Bubble Screen Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 Dunn is toast. And that's despite the prosecution doing a terrible job on cross. No way a jury acquits this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 The guy was drunk and angry. According to testimony he was loaded on Rum & Coke. He claimed he had two, his fiance said 5 or 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 The guy was drunk and angry. According to testimony he was loaded on Rum & Coke. He claimed he had two, his fiance said 5 or 6.That wasn't the worst thing she said. She testified that he never mentioned anything about those kids having a weapon. And that was basically Dunn's entire defense.He is going away for a very long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Yeah, nothing like the TM/GZ case. No dispute here. Dude lit up an SUV with basically an entire mag, even as they drove away. No excuse for that. If he was in fear of his life, it's called reverse and the long skinny one on the right. Personal anecdote: I always back into parking spots so in case I need to retreat in a quick fashion I can do so without stopping. I also never sit with my back to the door. Things I picked up in the army that stick with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Supposedly, the defense is saying there was time for the teens to dispose of a weapon. And it's possible, because they drove to a nearby parking lot after the shooting and then returned to the scene. Possible, but probably unlikely. This defense is so clever. They drove off terrified because some crazy bastage was shooting at them and had already killed one of them, and he was still shooting as they escaped. They returned as soon as he was gone to get help for their dying friend. Dunn: "No, don't you see: they drove off so they could hide their weapons and make up a story!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I watched parts of Dunn's testimony about seeing a gun or something. Then his GF gets on the stand and refutes everything he said. One could tell that she wasn't happy with telling the truth, but it appears that tell the truth she did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 I watched parts of Dunn's testimony about seeing a gun or something. Then his GF gets on the stand and refutes everything he said. One could tell that she wasn't happy with telling the truth, but it appears that tell the truth she did.And he also wrote her a letter a few weeks after the killing from jail 'reminding her' that there was a gun. I guess she wasn't having any of that. I suspect she felt a lot of guilt for not calling the police after the shooting.It's obvious he didn't call 911 because he knew he had committed a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 This defense is so clever. Not much else to try.....not even I can think of anything but diminished capacity or character assassination. he's toast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFromYellowstone Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 How can anyone think its a good idea for a bunch of regular joe dumbasses to carry around guns all the time? First we get this, then a shooting over popcorn and texting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 How can anyone think its a good idea for a bunch of regular joe dumbasses to carry around guns all the time? First we get this, then a shooting over popcorn and texting. when ya figure out how to prevent them while allowing competent and responsible ones to do so let me know. maybe we can use the same formula for voters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 You'd think if they had a gun/shotgun, they'd have returned fire once the dumbass started shooting at them. Seems like the guy is familiar enough with the FL laws that he concocted a fairy tale he hopes will sway 1 juror. Kind of interesting that all these high profile stand your ground cases involved armed adults scared to death of unarmed teenagers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 So in Florida if two armed men get into an angry argument the one that lives to talk about it wins and can claim that he stood his ground? It seems that they've legalized a less honorable version of old timey dueling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 You'd think if they had a gun/shotgun, they'd have returned fire once the dumbass started shooting at them. Seems like the guy is familiar enough with the FL laws that he concocted a fairy tale he hopes will sway 1 juror. Kind of interesting that all these high profile stand your ground cases involved armed adults scared to death of unarmed teenagers. It is not a stand your ground case w/o first demonstrating the almost universal self defense So in Florida if two armed men get into an angry argument the one that lives to talk about it wins and can claim that he stood his ground? It seems that they've legalized a less honorable version of old timey dueling. is justified. Not even the Zimmerman trial invoked stand your ground That idiot might think it applies,but he clearly ain't too bright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 The defense is doing a great job creating doubt in closing arguments, but I still don't think it's going to work. Dunn will at the very least get charged with manslaughter. If they had a gun, they would have returned fire. Plus Dunn would have told his gf they had a gun and called 911. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudechain Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I have been thinking about the Durango leaving the scene and it makes perfect sense. If someone is shooting at you, and your in a vehicle, chances are you will flee the scene. Then when they realized the extent of the injuries, they came back to the gas station for aid. I watched Dunn's testimony and I just don't buy his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 is justified. Not even the Zimmerman trial invoked stand your ground That idiot might think it applies,but he clearly ain't too bright. Justification is established by perceived "reasonable" threat. We've discussed this before and we've agreed that who starts an argument doesn't matter. So then two armed men in a argument could both draw their weapons and in doing so establish the other mans reasonable threat. The man left alive, successfully stood his ground, and walks away from this spontaneous duel having gained satisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 I have been thinking about the Durango leaving the scene and it makes perfect sense. If someone is shooting at you, and your in a vehicle, chances are you will flee the scene. Then when they realized the extent of the injuries, they came back to the gas station for aid. I watched Dunn's testimony and I just don't buy his argument. Yep. Fleeing the scene makes sense. But they were gone 3 minutes and never called 911 until they returned to the Gate. I have to admit, that is a little shady.In closing arguments, Strolla says that the other scene was never properly searched. He is doing a great job creating doubt. It may even be enough to gain his client a lesser charge. Strolla also made a great point about the child locks/window. And also did a nice job questioning why the state didn't call a ballistics expert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Yep. Fleeing the scene makes sense. But they were gone 3 minutes and never called 911 until they returned to the Gate. I have to admit, that is a little shady. I would agree that, to me, the more logical action would have been 1) flee the scene 2) when you get somewhere else, assess the damage. 3). "Hello, 911? Some loony at the convenience store just shot at us. We're at the grocery store, 2 blocks away, and I think Bobby might be dead." OTOH, to me, the only OTHER reason I can think of, to go back, is to resume the fight. And I don't see people coming back, to resume a fight with somebody who just shot at you, UNARMED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Justification is established by perceived "reasonable" threat. We've discussed this before and we've agreed that who starts an argument doesn't matter. So then two armed men in a argument could both draw their weapons and in doing so establish the other mans reasonable threat. The man left alive, successfully stood his ground, and walks away from this spontaneous duel having gained satisfaction. if you are arguing and someone draws a gun stand your ground does not apply....self defense law does If you chose to approach someone with a drawn gun it would....in that you had no duty to avoid him. stand your ground deals with the duty to retreat if it can be done w/o increased risk......it simply removes legal liability to avoid conflict, not excuses unjustifiable actions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinister Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 This guy is full of BS. Everything he's saying are code words to prey on the prejudices of the jury. His own fiance, who was in the store on the day of the fatal shooting testified that he never said anything to her about the teens having a gun. The Trayvon Martin case proved that if you say all of the code words (Young Black Male, I feared for my life, I thought I was about to die, I thought he had a weapon, or he was a street thug) the jury will fail to convict, especially if it's a predominately White jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 This guy is full of BS. Everything he's saying are code words to prey on the prejudices of the jury. His own fiance, who was in the store on the day of the fatal shooting testified that he never said anything to her about the teens having a gun. The Trayvon Martin case proved that if you say all of the code words (Young Black Male, I feared for my life, I thought was about to die, I thought he had a weapon, or he was a street thug) the jury will fail to convict, especially if it's a predominately White jury.The two trials are nothing alike. To compare them, tells me you didn't watch either trial. The evidence wasn't there to convict Zimmernan. It appears to be in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 You'd think if they had a gun/shotgun, they'd have returned fire once the dumbass started shooting at them. Seems like the guy is familiar enough with the FL laws that he concocted a fairy tale he hopes will sway 1 juror. Kind of interesting that all these high profile stand your ground cases involved armed adults scared to death of unarmed teenagers. If they had returned fire, 95 percent chance they would be the ones on trial for attempted murder right now. "Shootout in gas station - 4 black youths against one white middle class family man. They claim he shot first- LOL" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 If they had returned fire, 95 percent chance they would be the ones on trial for attempted murder right now. "Shootout in gas station - 4 black youths against one white middle class family man. They claim he shot first- LOL" Pretty sure if they had a gun they would be worried about saving their lives and not worrying about a trial lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudechain Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Yep. Fleeing the scene makes sense. But they were gone 3 minutes and never called 911 until they returned to the Gate. I have to admit, that is a little shady. In closing arguments, Strolla says that the other scene was never properly searched. He is doing a great job creating doubt. It may even be enough to gain his client a lesser charge. Strolla also made a great point about the child locks/window. And also did a nice job questioning why the state didn't call a ballistics expert. 3 minutes is not really a lot of time. Drive away into another parking lot, assess damage, and return to the gas station. You have to remember these are teenagers in a very stressful situation. In order to navigate to another parking lot and then return takes some time. Not to mention, the passengers in the Durango checking themselves for injuries and finding one of their party has been struck. I don't think 3 minutes is shady at all. The defense did make some pretty good arguments, and I can see a manslaughter conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 3 minutes is not really a lot of time. Drive away into another parking lot, assess damage, and return to the gas station. You have to remember these are teenagers in a very stressful situation. In order to navigate to another parking lot and then return takes some time. Not to mention, the passengers in the Durango checking themselves for injuries and finding one of their party has been struck. I don't think 3 minutes is shady at all. The defense did make some pretty good arguments, and I can see a manslaughter conviction. What I was saying was that 3 minutes was certainly long enough to dispose of a weapon and return a short ways back to the Gate. And it's a little shady that no one called 911 until they arrived back at the Gate. You would think they would have called 911 immediately.And part of me saying "shady" earlier was because the area they fled to was never searched. Again, I don't think they had a gun. I was just saying that the defense attorney did a great job of creating doubt in closing arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.