christiefan915
Catalyst
<snip>
But then, you're patently dumb when it comes to the law, economics and debate.
Somebody of your magnificence should be ruling the world. </sarcasm>
But instead here you are, posting invective on a message board.
<snip>
But then, you're patently dumb when it comes to the law, economics and debate.
Looks like they are close to a verdict...
they just asked two questions...
can we have a 30 min break?
and Can we come back with a verdict on some counts and no verdict on others?
The judge answered yes to both questions.
Somebody of your magnificence should be ruling the world. </sarcasm>
But instead here you are, posting invective on a message board.
I saw it this morning on the news. The guy appears to feel nothing, he's whacked.
can someone give me NON-BIASED cliffnotes of this case?
What are both sides claiming?
What is the available evidence?
Further words were exchanged and Dunn saying he felt threatened, claims Jirdan threatened to kill him and hit out if car, opens fire on vehicle which was leaving the station, Jordan was hit and killed. Dunn claims to have seen a barrel of a gun or a stick or some type of weapon and that is why he opened fire. Driver if car stated that he did not hear the confrontation but it was heated and Jordan did not leave the vehicle.
I tried to be unbiased.
Somebody of your magnificence should be ruling the world. </sarcasm>
But instead here you are, posting invective on a message board.
Now try it in English.![]()
I didn't know this was an essay writing contest.
Dunn after attending a wedding and 3 or 4 drinks pulls into a station to purchase wine and chips to take back to hotel room. Car next to a Dunn playing loud music. Dunn asks them to turn it down, driver complies, but then Jordan Davis tells his friend "fuck that, turn it up" or something to that effect. Further words were exchanged and Dunn saying he felt threatened, claims Jordan threatened to kill him and got out of car, opens fire on vehicle which was leaving the station, Jordan was hit and killed. Dunn claims to have seen a barrel of a gun or a stick or some type of weapon and that is why he opened fire.
Driver if car stated that he did not hear the confrontation but it was heated and Jordan did not leave the vehicle.
Fiancé of Dunn claims he did not mention a gun when they left station and returned to hotel room where they ordered pizza before leaving the hotel and returning home.
When they reached home Dunn made a call to the police identifying himself as the shooter.
Those are the details I know.
I tried to be unbiased.
Can someone explain to me how this is murder in the first degree?
They both look like total assholes.![]()
Nearly seven months after a jury acquitted George Zimmerman, whose shooting of an unarmed black teenager made him synonymous with Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, the state’s latest drama involving a fatal burst of gunfire and a claim of self-defense began to play out Thursday in a courtroom.
A prosecutor and a defense lawyer presented divergent theories about the motive for what took place at a convenience store.
Assistant State Attorney John Guy, who was part of the team that prosecuted Zimmerman last year, portrayed Michael Dunn who killed Jordan Davis as “fueled by anger” after hearing what he described to his fiancée as “thug music.”
Cory Strolla, Dunn’s lawyer, said that Dunn had been compelled to act and pulled a handgun from the glove compartment of his car only after he felt endangered.
“Jordan Davis threatened Michael Dunn,” Strolla told the sequestered group of 16 jurors.
Strolla added: “He was getting out of the car with a weapon after telling Dunn, ‘You’re dead.’ ” According to Strolla, Davis also used an expletive during that exchange.
Officials retrieved what a prosecutor described as a "pocketknife" from Davis.
Strolla never invoked Stand Your Ground during his opening statement, centered on a shooting he called “tragic.” But he made it clear that he believed Florida law offered Dunn legal cover.
“Michael Dunn had every right under the law to not be a victim,” Strolla said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/07/us/trial-brings-new-scrutiny-of-self-defense-laws.html
You said you watched the live feed of the trial, what do you think Jarod.
You think the jury will convict or find him innocent?
I think that's because by mid day a consensus has been built and the juror are doing their civic duty and scrutinizing the details before they finalize their decisions.
that's fucking hilarious coming from the guy with about three thousand threads about Hillary alone!
:lol:
ok he's screwed. I guess jury is probably deciding on the attempted murder charges as well or something like that. (i started catching up on this case recentl)
but man, his wife to be really hung him out to dry on this one O_O
Not smart enough to do your own research, Mr. Doesn't-know-his-butt-from-a-hole-in-the-ground?