My stating that I have already made my position known, is on topic.Translation: "no agent J i wont publicly vote or stay on topic"
My stating that I have already made my position known, is on topic.
You continually trying to bait me into voting is not.
Now you are being absolutely dishonest.now you are just making up absurd stories that are factually false
Now you are being absolutely dishonest.
And as you already know, you will never know if I voted or not.
Prove it.nope your statement was factually false, ill be waiting for your vote
still deflecting and dodging i seeProve it.
No. I am saying you are being dishonest again. Becaue you can't prove I haven't made my position on this case known, as I have.still deflecting and dodging i see
prove it?
are you saying you want evidence?
No. I am saying you are being dishonest again. Becaue you can't prove I haven't made my position on this case known, as I have.
You are just trying to squirm out of being wrong like you usually do.I NEVER said that once, you just posted ANOTHER lie, like the other lie you posted. If you disagree simply quote me saying" you haven't made your position made." Ill wait.
now you are just making up absurd stories that are factually falseMy stating that I have already made my position known, is on topic.
You continually trying to bait me into voting is not.
when you cast your vote let me know
You are just trying to squirm out of being wrong like you usually do.
Notice you said stories, which indicates more than one thing, and I only stated two in regards to being on or off topic.
So you must be calling both factually false.
Either way you were being dishonest, as you have certainly been baiting me to vote.
Which can be shown by your numerous replies trying to get me to vote.
Which then leaves the only other thing you could be calling factually false is me stating that I had already made my position known.
Although you indicated both, which one do you say you are you calling factually false?
Because I can provide evidence of you continually trying to bait me into voting, or evidence that I have made my position about this case know.
So which dishonesty of yours is it?
BAM! THERE IT IS!weird i dont see me saying "" you haven't made your position made."
BAM! thats what i thought! youve been caught posting a lie again. Ill be waiting for that quote lol
I also am factually NOT baiting you to vote which is the lie, in fact it actually amuses me and give me pleasure that you are afraid to publicly vote it reassures everything i said.
BAM! THERE IT IS!
FACTS win again and you posted lies and there for all to see.
You factually have been baiting me to vote in your poll.
And I have stated my position on this case.
You stated that what I said was factually false, when it isn't.
And as you can not prove it is (as it isn't), I, nor anybody else, will be waiting for you to attempt to show you weren't untruthful.
So continue squirming as you usually do.
His lawyer asked the court to pay his legal fees since Dunn is obviously unemployed being in jail and can't pay. The judge ruled he didn't qualify because his parents have the money.
The police totally botched the investigation from the get go. The lead detective said that when they interviewed Tevin Thompson, Tommie Stornes and Leland Brunson it wasn't even recorded even though they had recording equipment available. That is seriously messed up and I can't believe it. They also didn't get the surveillance audio from inside the Gate after the shooting. That's more evidence he said they didn't collect. They didn't search the area where the Durango fled to until 4 days later. What's up with that? At best it was shoddy police work, at worst it was corruption.
The prosecution focused way too much on what Dunn and Rouer did after the shooting. Anything they did afterwords is 100% irrelevant to the case because he was not charged with anything that happened after the shooting. Trying to impugn Dunn's character just made the prosecutor seem like a badgering jerk.
Tevin Thompson, Tommie Stornes and Leland Brunson all said they did not hear everything that Davis said to Dunn. They all also had to admit that Davis was extremely angry and cursing at Dunn. They all also admitted that they didn't hear Dunn swear express anger towards Davis in any way. Therefore Dunn's claim that Davis threatened to kill him is very credible. It's pretty much a certainty that Davis threatened to kill Dunn.
The prosecution's 3 main witnesses all lied on the stand. Their claim that Davis didn't open the door to go after Dunn is contradictory to the forensic evidence.
The trajectory of the shots clearly indicate that the rear passenger side door was partially open. The prosecution's witnesses lying about something that important and the shoddy police investigation combine to create a whole ****load of reasonable doubt.
Deliberations shouldn't take very long at all. It should be a quick not guilty verdict.
Actually it shows that the rear passenger door was open and the SUV backed up. Exactly the way Dunn said it happened. Davis was armed, extremely angry and getting out of the truck to kill Dunn.No the trajectory clearly shows that the durango was backing up when the shots into the front passenger door were fired, even Dunn said that the car was moving backward when he was shooting.
Actually it shows that the rear passenger door was open and the SUV backed up. Exactly the way Dunn said it happened. Davis was armed, extremely angry and getting out of the truck to kill Dunn.
That crazy ****er was going to kill Dunn simply for politely asking them to turn down the music that was hurting his ears.
Dunn is a hero for killing that dangerous psychopath.
That's ridiculous. Of course they could go in the car. Where the hell else would they have went?The door couldn't have been open, if the shots that went through it have hit Davis. He was shot while laying over towards the drivers side of the car in the back seat. If the bullets went through the door while it was open, they couldn't have went into the car.
That's ridiculous. Of course they could go in the car. Where the hell else would they have went?
That's wrong. I have eyes you know. If you line the trajectories up with the other shots and it points straight at the passenger seat.Far outside of the passenger seat, if you line the trajectories up.
That's wrong. I have eyes you know. If you line the trajectories up with the other shots and it points straight at the passenger seat.
No.Didnt the ME say he was shot laying across the driver side?
That's ridiculous. Of course they could go in the car. Where the hell else would they have went?
Didnt the ME say he was shot laying across the driver side?
State rests in "loud music" murder trial of Michael Dunn, for shooting death of Florida teen Jordan Davis - CBS NewsShe said Davis was most likely sitting in the rear right passenger seat of the Durango, leaning towards the left side of the car when he was fatally shot.
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?