Michael Dunn Trial Verdict: Guilty of Three Counts Attempted Murder, Mistrial on Murder 1

reply to post by Flatfish


Once again, the 'Stand your Ground" statute is being misunderstood.

Stand your ground defeats the entire notion (as in the Zimmerman trial ) that "Zimmerman should have 'got in his car and left'.." as many of the proponets to the Zimmerman acquittal state. But why?

He should NOT have to retreat.

He was not a person wandering in the jubgle who suddenly came upon a hungry lion, knowing the lion would attack.

The attacker does not have the right to attack, nor does a shooter have to retreat to prevent the attack.

reply to post by QueenofSpades


but all we had for his "self defense" was that he saw a gun. there was NO gun! and he was out of the car. he got out to tell them to turn their music down. he went back to his car and got his gun. first degree murder, no. 2nd degree, yes.

and as to zimmerman, he lied a lot. trayvon jumped him from the bushes, then the out of the dark. he needed to see what street trayvon went down. he knew that neighborhood like the back of his hand. trayvon was going for his gun when it was behind his back. and that he was told by the dispatcher to not to follow. "we do not need you to do that." i have heard f.b.i. profilers say that you could tell he was lying. and yes, he DID have bruises on him. and as you said, there was witness who saw trayvon on top. there was also a witness who saw zimmerman on top. could it be that they were rolling around on the ground as what happens in fights? he was losing a fight. many people lose fights. but all we have is zimmerman's word on what was said and how the fight went down, how it actually started. know why? because trayvon is dead because a guy was losing a fight and shot him.

and don't forget. trayvon had as much as right to protect himself as well. what was doing wrong? he was walking hime from going to the 7-11. trayvon was being followed by zimmerman. and as zimmerman is no cop, trayvon had no legal or lawful reason to listen or do what zimmerman say or ordered him to do.

reply to post by blackthorne


I'll address each of your points:

1. You state, "All we had for his self-defense was that he saw a gun"...technically, that's all he even needs. I'm not justifying malicious killings. I'm just saying that there is no proof to the contrary. The contrary being that he didn't see a gun, or even what he perceived to be a gun. The gun does not have to be on the scene. Remember the SUV sped off as well....

2. According to ear witness Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon had made it home and awaited Zimmerman by bushes. It was dark. No lie there.

3. It is on police 911 record that Zimmerman did call and when asked if he was outside of his vehicle, he stated yes, and explained that the reason was to locate the suspect and name of the street. No lie there.

4. As to who was on top? The physical evidence proves that it could NOT have been Trayvon because there were no bruises or to the back of his head, as there were on Zimmerman. The eyewitness for the prosecution said that he yelled out for the attacker to get off the person being beat up, and again, the evidence showed the Trayvon never had bruises, cuts, etc. He was not being beat up, so how could he have been on the bottom getting the best of someone?

5. What would Trayvon be protecting himself from? He was never attacked. No physical evidence shows any blows even thrown onto him. Besides, wasn't it his own witness that said he made it home (dad's girldfriend's house) and DECIDED to return to his "stalker" and confront him....and also physically attacking him simply because he didn't like being 'followed'.

Again, don't add false details into the events in order to fit the narrative that Trayvon was innocently shot and killed by a 'racist'.

Stick with the FACTS.

reply to post by QueenofSpades

He should NOT have to retreat.

Regarding Zimmerman, he didn't have to follow either, gun in hand and all, considering as well that he was not under threat at all. Regardless he went right ahead. I'm also not sure how chasing after somebody who was initially minding their own business constitutes as defense either. And before you claim he was not "chasing" Trayvon, Zimmerman certainly thought he did as clearly demonstrated by the audio where he claimed trayvon saw him and was running away, this is further indicated towards the end of the audio where Zimmerman got frustrated that Trayvon "got away". This is not defense, unfortunately Florida's twisted stand your ground law makes it so.

I'm just saying that there is no proof to the contrary. The contrary being that he didn't see a gun, or even what he perceived to be a gun. The gun does not have to be on the scene.

There's no proof that Dunn shot in self defense, none. No proof that Dunn was under threat. Dunn has only claimed he thought he saw a gun and that's it. Fact of the matter is there was none found in the SUV and there's no evidence pointing to either of those boys threatening him, only Dunn's claims. Maybe they insulted him but that's it. Dunn has nothing but his words, he fired and killed a boy because his pride got hurt which frankly isn't an excuse at all to murder, he also continued to fire at the vehicle which is further evidence of nil self defence. People like Dunn and Zimmerman are cowards, they use their guns to fulfill their sense of entitlement above the people in society because you know? They can't deal with things like real men. Fortunately Dunn is going to be locked away.

2. According to ear witness Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon had made it home and awaited Zimmerman by bushes. It was dark.

Rachel Jeantel said this? That Trayvon was hiding in the bushes waiting for Zimmerman? Where's your source? I'm curious.

Besides, wasn't it his own witness that said he made it home (dad's girldfriend's house) and DECIDED to return to his "stalker" and confront him....and also physically attacking him simply because he didn't like being 'followed'.

Firstly there was no evidence that Trayvon decided to "return" to Zimmerman only to start the confrontation, none. Zimmerman claimed this is what happened but to date no evidence has popped up indicating this, Zimmerman's testimony is not "evidence". Regarding the bruises on Zimmerman, this is evidence of a physical confrontation, not necessarily evidence of Zimmerman's innocence. When Zimmerman reported that he lost sight of Trayvon after running after him, the dispatcher recommended he go and meet the police officers at the letter boxes at the entrance of the gated community away from the direction where Martin was heading. What did Zimmerman say? He said he wanted the police to call him when they got there because obviously he wasn't interested in leaving martin alone.

You want the audio transcript? Link below:
misterbillohno.newsvine.com...

Facts you say? You clearly have none. Maybe you should slow down on the and look at the situation more objectively.

QueenofSpades
reply to post by blackthorne

 

See, you have done like many and have assumed some of the facts.

Dunn did not 'go to his car to get a gun'. He was already in his car and reached down toward his leg to get the gun.

Believe me, it makes a difference in determining pre-meditation and self-defense.

How do I know he never 'went to his car'? This came out in the trial from one of the teens inside the SUV.

I could be wrong, but I think you're mistaken.

I never heard anything regarding Dunn reaching down towards his leg to retrieve the gun.

I too, heard that he retrieved it from the glove box, where it was holstered. Then, he supposedly unholstered the gun and chambered a round before turning to fire at the teens in the suv. That's the only story I've heard throughout this whole ordeal and I've been watching it pretty close.

Do you have any sources for the "reached down toward his leg" statement?

reply to post by Flatfish


thank you for stating that. that is the only thing i have heard on where the gun was kept, in the glove compartment.

at least this time, we have three survivors to tell their side of the story. just think if all four were killed? then again we would have just have the shooters word for it. very easy to to say you were threatened if the other guy is dead and can not give his side.