Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you blast music at home or in an open parking lot, that's your privilege.
When you impose yourself on others in public places, that is disrespectful and may be dealt with harshly.
He was disrespectful - he's dead.
Learn from this.
So, by your logic, if I pull into a store parking lot and park next to a car whose occupants are blasting christian music, it is my right to deal with it "harshly" by killing whoever happens to be in that car - because they were being disrespectful to me?
Well, that is why the jury will probably come back with 2DM or manslaughter.
The guy should have driven away after his sensible request was turned down or if he thought that his life was in danger from the people shouting obscenities and threats.
Not doing so caused him to play a role in furthering the confrontation and leading to the killing of Davis.
In that case, there are two scenarios that Harrier sees -
(a) Dunn was angry at Davis for ignoring him and he shot him. This would be a crime of passion and 2nd degree murder.
(b) Dunn felt threatened by the shouted threats and unruly group verbally accosting him and shot Davis in fear of his own life. Since he had chosen to remain on scene rather then leave, this would fall under the category of manslaughter and he would be convicted accordingly.
On the other hand, if the jury believes that a weapon was pointed at him, and that Dunn shot to defend himself against such a direct threat, then he will be fully acquitted.
What will not happen, and this is evident given the length of time the jury is taking and by the nature of their questions, is that Dunn will be convicted of 1st degree murder.
There is no way that the prosecution was able to prove pre-meditated malice.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 02-15-2014 at 05:35 PM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
Gang members are using SYG to kill their rivals and get away with murder.
Something wrong with that?
Yeah they walk around the streets the next day to murder an innocent person. Whereas prior to SYG the law would put them in prison for murder for life without parole and perhaps even give them the needle. Didn't matter if scum killed another piece of scum, scum deserves to be put in prison.
02-15-2014, 01:01 PM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinebar
So, by your logic, if I pull into a store parking lot and park next to a car whose occupants are blasting christian music, it is my right to deal with it "harshly" by killing whoever happens to be in that car - because they were being disrespectful to me?
Gotcha!'
Only if they're black. Then it's "thugs" being "disrespectful" and they deserve to be put down like rabid dogs, apparently.
Well, that is why the jury will probably come back with 2DM or manslaughter.
The guy should have driven away after his sensible request was turned down or if he thought that his life was in danger from the people shouting obscenities and threats.
Not doing so caused him to play a role in furthering the confrontation and leading to the killing of Davis.
In that case, there are two scenarios that Harrier sees -
(a) Dunn was angry at Davis for ignoring him and he shot him. This would be a crime of passion and 2nd degree murder.
(b) Dunn felt threatened by the shouted threats and unruly group verbally accosting him and shot Davis in fear of his own life. Since he had chosen to remain on scene rather then leave, this would fall under the category of manslaughter and he would be convicted accordingly.
On the other hand, if the jury believes that a weapon was pointed at him, and that Dunn shot to defend himself against such a direct threat, then he will be fully acquitted.
What will not happen, and this is evident given the length of time the jury is taking and by the nature of their questions, is that Dunn will be convicted of 1st degree murder.
There is no way that the prosecution was able to prove pre-meditated malice.
A homicide doesn't have to premeditated for a finding of malice. It is present in the number of rounds Dunn fired, some as his target was fleeing, and his callous behavior afterward.
I thought the Zimmerman case was over-charged, but in this case the DA filed the appropriate counts, based on the evidence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
