Dooley guilty of manslaughter, blames racism for verdict | TBO.com
This is in the same general region as the Zimmerman case.
The case:
Man sees 14 year old skateboarding on newly surfaced tennis court. Older black man (age 71) sees this, tells kid to stop. Argument breaks out. Man pulls out gun. Struggle over gun. Man says kid was chocking him. Shoots kid. Kid dies. Found guilty of manslaughter.
That verdict has to make Zimmerman and O'Mara uncomfortable.
Joko, what am I missing here?? The guy was 41; the shooter was 71. IMO, this guy was found guilty because he was black. And the victim was white. I say that because a 71-year-old man is no match for a 41-year-old.
I added a link to give a bit more details. It is a bit more complicated as I read into details.
Witnesses dispute Trevor Dooley's 'Stand Your Ground' claim in Valrico shooting - Tampa Bay Times
It'd be interesting to know the racial makeup of the jury. They used an African-American prosecutor - for rather obvious reasons maybe.
Twin Lakes neighborhood. Isn't that Zimmerman's subdivision? Holy cow.
I see what you mean -- there seemed to be a number of witnesses to the entire exchange. Maybe I'm wrong about the racial thing...
He was black joko. Black = GUILTY:lol:
Zimmer-supporters would agree with this verdict:lol:
It's just reality man
Curiously, I went thru many links and one was entitled "Negro found guilty..." - which lead to Stormfront. Curiously, most comments by people on stormfront thought he shouldn't have been found guilty. So I guess your race-baiting is a fail. Go figure.
First difference that I note is that the convicted party here was not licensed to carry a firearm and was also convicted of two firearms related charges in this case. The article in the link does not specify what the weapons charges were so I'm projecting that he was not allowed to carry or permitted to carry. I wonder how the "stand your ground" law applies to an illegal carry of the firearm?
Race stuff aside the witnesses basically called the guilty party a liar as to his claim of being choked and attacked by the larger man.
Yes I saw that. They are consistently inconsistent. 4 people (all of em?) stated Trevor Dooley was walking away from the confrontation. Yet he be the aggressor:lol:
It isn't the walking away part that is relevant. Dooley claimed he was grabbed and choked; no witnesses testified to that but him. You shouldn't get shot for yelling at someone.
Witnesses dispute Trevor Dooley's 'Stand Your Ground' claim in Valrico shooting - Tampa Bay Times
Dooley guilty of manslaughter, blames racism for verdict | TBO.com
This is in the same general region as the Zimmerman case.
The case:
Man sees someone (age 41) messing around on newly surfaced tennis or basketball court. Older black man (now age 71) sees this, tells him to stop. Argument breaks out. Old buy pulls out gun. Struggle over gun. Man says the young guy was chocking him. Shoots him. He dies. Found guilty of manslaughter, illegally demonstrating a weapon and illegally having the gun with him.
Trevor Dooley's attorney portrayed him Wednesday as a 69-year-old man with fused discs in his neck who feared for his life when set upon by his 41-year-old neighbor, six inches taller and 70 pounds heavier. The victim was ex military, weighed 250 pounds and was 6' 5".
That verdict has to make Zimmerman and O'Mara uncomfortable.
Also note:
Trayvon Martin was running from Zimmerman. "Oh ****, he's running".
Trevor Dooley was walking away from the confrontation (all 4 witnesses confirmed).
Yet it's their fault:lamo
And he brought the gun onto a playground.Not knowing all the details of the case, it's hard to compare the two... One difference that stands out right away, is that Zimmerman had a permit to both possess and carry his weapon, where the man in this case did not.
You think about it.Yet they said he went for his gun...how the hell you go for someone's gun without "grabbing" them? His arm, his shoulder, no "grabbing" whatsoever. Just go straight for the gun without physical contact with him? Dude think about it.
And he brought the gun onto a playground.
Of course there is. You started with the most prominent.I may take a look at the case if I find time, but it's my gut feeling that there probably were some pretty substancial differences.
Huh?
Martin may have initially ran from Zimmerman, but if he had kept on going, there wouldn't have been any confrontation. So your claim that Martin ran away, makes no sense at all.
You think about it.
Those who do not know, go for the gun first.
Those who think they know, go for the gun first.
Those who do know, go for the gun first.
Q: What is the best way to de-escalate an incident in progress or to prevent a violent incident from occurring?
A: You walk (or run) away from the other party.
Both black males in these two cases attempted just that.
Both white males in these two cases did the opposite.
There is no other way around it. Both white males are at fault for escalating the confrontations with no regard for human life.
Can you show proof walking/running away from the other party is anything but an attempt to avoid/de-escalate a confrontation?
I'm sorry, but you're insinuating that Martin walked (or ran) away from the situation, and Zimmerman chased him down and initiated the confrontation... I hate to be the one who breaks this to you, but there is not a shred of evidence that supports your insinuation, and in fact the evidence seems to support quite the opposite.
You really should get the facts straight before commenting on the situation.
Got it, next time I want to start a fight I will run/walk away from the other person.
And I will chase someone down to de-escalate a confrontation.
I been doing it wrong all these years.
Logic at it's best:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo
:dohThat only applies when someone has it pointed at you
Dooley had his gun in his pocket. James went for it. There was some "grabbing" goin on
Deny reality all you want
And again, the gun was out.Go for the gun in the pocket he says:lol:
And later described in more detail by Zimmerman. That it appeared that he really wasn't running away, but skipping.Trayvon Martin was running from Zimmerman. "Oh ****, he's running".
:doh
":lamo" is right, as it applies to your reply, because going for the gun doesn't just apply when a gun is pointed at you.
When a person goes for the gun, they go for the gun.
They go for a hand, they go for a hand.
You are the one obviously deny reality.
It began on a Sunday afternoon, Sept. 26, 2010, beside a Valrico basketball court when Dooley's neighbor, David James, tried to prevent him from shooing away a skateboarder. It ended with James taking a bullet through his heart in front of his 8-year-old daughter.
In a day of anguished testimony, eyewitnesses who included the 14-year-old skateboarderconsistently described Dooley as the aggressorwho cursed his neighbor and flashed a pistol before a fatal struggle for the gun.
...
They testified that Dooley briefly went into his garage, then started across the street with a dark object sticking out of his waistband. They said James threw his hands up and said, "Oh, come on."
Dooley and James argued over letting the boy skate until Dooley lifted his shirt and said, "F--- you," the Whitts testified.
They said Dooley turned and started home, but James caught up with him. "Mr. James said, 'Don't flash a weapon,' something like that," Michelle Whitt testified.
Then, she said, Dooley pulled out the gun and James grabbed his hand. The men struggled, they fell to the ground, and James ended up on his knees as Dooley lay on his side. They still wrestled for the gun.
Witnesses dispute Trevor Dooley's 'Stand Your Ground' claim in Valrico shooting - Tampa Bay Times
The gun was out.
And again, the gun was out.
NEXT!
And later described in more detail by Zimmerman. That it appeared that he really wasn't running away, but skipping.
And skipping away is a way to show that you do not feel threatened or intimidated by the person.
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?