:smack:
We could call that 9mm polite I suppose. Either way, I doubt the douchenozzle would have confronted the *“thugs” *over their music if he didn’t have that 9mm courage in his pocket.
Oh yeah, it’s good he’ll go to prison, but only because he fired those last few shots, right? Not because he initiated a confrontation fueled by liquid courage and a feeling of superiority over the “thugs,” and knew his backup plan was waiting in the glove box. Then whoops, I guess that liquid courage also affected his judgement and, oh, he thought he had a gun and shot him. But that part’s OK with you.
People on this board have a fucked up idea of what counts as initiating a confrontation… Asking someone to turn their music down, or asking them what they’re doing on private property, don’t count.
In that case, sitting in your car and telling some overbearing prick to go fuck himself doesn’t count as starting a confrontation either. Nobody punched anybody - so in Steophan world, there wasn’t even a confrontation in the first place. So why aren’t you railing against the absence of a murder conviction.
Could it be that “a thug was killed,” so who gives a shit? Nah, couldn’t be.
Because reasonable doubt, due to the police not searching properly to see if there was a gun.
I know most people on this board don’t support the ideas of reasonable doubt or self defence, fuck, most people here don’t even understand them, judging by all the threads bewailing someone being let off when their guilt hasn’t been proven. It’s still ridiculous that calling someone who deliberately antagonises someone when asked to stop being an antisocial dick, then points something (maybe or maybe not a gun) at them, a thug is somehow out of order. It’ll be interesting to see if this guy has a history of violence and petty crime the same as the “victim” in the last thread we argued about this in…
Steophan, serious question.
Since you think that Jordan Davis deserved to die for refusing to turn down his music, do you believe Emmett Till deserve to die because he gave a woman a wolf whistle?
You’ve already said the jury in that case made the right decision.
Certainly giving a woman a wolf whistle is at least as obnoxious as playing loud rap music.
Please tell us exactly how you know Davis pointed something at Dunn?
Because unless you were there I don’t see how you can possibly know that.
That does clear things up a bit.
Really? So you’re generally okay with people demanding that you relinquish your right to enjoy yourself so they can better enjoy their right to enjoy themselves? That’s fucked up, man.
Emmett Till threatened people with something that may or may not have been a gun? I didn’t know that…
But if you don’t see the difference between one man innocently wolf-whistling and four men deliberately antagonising someone, and threatening them, then I can’t help you. Neither deserved to die, but in the second case some retaliation is a predictable response.
As for the “living in mother’s basement” nonsense, if it makes you all feel happier to believe that, go for it. It’s a bit odd, though, as it’s not me that’s denying the consequences of living in a society but ignoring the rules of it…
Damn right in a public place they can. I like loud, offensive music as much as the next person, but if I’m blasting the Dead Kennedys or Cannibal Corpse in public loud enough that it’s disturbing others, of course I’m the one in the wrong. It’s called society, and it means not doing some things you want to so things are better for others.
Same if I were blasting Mozart or John Denver out, of course. It’s not about the type of music, any more than it’s been about the colour of people’s skin earlier in the thread.
and what do we have, besides the attempted murderers word, that he was threatened by anything?
Two things wrong with this
a) Since when did they “deliberately antagonise him” PRIOR to him trying to tell them what to do?
b) Why does the guy convicted of attempted murder get to tell the teenagers what to do, but they can’t tell him to fuck off? …unless of course its because an armed society is a polite society? :rolleyes:
I love how all these “debates” always turn into the question of “what evidence, apart from the evidence, do we have”…
You mean they were accidentally playing obnoxiously loud music? The deliberate antagonism came when one of them turned it back up after another had turned it down.
Because they shouldn’t have had the music so loud in public, and he had every right to tell them to turn it down.
Of course, they are allowed to tell him to fuck off, but they’re still required to turn it down and to not threaten him.
Hell, I like loud, obnoxious music, but I don’t think I have the right to inflict it on everyone around me.
You have claimed that you know that Davis “pointed something” that may have been a gun at Dunn.
Please tell us exactly how you know that.
You also have said you know they “threatened” Dunn.
Again, please tell us how you know that.
Witness testimony at the trial.
There was also, IIRC, witness testimony at the trial that contradicts this. Why are you convinced by the one version of events?
And that same witness testimony says only ONE of the teens antagonized Dunn. If you’re going to rely on witness testimony, please be consistent.
I don’t have to be. Not being inclined to lynch mob justice, I prefer to presume the defendant innocent until proven guilty. Something plenty of people here seem to hate with a passion, judging by various threads. It doesn’t matter what someone’s accused of, they must be guilty of it.
It happens in murder cases where someone is let off because of insufficient evidence (Zimmerman, the police officers one currently in GD, this one), accusations of abuse (the Woody Allen thread), hell it even happens in the IMHO threads when someone thinks their partner might be cheating and everyone says dump the motherfucker already.
It’s not a pretty sight to see supposedly intelligent and fair minded people wanting to punish legally or otherwise fuck people over on scanty evidence.
Bear in mind that Dunn has been convicted and sentenced for the crimes he actually did commit, which should show that there’s hardly carte blanche to shoot at anyone you dislike…
Yeah, that’s why he was convicted for shooting at the other three… :smack: