• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

Page 44 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Yet no one has any proof, links, etc. to them leaving the scene or having a gun. Yet some here believe they probably did. Where's the proof?

By the way Geo, you left out Dunn probably being legally impaired by alcohol.
 
soundforbjt said:
Yet no one has any proof, links, etc. to them leaving the scene or having a gun. Yet some here believe they probably did. Where's the proof?

By the way Geo, you left out Dunn probably being legally impaired by alcohol.
Click to expand...

How is this any different that some people believing that Zimmerman assaulted Martin absent any sort of proof?
 
TerryMathews said:
How is this any different that some people believing that Zimmerman assaulted Martin absent any sort of proof?
Click to expand...

A really good point.

You have huge numbers of people both in the Trayvon thread (including soundforbjt) and also everywhere else like Huffington Post comment sections on Zimmerman news, etc etc... who are utterly convinced the Zimmerman "stalked" and "confronted" Trayvon. That he even drew his weapon! That he tried to apprehend and detain Trayvon! That he shot him without any good reason.

All based on precisely bupkiss.

Based only on their desire to believe it went a certain way.

Yet, here they are going nuts at me CONSIDERING that it might have gone down the way Dunn describes. MIGHT HAVE.

And I'm actually on much firmer ground than they were with the Trayvon situation, because at least I'm basing this consideration on Dunn's account, such as we have it currently, via his attorney. I didn't pull the notion of them having a gun and threatening him out of my ass. The only witness we've heard from, to my knowledge, in any way, says that is what happened.

For all the talk of the surviving 3 kids, apparently 1 was in the store just like Dunn's gf... and to my knowledge, we have no statements from the other 2.
 
soundforbjt said:
You think it was prudent for him to do what he did? Would you have done the same thing in those circumstances? I thought you were intelligent as well.
Click to expand...

he swears the teens used the words KILL HIM in several different phrases as well as saw a gun barrel...


so if I myself saw and heard those things and I was in fear for my life then yes I would..
If I was not in fear for my life then no..
 
Geosurface said:
A really good point.

You have huge numbers of people both in the Trayvon thread (including soundforbjt) and also everywhere else like Huffington Post comment sections on Zimmerman news, etc etc... who are utterly convinced the Zimmerman "stalked" and "confronted" Trayvon. That he even drew his weapon! That he tried to apprehend and detain Trayvon! That he shot him without any good reason.

All based on precisely bupkiss.

Based only on their desire to believe it went a certain way.

Yet, here they are going nuts at me CONSIDERING that it might have gone down the way Dunn describes. MIGHT HAVE.

And I'm actually on much firmer ground than they were with the Trayvon situation, because at least I'm basing this consideration on Dunn's account, such as we have it currently, via his attorney. I didn't pull the notion of them having a gun and threatening him out of my ass. The only witness we've heard from, to my knowledge, in any way, says that is what happened.

For all the talk of the surviving 3 kids, apparently 1 was in the store just like Dunn's gf... and to my knowledge, we have no statements from the other 2.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see evidence of this.
 
CVSiN said:
he swears the teens used the words KILL HIM in several different phrases as well as saw a gun barrel...


so if I myself saw and heard those things and I was in fear for my life then yes I would..
If I was not in fear for my life then no..
Click to expand...

Oh, he swears that his shooting was justified? Well then, that settles it because he has NO reason what so ever to lie about that.

If i myself had shot the teens in a drunken rage i would not say that at all because that would be a lie and i wouldn't lie about that and neither would anyone else.

I swear to god! So obviously i'm telling you the whole truth.
 
soundforbjt said:
In spidey's mind, yes. :\ He doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word "reasonable".
Click to expand...


Nor does he know the meaning of the word balls... this is the rich guy, with cloth seats who has to sit on two telephone books to see between the top of the dash and below the arc of the steering wheel. If he is as big of a puusy IRL as he portrays here he's in big trouble!
 
Capt Caveman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let him continue down his blissful path of lies... sadly for him and his ilk there were several eye witness that were neither black thugs nor drunken shooters...
 
In case anyone hasn't read the more detailed part of what Dunn as claimed for his actions by what his attorney stated. Here it is.

According to Dunn’s attorney, Robin Lemonidis, he saw a shotgun in the SUV, while the teens yelled threatening, obscenities.

“Kill that mother**er, that mother**er dead, you dead bi**h, and then he sees that much of the shotgun coming up over the rim of the SUV which is up higher than his Jetta," Lemonidis told reporters. "And it’s-all he sees are heavily tinted windows, which are up and the back windows which are down, and the car has at least four black men in it. And he doesn’t know how old anybody is, he doesn’t know anything, but he knows a shotgun when he sees one.”

Lemonidis says his client was scared after the exchange he had with Dunn. He believed that the teenagers would call friends and have him killed. After the shooting she claims Dunn fled, thinking his eight shots had only scared the teens.

“He didn’t think he had harmed anybody and he just thought he had scared them off and he wanted to report it, but he didn’t want to go in a sense throw himself to the wolves, in a strange city without representation.”
Click to expand...

http://www.news4jax.com/news/Lawyer...s-SUV/-/475880/17566116/-/ku79pw/-/index.html

So according to what the attorney stated, Dunn is in his Jetta parked next to the SUV. He can see 4 young black men in it and can't determine their age. He asks them politely to turn down their music to which they violently respond. Their windows are up and darkly tinted except the back window is down. He see the barrel of a shotgun being shown in the rear open passenger window. The angle for him to see the barrel is from below as his car is lower than the SUV.

He states he pulled out his pistol and took shots at the side of the vehicle. His girlfriend according to Dunn came running out of the store during the shooting and hopped in the car as soon as Dunn stopped firing. After shooting at the SUV and with his girlfriend in the car, Dunn takes off without verifying if he actually hit anyone. Dunn didn't assume he did because he stated he didn't aim at anyone and was firing to scare them off. He left the area to head back home to get in touch with his lawyer so he wouldn't be caught in a legal area he was not a resident of and didn't have local representation he that he would know. He also stated he fled because he was afraid the guys in the SUV would call for their friends to help kill him because he didn't know if the guys in the SUV were gang members or not.




What we have here is specifically his side of the story. What we lack is the following simple forensic evidence to corroborate his story. Such evidence would be:

1) Was there a gun. Dunn claims there was one, but by one officer's public admission, no shotgun was found in the vehicle when the policed searched for it 3 days after the incident happened. That amount of public knowledge doesn't prove there was or wasn't a gun at this juncture, only that a gun was not found 3 days later.

2) The public doesn't know how the shots were fired at the SUV. Were they in a "spray and pray" pattern of all shots hitting the side panels of the SUV or where they aimed in specific tight groupings meant to actually possibly hit someone inside the SUV. The former type of shooting indicates that Dunn was firing because he was scared of something while the later indicates he had at least some intent to possibly cause harm.

3) If Dunn's intent based on his shooting pattern was to cause harm, the rest of his statement of thinking he didn't harm anyone when he fled the scene is a lie. Which would lead one to wonder what else he may have lied about.

3) We do not know the eye witness testimony from 3rd party witnesses at this moment. There may be others who also saw a shotgun in the SUV. Even if no others saw a shotgun, that doesn't mean there wasn't one.

4) We do not know if the SUV with the 4 men drove off and returned before police arrived at the scene. If they did drive off, which any eye witness there could attest to, there is a chance that had there been a weapon in the vehicle, it could have been dumped somewhere.

5) We do not know the extent of any camera footage at the scene of the crime.


Once some or all of those key pieces of forensic evidence are made known, then we'll know whether Dunn is more likely innocent or a murdering monster.
 
Last edited:
I asked this earlier. Is it legal to leave the scene of a shooting, a-la hit and run which is illegal even if you think no harm was done?
 
HomerJS said:
I asked this earlier. Is it legal to leave the scene of a shooting, a-la hit and run which is illegal even if you think no harm was done?
Click to expand...

It is legal. There is no law saying he had to stay and report. Or as spidey states, he would have been charged with breaking that law as well.
 
JohnOfSheffield said:
Oh, he swears that his shooting was justified? Well then, that settles it because he has NO reason what so ever to lie about that.

If i myself had shot the teens in a drunken rage i would not say that at all because that would be a lie and i wouldn't lie about that and neither would anyone else.

I swear to god! So obviously i'm telling you the whole truth.
Click to expand...

and that goes both ways..
personally I'd trust the person that has proven more trustworthy at least 1 of the people in the car had criminal records you gave up your right be be credible once you are a convicted criminal. and all were teens which race aside everyone knows teenagers and children cannot be trusted anyway.

but hey that's me.
I never beleive ANYTHING a potential suspect has to say.
it is up to an impartial witness or other source of evidence to prove the case.
Human nature is to lie when your freedom is on the line.
And the kids could also face time if the claims come back as true.. so there is a vested interest for both parties to claim they are innocent.
 
Last edited:
HumblePie said:
In case anyone hasn't read the more detailed part of what Dunn as claimed for his actions by what his attorney stated. Here it is.



http://www.news4jax.com/news/Lawyer...s-SUV/-/475880/17566116/-/ku79pw/-/index.html

So according to what the attorney stated, Dunn is in his Jetta parked next to the SUV. He can see 4 young black men in it and can't determine their age. He asks them politely to turn down their music to which they violently respond. Their windows are up and darkly tinted except the back window is down. He see the barrel of a shotgun being shown in the rear open passenger window. The angle for him to see the barrel is from below as his car is lower than the SUV.

He states he pulled out his pistol and took shots at the side of the vehicle. His girlfriend according to Dunn came running out of the store during the shooting and hopped in the car as soon as Dunn stopped firing. After shooting at the SUV and with his girlfriend in the car, Dunn takes off without verifying if he actually hit anyone. Dunn didn't assume he did because he stated he didn't aim at anyone and was firing to scare them off. He left the area to head back home to get in touch with his lawyer so he wouldn't be caught in a legal area he was not a resident of and didn't have local representation he that he would know. He also stated he fled because he was afraid the guys in the SUV would call for their friends to help kill him because he didn't know if the guys in the SUV were gang members or not.




What we have here is specifically his side of the story. What we lack is the following simple forensic evidence to corroborate his story. Such evidence would be:

1) Was there a gun. Dunn claims there was one, but by one officer's public admission, no shotgun was found in the vehicle when the policed searched for it 3 days after the incident happened. That amount of public knowledge doesn't prove there was or wasn't a gun at this juncture, only that a gun was not found 3 days later.

2) The public doesn't know how the shots were fired at the SUV. Were they in a "spray and pray" pattern of all shots hitting the side panels of the SUV or where they aimed in specific tight groupings meant to actually possibly hit someone inside the SUV. The former type of shooting indicates that Dunn was firing because he was scared of something while the later indicates he had at least some intent to possibly cause harm.

3) If Dunn's intent based on his shooting pattern was to cause harm, the rest of his statement of thinking he didn't harm anyone when he fled the scene is a lie. Which would lead one to wonder what else he may have lied about.

3) We do not know the eye witness testimony from 3rd party witnesses at this moment. There may be others who also saw a shotgun in the SUV. Even if no others saw a shotgun, that doesn't mean there wasn't one.

4) We do not know if the SUV with the 4 men drove off and returned before police arrived at the scene. If they did drive off, which any eye witness there could attest to, there is a chance that had there been a weapon in the vehicle, it could have been dumped somewhere.

5) We do not know the extent of any camera footage at the scene of the crime.


Once some or all of those key pieces of forensic evidence are made known, then we'll know whether Dunn is more likely innocent or a murdering monster.
Click to expand...

nice post HP.

that is how I look at it as well.
 
CVSiN said:
and that goes both ways..
personally I'd trust the person that has proven more trustworthy at least 1 of the people in the car had criminal records you gave up your right be be credible once you are a convicted criminal. and all were teens which race aside everyone knows teenagers and children cannot be trusted anyway.

but hey that's me.
I never beleive ANYTHING a potential suspect has to say.
it is up to an impartial witness or other source of evidence to prove the case.
Human nature is to lie when your freedom is on the line.
And the kids could also face time if the claims come back as true.. so there is a vested interest for both parties to claim they are innocent.
Click to expand...

Not all were teens. Jordan was, but the oldest was 23 from a few reports I read.
 
AznAnarchy99 said:
Everything but number 2. He could be a bad shot or just drunk off his mind.
Click to expand...

A bad shot? This from a man that has a gun collection, has been shooting guns since he was a kid, has a CCW, and carries one with him always? Don't be stupid.

As for being drunk, even a drunk person looking to actually cause harm with their gun is going to fire in a pattern that will look like they are TRYING to hit something. Meaning while the grouping of shots would not be the best, they would be grouped somewhat.

If Dunn's shots are instead fired up and down along the side of the car, and not at the windows at all for example, then the shooting looks like someone trying to scare someone else off and not looking to actually hit anyone.

We don't know if the gun shots were aimed at windows or grouped at where Dunn may have though people were hiding behind doors. That is a very key piece of evidence we are just lacking right now.
 
CVSiN said:
and that goes both ways..
personally I'd trust the person that has proven more trustworthy at least 1 of the people in the car had criminal records you gave up your right be be credible once you are a convicted criminal. and all were teens which race aside everyone knows teenagers and children cannot be trusted anyway.

but hey that's me.
I never beleive ANYTHING a potential suspect has to say.
it is up to an impartial witness or other source of evidence to prove the case.
Human nature is to lie when your freedom is on the line.
And the kids could also face time if the claims come back as true.. so there is a vested interest for both parties to claim they are innocent.
Click to expand...

Trustworthy due to having a criminal record?

What about DUI? Possibly intoxicated and he took off so that he wouldn't be caught again. Leaving the scene of a shooting, learning that you killed someone and then fleeing the county?
 
Last edited:
HumblePie said:
4) We do not know if the SUV with the 4 men drove off and returned before police arrived at the scene. If they did drive off, which any eye witness there could attest to, there is a chance that had there been a weapon in the vehicle, it could have been dumped somewhere.
Click to expand...

Where do we draw the line at what we "don't know". Is there any evidence or suggestions whatsoever that the 4 teenagers left the scene of the crime? I'm honestly curious.

Facts
*A verbal argument occured
*Dunn shot bullets into the SUV
*There was no return fire
*Dunn left the scene
*Teenagers coorporated with police and their vehicle was searched and no weapons found
*Dunn made no effort to contact police

I know there are people in this thread that have wet-dreams of shooting "thugs". However, there is only one thug in this scenario and it happens to be the guy the aforementioned-psychopaths are supporting. Unfortunately, this thug compromises the future for law-abiding gun owners. I don't see why any gun owner would want to support someone as despicable at this guy, who disgraces the community as a whole. When he spins fairy-tales to pervert the law to defend his thugish actions it only endagers the self-defense laws meant to be used by law-abiding citizens.

This thug has been charged with murder and denied bail because of his previous thugish attempts to evade the law. Hopefully he faces the full consequences of his actions by way of Florida's capital punishment. This would hopefully let all future murdering thugs know that they aren't welcome into the law-abiding gun-holders community and that there will be consequences for their murdering ways.
 
Negative.

The car full of 4 people (a clear disparity of force) verbally and physically threatened another man's life in his occupied vehicle. In most state's the victim is allowed to fire when he is threatened like what happened in this case. A clear and lawfully justified shooting.
 
spidey07 said:
Negative.

The car full of 4 people (a clear disparity of force) verbally and physically threatened another man's life in his occupied vehicle. In most state's the victim is allowed to fire when he is threatened like what happened in this case. A clear and lawfully justified shooting.
Click to expand...

That's one person's story. You have more witnesses that disagree with that story and why Dunn is being charged with second degree murder and has had bail denied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top