Michael Dunn, killer of Jordan Davis trial thread

Serious

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
79,797
Reputation
14,180
Daps
189,697
Reppin
1st Round Playoff Exits
And fired several times while the jeep was pulling away. This shyt shouldn't even be in court. Dunn should've took a plea deal. It's obvious he and everyone knows he has zero legal case and is totally banking on cacs on the jury caccing.
Seriously this should be an open and shut case....

The more information that comes, the more :wtf: 's I do...

:dead: @ all the witnesses stating that the music wasn't abnormally loud...

I'm having a hard time figuring out ho this guy felt threatened, while sitting in the drivers seat...
 

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
5,980
Daps
132,700
They do not specify what is "reasonable fear" in the law, so its up to the individual.

I know its a poorly written law, but this vague definition is the only thing we can go by until the law is repealed or amended.
Dude does not have even a stand your ground case unless there is some evidence that anybody in the jeep had a weapon. "Reasonable fear" means reasonable fear that you are going to die or be crippled. Here it is laid out in the statute: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

Dunn's action meet none of that criteria. Fitted to the letter of the law, he has no case. It's clearly stated that "reasonable fear" must entail using defensive force against imminent peril of death of great bodily harm.

The only way he doesn't get convicted is if some jury members are so racist that they throw all legal evidence in the bushes and we get a hung jury.
 

Suicide King

#OldBlack
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
4,902
Reputation
750
Daps
7,317
Dude does not have even a stand your ground case unless there is some evidence that anybody in the jeep had a weapon. "Reasonable fear" means reasonable fear that you are going to die or be crippled. Here it is laid out in the statute: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html



Dunn's action meet none of that criteria. Fitted to the letter of the law, he has no case. It's clearly stated that "reasonable fear" must entail using defensive force against imminent peril of death of great bodily harm.

The only way he doesn't get convicted is if some jury members are so racist that they throw all legal evidence in the bushes and we get a hung jury.


You are reading subsection (1) of the law which requires imminent danger.

Subsection (3) does not have these requirements and allows deadly force in "in any other place where he or she has a right to be."
 

mrken12

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Messages
80,804
Reputation
20,860
Daps
300,325
Reppin
Maryland
Seriously this should be an open and shut case....

The more information that comes, the more :wtf: 's I do...

:dead: @ all the witnesses stating that the music wasn't abnormally loud...

I'm having a hard time figuring out ho this guy felt threatened, while sitting in the drivers seat...

The loud music excuse was him going for his grab bag of young black male stereotypes.
 

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
5,980
Daps
132,700
You are reading subsection (1) of the law which requires imminent danger.

Subsection (3) does not have these requirements and allows deadly force in "in any other place where he or she has a right to be."
I am reading it.

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Nobody in the jeep had a gun=no reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Without any evidence that anybody in jeep had a gun, he has NO legal case, period.
 

ltheghost

Payin Debts.... N40
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
6,500
Reputation
480
Daps
7,426
Reppin
Japan, but from the 989
Dude does not have even a stand your ground case unless there is some evidence that anybody in the jeep had a weapon. "Reasonable fear" means reasonable fear that you are going to die or be crippled. Here it is laid out in the statute: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ute&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html



Dunn's action meet none of that criteria. Fitted to the letter of the law, he has no case. It's clearly stated that "reasonable fear" must entail using defensive force against imminent peril of death of great bodily harm.

The only way he doesn't get convicted is if some jury members are so racist that they throw all legal evidence in the bushes and we get a hung jury.

That's the mistake most people make when dealing with laws in an trial by jury. You have 12 people who are not versed in the law, picked off the street, and do not understand how the law really works. No matter what a judge may instruct them to do, they are going to 99.9% of the time decide a case based off what they think is right. And if the defense is good enough the rule of law can be complete ignored or even curtailed into the defense's favor. I've seen this several times and seen judges lose their shyt when the jury comes back with some crazy ass decision in the face of the "law". We are in Florida too.....man, who knows what fukkery is going to come out of this.

This entire case is going to rely on what the jury thinks is "reasonable". And for everyone on earth that is a different. lol. Four black males scaring a white man? It may be reasonable for him to open fire, according to some people. Lets just hope those people are not on the jury.
 

ltheghost

Payin Debts.... N40
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
6,500
Reputation
480
Daps
7,426
Reppin
Japan, but from the 989

11 White, 3 Black, 2 Asian. He is going to be found guilty, if and only if the prosecution can make the shooting look cowardly. If the prosecution focuses on what he did after the shooting and ignores the race issue then they can make this an open and shut case. If race is brought in, it tends to have the opposite result that you wanted in an trial where the majority of the jury is the same race of the defendant. Stick to the facts and this could be easy. But...the white guy with 11 kids? Holy shyt. He is the wild card. What type of person has 11 kids?
 

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,078
Reputation
5,980
Daps
132,700
11 White, 3 Black, 2 Asian. He is going to be found guilty, if and only if the prosecution can make the shooting look cowardly. If the prosecution focuses on what he did after the shooting and ignores the race issue then they can make this an open and shut case. If race is brought in, it tends to have the opposite result that you wanted in an trial where the majority of the jury is the same race of the defendant. Stick to the facts and this could be easy. But...the white guy with 11 kids? Holy shyt. He is the wild card. What type of person has 11 kids?
Yeah, it would be a shame if that guy or some other person was just stubborn and makes it a hung jury. 11 kids, former ex-military, ROTC instructor and lives on the westside (redneck part of town). That definitely gives me pause.

Worst case scenario, we're looking at a hung jury and mistrial I think. Because I find it almost impossible that some of the people wouldn't vote guilty. A black female nursing student? An Asian female software programmer? A black female occupational therapist from Riverside? A black female from Arlington? An Asian female doctor from Baymeadows with 2 sons? Can't see them letting him off.
 
Top