Jury selection starts next Monday in Michael Dunn case

Monday, September 15, 2014

Good evening:

Jury selection starts next Monday in Michael Dunn case.

Time to gear up for the Michael Dunn retrial.

What do you think is going to happen?

18 Responses to Jury selection starts next Monday in Michael Dunn case

    • Malisha says:

      They just can’t decide whether shooting a kid to death is murder when trying to shoot 3 other kids (in the same car) to death is ATTEMPTED MURDER? Excuse me. Wait a minute, wait a minute: Do they think that he was trying to murder three Black kids in a car but he was unsuccessful in spite of making every effort; while at the same time he accidentally killed a kid he was NOT attempting to murder? I mean — what are the chances of that?

      • PhilyBoyRoy says:

        Since Jordan Davis is dead and can’t tell his side of the story, we can only assume that Michael Dunn’s side is accurate.

        One doesn’t know what happened. There’s always two sides to a tragedy. Tsk.

      • girlp says:

        I don’t understand Florida, I think SYG confuses them whether it is used as a defense or not. All the defendant has to say is they had something in their hands that resembled a gun or looked like they were reaching for something and I got scared. Ridiculous, one of the worse and most dangerous laws ALEC and the NRA came up with.

        • Malisha says:

          ALEC and NRA were crazy like foxes when they came up with the SYG. Here’s what it’s really meant to do: make an untouchable armed force out of ordinary rich people (and some scattered pockets of non-rich white supremacists) when our system breaks down to the point that the working poor (who will comprise ALL of the non-rich within a few decades) refuse to be denied the basic necessities of life. THEN SYG will protect any rich who need to kill people who are refusing to respect the restrictions that keep them from having food on the table.

          When the homeless are not all controllable and the working poor cannot even afford food and shelter, the SYG laws will make it possible for the top 5% to kill whomever they want to kill. A simple excuse (“He was trying to rob me”) will suffice. SYG is a law made in advance of the pitchford era.

  1. Sophia33 says:

    I have no faith in the jury. I know I am always a cynic. I am hoping that with what happened in Ferguson that it might make a jury see black men that we are tired of this nonsense. But then again….

    • PhillyBoyRoy says:

      Events like Ferguson (and Trayvon and many others, especially ones with a lot of publicity) seem to make the right wing idiot crowd less tolerant rather than than more accepting.

  2. This case is infinitely winnable – and I’m expecting Dunn to be found guilty of murder.

  3. YQ says:

    I just hope that the prosecution are gonna be on point. I can see them knocking it out of the park.

  4. racerrodig says:

    I think the defense will focus on the alleged “stick/shotgun” barrel. They will beat the topic to death of “a reasonable person who almost shit his pants with fear” then focus on “the cops never looked for a shotgun/stick (or is it stick/shotgun ?) until it was to late, I hate to think it, but I fear a hung jury.

    But then again, maybe they’ll get it right. Maybe, as it’s a matter of record and will be mentioned, he has been convicted of shooting at a retreating vehicle, the jury will think “…how the hell did the other jury not get it right…”

  5. Michelleo says:

    I really have not been following this case. So, was there a mistrial the first time around? I thought Dunn had already been tried and sentenced.

    • bettykath says:

      He was found guilty of attempted murder (I believe that was the charge) of the three who survived. The jury was hung on the charge for the young man who was killed.

      • ay2z says:

        Wasn’t this in essence, like Pistorius’s firing 4 shots into a small toilet as far as chances of killing someone behind the door, whether four people in a 4 seater vehicle or one person in a one person toilet closet?

        Similar in jury/court could not see the intent or someone apply a law that uses the power of the guns used, ammunition, and experience (both range firing enthusiasts), to prove that the shooters had to reasonably know someone would be killed. Both shooters fired multiple rounds, both grouped their shots as they pointed/aimed their firearms, both claimed they intended to kill no one.

        (BTW, there’s final arguments in a Fla case, no race or other apparent human rights bias, but plain and simple ‘self-defense’ to road rage. The shooter was threatened by gestures and foul language, and claims once a fender bender took place, he was punched by the other driver through his window so as news reports claim ‘he was forced’ to shoot in self defense.

        So many of these cases in variations that have at their core, the right to use excessive force when there are other alternatives, even with gun use as a threat to say ‘back off’, leave the window rolled up, don’t let an abusive person near, drive off. Dial 911.

        • ay2z says:

          Don’t know the race of the other driver who was killed, but even if white and ‘Dunn’ looking, what is going on using a gun rather than other options to get out of there, avoid physical contact, call for help?


          • MKX says:

            Quote from article:

            “Pratt was driving a customer’s SUV for a possible trade-in when prosecutors said Sherwood made obscene gestures, tailgated and intentionally bumped the car salesman…”

            Would the shooter {Sherwood} have tailgated, made obscene gestures, and bumped Pratt’s car, if he had no gun?

            My point is that having a concealed gun, enables a person to get away with acts that can “bait” another person into a reaction.

            The law should be interpreted or amended such that any acts committed by a gun owner that one can reasonably assume would cause a reaction by the victim void the gun owners claim to self-defense.

            The way it is now:

            A goes up to B and spits in his face while calling him some sort of insulting name.

            B reacts and slugs A

            A shoots B dead and uses the evidence of a black eye as reasonable proof that he feared for his safety.

            Bait and Kill.

  6. For me the pickings for a competent jury is like a crap shoot. If we are looking for justice, we are probably going to be disappointed again. Hung or not guilty, my guess.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: