece of information we ever needed from them was that they didn't have a gun. We now have eyewitness evidence that they didn't have a gun (from multiple disinterested third parties).

A weapon isn't necessary. The victim believed he saw a weapon.

These are important facts you are over looking.

 

[Geosurface]

After reading this latest stuff I'm leaning strongly to Dunn being a murderer.

If he really said "you're not going to talk to me like that" with his gun out the window, it seems pretty clear.

Not mentioning the gun to his gf is also pretty damning.

At the same time? I find it very easy to believe these kids got carried away in their indignation and backtalk to some old white ass, cracka ass bitch who told them to turn down their music, that they ended up saying some legit threats in there.

I can't believe someone actually said a few pages back that whites do whatever they want to blacks. Wtf are you smoking? It is black on white violence that is amazingly common, frequently laced with racial epithets, and which the media and law enforcement ADMIT to downplaying. White on black violence leads to national conversations and soul searching and documentaries.

 

[HumblePie]

After reading this latest stuff I'm leaning strongly to Dunn being a murderer.

If he really said "you're not going to talk to me like that" with his gun out the window, it seems pretty clear.

Not mentioning the gun to his gf is also pretty damning.

At the same time? I find it very easy to believe these kids got carried away in their indignation and backtalk to some old white ass, cracka ass bitch who told them to turn down their music, that they ended up saying some legit threats in there.

I can't believe someone actually said a few pages back that whites do whatever they want to blacks. Wtf are you smoking? It is black on white violence that is amazingly common, frequently laced with racial epithets, and which the media and law enforcement ADMIT to downplaying. White on black violence leads to national conversations and soul searching and documentaries.

Personally, I'm leaning that way as well. Although the only people to have made that claim were the boys in the car.

However, what makes me think murderer is that he CONTINUED to fire as they were driving away. If it was self defense, the moment the Durango was driving away and the boys were no longer a threat was the moment he lost an credibility for self defense in my opinion. You simply do NOT shoot after a fleeing vehicle. If he had stopped after his first 3 shots and didn't shoot anymore once he stopped and the vehicle was leaving the parking lot, I could be more swayed into a self defense call.

That right there is what is going to get him. It shows an intent to cause harm.