Here is a link for those who have been living under a rock for a couple years.
Unlike in the George Zimmerman trial (which is nothing like this case other than it happened in Flori-duh) I believe the Prosecution was successful in proving That Dunn murdered 17 yr old Jordan Davis.
I was shocked when the jury found Dunn guilty of attempted murder of Davis's three friends but could not agree on a verdict of murder of Jordan Davis.
Someone or two on the jury must have had reasonable doubt regarding whether Davis may have had a weapon and believed that he might have hid it quickly before the police came. That's all I can figure.
Other than that, Michael Dunn did everything that a person who is guilty would do, including not calling the police to report that he was "in fear of his life" before he fired 10 shots into the victim's car.
Do you have any thoughts on this?
Did you follow the Scum-Sucking Murderer Michael Dunn Trial?
Re: Did you follow the Scum-Sucking Murderer Michael Dunn Tr
I've been wanting to reply to this, but it was a really busy week, so I never got the time. I completely agree with Joe.
There are at least several light years worth of difference between this case and the Zimmerman case. There's simply no comparison between a guy claiming self defense who shoots an assailant who has him pinned on his back, slamming his head into the pavement, (and whatever you may think of Zimmerman personally...and I didn't think much of him personally in the first place and I think even less of him in light of his subsequent shenanigans...that is the version of what happened that all of the physical and forensic evidence supports) and a guy who wasn't attacked but nevertheless fires multiple times into a vehicle at multiple people, even when that vehicle is fleeing...
There's simply no comparison between a guy claiming self defense who had already called the cops before the incident happened, waited for them at the scene, and cooperated fully in hours of interrogation (never asking for legal representation) and a guy, who after shooting multiple people multiple times, leaves the scene and calmly goes about his business, ordering a pizza at his hotel, like nothing happened, and never calls the police...
Dunn's explanation for why he left the scene and didn't call the police is laughably ridiculous; if you are truly afraid that another "carload of thugs" is going to show up then the very first thing any sane person does is call the police. On top of that, he never called the police at all, (the first time he speaks to them is when they call him.)
Somebody who genuinely acts in self defense in a case like this wants the police involved immediately; he wants to reach out to them to cover his ass, and so they can immediately gather the evidence that supports his claim. He wants the authorities involved immediately so he can demonstrate he has nothing to hide. He doesn't take it on the lam hoping the cops never connect him to the crime like Dunn did. That's what guilty people do.
I think there are three reasons Dunn didn't call the police:
1. Since he thought they were lowlife gang banger types, he may have believed that they'd have their own reasons for not cooperating with the cops and therefore he might get away with it without saying anything.
2. He knew that there was no weapon and that if the cops apprehended these guys immediately, they would know it too. If there was contemporaneous gathering of the evidence, it would never support a claim of self defense, and Dunn knew it.
3.He may have been intoxicated. (He had stopped at the gas station after leaving his son's wedding reception.)
I think the most damning evidence against Dunn, (aside from his own behavior after the shooting) came from the testimony of his fiancee, who clearly wanted to be supportive, but nevertheless testified truthfully that it was "weeks" before Dunn said anything to her about a weapon. (She was with him in the car at the time of the shooting. She also never saw a weapon.)
If I had been on the jury and still had any lingering level of reasonable doubt that there might have been a weapon in the car it would have vanished at that point. Like his explanation for why he didn't call the police, it just doesn't pass the smell test. Picture the scene:
You've just fired 10 shots into a car in a public place in front of your fiancee. The very first thing she's going to do is ask "what the hell happened?" to which you are immediately going to reply, "I didn't have a choice; the guy was pulling out a shot gun".
But that doesn't happen right after the shooting. And it doesn't happen that night. Or the next day. Or the day after that. In fact it doesn't happen for "weeks"...
Simply not credible...
This was a stone cold rage killing, (possibly fueled by alcohol, which is obviously no excuse) plain and simple. None of the evidence supports Dunn's version of events; not one bit of it. (The exact opposite of the Zimmerman case.)
He didn't call the police because he thought he might have gotten away with it. And by the time they finally caught up to him he had cooked up this "self defense" story. (Apparently it wasn't something that had even occurred to him at the time.)
That is what the evidence in this case supported. I didn't read the jury instructions, and I didn't follow every minute of the trial, so I don't know whether technically it would have been first degree murder or second degree, but I can't see anyway that it could have been anything less than second degree murder. That's certainly how I would have voted had I been on the jury.
As for the attempts of the usual suspects, (like Al Sharpton) to pander to the ignorance of their followers and supporters by trying to lump these two completely different cases together as though they were examples of the exact same thing: I find that to be shamelessly intellectually dishonest to the point of being disgusting.
There are at least several light years worth of difference between this case and the Zimmerman case. There's simply no comparison between a guy claiming self defense who shoots an assailant who has him pinned on his back, slamming his head into the pavement, (and whatever you may think of Zimmerman personally...and I didn't think much of him personally in the first place and I think even less of him in light of his subsequent shenanigans...that is the version of what happened that all of the physical and forensic evidence supports) and a guy who wasn't attacked but nevertheless fires multiple times into a vehicle at multiple people, even when that vehicle is fleeing...
There's simply no comparison between a guy claiming self defense who had already called the cops before the incident happened, waited for them at the scene, and cooperated fully in hours of interrogation (never asking for legal representation) and a guy, who after shooting multiple people multiple times, leaves the scene and calmly goes about his business, ordering a pizza at his hotel, like nothing happened, and never calls the police...
Dunn's explanation for why he left the scene and didn't call the police is laughably ridiculous; if you are truly afraid that another "carload of thugs" is going to show up then the very first thing any sane person does is call the police. On top of that, he never called the police at all, (the first time he speaks to them is when they call him.)
Somebody who genuinely acts in self defense in a case like this wants the police involved immediately; he wants to reach out to them to cover his ass, and so they can immediately gather the evidence that supports his claim. He wants the authorities involved immediately so he can demonstrate he has nothing to hide. He doesn't take it on the lam hoping the cops never connect him to the crime like Dunn did. That's what guilty people do.
I think there are three reasons Dunn didn't call the police:
1. Since he thought they were lowlife gang banger types, he may have believed that they'd have their own reasons for not cooperating with the cops and therefore he might get away with it without saying anything.
2. He knew that there was no weapon and that if the cops apprehended these guys immediately, they would know it too. If there was contemporaneous gathering of the evidence, it would never support a claim of self defense, and Dunn knew it.
3.He may have been intoxicated. (He had stopped at the gas station after leaving his son's wedding reception.)
I think the most damning evidence against Dunn, (aside from his own behavior after the shooting) came from the testimony of his fiancee, who clearly wanted to be supportive, but nevertheless testified truthfully that it was "weeks" before Dunn said anything to her about a weapon. (She was with him in the car at the time of the shooting. She also never saw a weapon.)
If I had been on the jury and still had any lingering level of reasonable doubt that there might have been a weapon in the car it would have vanished at that point. Like his explanation for why he didn't call the police, it just doesn't pass the smell test. Picture the scene:
You've just fired 10 shots into a car in a public place in front of your fiancee. The very first thing she's going to do is ask "what the hell happened?" to which you are immediately going to reply, "I didn't have a choice; the guy was pulling out a shot gun".
But that doesn't happen right after the shooting. And it doesn't happen that night. Or the next day. Or the day after that. In fact it doesn't happen for "weeks"...
Simply not credible...
This was a stone cold rage killing, (possibly fueled by alcohol, which is obviously no excuse) plain and simple. None of the evidence supports Dunn's version of events; not one bit of it. (The exact opposite of the Zimmerman case.)
He didn't call the police because he thought he might have gotten away with it. And by the time they finally caught up to him he had cooked up this "self defense" story. (Apparently it wasn't something that had even occurred to him at the time.)
That is what the evidence in this case supported. I didn't read the jury instructions, and I didn't follow every minute of the trial, so I don't know whether technically it would have been first degree murder or second degree, but I can't see anyway that it could have been anything less than second degree murder. That's certainly how I would have voted had I been on the jury.
As for the attempts of the usual suspects, (like Al Sharpton) to pander to the ignorance of their followers and supporters by trying to lump these two completely different cases together as though they were examples of the exact same thing: I find that to be shamelessly intellectually dishonest to the point of being disgusting.
Re: Did you follow the Scum-Sucking Murderer Michael Dunn Tr
Here's what one of the jurors has said:Someone or two on the jury must have had reasonable doubt regarding whether Davis may have had a weapon and believed that he might have hid it quickly before the police came.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/juror-loud-mus ... d=22571068Juror #4 – who asked to be identified simply as "Valerie" – told ABC News in an exclusive interview that the issue of self-defense forced the jury into an immediate deadlock and prompted some shouting matches. Two and then three jurors ultimately believed Dunn, 47, was justified in the 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Jordan Davis. Valerie, who wanted a murder conviction, says the group knew within the first hour that they would be unable to reach a unanimous decision.
According to Valerie, the jurors who believed Dunn was guilty were split between first-degree, second-degree and manslaughter – but because they were unable to unanimously overcome the issue of self-defense, the jury was deadlocked. The jurors yelled and screamed at each other at one point, but all were respectful of each other's position.
I suspect they will try the murder case one more time. Maybe as a strategy they should reduce the jurors choices; take 1st degree off the table and try to build their case around second degree...(Which would remove the DP option, and in Florida mean that they would also have a smaller jury, as they did in the Zimmerman case.)
However, if the DP is off the table, than any guilty verdict for second degree would be purely symbolic; it wouldn't have any real effect on Dunn's punishment, because based on what he has already been convicted of, he most likely will be in prison for the rest of his natural life.:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/ ... MR20140216Dunn still faces at least 60 years in jail for the attempted murder convictions against the three other teens, legal analysts said.
ETA:
I guess what the prosecutors have to consider in making their decision about a second trial on the murder charge, (since absent the death penalty, another conviction would have no material impact on Dunn's punishment) is whether the public and media pressure for such a trial out weighs the consideration of the expense...
Were this not a high profile case, my guess is that nine times out ten there would not be a second trial, (but as I said, I suspect that in this case, there very well may be one.)
DA offices are under a lot of financial squeeze all over the country, and I imagine the thinking would be, "Look, I'm sorry we didn't get the murder conviction. But since it's highly unlikely that we're going to be able to get a 1st degree conviction and then get the Death Penalty imposed, getting another conviction just isn't going to be worth the expense. The guy is already going to be in prison until he's 107; there's really not much more that can be done to him."
Last edited by Lord Jim on Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Did you follow the Scum-Sucking Murderer Michael Dunn Tr
The only reason I could see for them having another trial would be due to media pressure. All of the talking heads I saw screamed racism after the verdicts were announced.
They are in a difficult position. The possibility of another trial ending with a hung jury or not guilty verdict needs to be considered. What would be worse? Explaining why it's not worth it to go to trial again or taking on the risk of a new trial?
They are in a difficult position. The possibility of another trial ending with a hung jury or not guilty verdict needs to be considered. What would be worse? Explaining why it's not worth it to go to trial again or taking on the risk of a new trial?
Re: Did you follow the Scum-Sucking Murderer Michael Dunn Tr
Yeah, I saw a lot of that too, and it's as predictable as it is depressing...The only reason I could see for them having another trial would be due to media pressure. All of the talking heads I saw screamed racism after the verdicts were announced.
I don't agree with the position they took, but what seems to be forgotten is that these three supposed "racist" jurors also voted for convictions on four other charges that carry a total of 60 years minimum prison time...
Why would a "racist" do that?
But facts don't matter to the professional race pimps; (they certainly didn't matter to them in the Zimmerman case either) if they don't get precisely the result they want, they scream "racist!"...
It's how they earn their livings...
It's a shame really because instead of using the platform they enjoy to try and educate the public, all they do is pander to ignorance. They really should be ashamed of themselves, but of course they aren't.
Re: Did you follow the Scum-Sucking Murderer Michael Dunn Tr
A second juror has also spoken out, (an African American lady who said pretty much the same things as the first juror)
The juror I'd be most interested in hearing from is the one who originally was for one of the murder charges then joined the other two voting for self defense...
It's unusual when there's a lopsided division on a jury for one of the jurors in the majority to switch to the minority position; it usually works the other way around...
So it would be interesting to hear from this person and get some insight into the thought process and dynamics in the jury room that led them to do this...
However I very much doubt that we are ever going to hear from this juror, or the other two jurors who voted for self-defense, probably because they're afraid that if they went public their homes might be fire bombed....
The juror I'd be most interested in hearing from is the one who originally was for one of the murder charges then joined the other two voting for self defense...
It's unusual when there's a lopsided division on a jury for one of the jurors in the majority to switch to the minority position; it usually works the other way around...
So it would be interesting to hear from this person and get some insight into the thought process and dynamics in the jury room that led them to do this...
However I very much doubt that we are ever going to hear from this juror, or the other two jurors who voted for self-defense, probably because they're afraid that if they went public their homes might be fire bombed....
Re: Did you follow the Scum-Sucking Murderer Michael Dunn Tr
Well if the Repuglican gun-nuts have their way everyone involved in every altercation will be armed which will provide an automatic "get out of jail free" card for whomever survives the shootings. But judge HE HAD A GUN I was in fear for my life! I KNEW HE HAD A GUN BECAUSE EVERYONE DOES!
It will be a wonderful new world when they have their way. I'm hoping that some of the "stupid states" in the south will try it for a decade or two first so we can see what we will need. I'm investing in "spectrashield" body armor. Bound to be a big seller. I'll make a killing! Ha ha ha.
Then I'll start marketing a home kit to coat bullets with teflon to defeat the spectrashield! I'm a chemist. I know how to coat things with perfluorooctanoic acid. Be a cinch. I'll make another killing!
Ha ha ha!
Then we'll market "spectrashield plus" which stops teflon bullets! Charge even more for it. Ha ha ha!
But I will always wonder, do sheep know that they are sheep?
yrs,
rubato
It will be a wonderful new world when they have their way. I'm hoping that some of the "stupid states" in the south will try it for a decade or two first so we can see what we will need. I'm investing in "spectrashield" body armor. Bound to be a big seller. I'll make a killing! Ha ha ha.
Then I'll start marketing a home kit to coat bullets with teflon to defeat the spectrashield! I'm a chemist. I know how to coat things with perfluorooctanoic acid. Be a cinch. I'll make another killing!
Ha ha ha!
Then we'll market "spectrashield plus" which stops teflon bullets! Charge even more for it. Ha ha ha!
But I will always wonder, do sheep know that they are sheep?
yrs,
rubato
Re: Did you follow the Scum-Sucking Murderer Michael Dunn Tr
Lord Jim wrote:"...
It's unusual when there's a lopsided division on a jury for one of the jurors in the majority to switch to the minority position; it usually works the other way around...
... "
What evidence is this statement based on?
yrs,
rubato
Re: Did you follow the Scum-Sucking Murderer Michael Dunn Tr
Ahh, so now we know who was responsible for this; it wasn't the guy who decided to shoot 10 times into a car full of people...Well if the Repuglican gun-nuts have their way
It was the Republican Party!
Of course; how could I possibly have missed that?
Re: Did you follow the Scum-Sucking Murderer Michael Dunn Tr
The Republicans as represented by Ted Nugent. I thought everyone knew that.Lord Jim wrote: Ahh, so now we know who was responsible for this; it wasn't the guy who decided to shoot 10 times into a car full of people...
It was the Republican Party!
(speaking of Ted, he would be a good subject for another thread)
Re: Did you follow the Scum-Sucking Murderer Michael Dunn Tr
Actually I thought it was Ronald Reagan's fault...
Or maybe the Catholic Church's...
Or maybe the Catholic Church's...
Re: Did you follow the Scum-Sucking Murderer Michael Dunn Tr
Spewing shit unrelated to what someone else has said only reveals your own defects.
Keep trying. Maybe there is some cohort out there even stupider than you who are impressed. You can be lord of the stupid!
yrs,
rubato
Keep trying. Maybe there is some cohort out there even stupider than you who are impressed. You can be lord of the stupid!
yrs,
rubato
Re: Did you follow the Scum-Sucking Murderer Michael Dunn Tr
You do realize that is exactly what you are doing in this thread - don't you?....rubato wrote:Spewing shit unrelated to what someone else has said only reveals your own defects.
Re: Did you follow the Scum-Sucking Murderer Michael Dunn Tr
No Joe, sadly I'm sure rube does not realize that...
Self-realization is not his strong suit...nor is "The Bleeding Obvious, 101"....
In fact after all these years I'm still trying to sort out exactly what his strong suits are..(I mean aside from the obvious; being gratuitously rude and insulting, being a boorish braggart, being dishonest, etc.)
Rube is extremely weak in the area of strong suits...
Self-realization is not his strong suit...nor is "The Bleeding Obvious, 101"....
In fact after all these years I'm still trying to sort out exactly what his strong suits are..(I mean aside from the obvious; being gratuitously rude and insulting, being a boorish braggart, being dishonest, etc.)
Rube is extremely weak in the area of strong suits...