On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:08:45 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:


I think seeing him convicted of a murder charge might send a message to

at least a few of the armed-up morons who think they can shoot a kid if

he is offensive verbally or cuts through his yard to somewhere else or

teepees one of his trees.



At the moment, Dunn is unconvicted of murder. That is an embarrassment.



Speaking of embarrassment. Though Carl Rowan didn't kill the the non-threatening and unarmed kid that was swimming in the backyard pool, he was guilty of several charges, including being in possession of an unregistered firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, excessive deadly force, obstruction of justice, perjury, and evidence tampering. But not much came out of it. Hung jury let him go.

On 2/19/14, 7:51 PM, Tim wrote:
On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:08:45 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:


I think seeing him convicted of a murder charge might send a message to

at least a few of the armed-up morons who think they can shoot a kid if

he is offensive verbally or cuts through his yard to somewhere else or

teepees one of his trees.



At the moment, Dunn is unconvicted of murder. That is an embarrassment.



Speaking of embarrassment. Though Carl Rowan didn't kill the the non-threatening and unarmed kid that was swimming in the backyard pool, he was guilty of several charges, including being in possession of an unregistered firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, excessive deadly force, obstruction of justice, perjury, and evidence tampering. But not much came out of it. Hung jury let him go.



Are you implying every shooting is exactly the same?

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 7:02:47 PM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 2/19/14, 7:51 PM, Tim wrote:

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:08:45 AM UTC-6, F*O*A*D wrote:





I think seeing him convicted of a murder charge might send a message to



at least a few of the armed-up morons who think they can shoot a kid if



he is offensive verbally or cuts through his yard to somewhere else or



teepees one of his trees.







At the moment, Dunn is unconvicted of murder. That is an embarrassment..







Speaking of embarrassment. Though Carl Rowan didn't kill the the non-threatening and unarmed kid that was swimming in the backyard pool, he was guilty of several charges, including being in possession of an unregistered firearm, assault with a deadly weapon, excessive deadly force, obstruction of justice, perjury, and evidence tampering. But not much came out of it.. Hung jury let him go.







Are you implying every shooting is exactly the same?

Well they are both of interesting circumstance. And BTW, I should have used different wording in my post. Instead of saying "he was guilty" i should have said 'he was charged".

I didn't men to make it look like I was trying him outside a court of law.

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.

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.