Up to 60 yeas plus a retrial on the other charge. ^^^^

I'm guessing that one of the issues for the jurors was the fact that the boys in the car took off for a while after the shooting. Questions were raised about the possibility of them disposing of a gun since the defendant says he saw a gun and that's why he fired his gun.

In this case the crime is murder so the extra penalty might not have any effect. However, if he'd have hurled a racial epitaph and proceeded to beat the teens up don't you think that would have deserved an additional penalty? If someone targets sometime for violence for any ethnic or social reason they should get an additional penalty. They could target anyone in that social group no matter if they had done anything or not. Let me put it to you this way: should a person that severely injured or kills a cop get additional penalties?

So targeting someone is worse than just randomly beating the crap out of someone? If I'm getting beat up it feels the same to me. If they are calling me a cracker while they are doing it, fat boy, Somerset punk, right wing nut or any other group I could be lumped in with it does make the me bleed anymore or my pain any worse...but I guess it could hurt my feelings...so maybe they deserve an extra 5 years for hurting my feelings on top of the 15 years they got for playing knockout game on my face.

 

Hate Crime legislation while it sounds good, in reality that is all it does. It's makes those passing those laws feel like they are doing something and makes them feel good about themselves. All hate crimes legislation does is punish ideology?

 

When it comes to crime, shouldn't all victims be considered a protected group. Why are some victims considered more protected than others?

 

I think that all murderers of police officers or other wise deserve at least life in prison without parole.

I'm guessing that one of the issues for the jurors was the fact that the boys in the car took off for a while after the shooting. Questions were raised about the possibility of them disposing of a gun since the defendant says he saw a gun and that's why he fired his gun.

Well that would bring a reasonable doubt into if there was or wasn't a gun. Did they leave to take friend to the hospital or did they just leave and then come back?

Well that would bring a reasonable doubt into if there was or wasn't a gun. Did they leave to take friend to the hospital or did they just leave and then come back?

 

The article says that they drove away when he started shooting at them and that they drove to another parking lot. The defense argued that they had "three minutes" to get rid of the alleged shotgun between the lots.

The article says that they drove away when he started shooting at them and that they drove to another parking lot. The defense argued that they had "three minutes" to get rid of the alleged shotgun between the lots.

 

Thanks, I hadn't kept up with the case much. Sounded like it was a pretty tight case against him.

Jury Reaches Partial Verdict in Florida Killing Over Loud Music

 

The judge declared a mistrial on the first-degree murder charge.

 

Dunn convicted for three counts of second-degree attempted murder.

 

How stupid this is, the death of a kid over loud music. The guy should get death penalty for what he has caused the mom and family.

Stupid is what he is.

While it's unnerving to think some on the jury felt he was acting within his rights to murder Davis, the silver lining is that he'll be spending the rest of his life behind bars. He's 47 now, facing up to 60 years in prison for 3 counts of attempted murder, plus the retrial for the actual murder. This guys never seeing the light of day again.

While it's unnerving to think some on the jury felt he was acting within his rights to murder Davis, the silver lining is that he'll be spending the rest of his life behind bars. He's 47 now, facing up to 60 years in prison for 3 counts of attempted murder, plus the retrial for the actual murder. This guys never seeing the light of day again.

Not sure you can say that is what they were thinking, may have had reasonable doubt about the presence of the gun in the SUV.

So targeting someone is worse than just randomly beating the crap out of someone? If I'm getting beat up it feels the same to me. If they are calling me a cracker while they are doing it, fat boy, Somerset punk, right wing nut or any other group I could be lumped in with it does make the me bleed anymore or my pain any worse...but I guess it could hurt my feelings...so maybe they deserve an extra 5 years for hurting my feelings on top of the 15 years they got for playing knockout game on my face.

 

Hate Crime legislation while it sounds good, in reality that is all it does. It's makes those passing those laws feel like they are doing something and makes them feel good about themselves. All hate crimes legislation does is punish ideology?

 

When it comes to crime, shouldn't all victims be considered a protected group. Why are some victims considered more protected than others?

 

I think that all murderers of police officers or other wise deserve at least life in prison without parole.

 

Let me put it to you this way. Guy gets enraged because you cut him off in traffic and then you flipped him off when he blew his horn at you. He follows you to a parking lot and jumps you when you get out of the car to confront him. There could be other circumstances that lead him to snapping like that. Maybe his girlfriend had just broken up with him and he had been chewed out by his boss. The traffic incident just momentarily sent him over the edge. Normally he might be a decent guy. He should still be charged with whatever level of assault is appropriate and maybe sent to anger management but there's no reason to think that he's any more likely to snap like that again than any other person. Without the extenuating circumstances he'd likely have flown you the bird too and went on with his day.

 

However, now make him a virulent racist or a homophobe that does the same thing to an African American or homosexual person. Except their rage was not magnified by other outside circumstances like his job or personal life. Instead it was magnified by the victim's race or sexual orientation. Do you think they are likely to attack another African American or homosexual person the next time they feel slighted or disrespected by them? That is the purpose of the law. A person that attacks a person because of their race, religion or sexual persuasion is seen as more likely to continue to do so. It isn't about making the victim of the original crime feel better, it is about preventing additional victims.

Not sure you can say that is what they were thinking, may have had reasonable doubt about the presence of the gun in the SUV.

 

Which would mean they felt he was acting in self-defense. Just ridiculous.

Which would mean they felt he was acting in self-defense. Just ridiculous.

 

If there was a shotgun and someone was pointing it at him would that not have been a possible case of acting in self defense?

 

So if they aren't sure if that gun existed or not then there is a doubt.

If there was a shotgun and someone was pointing it at him would that not have been a possible case of acting in self defense?

 

So if they aren't sure if that gun existed or not then there is a doubt.

 

Common sense says if there was a shotgun, they would've fired at Dunn when he drew his gun, or at the very least once he opened fire.

Funny thing is, when he talked to the detectives the day after the murder, he said something along the lines of "maybe I was mistaken" when they told him no weapon was ever found. He gets on the stand and swears up and down they had a gun.... Sad thing is, Florida jurors were dumb enough to believe him, but not the 2 kids that they said he attempted to murder....:idunno:

Common sense says if there was a shotgun, they would've fired at Dunn when he drew his gun, or at the very least once he opened fire.

Not common sense at all, it would be hard to raise aim and fire a shotgun in the confines of a SUV...when he started shooting they may have just ducked for cover and got out of there...again we don't know and if he testified he saw a gun and then they had an opportunity to dump the gun there COULD be a doubt...but I don't know what the jury did or didn't hear.

 

Just saying that juries don't always see and hear everything we do on the outside and we don't always see and hear what the jury sees and hears.

 

Just because you or I don't agree with them doesn't mean that there decision is ridiculous.