Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[Geosurface]

Pretty sure none of that means a witness said "definitively" that they "were stashing" anything which is what is repeatedly asserted.

Thus the repeated challenges on the statement.

I know, and I agree.

 

[cubby1223]

If you could somehow know for a fact that Jordan Davis did actually threaten to kill Michael Dunn, and the door of the SUV started to open, would you still feel exactly the same way about Dunn's actions?

If you could somehow know for a fact that Jordan Davis did not actually threaten to kill Michael Dunn, would you still feel exactly the same way about Dunn's actions?

The question absolutely goes both ways.

 

[cubby1223]

If you're wondering what I'm talking about re: your side. There are plenty of people who like to point out that the shooter is white, call him "Dunn-goofed", insinuate his manhood is in question, mock white males and their guns substituting for their dicks and how there's this white male culture of being terrified of blacks etc, and when they refer to things about the case they get little details wrong or misremember things plenty often too... and they frame things in extremely simplistic ways too. These people even sometimes like to express their fondest wish that the guy will be raped in prison, etc. None of this phases you of course, or motivates you to call them sociopaths or anything of the sort.

Except you need to realize that most people are individuals, and as individuals they are different in their opinions and beliefs. If you judge one person based on the actions of another, then you are a damn fool.

Here is the thing - if one of those people you describe were posting on this forum, absolutely you would see them attacked. But they are not. And no one here is tasked with the job of scouring every corner of the internet being the internet's police.

You are becoming far too emotional, far too irrational. Just because you found someone in some corner of the internet who is an even greater fucked up individual than you, does not excuse you from what you choose to do.

 

[Geosurface]

If you could somehow know for a fact that Jordan Davis did not actually threaten to kill Michael Dunn, would you still feel exactly the same way about Dunn's actions?

The question absolutely goes both ways.

Um... my feelings about this case from the start have been extreme uncertainty. It all comes down to whether Davis did make a credible threat on Dunn's life. And even if he did, a lot of people would argue that his reaction was still excessive. Frankly, I'm not certain how I feel about that. I think within the law though, he would probably be clear.

As time has gone by it is true that I have argued more as devil's advocate for Dunn, but a lot of that has been because I felt some people were expressing too much certainty that he'd just simply blown Davis away out of annoyance. These also happen to be people I am accustomed to disagreeing with in other threads, and who are fond of hurling insults at me, so that has a tendency to make me drift more toward sounding like a flat out Dunn advocate than I actually am.

Again, I have never felt certain about whether Davis made the threat or not. I've never felt certain about whether a weapon was present. At the moment, I lean toward thinking a threat was probably made, it may or may not have been credible (as opposed to teenage bluster), and Dunn most likely made up the gun to solidify his claim of self-defense.

If I knew for a fact Jordan Davis had made no threat, and had only yelled and cursed and been rude, I would instantly feel Dunn deserved the fucking death penalty. There is ZERO excuse for shooting up a car full of kids simply because they were rude to you.

if one of those people you describe were posting on this forum, absolutely you would see them attacked. But they are not.

I was basing everything I referenced there on shit I've seen posted on these forums. Most of them in this very thread (although perhaps not in the more recent pages of it) and CERTAINLY within other similar threads if not here, by people who have posted here. Do I keep track of exactly who said each of those sorts of things and in what thread? No. But I know I've seen every one of those things I listed on this forum.

 

[Genx87]

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/02/08/michael-dunn-trial-jordan-davis-saturday?hpt=hp_t2

•Rhonda Rouer testified Michael Dunn said 'I hate that thug music’ moments before shooting Jordan Davis

This guy should spend some time behind bars.

 

[Geosurface]

This guy should spend some time behind bars.

Saying "I hate that thug music" isn't evidence of an intent to shoot those who are playing it. I wonder how many times in the history of our species someone has said "ugh, I hate that music" and didn't end up killing those who were playing it, vs. times where they did.

I don't think any reasonable person can deny the following:

1. When Michael Dunn pulled into that parking spot, he didn't think he'd end up shooting at anyone.
2. When Michael Dunn said "I hate that thug music" he didn't think he'd end up shooting at anyone.
3. When Michael Dunn asked them (politely according to them and the prosecutor) if they could turn down the music, he didn't think he'd end up shooting at anyone.

If anyone is actually silly enough to disagree on any of those points, let me know.

In light of that, it simply isn't accurate to say Jordan Davis was killed over music. The interactions between Davis and Dunn began over music. There are a billion ways that interaction could have terminated without anyone being harmed.

I believe that shooting at the truck full of kids playing rap was not even the slightest shadow of an inkling in Dunn's mind until basically the moment immediately prior to doing it.

The only question which remains is, was that moment characterized by rage at being disrespected and cursed out by some kid? Or was that moment characterized by fear that he was about to die or be seriously harmed?

Not a single one of us here knows the answer to that. The judge doesn't know, the defense attorney doesn't know, the prosecutors don't know. The jury doesn't know and never will.

Only Michael Dunn knows, and possibly one or two of the surviving kids knows. Dunn and the kids both have very strong incentive to lie if the truth isn't in their favor.

EDIT: Oh and now since posting this I've actually had the chance to watch today's trial footage, most importantly Dunn's fiancee's testimony. Ridiculously nice, sincere woman who was bawling the entire time in a way which left no possibility of faking it or playing it up. Came across as VERY sincere. I felt really bad for her. I was also impressed that she is still engaged to him despite his situation.

None of that means Dunn is innocent of course. It wouldn't be the first time a royal asshole was in a relationship with a sweetheart of a person. But the more insight I get into them as people, the harder it becomes for me to believe he would kill someone just for mouthing off. Who knows, though?

I do think if I was on the jury, with what I know now, I'd have to vote to acquit. I don't know how the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his life wasn't threatened. I might vote guilty of the "firing into an occupied vehicle" thing though. As a way of indicating as a jury that he had overstepped the line in his reaction to the threat, and I might even convict him of the three counts of attempted murder since it doesn't seem like the other 3 ever threatened him. It's a tough call. It's tough because if you concede that he may have had a legitimate basis for defending himself, can he then be expected to worry about the lives of the other young men in the truck as he does so? And after all, he did end up killing the only person who seems to have been in conflict with him.

 

[blankslate]

-snip-

Fuck you...

Fuck Florida...

Other states have SYG laws and that's a pity but Florida is seemingly taking it to a whole weird level. Sorry but when a law lets someone get no time for shooting someone in the back of the head that's a fucked up law.

And you're a fucked up person for supporting such a law.




.....

 

[HomerJS]

All 3 have been vacationed for blatant racist posts. It's not that "unknown".

Shock and surprise!

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Fuck you...

Fuck Florida...

Other states have SYG laws and that's a pity but Florida is seemingly taking it to a whole weird level. Sorry but when a law lets someone get no time for shooting someone in the back of the head that's a fucked up law.

And you're a fucked up person for supporting such a law.




.....

It's not just florida. MANY states have similar laws.

Our country is like this because we strongly believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', and that you must PROVE someone guilty rather than have them prove their own innocence.


That means that sometimes criminals and people who are guilty slip through the cracks. But that is FAR better than convicting someone who had to defend themselves from a group of felon thugs.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

All 3 have been vacationed for blatant racist posts. It's not that "unknown".

It was made clear in the trayvon thread that you and your ilk were mass-reporting posts of people who disagree with you.

So, just because you lynch-mob forum members just like you lynch-mob people who are attacked by thugs doesn't make you special.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

LOL at the thug supporters on here...

Playing violent thug music = legal
Politely asking someone to turn down their violent music = legal

Threatening someone's life over a polite request = NOT LEGAL



By what we know as fact, the felon thug crew made the first illegal action in this encounter. We also have witness testimony that they appeared to be stashing something.

I truly fail to understand why the same clowns are supporting this crew that supported trayvon. You'd think they would've learned their lesson... Not a great idea to back felon thugs when trying to change the way society deals with these issues.

You all need to pick yourselves some decent people to support, rather than trying to prop up these thugs/violent people as martyrs.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

double post

 

[MomentsofSanity]

LOL at the thug supporters on here...

Playing violent thug music = legal
Politely asking someone to turn down their violent music = legal

Threatening someone's life over a polite request = NOT LEGAL



By what we know as fact, the felon thug crew made the first illegal action in this encounter. We also have witness testimony that they appeared to be stashing something.

I truly fail to understand why the same clowns are supporting this crew that supported trayvon. You'd think they would've learned their lesson... Not a great idea to back felon thugs when trying to change the way society deals with these issues.

You all need to pick yourselves some decent people to support, rather than trying to prop up these thugs/violent people as martyrs.

You know, if you dropped the bullshit statement that a witness said they appeared to be stashing something you might be taken a bit more seriously.

That was, again, never said. There's a big difference between they appear to be stashing something and they got out, I don't know if they are stashing something.

The witness statement, as it stands, lends no credibility to the argument that they were actually stashing anything.

 

[spidey07]

It does however provide reasonable doubt

 

[blankslate]

Our country is like this because we strongly believe in 'innocent until proven guilty', and that you must PROVE someone guilty rather than have them prove their own innocence.

We have had the innocent until proven guilty standard for far longer than there have been stand your ground laws in the states.


One side effect of SYG is the increase in shootings in the states which have those laws.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18134

To do so, we apply a difference-in-differences research design by exploiting the within-state variation in law adoption. We find no evidence of deterrence; burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault are unaffected by the laws. On the other hand, we find that homicides are increased by around 8 percent, and that these homicides are largely classified by police as murder. This suggests that a primary consequence of strengthened self-defense law is a net increase in homicide.

Some people like to point to a decrease in crime rates in Florida after SYG was passed but what they ignore was that crime rates were dropping before SYG was passed
http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...rates-florida-have-dropped-stand-your-ground/

But that’s not the whole story. We also looked at crime rates for the five years before the "stand your ground" law started, and we found violent crime was declining during those years as well. Between 2000 and 2005, violent crime dropped 12 percent.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

You know, if you dropped the bullshit statement that a witness said they appeared to be stashing something you might be taken a bit more seriously.

That was, again, never said. There's a big difference between they appear to be stashing something and they got out, I don't know if they are stashing something.

The witness statement, as it stands, lends no credibility to the argument that they were actually stashing anything.

"One was on his cellphone looking back, and it looked like they were pretty much just -- I don't know if they were trying to stash something in the car or look for something or what........"



Sounds like they were stashing something to me. You don't "brush yourself off" after you get your friend shot then return to the supposedly dangerous scene of the crime.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Oh man I'm literally laughing at this testimony....


They have absolutely no reason for leaving the scene. And absolutely no reason for returning to this "dangerous scene".

Think about it... You're in an SUV with three young bucks, one who is a 3-count felon. You threaten an innocent old man, he shoots at you, you flee.


Why would you return to the scene?? Call 911, say someone is shot, you need help! You don't get out, "brush yourself off", get back in, then return to the gas station... ROFL

 

[MomentsofSanity]

"One was on his cellphone looking back, and it looked like they were pretty much just -- I don't know if they were trying to stash something in the car or look for something or what........"



Sounds like they were stashing something to me. You don't "brush yourself off" after you get your friend shot then return to the supposedly dangerous scene of the crime.

Of course it sounds like that to you. However, in your quote the party clearly states they do to know if they were stashing something. They'd also say "in the car". I'd certainly be brushing the broken glass off of myself.

You've repeatedly asserted the witness stated they were without question (definitively to use your words) stashing something. That is false. Everything else is your conjecture as to what they were probably doing with no stated fact to support that position.

Were you to back away from that incorrect assertion, you'd be taken more seriously as it's demonstrably false.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Of course it sounds like that to you. However, in your quote the party clearly states they do to now if they were stashing something. They'd also say "in the car". I'd certainly be brushing the broken glass off of myself.

You've repeatedly asserted the witness stated they were without question (definitively to use your words) stashing something. That is false. Everything else is your conjecture as to what they were probably doing with no stated fact to support that position.

Were you to back away from that incorrect assertion, you'd be taken more seriously as it's demonstrably false.

I have only quoted the witness as saying that they appeared to be stashing something. That is not a 100% definitive statement. When taken in context with the other details of the case (loud rap music, 3-count felon, incredibly suspicious actions after they got themselves shot at) I think it's more than reasonable to assume they weren't "brushing themselves off" in the parking lot next door.



My opinion revolves around the fact that the felon thug crew were not upfront about leaving the scene. Why leave that CRITICAL detail out?

Well we know why, because doing so means it would take 4 days for investigators to get the info and go back and search for the stashed weapon, which is now long gone.


I'm not saying dunn did right either.... But I would feel completely different about this case if the felon thug crew weren't in the middle of legal troubles and if they had not acted so suspiciously.

And because we don't know what happened due to the felon thug crew's suspicious behaviour, dunn will walk.

 

[fskimospy]

It is amazing how emotionally involved SA gets with these threads. As I predicted before, he has worked himself up into such a frenzy that he is well on his way to declaring this man totally innocent, facts be damned.

 

[Capt Caveman]

It is amazing how emotionally involved SA gets with these threads. As I predicted before, he has worked himself up into such a frenzy that he is well on his way to declaring this man totally innocent, facts be damned.

I know it's hilarious. Innocent man runs, doesn't call the police and has to be apprenhended. The thugs drive away from someone shooting at them. Pull over and try to call 911(testimony of the phone calls made by the teens confirmed this yesterday) and go back to the convenient store to get help.

Why do guilty thugs go back to the scene of the crime asking for help? Why not just keep driving off with their supposed weapon?

Common sense is ignored by the racists here.

Oh and from yesterday's testimony, Dunn's gf admits that Dunn had been drinking at the wedding, 3-4 rum and cokes.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

I love how even though I have repeatedly stated that I don't think dunn is morally or ethically innocent, you race brigaiders still continue on unabated with your ridiculous racist smear campaigns.


My issue is not that dunn is guilty or innocent. It's that with what we currently know as fact, he COULD be innocent. And in this country we don't convict people based on what modern progressives feel deep down in their hearts.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I love how even though I have repeatedly stated that I don't think dunn is morally or ethically innocent, you race brigaiders still continue on unabated with your ridiculous racist smear campaigns.


My issue is not that dunn is guilty or innocent. It's that with what we currently know as fact, he COULD be innocent. And in this country we don't convict people based on what modern progressives feel deep down in their hearts.

You don't think the fact that you repeatedly referring to the victims of this shooting as the felon thug crew has anything to do with the opinion on your motivations? Have you used similar disparaging terms in reference to the man who actually killed someone? Why isn't he killer Dunn? Murderer Dunn? You seem to refer to him in the most careful respectful terms, including innocent.

Clearly you aren't on the fence. Don't try to pretend you are.

 

[Capt Caveman]

I have only quoted the witness as saying that they appeared to be stashing something. That is not a 100% definitive statement. When taken in context with the other details of the case (loud rap music, 3-count felon, incredibly suspicious actions after they got themselves shot at) I think it's more than reasonable to assume they weren't "brushing themselves off" in the parking lot next door.



My opinion revolves around the fact that the felon thug crew were not upfront about leaving the scene. Why leave that CRITICAL detail out?

Well we know why, because doing so means it would take 4 days for investigators to get the info and go back and search for the stashed weapon, which is now long gone.


I'm not saying dunn did right either.... But I would feel completely different about this case if the felon thug crew weren't in the middle of legal troubles and if they had not acted so suspiciously.

And because we don't know what happened due to the felon thug crew's suspicious behaviour, dunn will walk.

Provide the quote since we all know that this is false.

 

[Exophase]

It's that with what we currently know as fact, he COULD be innocent.

What you call currently known fact is believing the shooter's testimony 100% without any corroborating evidence and denying the testimony of the others in the car.

ie, this:

By what we know as fact, the felon thug crew made the first illegal action in this encounter.

Even though it's common sense that someone defending themselves from some kind of unjustified homicide claim doesn't want to risk a potentially harsh sentence in prison and will not be totally trustworthy. Even someone who is making a legitimate attempt to be very honest will naturally have a hard time identifying the incident in an objective and undistorted way.

That's probably why people think you're biased. There's also this comment:

And keep in mind that this area of florida has had MAJOR problems with thugs going around dishing out random beatings and assaults. The law-abiding community is sick and tired of their behaviour.


If anyone on that jury has seen or heard of these problems with thug violence... Dunn will walk.

All we really know about the person who was shot was that he was listening to loud music that the shooter didn't like, something happened that caused the shooter to be afraid enough (or, IMO much less likely, angry enough) to shoot at him, and he was in the car with someone who was convicted of non-violent felonies. Yet you make the connection between these people and those who have assaulted others, you want others to make that connection, this is based on prejudice.

It's not necessarily racial prejudice, maybe you really wouldn't be prejudiced against people just for being black. But it's still prejudice.