hotsauceman1 wrote:
If you are waving a gun at a person in an argument, you are an idiot and asking for it

 Ouze wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
If you are waving a gun at a person in an argument, you are an idiot and asking for it

If only that had happened.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 Ouze wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

what does this even mean

Rouer told jurors that she had two rum and colas and Dunn had “maybe three or four” at the 2012 wedding of Dunn's son prior to pulling into the parking lot of a Jacksonville gas station beside a red Dodge Durango blaring loud music.

“I hate that thug music,” Rouer testified Dunn told her. Rouer replied “Yes, I know,” and then exited the vehicle.

Rouer went inside the gas station to get a bottle of wine and a bag of potato chips. Moments later, Rouer told jurors, “I heard pop, pop, pop.”

Rouer then said she heard a second set of “pop, pop, pop,” and turned around and saw Dunn outside. After Rouer exited the store, she told jurors Dunn told her to get in the vehicle. When Rouer got back in the car, she testified seeing Dunn put a gun back in the glovebox.

Rouer said they went back to the hotel, where Dunn ordered a pizza. She testified Dunn ordered the pizza because he thought it would make her feel better. She also said Dunn fixed a rum and cola for both of them in the hotel room.

The next morning, Rouer woke up and saw reports on TV about the shooting at the gas station. She testified that she told Dunn that she wanted to go home right away, despite having prior plans. They returned to his home where he was later arrested.

* * * * *

Rouer testified she wasn't concerned about Dunn's well-being or being behind the wheel, despite drinking at the wedding.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

what does this even mean

The "facts" as given on the account of the trial in the link above, would say that had the teen been waving a gun, he deserved to be shot at, hence the axiom "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

However...

Looking into other facts surrounding the case, you would have to question the defendants state of mind at the time of the incident:

Rouer told jurors that she had two rum and colas and Dunn had “maybe three or four” at the 2012 wedding of Dunn's son prior to pulling into the parking lot of a Jacksonville gas station beside a red Dodge Durango blaring loud music.

“I hate that thug music,” Rouer testified Dunn told her. Rouer replied “Yes, I know,” and then exited the vehicle.

Rouer went inside the gas station to get a bottle of wine and a bag of potato chips. Moments later, Rouer told jurors, “I heard pop, pop, pop.”

Rouer then said she heard a second set of “pop, pop, pop,” and turned around and saw Dunn outside. After Rouer exited the store, she told jurors Dunn told her to get in the vehicle. When Rouer got back in the car, she testified seeing Dunn put a gun back in the glovebox.

Rouer said they went back to the hotel, where Dunn ordered a pizza. She testified Dunn ordered the pizza because he thought it would make her feel better. She also said Dunn fixed a rum and cola for both of them in the hotel room.

The next morning, Rouer woke up and saw reports on TV about the shooting at the gas station. She testified that she told Dunn that she wanted to go home right away, despite having prior plans. They returned to his home where he was later arrested.

* * * * *

Rouer testified she wasn't concerned about Dunn's well-being or being behind the wheel, despite drinking at the wedding.

http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/02/08/michael-dunn-trial-jordan-davis-saturday

I think there is a good chance alcohol altered this man's thinking. Im not satisfied that this was a clean shoot.


[/quote
4 rum and cokes? Wow, and she thought he was fine driving?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Police found no evidence of a gun being in the teens vehicle.

And someone posting it was removed before inspection in...

 Spacemanvic wrote:
The "facts" as given on the account of the trial in the link above, would say that had the teen been waving a gun, he deserved to be shot at, hence the axiom "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"

Florida man Michael Dunn thought he saw a gun when he shot, killed teen over loud music
Dunn, 47, fired 10 shots, 9 of which hit the SUV Jordan Davis, 17 was sitting in at a Jacksonville store. Dunn said in court Tuesday he was threatened by the black teens, who were unarmed during the fatal 2012

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — The Florida man charged with fatally shooting a 17-year-old boy after an argument over loud music testified Tuesday that he thought he saw the barrel of a gun from a neighboring vehicle pointed at him and that he feared for his life before firing his weapon.

Michael Dunn said he tried to calm down the confrontation with three teens in a neighboring SUV outside a Jacksonville convenience store in November 2012.

“I couldn’t believe what I was seeing and hearing,” the 47-year-old said.

Dunn is charged with first-degree murder. He has pleaded not guilty and says he acted in self-defense when he fatally shot 17-year-old Jordan Davis of Marietta, Ga., outside a Jacksonville convenience store in 2012.

The defense rested its case Tuesday, and then prosecutors called Dunn’s fiancee back to the witness stand. Rhonda Rouer contradicted Dunn’s assertion that he had told her he had seen a gun in the teens’ SUV. Closing arguments were expected Wednesday.

Prosecutors also played a video of Dunn’s jailhouse interview in which he couldn’t explain why he didn’t call police after the shooting. Also in it, detectives picked apart Dunn’s story that he was threatened with a gun, saying no weapon was found on the teen and witnesses never described Davis making threats.

Dunn said he would not have done anything to get himself in trouble.

“I got a place on the beach. I got a great house. I got a great girl. We just got a new puppy,” Dunn said. “There is no reason for me to jeopardize that.”

In his testimony, Dunn told jurors he was in Jacksonville with Rouer to attend his son’s wedding. He had brought along on the trip his 7-month-old dog, and at one point in testimony, he wiped away tears when talking about his fiancee and dog.

Dunn said he and Rouer went to the convenience store for wine and chips. He said he pulled into a spot next to an SUV where music with a “thumping” bass was playing.

“It got really loud,” Dunn said. “My rear view mirror was shaking. My eardrums were vibrating. It was ridiculously loud.”

Dunn said he asked the three men in the SUV to turn down the music and they turned it off. “I said, ‘Thank you,”’ Dunn said. But soon afterward, Dunn said he heard someone in the SUV shouting expletives and the word “cracker” at him. Dunn is white, and the teens in the SUV were black. Cracker is a derogatory term for white people.

The music was turned back on, and Dunn testified, “I wasn’t going to ask for favors anymore.”

Dunn said the men in the SUV had “menacing expressions,” and he asked the teens whether they were talking about him. He said he wanted to calm down the situation but saw a teen in the backseat reach down for something which he slammed into the car door. Dunn said it looked as if the barrel of a shotgun was sticking out the window.

Lucia McBath, left and Ronald Davis, right, parents of Jordan Davis, walk out of the courtroom during the trial of Michael Dunn in Jacksonville, Fla., Tuesday Feb. 11, 2014.

One of the teens stepped out of the SUV, Dunn said, and he felt “this was a clear and present danger.” He reached for his pistol in a glove box.

Dunn, who had a concealed weapons permit, fired nine shots into the car, according to an affidavit. Once his fiancee returned to the car, he drove off out of fear of the SUV returning, he said.

He described having “tunnel vision,” with everything focused on his target.

No weapons were found in the SUV.

Dunn said he told Rouer on the drive back to the hotel that he had shot in self-defense.

“I didn’t do anything wrong,” Dunn said he told her.

Dunn and Rouer drove back to their hotel and Dunn said he didn’t call the police because his focus was on the well-being of Rouer, whom he described as in hysterics. The next morning, Dunn said, Rouer insisted she wanted to go home and they drove back to their home in Brevard County, 175 miles away. There, Dunn said he contacted a neighbor who is in law enforcement for advice on how to turn himself in to authorities.

During cross-examination, prosecutor John Guy challenged Dunn’s assertion that he had told Rouer after the shooting that he thought one of the teens had a gun.

“You never told the love of your life that those guys had a gun,” Guy said. “Did you?”

Dunn responded, “You were not there.”

Guy challenged Dunn on other parts of his story, citing letters Dunn had written from jail and interviews with investigators. The prosecutor said Dunn had told detectives the day after the shooting that it could have been a stick he saw pointing from the vehicle. But Dunn countered he was just suggesting a far-fetched possibility.

Guy also suggested that Dunn was angry because he was being disrespected by a young black man. Dunn responded, “I was being threatened, not disrespected.”

The prosecutor also said Dunn had stated in a jailhouse letter that his car was parked so close to the SUV that it would have been hard for him to exit. Guy said that mean Davis also would have had a hard time getting out of the SUV.

“Jordan Davis was never a threat to you, was he, Mr. Dunn?” Guy said.

Dunn responded, “Absolutely, he was.”

 Ouze wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:
The "facts" as given on the account of the trial in the link above, would say that had the teen been waving a gun, he deserved to be shot at, hence the axiom "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"

So, honest question. Did you know when you posted that there there wasn't actually a gun in the car?

The music was turned back on, and Dunn testified, “I wasn’t going to ask for favors anymore.”

 Spacemanvic wrote:
But the reality is, because of the mishandling of the investigation by the police, we may never truly know IF a firearm was ever in the hands of the individual shot.

 Ouze wrote:

The music was turned back on, and Dunn testified, “I wasn’t going to ask for favors anymore.”

And that's, I think, done in one for me.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
But the reality is, because of the mishandling of the investigation by the police, we may never truly know IF a firearm was ever in the hands of the individual shot.

He also testified that it could have been a stick. He doesn't know what he saw. Good enough for shooting in Florida, I guess.

“It got really loud,” Dunn said. “My rear view mirror was shaking. My eardrums were vibrating. It was ridiculously loud.”

Dunn said he asked the three men in the SUV to turn down the music and they turned it off. “I said, ‘Thank you,”’ Dunn said. But soon afterward, Dunn said he heard someone in the SUV shouting expletives and the word “cracker” at him. Dunn is white, and the teens in the SUV were black. Cracker is a derogatory term for white people.

The music was turned back on, and Dunn testified, “I wasn’t going to ask for favors anymore.”

Dunn said the men in the SUV had “menacing expressions,” and he asked the teens whether they were talking about him. He said he wanted to calm down the situation but saw a teen in the backseat reach down for something which he slammed into the car door. Dunn said it looked as if the barrel of a shotgun was sticking out the window.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/fla-man-thought-gun-shooting-teen-loud-music-article-1.1610550#ixzz2t9W3xNMQ

 Ouze wrote:

The music was turned back on, and Dunn testified, “I wasn’t going to ask for favors anymore.”

And that's, I think, done in one for me.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
But the reality is, because of the mishandling of the investigation by the police, we may never truly know IF a firearm was ever in the hands of the individual shot.

He also testified that it could have been a stick. He doesn't know what he saw. Good enough for shooting in Florida, I guess.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

The teens were acting belligerent/threatening. It would be no different if it was a car full of white kids yelling "n****r" and the black man responding to the word/action as a threat. But i feel alcohol impaired this man's judgement. He perceived the teens had a weapon and responded in kind. Its no different than a police man perceiving someone in a vehicle having a weapon and filling the vehicle with holes, only to find out it contained two middle aged women delivering newspapers. Alcohol altered his judgment, he should be handled like a drunk behind the wheel.

 d-usa wrote:
"Making the conscious decision to carry a weapon after you drink or drink while carrying a weapon should be handled like a DUI" is probably a finalist for dumbest statement on Dakka for the week.

 Ouze wrote:
Have you heard the expression "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me"? Speaking of, if the music was so loud his eardrums were painfully vibrating, how did he hear what someone said in the backseat of that car? I mean, that's some Superman gak right there, right?

Seriously, you appear to be justifying that if you seem some young black men in a car, and you get scared, it's OK to light the car up and murder one of them. Maybe one of them had a gun or a stick or something, you're not sure, and yeah, no one else saw one and there were witnesses but hey who knows?. And sure, ballistics show that the kid that got killed was still sitting when it happened and the doors were closed (despite you claiming that the door was opening), but hey, maybe they were thinking about opening the door, right? I mean, the important part to this story is they were black kids and they looked scary.

 d-usa wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

The teens were acting belligerent/threatening. It would be no different if it was a car full of white kids yelling "n****r" and the black man responding to the word/action as a threat. But i feel alcohol impaired this man's judgement. He perceived the teens had a weapon and responded in kind. Its no different than a police man perceiving someone in a vehicle having a weapon and filling the vehicle with holes, only to find out it contained two middle aged women delivering newspapers. Alcohol altered his judgment, he should be handled like a drunk behind the wheel.

Oklahoma has extra felony charges if you are carrying after you were drinking. I would hope that the same applies there.

"Making the conscious decision to carry a weapon after you drink or drink while carrying a weapon should be handled like a DUI" is probably a finalist for dumbest statement on Dakka for the week.

At worst he should be handled like a police officer that decided to get drunk on duty and then report to a crime where he decided to unload his gun in a drunken stupor.

 Spacemanvic wrote:
Do you understand impaired judgement?

He also testified that it could have been a stick. He doesn't know what he saw. Good enough for shooting in Florida, I guess.

 d-usa wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

The teens were acting belligerent/threatening. It would be no different if it was a car full of white kids yelling "n****r" and the black man responding to the word/action as a threat. But i feel alcohol impaired this man's judgement. He perceived the teens had a weapon and responded in kind. Its no different than a police man perceiving someone in a vehicle having a weapon and filling the vehicle with holes, only to find out it contained two middle aged women delivering newspapers. Alcohol altered his judgment, he should be handled like a drunk behind the wheel.

Oklahoma has extra felony charges if you are carrying after you were drinking. I would hope that the same applies there.

"Making the conscious decision to carry a weapon after you drink or drink while carrying a weapon should be handled like a DUI" is probably a finalist for dumbest statement on Dakka for the week.

At worst he should be handled like a police officer that decided to get drunk on duty and then report to a crime where he decided to unload his gun in a drunken stupor.

Do you understand impaired judgement?

 Frazzled wrote:

He also testified that it could have been a stick. He doesn't know what he saw. Good enough for shooting in Florida, I guess.

If it were good enough for Florida, there wouldn't be a trial. But there is, and he's toast.

Ouze 579603 6535710 c658660cfb8680ff4e93f8a1223cc33e wrote:Speaking of, if the music was so loud his eardrums were painfully vibrating, how did he hear what someone said in the backseat of that car? I mean, that's some Superman gak right there, right?

The Article You Didn't Read Well wrote:Dunn said he asked the three men in the SUV to turn down the music and they turned it off. “I said, ‘Thank you,”’ Dunn said. But soon afterward, Dunn said he heard someone in the SUV shouting expletives and the word “cracker” at him. Dunn is white, and the teens in the SUV were black. Cracker is a derogatory term for white people.

 Spacemanvic wrote:


The teens were acting belligerent/threatening. It would be no different if it was a car full of white kids yelling "n****r" and the black man responding to the word/action as a threat. l

 Frazzled wrote:
no. cracker is a racist term. I heard it especially when I was jumped once in a mall. Protip, don't use two guys to jump one guy when four of his friends are in the store he's standing in front of...