- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 11,862
- Reaction score
- 10,300
- Location
- New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Stop with the dishonesty.
I just provided you the information which was being spoken about.
You can't even refute the arguments made, and instead want to make completely untrue assertions. That is a demonstration of addled reasoning. :lamo
Typical absurd response of one who can not rationally debate the evidence.When I first read your response, I was hurt......hurt and confused.....hurt and confused and sad....hurt, confused, sad and misunderstood.
My post was intended to be a homage to your always reasonable thinking.
I'm surprised you, a clear-thinking, rational self-defense advocate didn't see my intent.
Clearly, we agree on the salient points in the Dunn case.....
#1---The shooter's version of the story should always be accepted. Shooters don't lie.
#2---Indiscriminately emptying your pistol into a van is a smart move. Dunn should have had a larger magazine.
#3---The shooter's mere perception of a deadly threat is enough to warrant deadly force. Shoot first and ask questions later is my motto. This type of philosophy will lead to a more civil society.
#4---The true thug in this case is the dead guy. Sure he was unarmed and had no criminal record, but mouthy punks will invariably become criminals.
#5---Loud "rap crap" is a threat in of itself.
Now, if you'll excuse me, since I've cleared up this misunderstanding, I'm going to cruise to the mini-mart, top down on my 'vette, volume AND bass
blasting, listening to "ABBA'S GREATEST HITS"
"Dancing Queen" is my fave.....I hope nobody shoots me.
More dishonesty from you.I didn't make the claim that the jury accepted his self-defense alibi. It didn't.
You are dishonestly tap dancing around what was claimed and proven.Had the jury accepted his claim, Dunn would have been acquitted. He wasn't.
More dishonesty and straight up lies.There is no link because the claim that the jury accepted his self-defense alibi is without foundation. No matter how much one repeats that claim or tries to evade the facts by claiming others 'don't know what they're talking about,' the reality remains the same. Dunn's self-defense alibi was rejected by both juries, with the only difference being his conviction on first degree murder by the second jury.
Totally and utterly absurd.Also, the condescending notion that the jury somehow didn't understand the evidence is completely absurd. The jury made a decision that was wholly consistent with the law. It is no surprise that the second jury reached exactly the same conclusion on the charges for which the first one convicted Dunn, even as it also convicted him of premeditated murder. Both juries had sufficient evidence.
This is what you get for not paying attention.Had one or the other jury erred, there would have been legitimate basis not only to file an appeal but to prevail in that appeal. That won't happen.
This is you being dishonest again, as his actions were not. It is also why you refuse to discuss the actual evidence, because his actions were not.I realize some might have difficulty accepting the reality that Dunn's actions were outside the parameters of self-defense, but that's strictly their opinion.
NO it doesn't. Which is why you keep avoidong discussing it.The evidence says otherwise.
Your continued appeal to authority is absurd and makes your argument a failure from the get.Both juries, which had all the evidence, not just the more limited amount that was published or broadcast by the media, reached similar conclusions.
Davis was not seated but outside of the vehicle when he was shot. That is the evidence.appeal to th Dunn had not acted in self-defense. He killed an unarmed teen who was seated even as the teens were leaving. He didn't even report the shooting (almost certainly, because he feared the consequences of doing so; any rational person who acted in self-defense would immediately have reported his or her actions). In the end, he was held accountable for his crime.
More dishonesty from you.
Davis was not seated but outside of the vehicle when he was shot. That is the evidence.
You have provided nothing but nonsense, lies, logical fallacy, and made false comparisons...
More dishonesty on your part. You are purposely misrepresenting the argument.You have shown no links that the jury exonerated Dunn.
More dishonesty from you, which is to be expected in every post you make.A few jurors were undecided on the first degree murder charge. That's vastly different from stating that the jury accepted Dunn's self-defense claim.
Irrelavent.And that is incorrect and not the evidence (and also unsourced). From CBS News:
:dohIt's kind of ironic that for all this bluster, none of which gets to the heart of the evidence, I've provided links regarding the key evidence:
1. Dunn shot unarmed teens. No one pointed a shotgun at Dunn. Wrong again. He shot one person who had something in his hand which Dunn interpreted as a gun.
2. Davis was inside the vehicle when shot. Already shown to be false in trial.
3. The vehicle was attempting to drive away when Dunn opened fire. No. The vehicle backed up and stopped behind him, feet away. Which is when he opened fire on the threat again. Stopping behind him is not attempting to drive away.
4. Dunn never reported his shooting to the police. Irrelevant. People act differently.
:lamo:doh:lamoAs The New York Times reported:
In the end, the jury found that Mr. Dunn intended to kill Mr. Davis and acted with premeditation as he reached into his glove compartment for his gun and fired 10 times at Mr. Davis and the Durango, even as it pulled away to evade the gunfire.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/u...h-of-florida-youth-in-loud-music-dispute.html
You again are misrepresenting the argument.I'm still waiting for the link that the first jury accepted Dunn's self-defense alibi and acquitted him. There will be no such link, because that's not what happened. Instead, there was a deadlock on the premeditated murder charge.
1. Dunn shot unarmed teens. No one pointed a shotgun at Dunn.
The courageous Dunn allegedly THOUGHT they did though, that's good enough for me.
2. Davis was inside the vehicle when shot.
Using the armored vehicle to re-load his non-existent weapon, no doubt.
3. The vehicle was attempting to drive away when Dunn opened fire.
That's because they were trying to perpetrate one of those drive-by shooting thingys. They're very popular with teens nowadays.
4. Dunn never reported his shooting to the police.
He was too drunk.
.
:dohUsing my newfound powers of rationality and non-absurdity, I shall address your points.....
More dishonesty on your part. You are purposely misrepresenting the argument.
It was about specific Jurors who believed his account, as they wanted to acquit.
More dishonesty from you, which is to be expected in every post you make.
I already provided the information that three jurors wanted to acquit. Do you not know what the word acquit means.
She was destroyed on cross and by the testimony of another expert.
Your fault again for not knowing the actual evidence.
He was not seated when shot.
So again, back to the stuff you keep avoiding, the actual evidence.
Lets see if you will at least be honest here. (so far you have failed)
A reporters opinion is irrelevant.
Funny you do not know that even though it has repeatedly been pointed pout to you.
:doh
Which of course are powers of absurdity and non-rationality.
Wrong.Only in your bizarro world, Excon.
More nonsense form you.After repeated requests, it's pretty clear the claim that a jury had accepted Dunn's self-defense alibi is without any basis in fact. what one had seen was a deadlock on premeditated murder (not a unanimous position either). Given no link has been furnished about the jury--not individual jurors' views--it's abundantly clear that the claim is without foundation.
Yes, more evasion from you as it was already provided.More evasion. Just post the link.
No there wasn't, nor could there have been with three wanting to acquit.Three is not all jurors. Three jurors is not the jury. As noted previously, there was a deadlock on the premeditated murder charge.
While it is an opinion, what you just said is wrong.Only your opinion. Had she been "destroyed," the self-defense alibi would have been sustained and Dunn would be a free man today.
According to the Medical Examiner, he was seated.
You posted?I've posted links to the news stories covering the trial disclosing key elements: 1. Davis and the teens were unarmed; 2. Davis was seated when shot; 3. The Durango was trying to drive away when Dunn opened fire.
No your dishonesty goes directly to what you are posting.Rather than making the issue about my "honesty," I've provided the links including those from CBS News, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, etc., reporting the major facts of the case. From the reported evidence, there was no actual imminent threat to Dunn's life or of serious harm, had there been a perceived threat, it had ended as the teens were trying to drive away. The conditions for self-defense were not met. Dunn was correctly convicted.
Still irrelevant.The news pages and editorial pages are different. I've noted that distinction before. The articles I have posted are from the news pages, not editorial page or op-ed columnists. A quick summary on the difference between the journalistic side of a newspaper and the editorial side is below:
Not the view of the whole jury as you want it to be, as it can't be as it was hung.
Or do yo not understand what "hung" means?
And the link was provided. So stop lying and characterizing the argument made.
It was about the juror's believing his account.
While it is an opinion, what you just said is wrong.
She wasn't even told that Davis was out of the vehicle or of any of Dunn's account. She was told by investigators that Davis was sitting in the vehicle when he was shot so she made her finding in accord with what she was told.
Then she was further destroyed by an expert.
Her findings were not in accord with the trajectory analysis.
She was not credible.
You can pretend all you want, but he was not seated when he was shot.
But then again, you do not know the evidence, so how would you know you are speaking nonsense.
Juries get things wrong all the time.
This is just another example that they did.
You posted?
iLOL
You haven't posted anything of relevance.
Yet you keep ignoring the actual evidence, which is dishonest.
The claim resides in your bizarro world.
At least, when Americans murder women and children, there is an American judicial system that will make them pay for their heinous crimes. Let the title of "baby killers" rest with ISIS, who truly deserve the name. Americans hold themselves to a higher standard, and woe to those who violate it. Excellent verdict.
Article is here.
Three members of that Jury accepted his account and wanted to acquit.Because the jury did not accept the self-defense alibi. Had it accepted it, Dunn would have been acquitted. He wasn't.
Your lie do not substitute for febate of the evidence I have provided.Your insults cannot compensate for the glaring lack of evidence you have furnished.
And you are wrong as three members did.I had stated that the jury didn't accept Dunn's self-defense alibi. You said I was wrong. I asked for the link. You provided none.
ANd you were again wrong as to the actual evidence.I said that the Medical Examiner revealed that Davis was seated. And from CBS News:
Already dispelled with what was presented at trial.The state's medical examiner testified that the trajectory of Dunn's bullets into Davis' body showed that Davis was sitting down when he was shot.
Michael Dunn verdict: Jury deadlocks on murder charge - CBS News
You are being dishonest again.Notions that she made her ruling based on a desire to fit what others told her is utterly incorrect. She made her ruling based on the trajectory of the bullet as noted in the above CBS story.
That she was shown to not know all the evinced regarding the gun shots. No it isn't.Only your opinion. Nothing more.
That is nothing more than your opinion.Had this been the case, then Dunn would have had a legitimate claim of self-defense and would have been acquitted.
And again you are wrong.I'm not pretending anything. The Medical Examiner, who has the requisite professional expertise to make such judgments says that Davis was seated. Indeed, if a credible alternative account were accurate, his blood would have been outside the Durango on the street. No reports to that effect exist. If they do, post the news story.
:dohJuries can sometimes err. Prove that this jury erred. One's personal opinion is not such proof. Dunn's alibi isn't such proof either.
You clearly do not know of what you speak. A jury's interpretation of the provided evidence is not grounds for appeal.As noted previously, if the jury made an error, legitimate grounds for a successful appeal exist. I highly doubt that there will be a successful appeal.
Sorry it doesn't work that way. Especially when you are providing an reporters opinion.I posted links from multiple news sources
More dishonesty from you as what was spoken about was already provided.In contrast, I'm still waiting for the links I've asked you to provide.
Said the guy who has demonstrated that he does not know the actual facts, and when presented with them actually ignores them. That is dishonesty.Again, this doesn't change the actual facts of the case that the jury felt demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn did not act in self-defense.
:dohIn the end, it's clear that the claim that Dunn was "innocent" is entirely personal opinion.
:naughtyIt has little or nothing to do with the facts and evidence of the case
Again, Davis is the only one who it was claimed was armed. Not the other young adults.(the teens were unarmed,
He died while seated. That is all. He was shot jumping back into the vehicle.Davis was seated in the vehicle when he was murdered,
How many time do you need to be corrected. What you said isn't true. Not only that but he was firing at Davis, not the other young adults. And the fact that you keep calling them teens is laughable. The driver was 20.the Durango was attempting to drive away when Dunn attacked the teens).
Of course it was. That is why three jurors from the first trial wanted to acquit.It solely depends on Dunn's account being credible, something that it wasn't.
An emotionally unstable person not remembering what happened during a traumatic event does not mean he did not tell her. As you were already told.He never told his fiancé about any shotgun,
No evidence supports your speculative opinion.because he very likely created the narrative of a shotgun sometime later.
Didn't have to.He didn't report the incident to the police,
Different people act differently. Especially after traumatic experiences.even as any rational person who acts in self-defense would do so believing that they had acted reasonably.
Even the next day, he simply left for home when no conceivable "threat" could have existed and didn't tell the police about the shooting.
Said the guy who doesn't know the actual evidence and ignores it when it is presented.The case against him was devastating.
Wrong.His account was filled with gaps that precluded a successful self-defense argument.
It may have, but three reasonable folks in the first trial saw otherwise and wanted to acquit.His conduct afterward in not reporting the shooting, even a day later, further undercut that he had acted in self-defense.
Not in accordance with the actual evidence. It was a miscarriage.at least a measure of justice was served.
You clearly know not of what you speak.Excon believes firing 10 shots into an SUV is reasonable.
Radioman does not.
Excon believes the shooter's own delusions are sufficient cause for emptying one's magazine.
Radioman does not.
Excon believes the unarmed dead victim was the real thug.
Radioman does not.
Excon believes a convicted murderer is the victim.
Radioman does not.
Excon is dizzy from so much spinning.
Radioman retains his equilibrium.
Excon has chronic back pain as a result of bending over backwards to defend the indefensible.
Radioman does not.
I will leave it to our fellow posters to decide who's dwelling in a bizarro world.
An emotionally unstable person not remembering what happened during a traumatic event does not mean he did not tell her. As you were already told.
:dohIt is illogical to assume that those who did not back Dunn's account are not credible.
Still with the irrelevant and nothing of substance routine huh?The facts of the Dunn Case: Final Post
Did Dunn and Davis have an argument?
Yes. They had a “verbal back and forth.” (CBS News and The Washington Post)
Were the teens armed?
No. The police did not find any weapons. Witnesses did not see a shotgun. (The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and CNN)
Was Davis or any of the teens shot while attacking or trying to attack Dunn?
No. The teens were fired upon as they were trying to leave. (The New York Times)
Was Davis outside the Durango when he was shot three times by Dunn?
No. The Medical Examiner found that based on the bullets’ trajectory, he was shot while seated inside the vehicle. (CBS News)
Did Dunn report the shooting to the police?
No. Even after any conceivable actual or perceived threat no longer existed, he did not report the shooting. (The New York Times)
Did Dunn call the police after learning that one of the teens had died?
No. He never contacted the police. (The New York Times)
Did the Judge instruct the jury as to circumstances in which the shooting would have been lawful?
Yes. The jury was instructed on a broad range of grounds by which it could find Dunn’s actions lawful. CNN reported:
Killing Davis was lawful, Healey told the jury, if Dunn acted in the heat of passion or if he unintentionally caused Davis' death. The jury could also find Dunn not guilty if he was in danger, acted in self-defense and exacted a justifiable use of force, the judge instructed. (CNN)
In sum, the above is the critical evidence. Dunn faced no actual threat. The teens were not armed. An argument does not necessarily indicate the kind of imminent threat to one’s life or of serious injury. Moreover, the teens were trying to drive away when fired upon, a situation that would be tantamount to shooting someone who was in flight in the back. Moreover, Davis was seated inside the Durango when he was hit three times. Afterward, Dunn never reported his shooting to the police. As there was no actual threat and the shooting occurred when any perceived threat had ceased to exist, the criteria for self-defense were not met.
Given the above information and links, there’s no real need to continue to try to explain the verdict. Given the above evidence and the requirements for self-defense to be sustained, arguments that Dunn was "innocent" are entirely a matter of belief, not an evidence-based assessment. Matters of belief are articles of faith. Hence, evidence is not persuasive when dealing with erroneous conclusions based solely on belief.
At least, when Americans murder women and children, there is an American judicial system that will make them pay for their heinous crimes. Let the title of "baby killers" rest with ISIS, who truly deserve the name. Americans hold themselves to a higher standard, and woe to those who violate it. Excellent verdict.
Article is here.
For me, this situation is the reason I don't want contractors in a war zone. I know they are cost effective, but war zones should be for combat troops. Not private security.
Your link...
A mercenary[1] is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national or a party to the conflict and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities by the desire for private gain."[2][3]
For profit IS for personal gain.
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?