GUILTY FL - Jordan Davis, 17, shot to death, Satellite Beach, 23 Nov 2012 #1

[mobeydick]

Yes, it seems Mr. Dunn was on the run! Flagrant consciousness of guilt!

Going to his home is on the run?

 

[mobeydick]

Whatever the defense says isn't necessarily so and the defense knows that what they say in the media may serve to contaminate the jury to the defense's benefit!

What would you say if everything the shooter claims is proven true!

 

[fran]

Ok, so it's come out in the MSM that ONE of the injurred teenagers had a previous run in with the law, which was at the time of the death of his dad. This fact doesn't change the dynamics of this case at all. The only one saying the teens had a weapon (which has NOT been located by LE) and the only one saying the teens threatened him is the shooter.

Burglarizing cars is a far cry from having a weapon. It is a nonviolent crime. The teen has apologized to the victims and he's been serving probation. Yes he was out past his court appointed curfew that fateful night, but that has nothing to do with his friend being shot dead in the same car he was in. It isn't justification for ANYONE to open fire on an occupied car.

Playing loud music is not a crime. Shooting an unarmed teenager is a crime. Perhaps the teens could have avoided trouble by not playing their music so loud, but the shooter didn't have to park next to the teens either.

While we're at it, perhaps they should do mental evaluations on people before they purchase a gun or get a permit to carry. Which, btw, they haven't been able to verify this guy had a permit to carry. From everything brought out in the MSM, the only possible crime here is shooting a person who was not doing any harm to the shooter. The deceased victim was in the back seat of the car.

So listen you all, please do NOT sleuth the victims. The just linked article is ok, because it is MSM. But let's not go there that he was looking for trouble. Like I said, loud music is not a capital crime punishable by death.

Let's not re-victimize the victims here.

TIA
fran

 

[mobeydick]

Ok, so it's come out in the MSM that ONE of the injurred teenagers had a previous run in with the law, which was at the time of the death of his dad. This fact doesn't change the dynamics of this case at all. The only one saying the teens had a weapon (which has NOT been located by LE) and the only one saying the teens threatened him is the shooter.

Burglarizing cars is a far cry from having a weapon. It is a nonviolent crime. The teen has apologized to the victims and he's been serving probation. Yes he was out past his court appointed curfew that fateful night, but that has nothing to do with his friend being shot dead in the same car he was in. It isn't justification for ANYONE to open fire on an occupied car.

Playing loud music is not a crime. Shooting an unarmed teenager is a crime. Perhaps the teens could have avoided trouble by not playing their music so loud, but the shooter didn't have to park next to the teens either.

While we're at it, perhaps they should do mental evaluations on people before they purchase a gun or get a permit to carry. Which, btw, they haven't been able to verify this guy had a permit to carry. From everything brought out in the MSM, the only possible crime here is shooting a person who was not doing any harm to the shooter. The deceased victim was in the back seat of the car.

So listen you all, please do NOT sleuth the victims. The just linked article is ok, because it is MSM. But let's not go there that he was looking for trouble. Like I said, loud music is not a capital crime punishable by death.

Let's not re-victimize the victims here.

TIA
fran

At this point I'm not sure the teenagers are the victims!

55 year old people with no criminal record shoot teenagers all the time for no reason (playing their music too loud), do they not?! I have to assume you think the shooter thought this is a good day to change his life forever, <modsnip>

 

[mobeydick]

Ok, so it's come out in the MSM that ONE of the injurred teenagers had a previous run in with the law, which was at the time of the death of his dad. This fact doesn't change the dynamics of this case at all. The only one saying the teens had a weapon (which has NOT been located by LE) and the only one saying the teens threatened him is the shooter.

Burglarizing cars is a far cry from having a weapon. It is a nonviolent crime. The teen has apologized to the victims and he's been serving probation. Yes he was out past his court appointed curfew that fateful night, but that has nothing to do with his friend being shot dead in the same car he was in. It isn't justification for ANYONE to open fire on an occupied car.

Playing loud music is not a crime. Shooting an unarmed teenager is a crime. Perhaps the teens could have avoided trouble by not playing their music so loud, but the shooter didn't have to park next to the teens either.

While we're at it, perhaps they should do mental evaluations on people before they purchase a gun or get a permit to carry. Which, btw, they haven't been able to verify this guy had a permit to carry. From everything brought out in the MSM, the only possible crime here is shooting a person who was not doing any harm to the shooter. The deceased victim was in the back seat of the car.

So listen you all, please do NOT sleuth the victims. The just linked article is ok, because it is MSM. But let's not go there that he was looking for trouble. Like I said, loud music is not a capital crime punishable by death.

Let's not re-victimize the victims here.

TIA
fran

Maybe you know, I don't, what evidence leads anyone to believe the shooter has lied about what happened. There doesn't appear to a histroy of him with voilent behavior.

BTW: I don't think a permit is required in Florida to have one in your car!

 

[Hatfield]

Hello Fran,

I want to follow all our TOS here and definitely agree that we should not re-victimize a victim and we have to go on the facts as we know it to date from MSM + articles. I am just confused by some of what you say because it seems there are assumptions being made that may not end up true. So, to help us learn how to properly post here, I listed some responses to your post and would appreciate it you could clarify.
I am not trying to argue at all and am being polite and just want to better learn and this is a good example to me.

Ok, so it's come out in the MSM that ONE of the injurred teenagers had a previous run in with the law, which was at the time of the death of his dad. This fact doesn't change the dynamics of this case at all.

The only one saying the teens had a weapon (which has NOT been located by LE) and the only one saying the teens threatened him is the shooter. But should we just totally ignore what the lawyer said on JVM that he is alleging there was a shotgun being used to threaten him? It was on MSM that he is alleging a shotgun was there. To me, that is a critical part of this case that will need to be proved one way or another by a jury, but I am not sure we should pretend he never alleged it was there. If we ignore he is saying that, aren't we picking and choosing what things are being said in a case?

Burglarizing cars is a far cry from having a weapon. It is a nonviolent crime.
Just a comment that I disagree it is a non-violent crime because something like smashing car windows to me is violent. Usuallly something like a crowbar or bat is used when breaking into cars and I find that pretty violent. I guess it is just an opinion I have.

The teen has apologized to the victims and he's been serving probation. Yes he was out past his court appointed curfew that fateful night, but that has nothing to do with his friend being shot dead in the same car he was in. It isn't justification for ANYONE to open fire on an occupied car.

Playing loud music is not a crime.

Shooting an unarmed teenager is a crime. The lawyer on JVM is saying he ws armed, so I think we have to wait until something is proven one way or the other. From reading about this case, I can't agree yet he was unarmed. Right now, it seems to be a he-said / she-said type of thing. Maybe videos will surface.

Perhaps the teens could have avoided trouble by not playing their music so loud, but the shooter didn't have to park next to the teens either.

While we're at it, perhaps they should do mental evaluations on people before they purchase a gun or get a permit to carry. I totally agree with this and have always wished they would do more for people applying. Great point.

Which, btw, they haven't been able to verify this guy had a permit to carry. From everything brought out in the MSM, the only possible crime here is shooting a person who was not doing any harm to the shooter. Again, him and his lawyer are saying he was armed with a shotgun, so I just disagree here until something is proven one way or another.


The deceased victim was in the back seat of the car.

So listen you all, please do NOT sleuth the victims. The just linked article is ok, because it is MSM. But let's not go there that he was looking for trouble. Like I said, loud music is not a capital crime punishable by death.

Let's not re-victimize the victims here. I totally agree. I dont think it is revictimizing anyone to review all sides and all MSM sources like JVM, etc. and not pick and choose certain aspects of a case. By ignoring that him and his lawyer are claiming he was armed with a shotgun seems like we are being bias towards just one party. I think it is good to review all sides of a case and not ignore anything. Obviously, we need more information to prove things, but shouldnt we consider what each party is claiming in MSM.

TIA
fran

 

[writer7]

It doesn't sound like any crowbars or anything of the sort were used. He may have only gotten into cars that were unlocked. That happened at my old condominiums, and I was one of the ones who didn't lock my car doors at night. Someone took my CD player.

Victims don't have to have golden behinds. If they didn't do anything and got shot, they are as much victims as anyone else not doing anything who gets shot.

 

[mobeydick]

It doesn't sound like any crowbars or anything of the sort were used. He may have only gotten into cars that were unlocked. That happened at my old condominiums, and I was one of the ones who didn't lock my car doors at night. Someone took my CD player.

Victims don't have to have golden behinds. If they didn't do anything and got shot, they are as much victims as anyone else not doing anything who gets shot.

There is no evidence the "victim" didn't do anything, just claims made by people who were not there!

 

[Isabelle]

What would you say if everything the shooter claims is proven true!

If it is proven true and there are witnesses to the event, which I believe there are, then what he says is true. That's all there is to it. Somehow, I doubt Mr. Dunn is without fault, in a very big way!

 

[mobeydick]

One last thing and then I'm out of here. Too many baseless opinions.

There is a reason the shooter killed someone, it may have started over loud music but that is not the reason. It's clear beyond a shadow of a doubt the shooter didn't wake up that morning and think, I want to ruin my life today, I think I will go to a gas station and shoot someone!

 

[LolaMoon08]

What's the mall like in Jacksonville, just out of curiosity? It's not a place where gangbangers hang out, is it?

We're getting a feel for one local's view of Jacksonville, which is cool. I hung out there one night years ago with the Guardian Angels, visiting a friend's friend who was one.

But we need to keep in mind the specifics of the case, too. We are hearing specific details about the players, and they seem to have nothing to do with gangbangers. Look at the pictures of Jordan. Check out the surroundings in the pictures. It looks like he hung out at very nice spots, imho. Much nicer than where I hung out in Jacksonville, lol!

I'm not so shallow to think nice spots = a person's character, btw, but there seem to be no clues pointing toward a gangbanger conclusion except for the color of this kid's skin. Come on now, everyone (hypothetical everyone); let's be intelligent about all this. We don't need our Black children wearing body paint now do we? Imagine you adopted a Black child if it helps

Teenager boys go to the mall to meet teenage girls. That is what we used to do when we were teens. It was always the place to be. Didn't matter what color you were. Times have not changed that much since I was a teenager because I still see teenager boys in big groups picking up teenage girls in big groups. It's just what they do.

 

[Hatfield]

One last thing and then I'm out of here. Too many baseless opinions.

There is a reason the shooter killed someone, it may have started over loud music but that is not the reason. It's clear beyond a shadow of a doubt the shooter didn't wake up that morning and think, I want to ruin my life today, I think I will go to a gas station and shoot someone!

IMO, I also think something happened more than just a verbal argument. I hope there is video or other witnesses that can come forward and prove what exactly happened.

This case is going to need corrobating witness or video testimony.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Maybe you know, I don't, what evidence leads anyone to believe the shooter has lied about what happened. There doesn't appear to a histroy of him with voilent behavior.

BTW: I don't think a permit is required in Florida to have one in your car!

We don't know Mr. Dunn's past. We do know he was posting anti-government posts on social media sites. I can only assume that those posts had a lot to do with a recent election?

How many times have we seen cases where seemingly nice guys go on shooting rampages and then look at their internet history and there are anti-government posts? Yeah. All. The. Time.

Do I think Mr. Dunn woke up that morning wanting to unload a gun into a vehicle carrying a bunch of teenagers? No. I do think he was angry at the world and alcohol may have been a contributing factor in increasing that anger and he took his issues with a recent election out on a group of innocent teenagers.

MOO

 

[LolaMoon08]

IMO, I also think something happened more than just a verbal argument. I hope there is video or other witnesses that can come forward and prove what exactly happened.

This case is going to need corrobating witness or video testimony.

People shoot people all the time over verbal arguements. I don't understand why it is so hard to believe that Mr. Dunn shot at these kids over a verbal confrontation?

Ever see cases of road rage? We had a case here where a young Black man cut off a Hispanic man and once stopped at the light, the Hispanic man got out of his car, went up to the drivers window and shot the Black man in the head. Killing him. No words were even exchanged.

It sounds to me that people want to believe that it was the teens who provoked Mr. Dunn, but according to Law Enforcement, who have spoken to witnesses, nothing they are saying to the media implies that the teens did anything of the sort. So, I think I will go with what Law Enforcement has to say on this case until they say something different as they have spoken to the witnesses.

MOO

 

[LolaMoon08]

What is so hard to understand about Law Enforcement saying that the teens were not armed with a gun? We know there was not a gun. Mr. Dunn's lawyer can spout off about a shotgun all she wants, but it is simply not true. Mr. Dunn can try and argue that to a jury too. The fact is, there was no gun.

Maybe Mr. Dunn assumed the teens had a gun based on his own paranoid prejudices? But, have fun explaining that to a jury too.

MOO

 

[Hatfield]

People shoot people all the time over verbal arguements. I don't understand why it is so hard to believe that Mr. Dunn shot at these kids over a verbal confrontation?

Ever see cases of road rage? We had a case here where a young Black man cut off a Hispanic man and once stopped at the light, the Hispanic man got out of his car, went up to the drivers window and shot the Black man in the head. Killing him. No words were even exchanged.

It sounds to me that people want to believe that it was the teens who provoked Mr. Dunn, but according to Law Enforcement, who have spoken to witnesses, nothing they are saying to the media implies that the teens did anything of the sort. So, I think I will go with what Law Enforcement has to say on this case until they say something different as they have spoken to the witnesses.

MOO

The bottom line for me is I dont know what to believe without more evidence. It seems this is a he-said/she-said which is why it has to be proven one way or another in a court of law if he shot an unarmed person.

 

[flourish]

Right and another good analagy. Totally not blaming the victim here. Just saying that we can take steps to avoid situations that cause loose-canon or crazy people to lose it.

If they had just turned their stereo down when pulling into the store, maybe, just maybe the poor kid would still be alive today. No sense in provoking the general public when there are crazy people everwhere.

I think sometimes people dont realize how many unstable people are out there in the world. I've run into many over the years. We even had one guy that would sit on the street corner yelling profanity at everybody who walked by. He was known as "crazy jim", and everyone ignored him. But a visitor came over and freaked out when he saw and heard him. We had to tell him....."oh, thats just crazy jim". LOL

RBUIBM
What steps exactly are you suggesting "we" take so we don't "provoke" unstable people, who, as you say, are "everywhere?" How is a sane, stable person supposed to be able to predict what may provoke an unstable person? Is it not perhaps more prudent to provide easily accessible mental health services to those who need it?

Perhaps if we all lived in bullet-proof full body armor at all times, that would be helpful. But that's not reality. And I think it's disgustingly absurd, ridiculous, and unrealistic to indicate that people need to go out of their way to consider what might set off some crazy unstable person. For some people, just being black might be a "trigger" for someone--

okay, tired of the blame game...walking away

 

[LolaMoon08]

The bottom line for me is I dont know what to believe without more evidence. It seems this is a he-said/she-said which is why it has to be proven one way or another in a court of law if he shot an unarmed person.

Of course it has to be proven in a court of law and Mr. Dunn will have his day in court where any and all evidence will be presented. I personally, will at this time, go off what little Law Enforcement had said about this case. And they say there was no shotgun. So, I believe that there was no shotgun.

All I know is that Mr. Dunn has been arrested, charged, and is being held without bail for murder and attempted murder charges. They don't just randomly charge people with crimes like this without evidence and witness accounts. We know of at least one witness who wrote down Mr. Dunn's tag number to his vehicle, so it appears we have at least one solid witness who was a bystander.

 

[Bee Happy]

I think it's absurd to suggest we try to avoid provoking people. I hold doors, I say thank you, I motion for people to get in front of me when they are trying to merge into traffic. As good as I can be. I STILL pissed some guy off!

I was making a right turn into a driveway, but a bus was coming out and I couldn't fit. So I stopped to let him out. The guy behind me laid on his horn and starting shouting. Then he proceeded to pull around me to try and beat the bus coming out. (it was only a 2 lane road). As he did he flipped me off and called me the "N" word. Really? Like, what could I have done to avoid this?

 

[Hatfield]

What is so hard to understand about Law Enforcement saying that the teens were not armed with a gun? We know there was not a gun. Mr. Dunn's lawyer can spout off about a shotgun all she wants, but it is simply not true. Mr. Dunn can try and argue that to a jury too. The fact is, there was no gun.

Maybe Mr. Dunn assumed the teens had a gun based on his own paranoid prejudices? But, have fun explaining that to a jury too.

MOO

The shooters story definitely could be totally bogus, and I do hope he gets convicted if he is lying about the other gun.

The only reason I am thinking it MAY be true, is because he said it was a shotgun. That seems so strange to me because if he was lying about it, you would think he would have just claimed there was a handgun. That is the only part that makes me think there could be some truth to his claim.

I agree with you that he could have totally mistaken something else and just assumed a shotgun was there too. Maybe he saw sometihing long handled and thought it was a shotgun.

He needs to prove his claim, otherwise he probably should be convicted.