On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:25:16 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 2/19/2014 5:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:29:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

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?

Do you not see any problem with a legal precedent that justifies and
excuses deadly violence simply by claiming an imagined fear?


To you and Harry, the fear was 'imagined'. To Dunn, it may have been very real. That's a decision
for the jury.

On 2/19/2014 8:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:25:16 -0800, thumper wrote:

Do you not see any problem with a legal precedent that justifies and
excuses deadly violence simply by claiming an imagined fear?

To you and Harry, the fear was 'imagined'. To Dunn, it may have been very real. That's a decision
for the jury.

You didn't answer the question. It was not about any specific
trial/case/circumstance.

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:15:47 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 2/19/2014 8:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:25:16 -0800, thumper wrote:

Do you not see any problem with a legal precedent that justifies and
excuses deadly violence simply by claiming an imagined fear?

To you and Harry, the fear was 'imagined'. To Dunn, it may have been very real. That's a decision
for the jury.

You didn't answer the question. It was not about any specific
trial/case/circumstance.


If the law were written as you state, 'deadly violence is permissible simply by claiming an imagined
fear', I would see a big problem with it.

I believe the fear must be shown to have a basis in reality and meet the other requirements of the
applicable law.

The 'fear' cannot simply be 'imagined'.

On 2/20/2014 8:03 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:15:47 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 2/19/2014 8:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:25:16 -0800, thumper wrote:

Do you not see any problem with a legal precedent that justifies and
excuses deadly violence simply by claiming an imagined fear?

To you and Harry, the fear was 'imagined'. To Dunn, it may have been very real. That's a decision
for the jury.

You didn't answer the question. It was not about any specific
trial/case/circumstance.


If the law were written as you state, 'deadly violence is permissible simply by claiming an imagined
fear', I would see a big problem with it.

I believe the fear must be shown to have a basis in reality and meet the other requirements of the
applicable law.

The 'fear' cannot simply be 'imagined'.

And we're supposed to rely on shrinks and therapists to look inside the
mind of the accused and determine his level of fear? Look how often
their assessments have been proven wrong.

On Thu, 20 Feb 2014 09:05:23 -0500, HanK wrote:

On 2/20/2014 8:03 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:15:47 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 2/19/2014 8:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:25:16 -0800, thumper wrote:

Do you not see any problem with a legal precedent that justifies and
excuses deadly violence simply by claiming an imagined fear?

To you and Harry, the fear was 'imagined'. To Dunn, it may have been very real. That's a decision
for the jury.

You didn't answer the question. It was not about any specific
trial/case/circumstance.


If the law were written as you state, 'deadly violence is permissible simply by claiming an imagined
fear', I would see a big problem with it.

I believe the fear must be shown to have a basis in reality and meet the other requirements of the
applicable law.

The 'fear' cannot simply be 'imagined'.

And we're supposed to rely on shrinks and therapists to look inside the
mind of the accused and determine his level of fear? Look how often
their assessments have been proven wrong.

There's a shrink in Huntington. MD, that knows what lurks in the minds of the accused and can
determine the level of fear from a thousand miles away. Just ask him.

On 2/19/14, 12:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:52:55 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:25:16 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 2/19/2014 5:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:29:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

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?

Do you not see any problem with a legal precedent that justifies and
excuses deadly violence simply by claiming an imagined fear?


To you and Harry, the fear was 'imagined'. To Dunn, it may have been very real. That's a decision
for the jury.

Harry only cares about black teenagers when they are shot by white
guys. Most are killed by other black teenagers and he doesn't give a
**** about them (3 so far in Ft Myers since New Years plus a white
homeless man). Where is MSNBC on that?


Another of your absurdities, Gregg. The Dunn case was of interest
because of the circumstances and the trial, and more on it is coming.

On 2/19/2014 12:23 PM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 12:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:52:55 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:25:16 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 2/19/2014 5:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:29:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

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?

Do you not see any problem with a legal precedent that justifies and
excuses deadly violence simply by claiming an imagined fear?


To you and Harry, the fear was 'imagined'. To Dunn, it may have been
very real. That's a decision
for the jury.

Harry only cares about black teenagers when they are shot by white
guys. Most are killed by other black teenagers and he doesn't give a
**** about them (3 so far in Ft Myers since New Years plus a white
homeless man). Where is MSNBC on that?


Another of your absurdities, Gregg. The Dunn case was of interest
because of the circumstances and the trial, and more on it is coming.
Its all there in black and white. Plain as the honker on your face.

On 2/19/14, 12:43 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:23:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/19/14, 12:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:52:55 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:25:16 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 2/19/2014 5:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:29:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

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?

Do you not see any problem with a legal precedent that justifies and
excuses deadly violence simply by claiming an imagined fear?


To you and Harry, the fear was 'imagined'. To Dunn, it may have been very real. That's a decision
for the jury.

Harry only cares about black teenagers when they are shot by white
guys. Most are killed by other black teenagers and he doesn't give a
**** about them (3 so far in Ft Myers since New Years plus a white
homeless man). Where is MSNBC on that?


Another of your absurdities, Gregg. The Dunn case was of interest
because of the circumstances and the trial, and more on it is coming.

So you don't care about other disputes that resulted in a dead kid as
long as they are all black. OK


Why are you sliding down that slide? You're smarter than that.

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:59:48 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/19/14, 12:43 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:23:09 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 2/19/14, 12:05 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 11:52:55 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:25:16 -0800, thumper wrote:

On 2/19/2014 5:02 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 06:29:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

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?

Do you not see any problem with a legal precedent that justifies and
excuses deadly violence simply by claiming an imagined fear?


To you and Harry, the fear was 'imagined'. To Dunn, it may have been very real. That's a decision
for the jury.

Harry only cares about black teenagers when they are shot by white
guys. Most are killed by other black teenagers and he doesn't give a
**** about them (3 so far in Ft Myers since New Years plus a white
homeless man). Where is MSNBC on that?


Another of your absurdities, Gregg. The Dunn case was of interest
because of the circumstances and the trial, and more on it is coming.

So you don't care about other disputes that resulted in a dead kid as
long as they are all black. OK


Why are you sliding down that slide? You're smarter than that.

You and jps ride the same boat. Maybe you're on a water slide? Greg made a very valid point.
Attacking him for the point is not much of a defense.

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 8:42:26 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:59:48 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:



On 2/19/14, 12:43 PM, wrote:



Another of your absurdities, Gregg. The Dunn case was of interest

because of the circumstances and the trial, and more on it is coming.



So you don't care about other disputes that resulted in a dead kid as

long as they are all black. OK





Why are you sliding down that slide? You're smarter than that.



I am just wondering why nobody has their panties in a wad about all of

the other black kids that get shot by black kids, 3 in Ft Myers so far

this year.

Many more than that in Cook Co. IL.