*****ing Florida: Michael Dunn convicted of attempted murder; jury can't decide on murder

Skynet?! Try the BCS!

 

The revolution is over, the BCS is dead(ish)!

 

I would tend to agree that this guy deserved to be found guilty of murder. There doesn't seem to be any proof to make you think he was in fear for his life.

Comparing this to the TM case is stupid though. TM beat the crap out of someone. Totally different situation.

 

And GZ tailed someone with a gun. Maybe TM feared for his life, and I guess his fear was real.

 

TM's mistake was not having a gun himself. Would've been a fairer fight, that's for sure.

 

TM beat the crap out of someone who stalked him with a weapon.

 

He was convicted of attempted murder for the three other passengers in the car who survived and not for Jordan who was killed.

 

The jury system is bad but I think the alternatives are worse. In countries without jury systems the justice seems much worse with more questionable convictions and politically based convictions. Given all the problems we've seen with computer security I wouldn't feel comfortable with trial by computer. Further there is a reason why "trial by a jury of your peers" is a right because humanity should play a role in administering justice. If it was just up to computers, especially in sentencing. You would see a lot more mandatory sentences and rulings based on zero tolerance standards which has also caused a lot of problems.

 

Yeah, yeah....skittles, ice tea, stalking.....got it... Too bad there was no real evidence to support that.


Let's not get off track here with the other case. I do believe they should have convicted this guy of murder. If you chose to use a gun there has to be some sort of compelling evidence that you were defending yourself. I just don't see it.

 

If you are on the other side of an argument, I know I'm in the right.

 

You mean, except for the undisputed fact that TM was on his way home from the store, armed only with Skittles and iced tea, while Zimmerman documented the "stalking" he was doing while being told by a 911 operator not to get out of his vehicle.

No real evidence I guess, if you completely ignore the objective, undisputed facts.

 

So you are defending Michael Dunn now? Is that your position here? Because the TM argument you gave is Dunn's suspicious character so I took law in to my own hands and attacked argument. Only TM ran in to someone who was armed.

 

Show me where GZ was told not to get out of his vehicle. That kind of unfounded statement has to many to a wrong conclusion in that case. GZ was told that he didn't need to follow TM after he was already out of the car.

The Skittles and Ice Tea had nothing to do with what happened that night

No one accused TM of being armed.

And your "fact" is anything but a fact and hardly objective.

 

You're the one who brought up Skittles and iced tea...

You seem to know the fact, that GZ was told specifically he didn't have to follow, that the police would take care of it. GZ chose to ignore that directive and followed, which would certainly qualify as "stalking" a person. I wonder why you dispute in the same breath that you talk about that fact.

 

Ok...so you concede that those who say he was told to not get out of the car are 100% wrong with that assumption??? And if they still believe that they are hardly objective? And that assumption is hardly a fact?

It was also not proven in court that GZ continued to follow TM. So you have no fact there either.

TM and Michael Dunn both tried to take the law in to their own hands, period. They were both the initial agressors alledgedly acting out of fear and had no real evidence to prove that. Michael Dunn got lucky the people he attacked were not armed. TM wasn't that lucky.

 

Why is it always racial profiling?

If a big group of loud and obnoxious teenagers tried to harass me I wouldn't feel 100% safe either, it doesn't matter if they're black, blue or orange.

With that said, pulling a gun is a different story and this guy should be convicted.

 

The 911 call is available, you can hear the dispatcher tell GZ that he doesn't have to follow.

He got out of his car and the altercation happened after the 911 call. It seems pretty logical that he was still following, but that's just logic talking. I haven't gone through the court transcripts, so I don't know if it was proven in court or not, but it is simply a fact, whether "proven" in court or not.

Martin took the law into his own hands? Good God, you're deluded.

 

So you don't think it would have been a fairer fight had Martin had a gun as well as Zimmerman? How was the scenario that played out more fair?

 

There shouldn't have been a fight, TM should have gotten off the phone with Rachael Jeantel and called the police if he thought GZ was a stalker.

 

Which doesn't have a damn thing to do with GZ not being in the car when told we dont need you to do that.

Actually it's not a fact. GZ said he was going back to his car when TM approached him. Who knows.... either version isn't a fact.

You don't get to beat the **** out of people for following you. That's not how the world works.