All this to say nothing different.Thank you for those references. By no means do I claim any level of expertise in these matters, but as someone involved in the early stages of a degree in laws and jurisprudence, I have some awareness of the meaning of the terms testimony and evidence (as they apply within British and international law).
We both appear to understand the same thing with the term testimony, but perhaps there is a variation of understanding with the terms 'evidence', and 'testimonial evidence'.
Within the legal system with which I am familiar, simple testimony is not regarded as evidence per se. It becomes testimonial evidence when it contains elements that serve as a proof of the veracity of an assertion.
E.g: X is accused of a violent crime and asserts that he was not at that location but at the theatre. He quotes a minor mishap in the production not reported in the media. This testimony, when accepted by the court, serves as evidence of the truth of his statement, and serves as testimonial evidence (which differs from material, documentary, or circumstantial evidence).
But please be advised that I respect your right to different opinions upon these matters, and I have no intention of engaging in page long discussions with you. We are at a point where we must simply agree to disagree in a civil manner.
As the law does not require that he do anything else. It is a good thing the Jury hung.Should have done something else. Had every opportunity not to.
Currently.His actions currently have him in jail for the rest of his "life"
Not if the Jury follows the law and the evidence.My guess is that the second shot at him will probably have him with a murder conviction.
Irrelevant absurdity.He is toast.
He is probably being eyed to rush a prison fraternity as we speak. He should fit right in.
Oh good gracious. Is correct.Oh good gracious.
Reasonable people do not shoot up a car filled with people then get pizza and watch a movie.
A sociopath, perhaps. Someone under the influence perhaps. A reasonable person? Not so much.
What? ??? On direct, she got of the vehicle first and went straight up to the room and changed cloths. On cross, she confirmed she ran up to the room.I call bull****. That woman was so ****ed up in the head after this happened that she wouldn't even go into the hotel room at first. She was too scared. And if you read the transcripts, she said that he ordered the pizza for her, to see if it made her feel better. Now SHE? She was broken up. Not him. Her.
And the information that he was shot while in the vehicle, yet were not given the shooters account of what happened.They obtained all these info, pictures and crime scene evidence directly from the police and the DA's office through proper chain of custody.
Nonsense. They are routinely given the defendants account to disprove it didn't happen that way.When have we ever heard of the medical examiners taking anything relating to a crime from the average joe on the street or from family members or from the defense team? It's just a silly notion.
Oy vey! :dohFor what the medical examine had, it is obvious that Davis was shot while sitting in the back seat.
The Doctor was clear that her conclusions were only drawn on that she was given. And that she was not given any alternate information by which to go by.How else did the bullet trajectory entered his lower right side and ended up near the left shoulder just below the armpit?
Michael Dunn had to be laying on the ground to shoot upward towards Davis if he was standing.
And how did another bullet enter the right side of the thigh and ended up in the groin while another entered the lower left inner thigh to end up exiting the upper left outer thigh? Again, Michael Dunn would have to be laying down to get an upward diagonal trajectory.
The only way the bullets could trace those trajectory through the body was when Davis was in seated position and these also lined up with the bullet holes and their paths that passed through the door panel of the back passenger compartment as demonstrated by the long dowels.
Bs is her conclusions, because they were not based on all the information.All the elements and evidence are there for the medical examiner to make the conclusion. To say that she wasn't given all the information to consider ---- I call it bs.
:lamoOne thing the prosecution failed to do in Strolla's cross of the medical examiner was their failure to raise an objection when Strolla bashed her with a question "garbage in garbage out" that was purely meant to ridicule the medical examiner instead of posing a genuine question.
:lamoAlso, Dunn himself stated that Jordan was advancing on him and that he apparently saw Dunn went for his weapon and dove back inside the SUV. By his own account alone he committed a cold blooded murder when the aggressor had already turned and retreated when he shot and kill Jordan not to mention his unleash of nine other rounds as the SUV was hurriedly retrieving.
My rough guess is that under existing convictions, Dunn could walk in 10 years if:Currently.
That may change. And there is a good possibility it may.
Oh good gracious. Is correct.
He was firing at the threat, not randomly shooting up some vehicle.
That is what reasonable people do. Unreasonable people on the other hand, instead, let the individual carry through with their threat to kill them.
.
All this to say nothing different.
Go figure!
His account is evidence by itself.
His account is evidence, as to the hows and whys of his actions.
As the defendant, his account stands as is, unless disproved.
His account stands even if it is shown not to be justified.
Stop with the ridiculousness.The threat of being killed by an imaginary gun.
The threat of being killed as they were driving off.
Seriously. Your unwavering belief in this man is just amzing.
You make like a jury has to believe his self defense story when all evidence points to it being a fabrication.
Apparently, if there is a comprehension problem, it is all yours.As you wish - but with what part of - I respect your right to different opinions upon these matters, but see no point in discussing it further - is presenting comprehension difficulties?
Wrong.Now, to claim that Jordan was diving back horizontally into the SUV when he was shot by Dunn, this clearly nailed Dunn for cold blooded murder by his own account which was claimed to be the "evidence". Not to mention he then unleashed several more bullets at a retrieving and fleeing vehicle with three other people inside. However you cut it, Dunn is guilty of murder, period.
You were the only one not addressing the arguments and the only one attributing to another that which they did not say.So you finally attempted to actually address the discussion....wow. But too bad you still cant prove me wrong. So your claims of ridiculous are just that...unfounded.
Stop with the ridiculousness.
You can not show it to be imaginary.
The threat from him still exists whether or not the vehicle is in motion.
And nothing points to his account being a fabrication. Even Juror's believed him.
You forgot to include Juror number eight.Yes, three jurors thought his story was plausible. 9 did not.
Apparently you are. Especially to even say such nonsense.You are in the camp of "he said it, must be true". I am not that naïve.
And so far, we have three that are assumed to believe his account, and another one who did, yet wanted to convict anyways.Jurors do not have to believe a statement.
They may not hold against him that which he is not required to do. Which may explain why we have the above predicament.They can look at a variety of things to consideration.
None of which is required.If I were a juror I would want to know if there was any evidence of a shotgun in the car. If any of the boys (or family) owned one. I would first and foremost take into consideration that he did not report anything to the police in a reasonable time frame. He fled the scene and did not report. Left town the next day. Did he even tell his girlfriend about the gun?
Wrong.There is no logical reason to believe that there was a shotgun there.
No there isn't.There is certainly good reason to believe Dunn made up the story to pretend like his angry over-reaction was life or death -kill or be killed - self defense.
Your gut?My gut says he was impaired with alcohol, ...
Excon, Juror # 8 was expressing something plausible. If he had just stopped shooting when the car drove off, it was more in the realm of possibility to think it was about self defense. But that is not what occurred, is it?? He kept shooting into a vehicle filled with passengers. So that "realm of possibility" evaporated. Of course, a lot evaporated when he left the scene and never reported to the police what happened.You forgot to include Juror number eight.
You know, the one who indicate she believed he was acting in self defense up to the point of where he continued to fire.
She believed him yet wanted to convict anyways. As pointed out in the other thread, that is not following the law.
Heck, she even demonstrated a lack of understanding of some of the evidence. D'oh!
How many others were willing not to follow the law, and misunderstood the evidence?
Damn good thing the jury was hung.
Apparently you are. Especially to even say such nonsense.
I am in the camp of the law, and in such a camp, to prove the elements necessary, his account must be disproved, and that has not happened.
And as such, his account stands as is.
And so far, we have three that are assumed to believe his account, and another one who did, yet wanted to convict anyways.
They may not hold against him that which he is not required to do. Which may explain why we have the above predicament.
None of which is required.
And all understandable given the traumatic experience.
As for the GF, she is emotionally unstable. Her not remembering means squat.
Wrong.
He saw something. That something appeared to be a barrel of a shotgun.
The prosecution can not prove he didn't see one because of the actions of Davis's friends, which as seen buy a witness appeared to be "stashing".
And then instead of completing a call to police, the driver called his aunt, who later came into the area. Highly suspicious, and all circumstantial evidence that there was a gun which was stashed.
No there isn't.
That is nothing more than the manifestations of an overly suspicious mind.
And as such, can't be proven.
Your gut?
iLOL
:lamo:lamo
Four small drinks over the length of time in question, for a man his size, says your gut is faulty.
Which really isn't anything new.
That is not what she indicated.Excon, Juror # 8 was expressing something plausible. If he had just stopped shooting when the car drove off, it was more in the realm of possibility to think it was about self defense. But that is not what occurred, is it?? He kept shooting into a vehicle filled with passengers. So that "realm of possibility" evaporated. Of course, a lot evaporated when he left the scene and never reported to the police what happened.
That is not what she indicated.
It is clear as day, and so is the fact that she wasn't following the law.Did you question her about what she meant?
He kept shooting at a threat that had stopped directly behind his vehicle.he kept shooting and failed to report.
Play your games elsewhere.Idle curiosity, did you see any inconsistencies in Micheal Dunn's interrogation an testimony?
Can you tell me about any inconsistencies you saw in Dunn's testimony?Play your games elsewhere.
Can you tell me about any inconsistencies you saw in Dunn's testimony?
So, did Dunn have inconsistencies in his stories (in testimony, interrogation, etc)?
Play your games elsewhere.
There are folks saying he lied. Not only that he lied, but that it has been proven. And that just ain't so.
Those claims are nothing more than their own suspicious mind at work.
Just like your claims of there is (no reason to believe) or about his GF stating otherwise.
It is all made up crap from suspicious minds.
Not at all
It is your claims that have to be substantiated.
And as of yet, you have failed.
:lamo
Not at all.
It is your claims that have to be substantiated.
And as of yet, you have failed.
You need to substantiate your claim first.When did Dunn contact the police?
Really?Was there a shotgun in the truck? That was Dunn's claim wasn't it? It was the claim of the other young men that survived, that there wasn't a shotgun.
Who was correct?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?