Incorrect, Judge informed jury that they could convict him of lesser charges, including 2nd degree murder.

 

Really? What's the point of ever charging someone for anything less than 1st degree murder then?

Law and Order has a tendency to pick these up. Remember the Anna Nicole Smith episode right after she died? Yeah, it's happening.

 

SVU will do it. They've already done Trayvon Martin and Ariel Castro episodes this season.

Really? What's the point of ever charging someone for anything less than 1st degree murder then?

That makes sense because it's a lesser included charge. Not sure of the elements for 2nd degree attempted murder.

SVU will do it. They've already done Trayvon Martin and Ariel Castro episodes this season.

 

 

Wow are you kidding me? That's so tactless.

That makes sense because it's a lesser included charge. Not sure of the elements for 2nd degree attempted murder.

 

These verdicts don't make any sense then. How can they find him guilty of attempted murder three times (implying that they didn't buy his self defense arguments and that the shootings were unjustified) but then not find him guilty of at least manslaughter when the 4th kid was shot and ends up dead?

 

SVU will do it. They've already done Trayvon Martin and Ariel Castro episodes this season.

 

Didn't they have an episode where Paula Deen murdered Trayvon Martin?

These verdicts don't make any sense then. How can they find him guilty of attempted murder three times (implying that they didn't buy his self defense arguments and that the shootings were unjustified) but then not find him guilty of at least manslaughter when the 4th kid was shot and ends up dead?

I meant that 2nd degree murder was a lesser included offense, he was convicted of 2nd degree attempted murder.

 

And as to your question...I don't know. Honestly haven't followed it closely enough to know the details.

These verdicts don't make any sense then. How can they find him guilty of attempted murder three times (implying that they didn't buy his self defense arguments and that the shootings were unjustified) but then not find him guilty of at least manslaughter when the 4th kid was shot and ends up dead?

 

Completely agree. But apparently there was a handful of jurors that would not vote him guilty. "Sure sure, he tried to kill the 3 kids, but he didn't have anything to do with the kid who ended up dead! See what I'm sayin? Perfect sense".

Completely agree. But apparently there was a handful of jurors that would not vote him guilty. "Sure sure, he tried to kill the 3 kids, but he didn't have anything to do with the kid who ended up dead! See what I'm sayin? Perfect sense".

 

The only thing I can think of is that the one who died was the one who had the shotgun, or appeared to have the shotgun, so it was arguable that the self defense theory applied. But the other three were sort of out of the picture and were shot just because they also happened to be in the car.

Wow are you kidding me? That's so tactless.

 

They're not exact recreations, just close enough to remind you of the real events.

 

The Trayvon Martin one involved a young black kid in a hoodie. A white woman coming home thought he was a mugger and shot him. Then there was a big trial about it being self defense or murder.

 

The Ariel Castro one could have been almost any SVU episode - some guy was keeping 3 girls in his basement, and had a child with one of them.

Didn't they have an episode where Paula Deen murdered Trayvon Martin?

 

lol that might have been it. I do think the shooter had some history of racism a la Deen.

The only thing I can think of is that the one who died was the one who had the shotgun, or appeared to have the shotgun, so it was arguable that the self defense theory applied. But the other three were sort of out of the picture and were shot just because they also happened to be in the car.

That's essentially what one of the questions the jury asked of the judge implied they were thinking.

That's so frustrating, there were no weapons in their car.

That's so frustrating, there were no weapons in their car.

Hence the standard that he only reasonably needed to believe he saw a shotgun in order to justify opening fire in that direction.

Hence the standard that he only reasonably needed to believe he saw a shotgun in order to justify opening fire in that direction.

 

That's not the standard.

 

The standard is whether Dunn reasonably believed that he had to use deadly force to prevent immediate harm/death. Seeing a gun does not automatically create a fear of immediate harm/death.

 

 

 

It did for at least one of the jurors.

That's not the standard.

 

The standard is whether Dunn reasonably believed that he had to use deadly force to prevent immediate harm/death. Seeing a gun does not automatically create a fear of immediate harm/death.

"or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." You missed the nice, vague, catch-all at the end.

"or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." You missed the nice, vague, catch-all at the end.

 

It's not vague at all - it's defined: “Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

 

Which of those applies to this scenario? And did Dunn even make this argument or are you just making this up to further the "OMG GUNS, EVERYONE DIES! narrative? I'm pretty sure he argued self-defense.

It's not vague at all - it's defined: “Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

 

Which of those applies to this scenario? And did Dunn even make this argument or are you just making this up to further the "OMG GUNS, EVERYONE DIES! narrative? I'm pretty sure he argued self-defense.

And it worked.

And it worked.

 

"God damn laws and trials and people having different opinions! I read the internet, dammit. I know what happened that night. My opinion that he is guilty is the only acceptable conclusion!" - Balta

And it really didn't work. He was still convicted of three counts of attempted murder. And the murder charge was as mistrial, not a not guilty verdict. They'll try again.

 

"God damn laws and trials and people having different opinions! I read the internet, dammit. I know what happened that night. My opinion that he is guilty is the only acceptable conclusion!" - Balta

 

"God damn laws and trials and people having different opinions! I read the internet, dammit. I know what happened that night. My opinion that he is guilty is the only acceptable conclusion!" - Balta

 

This thread is over.

 

I don't care who posts beyond this point, or how lucid your thoughts may be, down went Frazier, down went Frazier, down ... went ... Frazier.

And it really didn't work. He was still convicted of three counts of attempted murder. And the murder charge was as mistrial, not a not guilty verdict. They'll try again.

He wasn't convicted. He murdered a kid and wasn't convicted.

"God damn laws and trials and people having different opinions! I read the internet, dammit. I know what happened that night. My opinion that he is guilty is the only acceptable conclusion!" - Balta

Thankfully this only goes one way right?