ARTHUR 1976
Banned
- Joined
- May 14, 2014
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 115
- Location
- MICHIGAN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Here's your quote:
That quote is wrong, so I gave you this answer:
"The jury decided on his guilt. A judge can't do that in a trial." And that is correct. Running a courtroom and judging a trial is not deciding guilt or innocence.
Good day for justice, the jury was spot on!!
You just can't go killing someone because you were dissed, and you don't like the volume of someone's music, i sincerely hope prison is a nightmare in hell for this POS...
In society we have to face consequences of our actions, isn't that what those conservative freaks preach? i guess in their twisted sick minds, whites can just go around shooting unarmed Black men because it makes em feel good??
Spare me the histronics:
Most conservatives here would have convicted him of a crime (manslaughter or Murder 2). Also, most conservatives here realize that the biggest lethal threat to black teenagers are other black teenagers- something that Holder, BO and CNN just cant grasp.
Unless I've got it wrong, this verdict is pretty much irrelevant unless the death penalty comes into play. Based on his previous convictions, he was never getting out of prison.
Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial
Michael Dunn found guilty of murder in loud-music trial - CNN.com
Sad day for him. He should have walked.
Good day for justice, the jury was spot on!!
You just can't go killing someone because you were dissed, and you don't like the volume of someone's music, i sincerely hope prison is a nightmare in hell for this POS...
In society we have to face consequences of our actions, isn't that what those conservative freaks preach? i guess in their twisted sick minds, whites can just go around shooting unarmed Black men because it makes em feel good??
Spare me the BS, about Chicago, Chicago had not a damn thing to do with this occurrence or trial..They should apply that to all the murders in Chicago. I wonder why there is so much attention on this case, when it's an everyday occurrence in Chicago?
How does 1st degree surprise you? Nobody in the SUV was armed. Moreover, they were fleeing - so Dunn shot unarmed kids in the back. If Dunn said that there was a gun, then clearly he was lying and the jury thought so too.
Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial
Michael Dunn found guilty of murder in loud-music trial - CNN.com
Sad day for him. He should have walked.
Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial
Michael Dunn found guilty of murder in loud-music trial - CNN.com
Sad day for him. He should have walked.
Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial
Michael Dunn found guilty of murder in loud-music trial - CNN.com
Sad day for him. He should have walked.
Who cares. His life is over.
I don't agree with 1st degree murder, but he definitely should have been convicted of something. The case clearly wasn't self defense.
Actually, I agree 100% with the verdict. He shot the guy with malice of forethought. That is first degree murder.
NOTE: Had the music been anything by Justin Bieber, I think stand your ground might have applied here. :mrgreen:
Yes it IS over. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Something says this isn't the first time this guy has used his gun to bully others.
And? You think don't think people know what being found guilty means?That's not what thejudge andjury decided.
You can believe that nonsense all you want. But that young man was threatening to kill and pointed an object at him that he believed was a gun.He shouldn't have shot and killed that young man.
While you obvious agree with the verdict, your opinion about it is wrong.No it's really a great day for US and for those who think allowing stupid people to carry around guns is a very stupid idea.
Dunn will of course just melt right in with the skin heads.
Because he saw the person point something at him which he thought was a gun and was accompanied by threats to kill.Why do you think he should walk?
He didn't kill anyone because of any dissing.Good day for justice, the jury was spot on!!
You just can't go killing someone because you were dissed,
:lamoHe got what he deserved.
The justice system worked it's course. The verdict was wrong.Justice has been done to a murderer.
If that is the way you want to look at it then, the good news from all of this is the thug who was threatening his life was killed. :lamoWell even more good news to come out of a really stupid and tragic incident. I do agree "he should have walked"... Right away from the car with loud music and stfu. He might have still had a life if he had done so.
:dohActually, I agree 100% with the verdict. He shot the guy with malice of forethought. That is first degree murder.
It was a case of self defense.but he definitely should have been convicted of something. The case clearly wasn't self defense.
See answer below.He already had over 60 years (minimum) coming on the prior convictions. It is nice to know that one cannot be preemptively executed because someone thinks that they might have had a gun.
Unless I've got it wrong, this verdict is pretty much irrelevant unless the death penalty comes into play. Based on his previous convictions, he was never getting out of prison.
And? You think don't think people know what being found guilty means?
That's odd.
And just like in case where a not guilty verdict is returned and folks say (That doesn't mean he didn't do it.)
The same applies here. Being found guilty doesn't mean he did it.
You can believe that nonsense all you want. But that young man was threatening to kill and pointed an object at him that he believed was a gun.
Under those circumstances that young man deserved what he got.
While you obvious agree with the verdict, your opinion about it is wrong.
It is a sad day for him, just like I stated.
Because he saw the person point something at him which he thought was a gun and was accompanied by threats to kill.
His fear was real and reasonable given the circumstances.
Not to mention that there was no real premeditation.
He didn't kill anyone because of any dissing.
The thug threatened to kill him and pointing an object that appeared to be a gun at him.
Anybody should be entitled to fire under those circumstances.
:lamo
No he didn't. He should have walked.
The justice system worked it's course. The verdict was wrong.
If that is the way you want to look at it then, the good news from all of this is the thug who was threatening his life was killed. :lamo
:doh
Then you do not know what malice aforethought means.
He shot in fear of his life in defense of himself. That is reaction to a threat, not malice or premeditation.
It was a case of self defense.
The individual threatened to kill him and pointed something at him which appeared to be a gun.
Anybody should be entitled to fire under those circumstances.
Funny thing here is that the tripod/stand was found under the seat yet nobody suggested that a leg of that is what he could have pointed at him through the window.
Had his firing been determined to have been justified this time around, those previous conviction stood a good change at being overturned.See answer below.
You can't tell a person they are justified in shooting at a perceived threat only to turn around and hold them culpable for other crimes while justly shooting at that very threat.
Alas, "had" is neither here nor there now.
Premeditation can occur in the split second before the trigger is pulled.From what I read it didn't sound premeditated to me. I don't think it meets the legal definition of murder 1.
And they were wrong. Juries and Jurors get things wrong all the time.The jury sat through all the testimony that was given in the trial, and all 12 jurors agreed unanimously that there WAS malice of forethought,
:doh:lamo:dohI DO know what I am talking about because I took the jury's word for it.
No evidence showed he wasn't in fear.And your claim of fear for his life is laughable.
:naughtyAfter all, he had a gun, they were unarmed.
:dohAnd they didn't even try to get out of the car. He fired into it. Jesus H. Christ on a crutch. Do you actually believe the BS you are posting here? Freaking incredible.
No it really wasn't.Yea, this WAS first degree murder,
The good thing about this is that the thug is dead and will not be able to threaten anyone else.and the good part of this is ...
iLOL Ain't gonna happen. iLOLMay he rot, and after he dies, may he rot in hell.
Bottom line ...And? You think don't think people know what being found guilty means?
That's odd.
And just like in case where a not guilty verdict is returned and folks say (That doesn't mean he didn't do it.)
The same applies here. Being found guilty doesn't mean he did it.
You can believe that nonsense all you want. But that young man was threatening to kill and pointed an object at him that he believed was a gun.
Under those circumstances that young man deserved what he got.
While you obvious agree with the verdict, your opinion about it is wrong.
It is a sad day for him, just like I stated.
Because he saw the person point something at him which he thought was a gun and was accompanied by threats to kill.
His fear was real and reasonable given the circumstances.
Not to mention that there was no real premeditation.
He didn't kill anyone because of any dissing.
The thug threatened to kill him and pointing an object that appeared to be a gun at him.
Anybody should be entitled to fire under those circumstances.
:lamo
No he didn't. He should have walked.
The justice system worked it's course. The verdict was wrong.
If that is the way you want to look at it then, the good news from all of this is the thug who was threatening his life was killed. :lamo
:doh
Then you do not know what malice aforethought means.
He shot in fear of his life in defense of himself. That is reaction to a threat, not malice or premeditation.
It was a case of self defense.
The individual threatened to kill him and pointed something at him which appeared to be a gun.
Anybody should be entitled to fire under those circumstances.
Funny thing here is that the tripod/stand was found under the seat yet nobody suggested that a leg of that is what he could have pointed at him through the window.
Had his firing been determined to have been justified this time around, those previous conviction stood a good change at being overturned.See answer below.
You can't tell a person they are justified in shooting at a perceived threat only to turn around and hold them culpable for other crimes while justly shooting at that very threat.
Alas, "had" is neither here nor there now.
:lamoBottom line ...
A murdering, gun crazy, racist, bullying, scumbag THUG will spend the rest of his life rotting away in prison, with no chance of parole.
Unarmed black teens are just a little bit safer because of that.
Spare me the BS, about Chicago, Chicago had not a damn thing to do with this occurrence or trial..
Rednecks in Texas kill each other, just like blacks kill other blacks in Chicago...
:lamo
Wrong. An innocent man will be doing time for a crime he did not commit. And the community is a lot safer with the real thug having killed.
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?