Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

The Dunn ("loud music") case

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 4:55:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is there anyone else who finds this case unmistakably clear or am I missing something? On a faulty perception of mortal danger, the man fired indiscriminately into a car full of teenagers. There was no weapon in the car. The decedent himself is not even alleged by the defense to have initiated the threat - so the claim to self-defense hardly involves him. Dunn did not call the police until the following morning and instead went home and ordered pizza. There is verbal evidence that Dunn had feelings of racial animus prior to this incident. Communication Dunn claims to have had with his girlfriend regarding this incident is unequivocally denied in her testimony.

I'm not seeing why this jury is having difficulty arriving at a guilty verdict for 1st degree homicide.

http://www.cnn.com...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 4:58:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 4:55:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
Is there anyone else who finds this case unmistakably clear or am I missing something? On a faulty perception of mortal danger, the man fired indiscriminately into a car full of teenagers. There was no weapon in the car. The decedent himself is not even alleged by the defense to have initiated the threat - so the claim to self-defense hardly involves him. Dunn did not call the police until the following morning and instead went home and ordered pizza. There is verbal evidence that Dunn had feelings of racial animus prior to this incident. Communication Dunn claims to have had with his girlfriend regarding this incident is unequivocally denied in her testimony.

I'm not seeing why this jury is having difficulty arriving at a guilty verdict for 1st degree homicide.

http://www.cnn.com...

2nd degree homicide, rather...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2014 10:05:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's like really easy to murder black people in Florida apparently. The "nah dude they're black I wuz scared" defense seems to go a long way down here.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 8:19:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 4:55:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
Is there anyone else who finds this case unmistakably clear or am I missing something? On a faulty perception of mortal danger, the man fired indiscriminately into a car full of teenagers. There was no weapon in the car. The decedent himself is not even alleged by the defense to have initiated the threat - so the claim to self-defense hardly involves him. Dunn did not call the police until the following morning and instead went home and ordered pizza. There is verbal evidence that Dunn had feelings of racial animus prior to this incident. Communication Dunn claims to have had with his girlfriend regarding this incident is unequivocally denied in her testimony.

I'm not seeing why this jury is having difficulty arriving at a guilty verdict for 1st degree homicide.

http://www.cnn.com...

Is there something in the statute that I am unaware of?
He fired indiscriminately, okay. Was there intent to murder? If not, it is not murder.
He thought his life was threatened. It doesn't have to actually be, but if a reasonable person thought this to be true, then he was defending himself.
If I beat the crap out of some guy I think is raping my wife, only to find out later she was having an affair with him, am I in the wrong?

Also, according to your article and video, it was first degree murder and second degree attempted murder.

Lastly, was he drunk? I think he was. That could be a major factor.
Any idea how the jury polled in the deadlock?

On a side note, for the love of God news-people, stop fvcking bringing up Zimmerman and/or stand your ground laws every time please.
My work here is, finally, done.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 8:35:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 8:19:24 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/15/2014 4:55:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
Is there anyone else who finds this case unmistakably clear or am I missing something? On a faulty perception of mortal danger, the man fired indiscriminately into a car full of teenagers. There was no weapon in the car. The decedent himself is not even alleged by the defense to have initiated the threat - so the claim to self-defense hardly involves him. Dunn did not call the police until the following morning and instead went home and ordered pizza. There is verbal evidence that Dunn had feelings of racial animus prior to this incident. Communication Dunn claims to have had with his girlfriend regarding this incident is unequivocally denied in her testimony.

I'm not seeing why this jury is having difficulty arriving at a guilty verdict for 1st degree homicide.

http://www.cnn.com...

Is there something in the statute that I am unaware of?
He fired indiscriminately, okay. Was there intent to murder? If not, it is not murder.

Firing without sufficient provocation at a vehicle as it is driving away from you is intent to murder.

He thought his life was threatened. It doesn't have to actually be, but if a reasonable person thought this to be true, then he was defending himself.

Understood, but do take note of the clause "reasonable person", as that doesn't apply here. And since you brought it up, if he was inebriated, then self -defense is completely inapplicable.

If I beat the crap out of some guy I think is raping my wife, only to find out later she was having an affair with him, am I in the wrong?

Also, according to your article and video, it was first degree murder and second degree attempted murder.

Lastly, was he drunk? I think he was. That could be a major factor.
Any idea how the jury polled in the deadlock?

On a side note, for the love of God news-people, stop fvcking bringing up Zimmerman and/or stand your ground laws every time please.

Stand your ground was invoked by the defense and explained to the jury as part of its instruction ... so, yeah....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
NightofTheLivingCats
Posts: 2,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 9:56:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/15/2014 10:05:14 PM, Noumena wrote:
It's like really easy to murder black people in Florida apparently. The "nah dude they're black I wuz scared" defense seems to go a long way down here.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 10:41:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 8:35:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/16/2014 8:19:24 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 2/15/2014 4:55:40 PM, 000ike wrote:
Is there anyone else who finds this case unmistakably clear or am I missing something? On a faulty perception of mortal danger, the man fired indiscriminately into a car full of teenagers. There was no weapon in the car. The decedent himself is not even alleged by the defense to have initiated the threat - so the claim to self-defense hardly involves him. Dunn did not call the police until the following morning and instead went home and ordered pizza. There is verbal evidence that Dunn had feelings of racial animus prior to this incident. Communication Dunn claims to have had with his girlfriend regarding this incident is unequivocally denied in her testimony.

I'm not seeing why this jury is having difficulty arriving at a guilty verdict for 1st degree homicide.

http://www.cnn.com...

Is there something in the statute that I am unaware of?
He fired indiscriminately, okay. Was there intent to murder? If not, it is not murder.

Firing without sufficient provocation at a vehicle as it is driving away from you is intent to murder.
That is debatable.
However, firing at a vehicle at a vehicle as it drives away period would be "intent", unless it was to stop a kidnapping.

He thought his life was threatened. It doesn't have to actually be, but if a reasonable person thought this to be true, then he was defending himself.

Understood, but do take note of the clause "reasonable person", as that doesn't apply here. And since you brought it up, if he was inebriated, then self -defense is completely inapplicable.
1. If they had brandished a weapon it is reasonable. However, the question is: did they have one?
2. At what point does reality trump perception? For example, if I lifted my shirt to reveal a gun handle tucked into my pants, is that reasonable to assume harm, even if upon his death, there was no gun, only the handle.

Also, why can't a drunk man defend himself?

If I beat the crap out of some guy I think is raping my wife, only to find out later she was having an affair with him, am I in the wrong?

Also, according to your article and video, it was first degree murder and second degree attempted murder.

Lastly, was he drunk? I think he was. That could be a major factor.
Any idea how the jury polled in the deadlock?

On a side note, for the love of God news-people, stop fvcking bringing up Zimmerman and/or stand your ground laws every time please.

Stand your ground was invoked by the defense and explained to the jury as part of its instruction ... so, yeah....

I could have sworn I read it wasn't somewhere, since it was a normal self-defense case. Regardless, even stand your ground shouldn't apply to shooting at a moving car.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 10:44:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/16/2014 8:35:06 AM, 000ike wrote:
Here is where I read it that stand your ground wasn't used.
http://www.cnn.com...

Also, if he was drunk, then he is unable to form intent, or at least premeditation.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2014 10:54:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Lastly, as far as the people who write it off as racist, let me ask you this:
If it is due to racism, then why was there deadlock only on the first-degree murder and not the three attempted murder. Logically, can we not assume it has to do with the charge and not racism?

...or where the three friends all white?
My work here is, finally, done.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2014 6:00:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This guy is an idiot and deserves to go to jail for life. However, 1st degree murder is overcharging. The prosecution should have sought 2nd-degree murder.