• 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 182 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Londo_Jowo said:
Looks like a Taurus 92

1392056904013-met-11dunntrial020714.jpg%3Fw%3D468%26h%3D351
Click to expand...

ahhh..makes sense


Too cheap to buy a nice gun but buys a blinged out one to look hardcore. What a loser
 
spidey07 said:
I mean the unrefuted evidence that Davis made threats to Mr. Dunn's life and acted to carry out those threats by attempting to open the door or actually opening the door.

Those known facts are what made Mr. Dunn's shooting justified.

A weapon is not necessary to be justified in deadly force.
Click to expand...

Which is the same thing as the "unrefuted evidence" that the keys I carry in my pocket have protected me from a tiger attack.
 
senseamp said:
Sure you would. If the killer says they heard you say you'd kill them, you are fair game. Not like you would be around to say otherwise anyways. So it would be his word against no one's, and he has the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...
Plus the shooter could claim he thought he saw a weapon.

Hell, he could even claim he thought Spidey was black. Apparently that's the trifecta of self defense win.
 
werepossum said:
Plus the shooter could claim he thought he saw a weapon.

Hell, he could even claim he thought Spidey was black. Apparently that's the trifecta of self defense win.
Click to expand...

With trigger happy gun nuts like this Dunn fellow around, that is a credible reason to be threatened right there. Just say "I believed he was going to kill me and claim self defense, so I did it first," good enough reason for me.
 
WHAMPOM said:
GEEEZZZZE! Nine to three vote for guilty! Makes Dunn 3/4 guilty of murder one and 1/4 considered innocent. Know what they say better ten guilty go free then one innocent be convicted. Like that happens a lot! LOL!! Let's see if the next trial comes out guilty 100%
Click to expand...

Bet we find out there were paid off or threatened by the NRA.
 
senseamp said:
With trigger happy gun nuts like this Dunn fellow around, that is a credible reason to be threatened right there. Just say "I believed he was going to kill me and claim self defense, so I did it first," good enough reason for me.
Click to expand...
Could be the next meme.

I thought that he thought that I thought that he was going to kill me, so he'd kill me before I killed him before he killed me. So I figured I'd better kill him first just to have some time to safely figure out who was going to kill who before I was, you know, killed trying to figure out if I was in danger of killing him or of being killed.
 
Thebobo said:
No its not.
Click to expand...

There were liberal activists attempting to get on the jury of the zimmerman trial. One or two almost made it on but their facebook posting got them dismissed.

It is most certainly more believable these jury members could be DNC plants vs that mean ole NRA.
 
blankslate said:
A lot of people like to point out that SYG wasn't claimed in this or the other famous case. That's true


However, it doesn't change the fact that the passage of that law has an effect on jury instructions given in these cases in which self-defense was claimed.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nat...fense-issue/t2G5hvtoroYytelf9V3H2H/story.html





http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/2...again-raises-self-defense-issue#axzz2tiKGSHd3


So to those who say because SYG wasn't claimed by the defense that it has no effect.

I say to you that is bullshit and to a certain one of you.... Fuck off.

.....
Click to expand...

The jury instructions look to avoid having juries needlessly concern themselves in deliberations with the question of fleeing. If the question isn't relevant to begin with removing has no effect.

blankslate said:
It's a bad law that gives people too much leeway to start shooting and only the oblivious or sociopaths would support that.
Click to expand...

That's absurd and clearly born from ignorance of the problems prior law caused.

Under prior law that required the obligation to retreat almost every case became not about an actual threat or justified self defense, but whether the defendant met the requirement to retreat.

Prosecutors turned it into a debacle by asking dumb stuff such as:

"why didn't you go out the window?"

"You mean you can't unlock your own window?"

"How high off the floor was the window?"

"Did you have a step stool or chair nearby?"

The focus had become the wrong one and people under duress, judged by others with hindsight, can appear to have failed to take a single action under questioning by a prosecutor resulting in imprisonment even though their actions were justified.

Read up on why the law has been changed in so many places.

Also read up on why the other controversial clause in FL's SYG law exists - that a provocateur can later use deadly force in self defense.

These laws were changed for very good reasons, reasons that had become abundantly clear over many years.

Laws will never result in a perfect application of justice under such a variety of circumstances. But we have improved the self defense to eliminate unjust application to innocent and sympathetic individuals. Unfortunately the newer law will allow some who are likely guilty to skip free. But our justice system has always been committed to keeping innocent people out of prison even it means some guilty walk free.

Fern
 
Last edited:
TerryMathews said:
Sure it is. It's every bit as crazy paranoid.

Plus how conceited are you? "There's no way anyone can see this differently than I do. Those jurors must have been paid off."

You ever visit reality?
Click to expand...

Well my post was not serious. I really don't think that even as despicable as the NRA is they would do such a thing. However they have more to lose and gain on the outcome of the trials. They want to protect their precious law. The DNC, not sure how they would be involved.
 
I haven't been following this thread, but, for lolz, can somebody tell me who has made the craziest just insanely nutty ass posts recently so I can review? Bonus points if the person pretends to condone killing others on the most minor offenses imaginable.
 
Doppel said:
I haven't been following this thread, but, for lolz, can somebody tell me who has made the craziest just insanely nutty ass posts recently so I can review? Bonus points if the person pretends to condone killing others on the most minor offenses imaginable.
Click to expand...

Go back a few pages to find how Spidey believes that you can 'stand your ground' against being hit on by a gay man. Do I win?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top