Here we go again...white guy shoots black kid

Davey Jones

Davey Jones

Well-known Member
Location
Florida
Jacksonville, Florida (CNN) -- A jury on Saturday night convicted a Florida man on four charges related to his shooting into an SUV full of teenagers during an argument over loud music, but could not decide on the most serious charge -- murder.

A black mnister leading a possible riot for not getting the murder charge too.

The 4 guilty verdict mean a possible 20 years for EACH charge,what the hell more do they want?
Its not going to bring the dead teen back.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/justice/florida-loud-music-trial/
 

What an evil piece of scum!:mad: It is about time the love affair the US has with firearms came to an end!
 
I'm with you on that Justme, we need to take that constitution and burn it at a town meeting. Those scumbag news reporters need to be held accountable for what they say, no more free speech for them. And speaking of love affairs I couldn't be happier with the new gay laws. I can't think of a better way to keep them from reproducing.
 

Wow, R2D2, Did you have a bad night? Burn our Constitution, no more free speech, no more reproducing? I certainly hope I am taking this the wrong way or I may say a few things that I'm sure Matrix will not allow. May I suggest if you want to post negative things, go to Topix.com. They love this crap.
 
no--- actually I'm 120% NRA, but not a gay constitutionalist, unless I wear certain sweaters then my wife "that really looks ---" glad you caught the r2d2 though, rt3 is the other drug made besides t3 when t4 is converted, however rt3 is a competitive inhibitor, if your into football sort of a linebacker of the thyroid crowd.
 
the white guy didn't shoot the kid because of the music, he complained the music was to loud, to which the kids told him to "take a flying leap (polite version)" and the one that was shot pulled a shining something from his coat, and the guy thought it was a gun. so he beat him to the draw, except no gun was found in the vehicle.
 
Rt3, I knew how your post was intended, thanks for the morning smile. That guy Dunn was a jerk, who was way out of line, and I agree he should have received the maximum murder charge. But the jury decided, and he got the next best thing.

Race doesn't matter, when a senseless murder is committed an innocent life is lost. Again, another opportunity for the gun control activists to point the finger at the gun itself. It's the person who committed the crime, and the gun was just a tool, just like a knife, hammer, rope, or anything else people have used to kill each other.

White man again? We wouldn't be talking about Zimmerman as the other white man, would we? BTW, he was also a jerk who went looking for trouble and overstepped his bounds. He obviously wanted to play hero, and had mental issues, violence seemed to be in his life all the time.

If Zimmerman raped your daughter in her bedroom and escaped, would your daughter describe him to the cops as a white man? Lol, I don't think so. Now that was definitely racial bias brought on by a biased government agenda and news media. Zimmerman is Hispanic or latino at best, he wouldn't be checking any Caucasian or white boxes on any official forms.
 
I think Mr. Dunn got what amounted to double jeopardy. He should not have been charged with counts 2, 3, 4, or 5. His stand his ground defense, allows him to shoot a firearm. It allows him to shoot at the car, it allows him to shoot with three other people in the car and not be charged, He should only have been charged with murder, which was a mistrial. In this case all the other charges were pile ons and should not be allowed by an appeals court. You see as it stands, the prosecutor charged him so she couldn't miss. It should not stand, and not legal charges. These people will appeal this double jeopardy as they should. Or, I would accept five years, then suspend it, just to be fair.
 
drifter said:
I think Mr. Dunn got what amounted to double jeopardy. He should not have been charged with counts 2, 3, 4, or 5. His stand his ground defense, allows him to shoot a firearm. It allows him to shoot at the car, it allows him to shoot with three other people in the car and not be charged, He should only have been charged with murder, which was a mistrial. In this case all the other charges were pile ons and should not be allowed by an appeals court. You see as it stands, the prosecutor charged him so she couldn't miss. It should not stand, and not legal charges. These people will appeal this double jeopardy as they should. Or, I would accept five years, then suspend it, just to be fair.
Click to expand...

So, the prosecutor took the "shotgun" approach . . . ahahahaha...
 
His stand his ground defense, allows him to shoot a firearm.
Click to expand...

that "stand your ground " is just crap ,there was absolutely no other weapon found. All he had to do is walk away from the scene. He killed another human being,his life was not in danger so he needs to pay with life In Prison.
 
Well Davey. Of course none of us were there but just to make a point his life doesn't have to be in danger as long as he has reason to THINK his life may be in danger. I think maybe that was a cause for some doubt among the jury.

I know it's hard to resist second guessing but we all need to learn to accept a jurys verdict. That is the core of our legal system. I'm sure the jury heard a lot more evidence than what we saw on the news.
 
Color-Stand-you-ground-law.jpg
 
I think he should have shot the Easter bunny also, what the heck has bunnies and eggs got to do with easter. Now a groundhog I can see, both coming out of a cave and seeing their shadow that is. Or maybe it was because JC was really a Pisces -- I' confused.

anyway the murder charge didn't stick because he thought he was in danger. , The first thing you are taught in gunfighting school (Gunsight, Thunder Ranch) is shooting at a car full of people is on the big no list. 1) occupants may be hostages, not participants, 2) other occupants do not pose an immediate threat 3) you don't have enough bullets. It would seem the jury felt the stand your ground didn't apply here.

Stand your ground is part of larger body of law, castle doctrine, that says you can protect your defensive perimeter. Some states don't have it. Some do (free states). It simply means you don't have to retreat form the threat. An armed society is a polite society.
 
Different rules,different situations.
I always retreat from any bad situation weither my life is in danger or not but if I had a gun Im suppose to stand my ground and start shooting,in panic, where I think those bullets are coming from? I dont think so.
People in those mall,schools etc ran for their safety but if they all carried a gun they should stand their ground and start shooting,in panic,of anything that moves?? I dont think so.

NO,Im not a member of the NRA and I dont want to follow their rules.
Shoot first ask questions later.
 
The thing about concealed carry is you don't know who is packin. NRA doesn't have any rules, not sure where you got that you are confused. If they had a rule it is they are opposed to anyone who is opposed to changing or violating the 2nd amendment-- which keeps them pretty busy. They have no shoot first rules, however My rule is shoot first, then shoot some more, let the police ask the questions. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck shoot it. (If lethal force is directed to you, respond accordingly, whereas you would probably ask them what time it was because it was time to go. The malls you are talking about are in non-free states. In the states of Idaho, Mont., Ariz., Utah, Nevada, Wyo., Colorado (a non-free state), New Mexico mostly Oregon, Washington, Texas, Florida, Missouri, etc. 50% if the population is packing. I think Utah has something like 65% of the population (qualified) has concealed carry permits with Texas following a close 2nd. Trained shooters don't shoot in panic they shoot at a lethal threat to themselves or their family.
 
should add-- while your doing screenings on the internet to support your view, also screen for the use of firearms by citizens on a daily basis to protect themselves and prevent crime
 
rt3 said:
should add-- while your doing screenings on the internet to support your view, also screen for the use of firearms by citizens on a daily basis to protect themselves and prevent crime
Click to expand...

As a general rule those kinds of stories are squashed - don't want those armed citizens getting too uppity! :crushed:

MUCH better to stir them up into a lather with stories of mass shootings where everyone dies, so they'll be scared enough to allow the government to baby-sit them even more efficiently ...
 
rt3 said:
The thing about concealed carry is you don't know who is packin. NRA doesn't have any rules, not sure where you got that you are confused. If they had a rule it is they are opposed to anyone who is opposed to changing or violating the 2nd amendment-- which keeps them pretty busy. Trained shooters don't shoot in panic they shoot at a lethal threat to themselves or their family.
Click to expand...

Well said Rt3, this is always the fall back argument of the gun control followers. Law abiding citizens do not go around having shootouts for no reason. It is a fact that cities/states with strict gun laws have more gun crime, by those criminals and mentally ill people who get their guns illegally off the streets. If a criminal knows that the people in the house have no guns to protect themselves, they are much more likely to go in there and rob, rape and murder their 'sitting duck' victims. In areas where people are known to carry and have guns, the criminal must think twice, and usually will not even attempt to do anything harmful. As you've said before, and I agree, an armed society is a polite society.

In this case, Dunn was out of line, and acting like a bully. What gives him the right to demand that those teens lower their radio. I would have reacted the same way with that jerk. In my case though, I wouldn't be blasting the music like that, and would have at least been considerate of others around me, and lowered it temporarily if needed. I wonder how Dunn would have reacted if they were blasting a song that he liked instead of rap, maybe he'd start tapping his foot to the rhythm, and keep his nose out of it. If there are noise-control laws in the area, then the officials can take care of loud music, etc. This guy had no right to even have started anything.

 
Just my point of view,thats all.
We're all old enough to respect others opinions especially on this site.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top