Teenager shot dead after playing loud music

[QueBert]

Yet you already assume and want him guilty? Why? Because he is white and the four other persons were both "kids" and "black". Perfect narrative for the race baiters and apologists.

Or I could believe he's guilty because of the evidence. It's not like I have to do some sort of mental gymnastics to make the scenario into one where he shot out of anger.

 

[Vic]

Yet you already assume and want him guilty? Why? Because he is white and the four other persons were both "kids" and "black". Perfect narrative for the race baiters and apologists.

If you've been following the trial then you should know that the evidence against Dunn is overwhelming. No race baiting required.

 

[They Live]

Yet you already assume and want him guilty? Why? Because he is white and the four other persons were both "kids" and "black". Perfect narrative for the race baiters and apologists.

apologists? apologists to what?

 

[QueBert]

If you've been following the trial then you should know that the evidence against Dunn is overwhelming. No race baiting required.

Dunn testified under oath and you can't lie under oath. Who are you going to believe the 3 black teens who were in the suv and the mount of evidence against him or the white man?

 

[spidey07]

Dunn testified under oath and you can't lie under oath. Who are you going to believe the 3 black teens who were in the suv and the mount of evidence against him or the white man?

Provide this evidence that it wasn't self defense. Disprove Davis verbally threatened his life and then acted on that threat.

go

 

[himkhan]

And I want to remind you that the evidence proves this was a good shoot.

That Davis verbally showed his intention to kill Mr. Dunn and then attempted to exit the vehicle to carry out that threat. By law this is self defense.

None of these things actually happened. Spin faster.

 

[Geosurface]

As was the case with Zimmerman all these supposed "lies" are just once again selective pausing of one's normal ability to understand how human memory works in order to better facilitate the witch hunt.

Saw this post elsewhere about the angle of the door:

More to the point. You have to believe one of four things about the first four shots.

1) The door was closed. The bullets passed through straight but Dunn was in his back seat.

2) The door was closed. The bullets passed through straight bnd Dunn parked with his front window aligned with the rear window of the Durango.

3) The door was closed. Dun was in the front seat with his front window aligned with the Durango’s front. The bullets on hitting the front of the Durango all ricochet at the same angle.

4) Dun was parked with the front windows aligned. Dun fired from the front. The bullets passed straight through, and the door was open.

1&2 are excluded by evidence.
3 The probabilty that the bullets all ricochet at the same angle is very low.

Therefore the door must be open.

4)

None of these things actually happened. Spin faster.

Based on what do you conclude they didn't happen? Desire for them to not be so?

 

[MrPickins]

Provide this evidence that it wasn't self defense. Disprove Davis verbally threatened his life and then acted on that threat.

go

Prove that this was self defense using something other than the word of a man who has proven himself to be less than credible.

go

 

[spidey07]

Prove that this was self defense using something other than the word of a man who has proven himself to be less than credible.

go

I don't have to. It is the prosecutions job disprove self defense. The defense need not prove anything.

 

[spidey07]

None of these things actually happened. Spin faster.

We have evidence that it did, no evidence refutes these statements of fact.

 

[himkhan]

I love some of the mental gymnastics certain people will do in order to avoid accepting the obvious...

It takes nothing more than the rudimentary knowledge of English language and eyeballs that work to accept that you are obvious murder apologizing racist. Not that there is anything wrong with that! Gymnastics is a summer sport besides, this is the winter olympics where you are scoring perfect 10s and should win the gold in story telling and connecting dots that only you can see that are invisible.

 

[himkhan]

We have evidence that it did, no evidence refutes these statements of fact.

Except so such evidence was presenting in the courts. Nothing that happened during trial so far supports you and when told to you that evidence that you though was in black guys car were really in white guys car you sort of derp'd. I don't believe you believe the things you say you believe and think you are bad actor troll some time. You do really seem very prepared for you eventual seat next to your lawyer one day I hopes it go well as you think it is going to go well. Good luck

 

[WackyDan]

Or I could believe he's guilty because of the evidence. It's not like I have to do some sort of mental gymnastics to make the scenario into one where he shot out of anger.

You're the one who brought up his race.

 

[spidey07]

Except so such evidence was presenting in the courts. Nothing that happened during trial so far supports you and when told to you that evidence that you though was in black guys car were really in white guys car you sort of derp'd. I don't believe you believe the things you say you believe and think you are bad actor troll some time. You do really seem very prepared for you eventual seat next to your lawyer one day I hopes it go well as you think it is going to go well. Good luck

There is testimony to my statements of fact, with no evidence to refute them.

Then there's the proof that Davis was attempting to get out or did get out of the car to carry out his multiple threats of intending to kill Mr. Davis.

Right now, the only crime that has been shown to a remote extent is the 3 bullets fired after the car was no longer a threat, they could get him on attempted manslaugher or agg assault for that. But killing Davis was clearly self defense.

 

[MrPickins]

I don't have to. It is the prosecutions job disprove self defense. The defense need not prove anything.

Ahh, but the jury is going to have to decide if they believe him* for his defense to be valid in their eyes.

*The guy who ran from the situation and has been caught in lies surrounding it.

 

[Geosurface]

• Davis' best friend in the back seat next to him admitting Davis tried to open the door.
• The three in the car seemingly lying about the child locks being the reason Davis couldn't have possibly SUCCEEDED in what he was trying to do. By the way, what reason did he have to be opening the door or trying to other than to gain access to Dunn?
• Davis' best friend hesitating far longer when asked if Davis threatened Dunn, than he did when asked about the three of them.
• Dowels for shot trajectories lining up far better and all matching perfectly when you shift the door to what would be exactly how open it could be with a car close next to it.
• Ample time to ditch weapon(s), presence of Tommy "Felon" Storns cousin at the scene within minutes. Cousin he called immediately.
• Witness who was watching them in the parkling lot nearby and mentioned they might be "stashing something."
• Fact that they have very strong incentive to lie. They could be in deep shit indeed if what Dunn claims was proven.
• Fact that the three in the truck admit Dunn was polite in his request about the music, and that they never saw him angry.
• Fact that they admit Davis got extremely agitated and even in the small amount they completely admit to in terms of direct quote, you have Davis aggressively yelling "Fuck that n----r!" in reference to Dunn. Showing that he was immediately hostile to Dunn and angry. Other three also admit that things then escalated. Yet, if Dunn wasn't seen to be aggressive by them... escalation can only mean Davis escalating.
• Davis opening or attempting to open the door is dramatic escalation and strong indication that he desired to gain access to Dunn.

Everything fits perfectly.

The one thing that doesn't fit at all is Dunn deciding to blow away four strangers while happy from his son's wedding, after making a polite request, simply because they weren't sufficiently nice to him.

Davis was the one who got upset because he wasn't shown sufficient "respect" - not Dunn.

An innocent man is once again being put through the legal ringer because of a young, impulsive, violent thug behaving in a completely uncivilized manner.

I heard people bitching that he didn't show enough "remorse" about Jordan. Fuck Jordan. I'll tell you why he doesn't show remorse, it's because that little fucker threatened to kill him and then made a damned convincing show of starting to carry out that threat. From Dunn's perspective, he recognizes that Jordan Davis is the person who derailed and ruined his life because he couldn't act like a reasonable member of a civilized society, or even a douche bag who just says "Fuck you we're turning it back up" and leaves it at that.

If I were Dunn I'd have zero sympathy for Jordan or for his parents, I'd be looking at them thinking "your inability to raise that little piece of shit is why I'm sitting here facing a very strong chance of life in prison"

Btw apparently Jordan had been sent to live with his dad because of problems, and oh also his best friend admitted he'd seen him flip out and be angry like that before.

 

[Geosurface]

*The guy who ran from the situation and has been caught in lies surrounding it.

Not really.

 

[Vic]

Provide this evidence that it wasn't self defense. Disprove Davis verbally threatened his life and then acted on that threat.

go

Easy. Dunn is lying. Besides his testimony, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dunn was threatened. And especially not in such a manner that a reasonable person would believe warranted his actions.

Also, let me remind you that reasonable doubt does not mean no doubt or beyond a shadow of doubt, and self-defense requires a reasonableness test. So even if Dunn genuinely felt threatened, his actions to defend himself must still be reasonable and commiserate with the nature of the threat.
I know that you believe that if someone told you that you deserved a good ass kicking that that gives you the right to pump 3 into them and 6 more into the carload of people who never said a word to you, and then drive home and never call it in, but the law doesn't agree with you.

 

[fskimospy]

We have evidence that it did, no evidence refutes these statements of fact.

Your rage flameout is going to be hilarious when he is found guilty.

 

[himkhan]

The one thing that doesn't fit at all is Dunn deciding to blow away four strangers while happy from his son's wedding.

Do you keep intention or accidental forget he was drinking (drunk) and was in the process of getting more booze to feed his stomach. Every and all words you type are betrayed by this fact. In America you cannot drive drinking right? You cant or shouldnt at least use sidearm when drinking? Every thought you keep trying to put into his brain to explain him is washed away by the booze. I don't trust a drinkers version of a story from experience. It is usually far different from reality.

 

[MrPickins]

Not really.

He didn't run?

He didn't lie about his friend calling him first?

 

[Vic]

The one thing that doesn't fit at all is Dunn deciding to blow away four strangers while happy from his son's wedding.

Dunn had little to no involvement in raising his only son, and had only seen him 3 times in last 15 years.

As you claim to have followed the trial, I'm forced to assume you're lying again.

 

[spidey07]

Easy. Dunn is lying. Besides his testimony, there is no evidence whatsoever that Dunn was threatened. And especially not in such a manner that a reasonable person would believe warranted his actions.

Also, let me remind you that reasonable doubt does not mean no doubt or beyond a shadow of doubt, and self-defense requires a reasonableness test. So even if Dunn genuinely felt threatened, his actions to defend himself must still be reasonable and commiserate with the nature of the threat.
I know that you believe that if someone told you that you deserved a good ass kicking that that gives you the right to pump 3 into them and 6 more into the carload of people who never said a word to you, and then drive home and never call it in, but the law doesn't agree with you.

Prove he's lying about the events that forced him to fire in self defense.

And no, somebody saying I deserved a good ass kicking does not lawfully allow deadly force.

But what absolutely does is multiple yelling aggressive verbal threats to life or great bodily harm and action to imminently carry out that threat as was shown by the evidence at trial.

 

[Geosurface]

Do you keep intention or accidental forget he was drinking (drunk)

He was not drunk. He's a 6'4" 250lb+ man at the time who drinks regularly, and he'd had 2 oz of rum at the wedding. His fiancee and every single person at that wedding said he was in no way impaired when he left.

Dunn had little to no involvement in raising his only son, and had only seen him 3 times in last 15 years.

As you claim to have followed the trial, I'm forced to assume you're lying again.

Why is it that every single fucking post from those who want to see Dunn (or Zimmerman back then) hung from a gibbet, is some sort of simple minded, look at only one angle, and misrepresent something bullshit?

Did I say he had raised the son? No. I said he'd come from his son's wedding and was happy. That is what the FUCKING WITNESSES all said, and you don't have to raise your child to be happy upon reconnecting with them and upon seeing them experience positive milestones in their life.

He was in a good mood. He made a polite request.

It was Jordan Davis who brought the only source of anger, conflict, or problem into all of this.

 

[Vic]

Your rage flameout is going to be hilarious when he is found guilty.

Based on Geosurface's blatantly racist rant above, I'd say he's already having his.