Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[They Live]

i'm thinking you're probably between 18 and 24, still living with mom and dad because it's convenient. i didn't say this was racial, you just did. punks have no color.

Okay sir.

 

[OCNewbie]

i'm thinking you're probably between 18 and 24, still living with mom and dad because it's convenient.

You sure do like to make assumptions.

 

[Geosurface]

I actually think being a thug DOES have something to do with race:

From the US National Library of medicine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455741

Mean testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than in whites, and free testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were statistically significant. Adjustment by analysis of covariance for time of sampling, age, weight, alcohol use, cigarette smoking, and use of prescription drugs somewhat reduced the differences. After these adjustments were made, blacks had a 15% higher testosterone level and a 13% higher free testosterone level.

And from http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro04/web1/csante.html#1

Hormones are inextricably linked to behavior as seen by the impact that its presence or absence has on an organism. In terms of aggression, there exists intriguing evidence that there is a definite connection between the hormonal effects of testosterone and the outward expression of aggressive behavior (1). For example, castration leads to a marked decrease in aggression as shown by castration experimentation on various species. Furthermore, when testosterone is replaced through hormone therapy in these castrated animals, the amount of aggression increases and is restored to its original pre-castration level.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if it's a known and proven scientific fact that blacks have higher testosterone levels, and if higher testosterone is connected to higher levels of outward aggression... well then, uncomfortable as it may make some of you to deal with this reality, nature doesn't do equality and reality doesn't give a flying fuck what makes you uncomfortable or isn't "politically correct" I try to deal in facts.

In fairness, there seems to be a lot of debate about whether testosterone is linked to aggression. HOWEVER, I think it's pretty fucking definitive when castration leads to a reduction in aggressive behavior, and replacement through artificial testosterone injection restores said aggressive behavior... yes, maybe the relationship between the hormone and aggressive behavior is more complex than just 1 to 1, maybe other things are at play, I'd say there certainly are other factors. Still, a connection cannot be denied.

Just face it, different groups face different challenges and have different advantages. You can call me racist til you're blue in the face, and I'm sure a lot of you will, but just think for a moment about what that really means.

If I say "you know, women are on average smaller and physically weaker than men, so... generally speaking, if all I know is that a woman and a man are fighting down the street, my money is going to be on the man winning UP UNTIL I SEE THE TWO INDIVIDUALS AND SEE MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THEM, ABOUT THE SITUATION, WHICH MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT TO OVERTURN THAT GENERAL RULE."

Does that make me sexist? Does that mean I hate women? Is it logical to say I'm sexist and I hate women if what I said was 100% true and a biological reality?

If women really are, on average, smaller and less physically strong than men, if that is an actual FACT, and you talk to someone who acknowledges that fact... are they sexist? Please answer.

Perhaps you should also start boycotting car insurance companies for acknowledging the FACT that teenagers are more reckless drivers IN GENERAL. Are there exceptions? Fuck yes.

Are there some women who can kick some men's asses? YES!
Are there some teenagers who drive super carefully and responsibly? YES!
Are there some black guys who are less aggressive than some white guys and wouldn't do anything thuggish in their wildest dreams? YES!

Nonetheless, in the real world, we work with averages and we acknowledge their implications.

This is why we don't typically allow gender integrated sports, especially something like boxing or UFC. While you might be able to find that one in a billion woman who can come into that ring and whoop ass, it isn't logical to structure the sport and it's rules with her in mind. It's logical to set your rules with the 99% in mind.

And it's logical to set your insurance rates for the vast majority of teenage drivers and how they're statistically shown to drive. Not on the ones who drive carefully and safely.

And yes, it is, in fact, logical, before you see compelling evidence RELATED TO THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED, when you hear about a case like this, for instance, to assume the car full of 4 black male teens and early 20's kids who were blasting rap music, probably flipped shit and threatened the white 45 year old who told them to turn down their music, with physical violence.

And yes, for those responsible teen drivers, and those badass kickass women who want to play in the NFL or whatever, and for those law-abiding, good-natured, intelligent, nice black people it's going to feel unfair for society to play the averages. It's going to not just feel unfair it's going to BE unfair. Tough titties. Life isn't fair. Some people are born blind and without legs, be glad you aren't one of them and buck up. Teen drivers will bitch til they can bitch no more about paying more for car insurance, and few and far between will be those who listen.

Doesn't mean his fear was reasonable or that he shouldn't have popped that car into reverse and GTFO. Doesn't mean it's impossible that he was the more aggressive person and shot without a good, solid reason. Doesn't mean he shouldn't go to jail. But it does mean that those of you raving mad at SpatiallyAware, Spidey, and myself, should take a serious dose of reality and realize there are some biological facts behind some of the prejudices at play here. (I am by no means implying Spidey or SpatiallyAware would agree with any of what I'm saying here btw)

Prejudices I'd wager even the most ravingly egalitarian of you fire up within your own brain when it comes time to choose where to live, send your kids to school, whether to keep walking down that darkened street depending on who you see up ahead, or what part of town to drive through, or stop for gas in.

So, if Q from Star Trek or something popped into the room right next to me right now and asked me "okay you have to fight one of two people. All I'm going to tell you about them is one is a man and one is a woman. It's a fight to the death and there are no weapons." is it super duper sexist of me to play the odds and choose to fight the woman? This is no time to be PC, my life is on the line.

What about if he says "Okay you are about to be teleported into a warehouse with 5 men from an impoverished American community. You can choose between 2 groups of 5 men, one group is 5 white men, and the other is 5 black men. They may leave you alone or they may attack you, there are no guarantees as to what will or will not transpire." if I choose the group of 5 white men does that make me super duper bad man racist evil MEANIE? My life could be on the line, it's no time to be PC. Btw I think most black guys would choose the group of 5 white guys too. Of course if I knew the 5 black guys to be WoW players or chess champions and the 5 white guys were convicts, I'd flip my choice in a heartbeat. That's called having a prejudice based on facts and averages, WHICH YOU ARE WILLING TO OVERTURN WHEN PRESENTED WITH MORE DETAILED EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE DEALING WITH EXCEPTIONS.

If I'm basing my decisions in these two hypotheticals on biological realities, crime statistics, AVERAGES... then what does it really mean to call those decisions sexist or racist? Can facts be racist?

For those of you living in your little dream world where sexes are exactly equal in every way, and races are identical in every way... because well... just because! You're no better than creationists. You are believing shit because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside and you can pat yourself on the back for how tolerant, and PC you are. Grow a fucking pair of balls and accept REALITY even when it's harsh, even when expressing it might not make you any friends. TRUTH outranks feelings.

Scream "racist" like mindless cowards at me all you like, but you should take it up with Mother Nature. I don't make the facts, I just accept them.

 

[OCNewbie]

But it does mean that those of you raving mad at SpatiallyAware, Spidey, and myself, should take a serious dose of reality and realize there are some biological facts behind some of the prejudices at play here.

I've admittedly read only a small fraction of the posts of SA and spidey in this thread, but, that said, I think you're selling yourself extremely short to suggest that you three are arguing the same points, or you belong in the same group as those two.

 

[Geosurface]

I've admittedly read only a small fraction of the posts of SA and spidey in this thread, but, that said, I think you're selling yourself extremely short to suggest that you three are arguing the same points, or belong in the same group as those two.

Ha well when you hold views as unpopular as mine you take your allies where you can get them

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I actually think being a thug DOES have something to do with race:

Here's the problem:

1) You are assuming that the black-population did not have a higher testosterone level because of their marginalized place in society, thus changing the causal direction that you see. (I think it's a bit of both)

2) You are assuming that noting bio-physical differences is wrong/racist etc. It is not at all. It is when you go from looking at such statistics as something that skews the distribution in a population to making it your a priori assumption regarding any particular individual you become a racist.

3) What you have failed to take into account is that you will find greater testosterone variance within any particular racial group than you will between the means of any two racial groups. This means that your generalizations to the individual don't hold statistical merit even in the case of blind iterative interactions AND it covers up any reverse-directional causation that marginalization causes.

cliffs:

red-neck testosterone >> black research scientist

 

[Geosurface]

Here's the problem:

1) You are assuming that the black-population did not have a higher testosterone level because of their marginalized place in society, thus changing the causal direction that you see. (I think it's a bit of both)

2) You are assuming that noting bio-physical differences is wrong/racist etc. It is not at all. It is when you go from looking at such statistics as something that skews the distribution in a population to making it your a priori assumption regarding any particular individual you become a racist.

3) What you have failed to take into account is that you will find greater testosterone variance within any particular racial group than you will between the means of any two racial groups. This means that your generalizations to the individual don't hold statistical merit even in the case of blind iterative interactions AND it covers up any reverse-directional causation that marginalization causes.

cliffs:

red-neck testosterone >> black research scientist

1.) How does a "marginalized place in society" (is there such a thing as being a 13% minority and not inevitably being marginalized btw? And why aren't Asians in the same boat?) lead to increased testosterone?

Unfortunately for all of our fluffy illusions, the testosterone thing is just the very tip of the ice berg.

There are real, tangible biological differences between races. When it comes to blacks as compared to whites, those differences are actually somewhat muted in the USA because almost all African Americans have some Caucasian admixture DNA dulling the gap somewhat.

1.) Black infants develop faster than white infants, east Asian infants develop even slower than whites. Motor skills develop faster in blacks, etc. Here's how natural selection works: That slower development was a tradeoff and PURCHASED SOMETHING FOR WHITES AND ASIANS. What might that be? Perhaps a little bit more of the same thing human's slower development as compared to other species purchased them? Oh and also, African women produce twins at a higher rate. And what about r/K type nurture strategies? There are many very good reasons to believe various ethnic groups have not embraced both strategies to the exact same degree.

2.) African, white, and east Asian skulls exhibit dramatic differences in form. Likewise with these groups' brains. Differences noted are in overall weight of brains, which just magically happens to correspond to space provided by each group's skull for said brains. Differences in amount of wrinkling in brains... which just happens to fall on the exact same spread pattern as IQ among these 3 groups. Wrinkling of the brain, btw, as I'm sure you know already, is directly connected with brain power. This is the reason women are able to pack as much brain power as men (roughly) into a smaller skull. More wrinkling. But I'm sure, when one GROUP has more wrinkling than another, and this just HAPPENS to correspond to extremely resilient IQ score gaps in those groups, it's just a coincidence.

3.) Related to point 2, why is it that east Asians just so happen to score higher than whites on IQ tests, on average, consistently, across cultures, even controlling for upbringing, etc. As in, white couple has one biological child, adopts east Asian child, east Asian child raised in exact same environment will typically outscore their step-sibling on IQ tests.

So, is the fact that east Asians have a higher average brain weight/size than whites, utterly disconnected with the fact that they have higher average IQ scores than whites? Just a total coincidence?

4.) Why are the top Olympic sprinters all of African descent? http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/2012/08/12/the-dna-olympics-jamaicans-win-sprinting-genetic-lottery-and-why-we-should-all-care/

From that Forbes article:

...takes stock of the DNA London Olympics–where, as usual, African-descended athletes swept the running events while whites and Asians dominated in the water sports, field competition and strength events. What’s going on here?

Is this utterly unconnected from real, biologically observed differences in center of gravity, muscle distribution, etc in Africans as compared to Europeans?

Or, are blacks dominating in many sports because of their "marginalized place in society" ?

-------------------------------------------------------------

Face it. There is a dance between genetics and culture, certain genetic traits allow for certain cultural traits to spring up, which in turn bounce back at the genetics and impact them.

What sort of behavioral predispositions might be selected for by moving to an agricultural lifestyle from a hunter-gatherer one? A lifestyle where, everyone knows exactly where you live, and can destroy all your crops in retribution if you aren't agreeable? Could this select for said group to become more conflict-averse? What sort of impact does living in a colder climate have on genetic predisposition for future-planning, saving, thinking ahead, problem-solving, etc? Or are human beings magically insulated from the forces of natural selection because it'd hurt our feelings if we weren't?

Some racial groups have an agricultural history and a history of building and maintaining large scale civilizations, and others don't. This helps explain why, when white South-African "Boer" farmers were run off their land and had their farms taken from them in Zimbabwe and given to native Africans, those farms plummeted in productivity. Yields dropped dramatically.

Racial groups with agricultural history WERE IMPACTED GENETICALLY BY THAT HISTORY AND THEIR GENETICS AND THE CULTURE THEY WERE PURSUING WENT BACK AND FORTH ENABLING ONE ANOTHER.

This also helps explain why very little in the way of agriculture or architecture ever happened in sub-Saharan Africa prior to any sort of colonialism. My understanding is that no two story structure or even a wheel ever saw the light of day there prior to outside forces. Or at least, that this was the case through the vast majority of sub-Saharan Africa.

Perhaps this also helps explain the difficulty certain cities in the US have once the power structure shifts to be comprised primarily of people without a genetic lineage of building and maintaining advanced civilization?

Just some food for thought.

I know, I know, I'm the bad guy.

But I'd encourage anyone who is interested in western civilization maintaining it's characteristics to consider and research these facts and think about whether they have any implications for immigration policy, and preferential hiring practices for instance.

Remember: I fully believe ALL GROUPS PRODUCE ALL TYPES OF PEOPLE. Thugs, criminals, geniuses, people predisposed to be great or horrible at every conceivable thing... music, engineering, whatever, you name it. I JUST DON'T THINK THEY ALL PRODUCE ALL TYPES OF PEOPLE AT THE SAME RATE. I also believe that when you have the luxury to judge people on a case by case basis, that is absolutely the right, moral, and more effective path. I just don't think it's practical to do on a civilizational level like, when determining immigration policy.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

So bold face and all-caps instead of addressing the central argument:

There is greater variation within races than between: therefore generalizing the average of the population to an individual makes no sense.

You admit to my premise, yet you seem to fail to acknowledge the necessary conclusion... a conclusion that is necessary even if I agreed with your phrenology-level "genetics" arguments; which I don't.

My understanding is that no wheel ever saw the light of day there prior to outside forces.

Racists lied to you... or rather; the fact that it was invented by the Mesopotamians and exported is something that is not the least damning unless you will also damn the intelligence of Europeans and Asians as-well.

I hope you take this minor indicator of how you have been lied to/propagandized and use it to allow yourself to reconsider the entire network of lies that sustain your logically invalid argumentation.

 

[Geosurface]

So bold face and all-caps instead of addressing the central argument:

There is greater variation within races than between: therefore generalizing the average of the population to an individual makes no sense. (even if I agreed with your phrenology-level arguments; which I don't)

While this is true, it is one of those facts a person must look closer at.

There's also greater variation within dobermans and poodles than there is between dobermans and wolves or poodles and wolves. Note any outwardly obvious differences between these breeds of domesticated dog and wolves in the areas of appearance and behavior?

Same with many species. Greater variation within certain breeds of shrews than between that breed and another, or within certain types of deer and entirely different breeds of deer. Also true of duck breeds.

This being true does not stop these differences from corresponding to dramatic physical and behavioral differences!

… there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings, which are recognized as a single species. (Coppinger & Schneider, 1995)

What's more, some races of human beings have DNA admixture from what are commonly considered distinct SPECIES (neanderthals and denisovans) while others do not.

Racists lied to you... or rather; the fact that it was invented by the Mesopotamians and exported is something that is not the least damning unless you will also damn the intelligence of Europeans and Asians as-well.

I hope you take this minor indicator of how you have been lied to/propagandized and use it to allow yourself to reconsider the entire network of lies that sustain your logically invalid argumentation.

Many of the facts I cited are accepted and ORIGINATE WITHIN mainstream science. A few are from more disputed sources, admittedly. Can you think of any societal norms and pressures which may discourage both such research and the propagation of it's findings? (Gee... I wonder)

Scientists like Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, James Watson... mainstream influential scientists, acknowledge many of the key components of all this. They just happen to be very careful about not acknowledging too many of them or connecting too many dots, generally speaking. Much of what I've discussed is simply not under debate. Some of it is.

As for the wheel thing, you make a good point. And it's true that some cultures had less need of it or no proper domesticable animals to use in conjunction with it. Perhaps I should not have mentioned something so specific. Btw, it is not settled as to the wheel's exact origin, or whether it was developed in multiple places around the same time.

The fact remains, however, that some groups have demonstrated more cultural advancement than others. Most people tend to frame things as people being a product of their cultural surroundings. This is undoubtedly true to an extent, but I believe it is also true to say that peoples' culture is a product of their genetics.

It's true that some geographical areas conferred greater suitability to the development of certain civilizational hallmarks but I do not believe this accounts ENTIRELY for the gaps we see.

Even if it does, I still think those groups that win the roll of the dice for the right environment to give rise to advanced civilization, in turn are impacted genetically by existing within said civilization.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

There is greater deviation on psychological and sociological levels.

You see, there are emergent properties in biology that make it more than just chemistry and emergent properties in societies that make them more than just biological evolution.

I understand why people who see the world from an evolutionary psychology lens are bat-shit though; same thing for folks that see the world from an economists perspective.

 

[Geosurface]

There is greater deviation on psychological and sociological levels.

You see, there are emergent properties in biology that make it more than just chemistry and emergent properties in societies that make them more than just biological evolution.

I understand why people who see the world from an evolutionary psychology lens are bat-shit though; same thing for folks that see the world from an economists perspective.

I agree that everything is more complicated than just one angle, one factor. Absolutely. I acknowledge the emergent properties. No doubt.

This doesn't negate the impact of genetics, it just makes the big picture more complex.

I was always speaking in generalities anyway, and not advocating a blanket judgement upon individuals based on their group. I was talking about when you pull back the camera and view groups as just that, groups. On large scales, these things do manifest themselves.

Anyway... I feel this is getting too far afield for this thread, so I'm going to drop it and do my best to restrain myself from responding to any other people who feel like taking a shot. It could get out of hand quickly. Nobody wants to read my novels either.

 

[CLite]

There are consequences to actions. Assholes have civil liberties to be assholes. Unfortunately not everyone agrees with this. The guy who shot the asshole didn't believe in his civil liberties. So now the punk is dead and good riddance. One thing is true after all this...that asshole won't be playing his loud music anymore. The world is better off. One down and way too many to go.

Perhaps one-day you will upgrade from internet tough guy pretending to be a psychopath to actually becoming one and going to jail. Unfortunately guns fully enable sub-human scum with thoughts such as those you've so boldly typed on the internet, they can dole out justice as they see fit.

We use to see cranky old men yelling at the jocks with the boombox, now it's internet tough guys convincing themselves with fellow internet tough guys that kids in a car playing loud music should die. Then one day they are out after drinking at a wedding and instead of being happy drunk due to the fun wedding all the emotional shit in their lives catch up with them and they decide it's the day to teach those fucking punks who ignored their request a lesson (meanwhile inwardly crying about whatever trauma has led to their sad existence and rage). Unfortunately doing it in front of multiple witnesses gets them arrested in and put in the slammer. I feel like a sublime song could be written about this ala "date-rape".

People with thoughts as you've expressed in a way deserve to be put down more than kids playing loud music, but this is not something I would hope for. Instead I hope you get over whatever trauma you've suffered in the past. Yes, Yes bleeding heart liberal I must apologize in advance for not hoping for your death.

Btw, I think people blaring obnoxious curse-laden music should be cited and fined to all hell as often as possible. However, when an internet tough guy matches my "loud music" and raises me "psychotic killer" I feel like it's the more important thing to go on a tirade about.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Ha well when you hold views as unpopular as mine you take your allies where you can get them

Why would you do that?

You're a relatively rational poster. You make some errors in reasoning, particularly applying statistics, and you definitely have a problem with confirmation bias.
But you don't avoid any and all self-examination, and are not entirely immune to facts and reason.

You look much stronger standing alone than with spidey.

Who, interestingly and by the way, is a totally rational, knowledgeable and helpful poster on any topic that isn't guns.

 

[Capt Caveman]

well, gee, i don't think it's been established yet that a murder has been commited. i just hope you're not on the jury because you're as biased as they come.


who's trolling now?

Trolling? You're trolling or are you too stupid to read and understand what the poster I was replying to wrote? Please don't reply til you pass a high school reading comprehension ability.

 

[Geosurface]

You're a relatively rational poster. You make some errors in reasoning, particularly applying statistics, and you definitely have a problem with confirmation bias.
But you don't avoid any and all self-examination, and are not entirely immune to facts and reason.

Thanks.

I admit there is of course a confirmation bias element in there (isn't there with everyone on everything? we as a species have to use the most rigorous procedures for even our best and brightest to gain some level of immunity from it)

But, imperfect as I may be. Imperfect as some of the things I cited may be... I feel there is enough out there, much of it from well regarded and reputable sources, so as to be hard to ignore.

I just want to ask you, do you think there's anything to it? And by it, I mean predisposition to certain behaviors being greater in certain groups than others, if I was to narrow it down to something concise.

 

[HomerJS]

There are consequences to actions. Assholes have civil liberties to be assholes. Unfortunately not everyone agrees with this. The guy who shot the asshole didn't believe in his civil liberties. So now the punk is dead and good riddance. One thing is true after all this...that asshole won't be playing his loud music anymore. The world is better off. One down and way too many to go.

Bad public behavior punishable by death. Sounds like a smart way to handle. A offended by B, A kills B. Other public behavior that might offend.

Black man offend by loud country and western (one of them)
Black man offended by pickup truck displaying stars and bars (since it represents the Klan)
Fat chick offended by hot chick displaying too much skin in public.
Rival sports team fans in stadium acting obnoxious.

Maybe killing is the way to go in lieu of offended person just walking away.

 

[HumblePie]

convicted felon? uhhh no, a felon would be on parole, he was on probation. If he had committed a felony no way in hell he would have only gotten probation. They put people on probation for shit like stealing. And guess what he did.... steal! And if it was as cut and dry as you're making it out to be, the police would still be considering him a suspect. They're not, Dunn's in jail though, and there's a strong chance he'll wind up in prison. I'll make you a Paypal wager that when the smoke settles here Dunn will be the only person in trouble, and in prison.

Care to take me up on it?

No. Tommie was a convicted felon. He had served one year of jail time and was on parole. The story I linked to early says exactly that. Why the hell are you trying to disseminate wrong information here?

 

[HumblePie]

Ok, but this teen got caught stealing car stereos, which at worst would be a misdemeanor. No matter how you look at it he's not a FELON like idiot here's trying to prove. And he's stupid enough to think in the trial the judge will allow the jury to hear about the car stereos. It's in no way relevant to this case.




Sounds great, but even if he ends up going to prison, which I believe he will. Dunn will eventually get out, so the "one less asshole in the world" sadly doesn't work here. Although Dunn doesn't strike me as the type who would do very well in prison, so maybe you are technically right here.

And AGAIN with disseminating WRONG information that was already pointed out WRONG previously with a linked article.

He was caught not "stealing" stereos. If that was the case he would never get a felony charge/conviction you idiot.

He was caught BREAKING INTO CARS. It's called burglary and a forceful felony. He didn't do it to one car he did it to THIRTY, that's a big 3 and 0. As in 30 different cars before he was caught. He was stealing stereos, ipads, phones, laptops, car batteries, and other things. He had TONS of stolen shit.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Look, these are the exact same tactics they pulled with the TM/ZM situation.. "B-b-b-b-but who knows how much real gold/diamond jewelry!" "B-b-b-b-but who knows how badly he violently assaulted the innocent bus driver!!" "B-b-b-b-but he was a minor so his violent and thuggish past doesn't count!!"


Seriously... you think they would've learned their lesson last time.


The kid is a convicted felon with a history. It amazed me that some of you are so freely standing up for this thug.

 

[HumblePie]

I asked earlier why they are trying to marginalize the very recent history of a convicted felon who has NOT FINISHED serving his time to society. Certain individuals in this thread keep doing it and even going so far as to lie over and over about it. There are several news articles that I linked to previously in this thread that detail exactly what Tommie had done. I'm left completely flabbergasted by the idiocy of these individuals that keep trying to downplay what Tommie has done.

 

[Geosurface]

They're talking about that kid Tommie, who got popped for stealing a stereo after he learned from an older person that it was easy to get into a car and take stuff.

Newsflash: Pretty much every single criminal ever, including career, serious criminals... started off picking it up from someone else or falling in with the wrong crowd or yadda yadda yadda.

 

[spidey07]

So that's why they ditched the gun, the felon would be in a shit load of trouble if police found the gun.

 

[HumblePie]

So that's why they ditched the gun, the felon would be in a shit load of trouble if police found the gun.

That's why it lends SOME credibility to Dunn's story. It doesn't mean there was or wasn't a gun.

But if the case comes down to a he said/she said court battle, then being a convicted felon means your credibility is thrown out the window. Period.

However, I do believe that there is quite a bit of forensic evidence that has yet to be released as the investigation is on-going and that evidence will reveal the whole truth.

 

[Geosurface]

Supposedly, the playas that be are behind the scenes in Florida now trying to figure out how to drop the case against Zimmerman with as little blowback as possible, particularly in Miami. Try to keep the riots below a category 5 ideally.

Think they might have motive to not let this fish get away? To perhaps not even consider his story? To not even bother searching those storm drains in a 5 block radius? Hell, if I was a Jacksonville cop and I knew a man's life was on the line, I'd go out and search those fucking storm drains for a shotgun. Or bushes, etc. If they really did leave the scene, for as much as several minutes... lord knows all the places that gun could be stashed. They also most likely went back for it.

All told, Dunn is fucked.

He made the mistake of ending up in a situation like this not just in Florida while the Zimmerman thing was still ongoing... but in Angela Corey's own fucking county. Then, he didn't call cops. He forever tainted his public image by not calling cops, and by leaving the scene and not coming back. He would've probably been fucked even if he had stayed and been the first to dial 911.

After the embarrassment of having to drop charges against Zimmerman, Dunn who may or may not be innocent but if he is... I don't foresee him having any evidence to prove it... well, no way no how is she going to let him off the hook unless she was absolutely cornered with facts and evidence like she is with Zimmerman. That won't be happening here, almost assuredly.

He was going to be a sacrificial lamb on the altar of black appeasement and riot avoidance regardless, but if they have to let Zimmerman go? Oh it's all the more certain. Guess he should've put up with that loud rap music for another 30 seconds eh?

 

[blankslate]

Guess he should've put up with that loud rap music for another 30 seconds eh?

I put up with loud music of all kinds for a minute or two it takes for either me or the other person to drive away. I guess someone took the fantasy of shooting the source of offending music way too far. What happened to some modicum of self-control? It was Rap music being played by thugs so Mr. Dunn should've shot all of them dead I guess....

Then, he didn't call cops. He forever tainted his public image by not calling cops, and by leaving the scene and not coming back. He would've probably been fucked even if he had stayed and been the first to dial 911.

If he had done this then I'd give a lot more credibility to his story about the shotgun. After all if Mr. Dunn stayed around how would the "thugs" have ditched this (so far) "hypothetical" shotgun with him watching?

They would've had to drive off to be able to ditch a weapon without people observing.

As for appeasement? Cuckooland is that way....