Larry Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I'm just having trouble figuring out ANY reason why somebody would return to the place where they got shot at, (and one of them killed), unarmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 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. if their client had any credibility it might matter, but I don't see it I'm just having trouble figuring out ANY reason why somebody would return to the place where they got shot at, (and one of them killed), unarmed. I agree there, only way I'm going back is under police escort....or to return the favor (and since they were not armed ,nada) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I'm just having trouble figuring out ANY reason why somebody would return to the place where they got shot at, (and one of them killed), unarmed. Perhaps they saw that the guy had left? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 I'm just having trouble figuring out ANY reason why somebody would return to the place where they got shot at, (and one of them killed), unarmed.Guy just pointed out what I said earlier. They returned because there were people and it was well lit, and they knew that Dunn had fled.No idea why they didn't immediately call 911 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Can someone explain something to me. In Florida is there a difference between the Stand Your Ground Law and a Stand Your Ground case? I keep hearing people say "This isn't a stand your ground case" (this was said in the GZ/TM trial too) however during closing arguments of both trials, the defense attorney instructed the jury that the defendant had no obligation to flee or try to get away and was justified in standing their ground. I am not sure how the stand your ground law doesn't play a part in these verdicts even if the trial itself is not considered a "stand your ground" case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Can someone explain something to me. In Florida is there a difference between the Stand Your Ground Law and a Stand Your Ground case? I keep hearing people say "This isn't a stand your ground case" (this was said in the GZ/TM trial too) however during closing arguments of both trials, the defense attorney instructed the jury that the defendant had no obligation to flee or try to get away and was justified in standing their ground. I am not sure how the stand your ground law doesn't play a part in these verdicts even if the trial itself is not considered a "stand your ground" case. Stand your ground removes the duty to flee and is the law dealing with exactly that and what is referred to as a case relevant to it. A case where there was no opportunity to flee is not a stand your ground case (like being pinned in the Zimmerman case) A case like this thread COULD be a stand your ground case IF self defense could be justified (since I see no evidence of self defense stand your ground is irrelevant) the jury here will also be instructed his failure to flee cannot be used to infer guilt The jury instruction contains all law relevant to the charge and will include the instruction guilt may not be inferred by the defendant not fleeing,in the same manner invoking the 5th cannot be,and numerous others the issue is muddled since stand your ground is included in other Florida law reform such as the 'stand your ground' hearings which do not require fleeing to even be a factor to be used....it is used as a catchall term for reform efforts the short answer is a SYG case is one where duty to flee would result in charges that self defense law would not clear as mud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Guy just pointed out what I said earlier. They returned because there were people and it was well lit, and they knew that Dunn had fled. No idea why they didn't immediately call 911 though. being shot at does strange things to rational thinking add it is possible they took the time to dispose of weapons,drugs,dead hookers and the illegal immigrant in the back ....and the defense is entitled to infer it the jury on the other hand is instructed on the law and facts in evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudechain Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 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. Why is it a little "shady" they did not call till back at the gas station? This was a very stressful situation, and these were teenagers. Teenagers don't always think rationally anyways then put them into a situation like this and I can't quantify it as "shady". What's "shady" is why Dunn did not call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 What's "shady" is why Dunn did not call. That to me blows his credibility to hell(combined with gf not seeing a gun) The day I unload a clip into a carload of people in a store parking lot and not call the cops is the day I'm wanting to avoid answering questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 Why is it a little "shady" they did not call till back at the gas station? This was a very stressful situation, and these were teenagers. Teenagers don't always think rationally anyways then put them into a situation like this and I can't quantify it as "shady". What's "shady" is why Dunn did not call. Dude, you're not reading my posts. The shady comment is when you combine everything together. They were gone 3 minutes. Had a DYING friend in their car. ALL 3 guys had phones. All I'm saying is that it creates a little doubt in the minds of the jurors, that just maybe, they did have a gun and were disposing of it during those 3 minutes.Again, based on the testimony, I don't think they had one. I just think the defense did a nice job in closing arguements of creating doubt. Especially considering the area the teens fled to was not properly searched. And OF COURSE it's shady Dunn or his gf didn't call 911. No one said it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 double post That to me blows his credibility to hell(combined with gf not seeing a gun) The day I unload a clip into a carload of people in a store parking lot and not call the cops is the day I'm wanting to avoid answering questions The scary part is he may have gotten away with it, had the one guy not written down his tag number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdcskins Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 It's obvious to me that Dunn made up seeing the teens with a gun. He had to have an excuse for angrily unloading into their vehicle. His actions afterwards confirms his culpability. By the way fleeing the scene for 3 minutes then returning is completely normal. 3 minutes is nothing. I'm amazed they came back that quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudechain Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Dude, you're not reading my posts. The shady comment is when you combine everything together. They were gone 3 minutes. Had a DYING friend in their car. ALL 3 guys had phones. All I'm saying is that it creates a little doubt in the minds of the jurors, that just maybe, they did have a gun and were disposing of it during those 3 minutes. Again, based on the testimony, I don't think they had one. I just think the defense did a nice job in closing arguements of creating doubt. Especially considering the area the teens fled to was not properly searched. And OF COURSE it's shady Dunn or his gf didn't call 911. No one said it wasn't. DUDE I did read your post and I think I stated quite well why I don't think the fact they were gone three minutes is not "shady" Your the one who said it was "shady" so I have to assume you actually think the fact they were gone three minutes is "shady" or why even put that out there? You stated in post 42 "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." Again, the mind of a teenager is quite different than that of an adult. It's been quite a while since I was a teenager myself, but I do have to interact with them often. Three minutes to travel to an adjacent parking lot, check themselves for wounds, all the while adrenaline is coursing through their bloodstreams. ( not exactly prime conditions for rational thought) Then they have to get back onto the road, turn around and go the other direction and return to the gas station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 DUDE I did read your post and I think I stated quite well why I don't think the fact they were gone three minutes is not "shady" Your the one who said it was "shady" so I have to assume you actually think the fact they were gone three minutes is "shady" or why even put that out there? You stated in post 42 "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." Again, the mind of a teenager is quite different than that of an adult. It's been quite a while since I was a teenager myself, but I do have to interact with them often. Three minutes to travel to an adjacent parking lot, check themselves for wounds, all the while adrenaline is coursing through their bloodstreams. ( not exactly prime conditions for rational thought) Then they have to get back onto the road, turn around and go the other direction and return to the gas station. The shopping center they fled to was adjacent to the Gate. Would have taken a matter of seconds to return back. It's just a little bit odd why they wouldn't immediately call 911 when their friend is dying. It doesn't take an adult to realize someone is dying.At any rate, I think you're reading too much into that post. I was only pointing out that it wasn't impossible that things could have happened differently. Not likely, but possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Did the police find a gun in the adjacent parking lot? If not, the point is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 Did the police find a gun in the adjacent parking lot? If not, the point is moot.The area wasn't searched. That was a major point the defense made in closing arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 If the police department is supposed to be so biased toward people who aren't black, then you'd think they would have searched that place with a fine toothed comb. But why would the teens have ditched a gun in an open lot? That doesn't make a lot of sense. I believe the testimony of his GF, and that testimony will convict him, along with him fleeing the scene, and not reporting it to the police as soon as it happened. All this talk of the teens not calling 911, how about Dunn not calling 911 and staying at the scene? Signs of a guilty man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveFromYellowstone Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 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 Honestly sometimes I wonder if you're right and not everyone should have a vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudechain Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 The shopping center they fled to was adjacent to the Gate. Would have taken a matter of seconds to return back. It's just a little bit odd why they wouldn't immediately call 911 when their friend is dying. It doesn't take an adult to realize someone is dying. At any rate, I think you're reading too much into that post. I was only pointing out that it wasn't impossible that things could have happened differently. Not likely, but possible. The shopping center they fled to was adjacent to the Gate. Would have taken a matter of seconds to return back. It's just a little bit odd why they wouldn't immediately call 911 when their friend is dying. It doesn't take an adult to realize someone is dying. At any rate, I think you're reading too much into that post. I was only pointing out that it wasn't impossible that things could have happened differently. Not likely, but possible. even being adjacent to the gas station, it still takes time to leave a gas station, pull into a parking lot, realize someone has been struck, and then return to the gas station. And I am only reading the exact words you put out there. Those words in Post #42 "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." So what is "shady"? Because they had ample opportunity to dispose of an weapon? Because they don't fit your timeline? Because teenagers might not be thinking in a rational fashion during such a situation? I think it might be you looking to much into a situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 If the police department is supposed to be so biased toward people who aren't black, then you'd think they would have searched that place with a fine toothed comb. But why would the teens have ditched a gun in an open lot? That doesn't make a lot of sense. I believe the testimony of his GF, and that testimony will convict him, along with him fleeing the scene, and not reporting it to the police as soon as it happened. All this talk of the teens not calling 911, how about Dunn not calling 911 and staying at the scene? Signs of a guilty man. The police probably didn't search the other scene because at the time they weren't aware of a gun, since Dunn had fled the scene. As for why the teens would have cause to ditch a gun. Well, if Dunn didn't leave and that was his story, that Davis had a gun, well... Furthermore, the driver of the SUV was on probation. And if a gun were found in his possession, he was in deep doo doo. Again, the 911 thing is just a little odd. I'm in no way saying that by them not immediately calling 911, that they are guilty of anything. Don't know how many times I have to explain this. My point is, if you had watched Strolla's closing arguments, you would understand how he did a decent job of creating doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Again, the 911 thing is just a little odd. I'm in no way saying that by them not immediately calling 911, that they are guilty of anything. Don't know how many times I have to explain this. My point is, if you had watched Strolla's closing arguments, you would understand how he did a decent job of creating doubt. Not to put a fine point on it, but he did a good job of creating doubt in the minds of people like you. As we saw in the Travon threads, you are inclined to give every benefit of the doubt to the guy who uses his firearm and then claims self defense, even sometimes using your imagination to embellish the evidence and reasonable inferences that can be drawn. I tend the other way, I admit it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Again, the 911 thing is just a little odd. I'm in no way saying that by them not immediately calling 911, that they are guilty of anything. Don't know how many times I have to explain this. My point is, if you had watched Strolla's closing arguments, you would understand how he did a decent job of creating doubt.I get ya, Bubble. The kids not calling 911 is odd, but what Dunn did was even more odd, and since he's the one who fired & killed, you're fairly sure he'll be convicted, despite his attorney's raising doubt. That's pretty much where I stand too, if I've understood you correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Maybe it's just the fact that my experience with criminal justice comes from tv, but I get the impression that things have really changed. The impression I had was that, in The Old Days, if you kill somebody, then they better be in your living room, AND they better have a gun, AND you better have shot them in the front. If the gun is in their hand, that's better. Now days, it seems like the rule is more like "there has to be a chance that maybe you were scared, OR the person you killed did something which in some way made things worse". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 13, 2014 Author Share Posted February 13, 2014 I get ya, Bubble. The kids not calling 911 is odd, but what Dunn did was even more odd, and since he's the one who fired & killed, you're fairly sure he'll be convicted, despite his attorney's raising doubt. That's pretty much where I stand too, if I've understood you correctly. YES! I think Dunn is guilty is hell. And I didn't think he had a prayer of getting off until Strolla gave his closing arguments. All I know is that if I was one of Davis' friends that night I would have immediately called 911 so that I could get help for my friend as soon as possible. That's the point I was trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Is the Jury deliberating or are they off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.