dagblog - Comments for "The Jordan Davis Murder Trial Verdict"

I see... It was easy to be

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:46:57 +0000

In reply to I think there is confusion

I see...

It was easy to be confused because the thread was about Davis, except for this small offshoot onto another case.

Normally, I'm not one who believes in "staying on track" in a conversation because all the byways are kind of interesting.

But I don't quite trust this diversion only because you're arguing we shouldn't be "fretting" about Davis because, after all, Dunn got his just deserts despite his color, and we should be trying to reform folks and not mete out the maximum punishment to assuage our anger (or something).

And...

"Lookey here, here's something much worse which we should be thinking about instead of Davis."

This doesn't quite cut it for me. I agree with you about reform v punishment, but this isn't really the issue here. The biggest issue is that this kid was murdered because he was playing loud music. Once again, doing X while being black seems to attract white guys who feel emboldened to kill you.

Then comes the fact that this is a softer sentence than FL law would seem to call for--and why? Premeditation a la FL law was involved. Did this guy show remorse? Did he reflect on what HE had done? Did he ask to atone for what he's done to this family? I don't read that anywhere.

The most damning piece, which JR notes below or above, is that Dunn would have WALKED had he MERELY killed Davis and not shot at the car. He would have walked for killing someone, but is being convicted for trying unsuccessfully to kill other people. What's THAT about?

Jerry Seinfeld once joked that the difference between men and women watching TV is that women want to see what's on. Men want to see else is on. This feels a bit like that. I'm sure there are mountains of miscarriages of justice we can find, and maybe we should look into each and every one of them. Why not?

But it's a little odd, IMO, that, when we're intently "watching what's on," to say, "but look at what else is on!" especially when "what else is on" is a case that would appear to tell the opposite moral to the story "that's on."

NCD is right. Resistance's

Aaron Carine — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:23:56 +0000

In reply to What makes you think they

NCD is right. Resistance's "they had a shotgun; they threw it away and picked it up later" theory is nothing but speculation. And if they were aiming a shotgun at him, why didn't they return fire?

Thanks JR. This is very

Bruce Levine — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 19:10:07 +0000

In reply to I think you can reach the

Thanks JR. This is very helpful.

Yes but your teenage son

rmrd0000 — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:56:45 +0000

In reply to Except that, I read, SYG

Yes but your teenage son still lives to celebrate his 19th birthday. Appeals are better than funerals.

I think there is confusion

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:53:34 +0000

In reply to How does he compensate his

I think there is confusion between two different cases and it is probably my fault.

Resistance was referring ]I think] to a man whose story is told in the short audio link I posted. Dunn is not the man who Resistance is referring to and who he says should be allowed to atone and compensate and who I say has already atoned and should go free.

Except that, I read, SYG

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:33:32 +0000

In reply to Argued in another post If

Except that, I read, SYG doesn't work quite as well for blacks as it does for whites.

I appreciate the

Verified Atheist — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:25:49 +0000

In reply to I think you can reach the

I appreciate the clarification on this from you, Bruce, and Peter. Thanks.

How does he compensate his

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:23:27 +0000

In reply to An example of cold-hearted,

How does he compensate his victim...he's dead.

How does he compensate his family...who have forever lost their son, nephew, cousin.

I'm sorry, the "cold-hearted, unreasonable, justice without mercy" is what happened to that kid whose life is over because he had the temerity to play loud music and sass. And had the bad luck to run into an adult who had no business carrying a gun and didn't have the sense God gave him to realize that kids play music loud and the better part of valor was to move his car if he didn't like it.

Given the weakness of his defense, the lack of corroborating evidence, the non-existence of claimed weapons, it would be "unreasonable" for him not to get a serious sentence. And this one hardly qualifies as "unreasonable."

Dunn got to live his life and still will. He may even get parole some day: Who knows? He can still read, write, exercise, learn a trade, visit with his wife, smell the air. He can find Jesus, if he hasn't already and become born again. He can find ways to do good. He can realize that much of what he thought was important isn't important. He could memorize the Q'uran. There are MANY things he can still do that Davis will never do.

I don't believe in the death penalty and don't believe he should be put to death. But based on what I see, he deserves the highest sentence.

Argued in another post If

rmrd0000 — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:20:45 +0000

In reply to I have to say, what sickens

Argued in another post

If unarmed Black teens in Florida are considered thugs, parents should instruct them in the use of firearms and tell them to shot when they feel threatened. I think that would level the playing field.

If Black teens are considered thugs and nonexistent weapons can be created in the mind of jurors by defense attorneys, the best mode of survival is to become an armed thug. Given the Stand Your Ground Law, that is the only way to guarantee one's survival.

re:Aaron, misplaced That is

jollyroger — Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:17:37 +0000

In reply to It may be that some of the

re:Aaron, misplaced

That is clearly what happened, but it's absurd that Dunn was accorded any credibility for the "shotgun" allegation in light of his overall behaviour. (Not to mention the phenomenally damaging testimony from his fiancee)