Bubble Screen Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 Ysuf: One or two jurors wanted first degree murder. The rest 2nd. It is so obvious, it's not funny. If Dunn were up for 2nd degree (the correct charge), he would have been convicted of 2nd degree across the board. The problem that those 10 or 11 jurors had with murder 1, is that, using common sense, most people don't consider that type of murder as premeditated, despite the law stating that it can be formed rather quickly. And that's simply because most don't think he planned to kill anyone that night. And Dunn can appeal all he wants, there was nothing that came out of that trial that suggests he could win an appeal. You can't fire at an unarmed vehicle that is fleeing anymore than you can fire at an unarmed burglar that runs from your house. Remember, you can't shoot someone in the back and claim self defense, when that person is no threat to you. That's essentially why Dunn was convicted of 3 counts of attempted murder in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 If I'm Dunn's attorney I argue that he was shooting at Davis, not at the others. Since he wasn't the driver, Davis if not sufficiently injured, could have turned and shot at Dunn as the vehicle was leaving. "It was merely suppresive fire. Heck, I wasn't even trying to hit anyone, I just wanted to keep Davis' head down so he couldn't shoot at me." Quite honestly, this is a reasonable response to why he was shooting at a fleeing vehicle. Again, the jury only has to be convinced that Dunn was scared he'd be shot at which by definition means he was in fear of his life or grave injury. Now if his prior testimony rules that position out, that's another thing but he'd have been stupid not to make this point from the beginning. It fits too well with his story and he had a long time to think about what he was going to say before being arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 His attorney/Dunn tried to explain why he shot at the fleeing vehicle. The jury didn't buy it. And, quite frankly, no jury is going to buy it. And it's because they didn't buy his self defense theory. Ysuf: The thing that probably sealed Dunn's fate the most is him not telling his gf that those teens had a gun. That would have made his story a LOT more believable. Strolla was brilliant in closing arguments by pointing out to the jury that the secondary scene was not properly searched. However, since Dunn didn't bother calling 911 OR telling his gf the teens had a gun, the police didnt know at the time there even was a gun. And let's be honest here, who fires at an armed SUV (his story) and doesn't call 911? Furthermore, he then drives to his hotel and leaves his gun in the glovebox. And then gets on the stand and tries to explain that he was fearful that the teens were going to show up at the hotel lol. COME ON, no one is buying that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 The DA already stated they are going to try him again for Murder 1.. Is it Murder 1 or nothing? Or can they find guilty on lesser charge? Personally I'd convict for murder 1 based on the facts I've heard, but it's going to be difficult to find 12 jurors in agreement on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 . Is it Murder 1 or nothing? Or can they find guilty on lesser charge? Personally I'd convict for murder 1 based on the facts I've heard, but it's going to be difficult to find 12 jurors in agreement on that.It's my understanding they could still find him guilty of a lesser charge on the murder 1 charge.I can understand the outrage people have if there were a juror or two that wanted to acquit on the murder 1 count. But I would bet anything that it was between murder 1 and murder 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 It's my understanding they could still find him guilty of a lesser charge on the murder 1 charge, alone. The first jury could too...let's hope the next one has a pair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Here's hoping someone gets to him in prison so there's no need for another trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Here's hoping someone gets to him in prison so there's no need for another trial.There's already no need for another trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Meaning someone got to him already or they expedited the retrial and he was convicted of murder 2 or manslaughter this time around? Otherwise I'd beg to differ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 . Is it Murder 1 or nothing? Or can they find guilty on lesser charge? Personally I'd convict for murder 1 based on the facts I've heard, but it's going to be difficult to find 12 jurors in agreement on that. Remember this is Angela Corey. The same DA that tried to push Murder 2 on Zimmerman. She is not doing this for the sake of justice, she is attempting to make a political point, get her name out there, and weaken Florida's SYG laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Remember this is Angela Corey. The same DA that tried to push Murder 2 on Zimmerman. She is not doing this for the sake of justice, she is attempting to make a political point, get her name out there, and weaken Florida's SYG laws. Yeah, she couldn't possibly think that when someone pulls a gun and fires into the center of mass of an unarmed person, that Murder is the appropriate charge. Obviously, it's part of the anti-gun conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Monday's Daily Show opened with a segment on this trial. Like many Daily Show segments, they don't really go into depth, but instead focus on getting as many laughs as possible. BUT, there were some parts of the segment(s) that were real hoots. Including something Dunn said in one of his letters from prison. Their guest is Kevin Spacey, of House of Cards, who goes into his observations of Congress he accumulated when he was shadowing both the majority and minority Whips. (It's scary.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Yeah, she couldn't possibly think that when someone pulls a gun and fires into the center of mass of an unarmed person, that Murder is the appropriate charge. Obviously, it's part of the anti-gun conspiracy. All you have to do is research her background and political connections. She's over-reaching to be seen as "tough." If this had been a murder 2 charge, Dunn would have been convicted. So unless she's seeking a death penalty, then she is simply wasting tax dollars to push a political agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Meaning someone got to him already or they expedited the retrial and he was convicted of murder 2 or manslaughter this time around? Otherwise I'd beg to differ.Meaning Dunn is already facing life in prison, so there's no need to retry him. Especially when its not a given he would be convicted of murder 1 this time either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Meaning someone got to him already or they expedited the retrial and he was convicted of murder 2 or manslaughter this time around? Otherwise I'd beg to differ. Meaning he will serve 3 consecutive sentences of 20 years. He will be over 100 when he is eligible for release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 That Daily Show segment I linked, earlier, includes a comment Dunn made that kinda shows his opinion of the Prison Experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abdcskins Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Update - Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Justice is served Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Update - Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder. Kinda surprised, myself. I wouldn't have convicted him of first degree. I've heard no evidence supporting premeditation. (And I have a serious moral problem with this notion that well, if somebody AIMED, then that's premeditation"). But I'm not going to get outraged over it not being Murder 2, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubble Screen Posted October 1, 2014 Author Share Posted October 1, 2014 Murder 1 wasn't the right charge, but he would have died in prison either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Kinda surprised, myself. I wouldn't have convicted him of first degree. I've heard no evidence supporting premeditation. (And I have a serious moral problem with this notion that well, if somebody AIMED, then that's premeditation"). But I'm not going to get outraged over it not being Murder 2, either. I'd imagine that he armed himself during the incidence factored heavily there, in affect choosing to escalate w/o justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 No one understands premeditation. It doesn't mean sitting at home with a picture of the victim on a dart board. It can be formed in the millisecond prior to the act. I think it was the right call here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 No one understands premeditation. It doesn't mean sitting at home with a picture of the victim on a dart board. It can be formed in the millisecond prior to the act. Please feel free to bless all the ignorant people who do not possess the absolute knowledge which you, and only you, possess. I would think that a good way to do so, would by to create a hypothetical example of a situation in which Murder 2 is the correct charge, under your so far unannounced standard. Some imaginary situation in which it can be proven that a person intended to kill, (and to kill an innocent person, as opposed to in self defense), but who it can also be proven did not think about his actions for a millisecond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 not that hard....if the guy was already carrying it is not premeditated(unless you demonstrate that is why he chose to carry) to react to a perceived threat. he chose to arm himself after initiating contact demonstrating a premeditation to introduce deadly force (since he clearly did not prove a threat existed) if there is a demonstrable threat arming is ok.....just as arming in general is (subject to local laws) I think the millisecond bit is overstated but it is a liberal interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 not that hard....if the guy was already carrying it is not premeditated(unless you demonstrate that is why he chose to carry) to react to a perceived threat. Then it's self defense. And it's not Murder 2, it's no crime at all. (I will also throw the "Zimmerman got out of his car" line at you, too.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.