Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I tend to think they were hung up on self defense too. If it was a matter of everybody thought he was guilty of murder but they disagreed on the degree it seems like it would have been easier to come to a compromise verdict. It's harder to talk "not guilty" into "guilty" or vice versa than to talk "1st degree" to "2nd degree" (or v.v.). There was a juror question about what if it was self defense for one, was it self defense for all of them, so someone was apparently thinking that it was self defense.
I don't agree. I know I believe it was murder 1. But I would have settled for murder 2. I would not have voted for manslaughter. And I would have held my ground.
I just don't think anyone thinks it was self defense. Because if it was really self defense those AM charges really don't fly because he was shooting in fear of his life. If you but self defense you have to think he was shooting to protect himself and not to kill them.
Kwim? I hope they tell us. I do. And if it does come back to a self defense hold out I hope it was a low number.
Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.
What do you guys think... would the jury be more opt to speak out if they were split on the level of 1st degree murder or if they were split on G/NG?
I don't agree. I know I believe it was murder 1. But I would have settled for murder 2. I would not have voted for manslaughter. And I would have held my ground.
I just don't think anyone thinks it was self defense. Because if it was really self defense those AM charges really don't fly because he was shooting in fear of his life. If you but self defense you have to think he was shooting to protect himself and not to kill them.
Kwim? I hope they tell us. I do. And if it does come back to a self defense hold out I hope it was a low number.
Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.
There doesn't have to be a re-trial, but the SA said she is going to go ahead with it if it's ok by Jordan's parents. I don't think they'll mind at all.
A retrial works against the defendant because now all of the defendants cards have been exposed. The prosecution knows how they plan to attack. So now the state can be more precise in their arguments against him. IIRC.
There doesn't have to be a re-trial, but the SA said she is going to go ahead with it if it's ok by Jordan's parents. I don't think they'll mind at all.
A retrial works against the defendant because now all of the defendants cards have been exposed. The prosecution knows how they plan to attack. So now the state can be more precise in their arguments against him. IIRC.
I see what you mean but I think that even if one buys Dunn's made up self defense argument, some people might see the first few shots that targeted Jordan as a form of justified self defense but then realize that he continued shooting after the car left and the threat, if any, was going away. Dunn said he shot at the cars because there were four shooters in the car but in reality there were none.He got out of his car to shoot some more at them after the alleged threat was fleeing the scene. That is no longer self defense.
Tevin Thompson never did anything to threaten Dunn, he just turned the music down, as Dunn asked, and instead of the common courtesy of a thank you he got two bullets in his door. Tommie Storns was out buying ciggies and the only thing he ever did to Dunn was try to get outta there as fast as he could, and he nearly escaped a bullet that ended up in his visor. Leland Brunson didn't shoot Dunn either.
I'm with you. I just can't believe that anyone bought Dunn's self defense story. Not even his GF backed him up on the "I saw a gun" fiction. And, if anyone did, I hope they were a minority of one.
IMO, John Guy is horrible and I really hope that he is on the sidelines for the retrial.
I'm hoping that, if/when they retry, they bring in more of the jailhouse letters, and that they bring in the phone calls. I also hope that they focus more on Jordan, and how, by all accounts, he was a good kid with a bright future.
But if he is still shooting at the car and he is still also shooting at Jordan. So even if they believe the first part was only aimed at Jordan when he is still shooting at the car he is still shooting at ALL of them. Kwim?
Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.
Thanks! :seeya: I understand the statute, I just don't like it. lol
I guess to me if you have to use a gun for self-defense against someone who does not have a gun, it is no longer self-defense. Some people use guns violently and should not own, much less use it for self-defense.