Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[Pens1566]

As I pointed out previously...



Just because someone is following the law as they see it doesn't make them a bias white person. From the moment you started calling everyone else who was looking rationally at what has been presented at trial instead of just foaming at the mouth while screaming "Guilty!" as racist, you are the only one showing the real traits of a racist.

Yes. You, spidey, geo, and SA are the bastion of what everyone would call "rational" and everyone else in the thread is crazy. Talk about delusion.

 

[Daverino]

The right thing would be an acquittal on all charges. Well, all except MAYBE the firing into an occupied dwelling thing. I'm not entirely clear on whether his self-defense rationale trumps that.

If he is convicted of murder one, two, or manslaughter then it means things which have no place in our justice system have seeped in. Things like:

1.) Consideration of the races of people involved.
2.) Consideration (by themselves or the other jurors) of the races of jurors on the case.
3.) Sympathy and feelings for Jordan's parents or for Jordan.
4.) Consideration of how the verdict will be received by the black community.
5.) Consideration of possible fallout from the verdict in the nation or locally.
6.) Personal dislike of Dunn or his lawyer.
7.) Trying to "win one for Trayvon"
8.) Failure to understand reasonable doubt.
9.) Failure to understand self-defense.

etc, etc etc.

As O'Mara said, properly following the law without emotion means an acquittal here.

If I was on that jury it would be either hung or an acquittal, period.

That wouldn't be me being racist, mean, or a nullifier, or anything else. It would be me following the law properly, and possibly being the only one to do so.

Yeah never mind what I said. If the only way you can comprehend a guilty verdict is through reverse racism then yes, you are a racist.

Welcome to the Incorruptible and Geosurface club.

 

[HumblePie]

Yes. You, spidey, geo, and SA are the bastion of what everyone would call "rational" and everyone else in the thread is crazy. Talk about delusion.

Hyperbole much as well again?

How was my statement saying those specific other names? There are others looking more rational at the evidence presented or at least trying to. Specific examples would be: Londo, TerryMathews, Exophase, WackyDan, and others.

But nice try with hyperbole.

 

[TerryMathews]

Is it possible to get an unbiased white person on a jury in the south? Every hour that passes, the more likely it is that there is a hung jury. Sadly my gut instincts are looking more likely by the minute. C'mon guys can you do the right thing just this once?

It says a lot about you that you can only ascribe a hung jury or acquittal to racial bias.

 

[Daverino]

Hyperbole much as well again?

Specific examples would be: Londo, TerryMathews, Exophase, WackyDan, and others.

The obvious difference, of course, being they aren't making shit up and they aren't passing it off as surefire justification for acquittal. That's because they're not working backwards from their conclusion that Dunn is innocent.

That is why you and Geo and Spidey and Spatial aren't classified with them. That is why you're classified as intellectually dishonest posters who aren't worth engaging on an intelligent level.

 

[TerryMathews]

The obvious difference, of course, being they aren't making shit up and they aren't passing it off as surefire justification for acquittal. That's because they're not working backwards from their conclusion that Dunn is innocent.

That is why you and Geo and Spidey and Spatial aren't classified with them. That is why you're classified as intellectually dishonest posters who aren't worth engaging on an intelligent level.

That might be the nicest thing you've ever said about me. Lol

 

[Pens1566]

The obvious difference, of course, being they aren't making shit up and they aren't passing it off as surefire justification for acquittal. That's because they're not working backwards from their conclusion that Dunn is innocent.

That is why you and Geo and Spidey and Spatial aren't classified with them. That is why you're classified as intellectually dishonest posters who aren't worth engaging on an intelligent level.

Said it better than I would have.

 

[bshole]

In the end, it is Dunn's admitted actions after the shooting that convict him for me. They are clear actions of a person who believes that they have done something very very wrong. I understand his thought process because it would probably be my thought process as well. When he did the shoot, he was fueled with testorone and rage. Immediately after it, he realized, holy shit I am drunk and I have no rational excuse for taking those shots, gawd I hope I didn't hit anybody. I am completely and utterly fucked if I call 911. Innocent people call 911 EVERY time. His actions after the fact indicate that Dunn had a deep consciousness of guilt.

I posted this story once before and I will do so again. I cut off a black kid in the parking lot of McDonalds. He took umbrage and pulled up beside me and start yelling at me while I was placing my order at the take-out window. I feared for my safety and the safety of my daughter so I sped out of the parking lot. The kid followed me. At that point, I dialed 911 on my cell. I made sure the kid saw me. As I talked to the operator. the kid saw that I was on the cell phone and sped away. What this illustrates is that when a person is in fear for their safety, they call 911.

The only plausible reason for Dunn not dialing 911 is a conviction on his part that he had done something dreadfully wrong. Dunn was correct, he had done something dreadfully wrong. This is a clear cut case of manslaughter, though I am not sure about murder 1 or 2.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Jury is asking for access to the dummy with the projectiles.

 

[Geosurface]

I haven't worked backwards from the conclusion that Dunn is innocent. It has only been recently upon seeing Davis' friends testimony, Dunn's testimony, and other things in the trial that I have really arrived at a fairly firm belief in his innocence.

Do I employ assumptions about the type of teenagers who blast rap at absurdly (and often illegal in many areas) levels and flip out cursing when politely asked to turn it down? Do I assume to a certain degree that they are the type to go even further and make threats?

Fuck yes I do and with zero apology.

Do I make certain assumptions, to a degree, about a middle aged businessman with no real record of any kind suddenly deciding to try to kill 4 strangers because they used bad words, while his fiancee is in the store for a few minutes?

Yep, I do.

I think this is common sense stuff, not inappropriate to employ. It shouldn't result in FIRM belief, but it can contribute to leaning a certain way.

 

[spidey07]

Jury is asking for access to the dummy with the projectiles.

Prosecutor Guy?

 

[Exophase]

So it sounds like the jury doesn't feel a conclusion is obvious and wants more evidence. Not sure what that says about how unanimous their current views are or aren't, but it's good that they're taking this seriously.

 

[TerryMathews]

Prosecutor Guy?

Giving the devil his due, that was a good one. :beer:

 

[Daverino]

I think this is common sense stuff, not inappropriate to employ. It shouldn't result in FIRM belief, but it can contribute to leaning a certain way.

And that right there folks is why we should pray to God that Geo never ends up on a jury.

 

[HumblePie]

The obvious difference, of course, being they aren't making shit up and they aren't passing it off as surefire justification for acquittal. That's because they're not working backwards from their conclusion that Dunn is innocent.

That is why you and Geo and Spidey and Spatial aren't classified with them. That is why you're classified as intellectually dishonest posters who aren't worth engaging on an intelligent level.

Lol, and what shit have I made up about this trial? Please quote me on one thing I made up on this trial? You do and I'll paypal you $25 right now.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm still at 85% Conviction (most likely manslaughter), 10% Acquittal, and 5% Hung Jury.

How does one get manslaughter from the intent to fire a gun at people?

I'd always think the conviction is murder.

 

[TerryMathews]

How does one get manslaughter from the intent to fire a gun at people?

I'd always think the conviction is murder.

Fire a warning shot and miss?

 

[HumblePie]

How does one get manslaughter from the intent to fire a gun at people?

I'd always think the conviction is murder.

Technically Dunn claimed he didn't think he hit anyone and was shooting to scare them off. Which is why he fired at the door. If the jury believes that and thinks he wasn't legally firing in self defense, they may give him manslaughter based off that.

 

[Geosurface]

In the end, it is Dunn's admitted actions after the shooting that convict him for me. They are clear actions of a person who believes that they have done something very very wrong.

Cops and soldiers who shoot people who were actively trying to kill them can still be traumatized by it and feel awful, it can scar them for life and shut them down emotionally. It doesn't mean they weren't justified in what they did, it means that killing people is traumatic, and nearly being killed yourself is traumatic.

And they are people who not only went into the line of work they were in understanding that they may very well have to do that, but they also had (typically) the complete support of their government, their employer, and the public for doing what they did.

Yet they are still traumatized more often than not.

Now, Dunn on the other hand had no expectation he'd be in such a situation. It came completely out of left field. He thinks he's going back to the hotel with his fiancee to have some wine, and that he's made a normal, polite request. A common courtesy. Now he's having his life threatened and it gets to the point where he believes he's about to die, he then has a gallon of adrenaline dumped in his bloodstream as he reacts and saves himself.

You don't think he could be racked with guilt and self-doubt even if everything he said is true and he was 100% justified? If you think that, your understanding of human beings is sorely lacking.

Innocent people call 911 EVERY time.

Got any evidence for that? Some sort of study?

Ever hear about how many rapes go unreported? The person who got raped is innocent, and yet they don't always call 911.

Same with abused spouses not calling 911. Whether they hit back or not.

There are also a shit ton of assaults by strangers on the street, like knockout attacks etc, where the person doesn't bother to report it because they're in a big city, they know the cops will never find the guy, and it's just a hassle.

The only plausible reason for Dunn not dialing 911 is a conviction on his part that he had done something dreadfully wrong.

Is it now?

See, most times something like a self-defense situation happens the person does call 911, that's true. But most times it's sort of a moot point. They're still stationary and the cops are coming and people around know them and know they live in that place or they're on video or whatever... the person who was threatening them is dead, no longer a threat.

Dunn's situation was unusual because the situation itself gave him a very good reason to drive off, and not only did he not know he'd killed Davis, but he knew there were still friends of his alive in that Durango.

So he's driving off with his fiancee, and he's justified in doing so. But now he's in a somewhat unique situation... there are no flashing lights behind him... he keeps driving... hmm, still no cops...

At the hotel, no cops are showing up. Next morning, still no cops.

Should he have called? Totally. I guarantee you he wishes he had now. But I don't think it's impossible as you imply that amidst all the stress, trauma, self-doubt, shell shock, etc... that he might give in to the temptation to think "well shit maybe nobody got my license plate number and I know I was justified so, why do I need to throw myself into the lion's jaws here and HOPE that the legal apparatus agrees? I know I did what I had to do, I don't need a pat on the head from a police officer to tell me that."

This is possible. It's also possible he was just telling himself "i'll call soon, let me just take care of ______" like putting off your homework. It's something he was undoubtedly dreading, going to the cops.

Unless you're in that situation you have no fucking clue how you'd react. Your McDonald's situation didn't involve you shooting at the car.

 

[rudeguy]

Prosecutor Guy?

I thought Dunn?

:biggrin:

 

[Geosurface]

UPDATE: 1:20PM Jury asks if they can be provided with the “trajectory-rod dummy.” Problem is, dummy is demonstrative evidence only, normally would not go back to jury room. State has no objection. Strolla and Dunn discuss briefly in separate room, return and say they also have no objection. Healey, in abundance of caution, recesses for 15 minutes so case law can be reviewed, ensure they don’t inadvertently make a move that could result in reversal.

I'm glad they're asking for the dummy because it means they're paying attention to the trajectory issue. I hope that someone in that jury room is bringing up what Dunn himself brought up on cross, the rods for the back door not matching the rods for the front, in angle.

The funny thing is, even just by deliberating for this long and asking for this stuff they've already proven they have reasonable doubt. They may not wish to acknowledge that though.

 

[HumblePie]

I'm glad they're asking for the dummy because it means they're paying attention to the trajectory issue. I hope that someone in that jury room is bringing up what Dunn himself brought up on cross, the rods for the back door not matching the rods for the front, in angle.

The funny thing is, even just by deliberating for this long and asking for this stuff they've already proven they have reasonable doubt. They may not wish to acknowledge that though.

Bingo.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I thought Dunn?

:biggrin:

I guess you don't remember Guy dry humping the demonstration dummy during the Zimmerman trial.

 

[HumblePie]

I guess you don't remember Guy dry humping the demonstration dummy during the Zimmerman trial.

What happens behind the evidence doors stays behind the evidence doors. Unless it's done on the floor of the court room too 😀

 

[TerryMathews]

I'm glad they're asking for the dummy because it means they're paying attention to the trajectory issue. I hope that someone in that jury room is bringing up what Dunn himself brought up on cross, the rods for the back door not matching the rods for the front, in angle.

The funny thing is, even just by deliberating for this long and asking for this stuff they've already proven they have reasonable doubt. They may not wish to acknowledge that though.

There's only one reason for them to be looking so hard at trajectory and it favors Dunn far more than it does the state.