On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:29:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/19/14, 12:16 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:18:34 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/18/14, 9:08 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:44:50 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/18/14, 4:41 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

I think that all the media attention given to firearms in the past few
years (including the Zimmerman trial) has served to embolden some
irresponsible gun nuts who really shouldn't own one. The vast majority
of gun owners would never respond to a teenage prank by shooting at them.



Precisely. The SYG bull**** laws have convinced feeble-minded gun owners
that they can act out their aggressions and shoot people for any reason
they can conjure and then claim they felt threatened.

As I pointed out to you offline. SYG is just an invention of the media
and it does really not exist in the Florida law.
If Zimmerman and Dunn have not made this apparent to anyone,, they are
too stupid to have a gun.
Unfortunately it is still being promoted by the media for their own
reasons.




I think the discussions of what may have happened in the jury
deliberations negate your posit. When the jury members start talking,
we'll know.

If you look at the verdicts it appears that they had juror(s) with
reasonable doubt on self defense for the first shot or two but
continuing to shoot at a fleeing vehicle was a crime.
I agree if that was the case.

I do not think "retreat" was really an option since his girlfriend was
still going to be there if he left. My wife surely would not be happy
if I drove off and left her at a gas station because I was in fear of
bodily harm.


There's not an iota of evidence Dunn was in fear of bodily harm, and his
communications from jail indicate he was a mean-spirited racist.

Whatever music the kids were listening to was no threat to his life.

Dunn got away with murder. Another white man who shot and killed a black
kid for no reason, and the crime was nullified by whites on a jury in
Florida. What a surprise.

Please define 'iota'. Did Dunn not say he was within seconds of being murdered by someone with a
shotgun? From the jury's perspective, is that not evidence - or at least an 'iota' thereof?

"He was lying," you say. How was the jury to know what *you* know to be the truth?

If someone says he shot a picture of two owls down by the creek, what reason is there not to believe
that statement? It's true until evidence proves otherwise.

Perhaps Dunn did get away with murder. But you don't know that.