This guy dunn fucked up for sure.....music murder!

http://www.tampabay.com/news/nation...ts-in-shooting-over-loud-music-murder/2165842

Okay, some of you may have heard about this:
4 7 year old + his fiance are annoyed (damn naggers of course) by kids blasting rap music from their SUV.
He asks them to turn it down, they refuse and start yelling racial slurs and cursing + threatening him.
He thinks he sees a shotgun, and shoots up the SUV, killing a kid. He is in no hurry to call the cops or other emergency people. No shotgun is found. Here's what jumps out at me:

1. Dunn has no street smarts. You're white + nerdy, kids are young + black. What type of response
would he really expect? "Sorry sir, we didn't realize our music was bothering those around us. We'll turn it down right now." Yes, that's pretty likely! You don't even make eye-contact at a vehicle full of young black kids unless you are begging for a confrontation of some type. Guarantee if Dunn didn't have a weapon he wouldn't have said shit unless he's suicidal/homicidal.

2. The police didn't find a gun because the kids had plenty of time to ditch it. It was a shotgun, you can get another one at Walmart. No doubt it isn't registered, nobody registers shotguns in The South. But maybe the kids didn't have a gun? If they did they would have used it once Dunn started firing at them. The kids testified that they didn't have a gun....which means jack shit really because if it was ditched well (they had plenty of time) they know nobody will ever find it.

3. The fiance testified that Dunn never mentioned a gun. Also if Dunn really thought he was in the right, he would be on the phone immediately with the cops and kneel down with his hands in the air awaiting their arrival. I think Dunn cooked up a story because he realized he fucked up. If I saw a gun, I'd yell "he's got a gun!" so all witnesses would know what's going on, if anything to give them warning to take cover.
I bet Dunn thought that his fiance would have his back once he got in trouble, but she has more character + honesty than he does. Good thing she found this out now rather than after the wedding.

4. Basically the kids were doing what kids do - show their ass because they know they can. Dunn is an idiot who should have done what world-weary 47 year olds do - pick their battles wisely and move out smartly. They don't gamble their careers over having to endure a minute or so of bad music. Discuss!

BTW don't you like the pun in the thread title? Pure genius.

UPDATE! Just realized he was a software developer. Pretty much explains the complete lack of street-smarts.

Florida.

The kids (or at least one) were from the Atlanta area. Regardless, pretty typical confrontation for around here, but it's generally black-on-black so nobody hears about it.

I was wondering why no thread on this yet.

Don Lemmon, the weekend anchor on CNN, was ranting on the lack of a murder conviction yesterday, and actually mis-reporting the event to cause a racial stir.

The event as claimed: Kids playing loud music; Dunn asks them to turn it down; kids refuse and razz him; Dunn thinks he sees a gun; Dunn panics and shoots up the car.

Don Lemmon on CNN: "You don't shoot a teenager because he's playing loud music!!"

That's right Don. HE DIDN'T! The argument started over loud music. He shot because he thought they were pointing a gun at him.

REPORT IT RIGHT YOU STUPID OVERPAID FUCKS!!! Enough with the misreporting in the name of race baiting and/or liberal anti-gun agendas.

That said, it looks like the kids didn't have a gun, Dunn was a panicky idiot and deserves to fry.

I understand the lack of a Murder One conviction because they can't prove he planned to kill anybody. I don't know why everybody can't be happy with the convictions on the other three counts that will put this fool away for the rest of his life. Must the judge and jury now take the wishes of a mass of under-informed protestors outside the courthouse into consideration? No.

Guy thought he was Bernie Goetz...

If his sentence was to be skinned alive, people would complain that he wasn't salted down too. You can't please everyone.
I have a different (my background maybe) attitude toward guns. Guns are the last thing you ever want to employ after trying every other means first.
A guy like this would have shot up everything in sight had he been in Iraq or some other dicey environment. So guns generally bring

When adrenaline gets the best of you, things go south: you don't think straight, you get tunnel vision, etc.etc. Thus your mind can play tricks on you. Your memory can play tricks on you.
The more conditioning you face, the better you can control adrenaline. A lot of people these days don't have much "oh shit" primitive reflex conditioning in their lives. Maybe we need to replicate this somehow in a controlled environment on a mass scale so desk jockeys (or anyone) can learn how to think straight and relax while handling weapons in an environment where their life is at stake.

And you wonder why some of us are concerned about the proliferation of guns among people who shouldn't be allowed sharp objects. If only there were some way to teach people to think before they act...

You assume that Dunn is telling the truth about THINKING he saw a gun, as opposed to making it up to try and get out of jail (no criminal's ever done that before).

Considering he never mentioned the gun to his fiance for days afterwards that is a distinct possibility.

^Agreed, he could very well be lying.
But that doesn't change Don Lemmon's obvious prejudiced reporting.

Refusing to dignify the lies of a murderer by repeating them is not "prejudiced reporting."

If a reporter says that OJ murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, is he being prejudiced? Or is he simply stating something that 90% of the population believes to be a fact, regardless of what the jury ruled?

His job is to report the information as known, not to decide what is or is not true.

The lie, likely as it may seem, has not been proven. Lemmon is therefore omitting a fact of the case, and reassigning the cause to meet his own emotional agenda, and announcing it as fact to the world. That is not his job.

Then he's reporting his own opinion, which is not what reporters are supposed to do. Reporters are not judges or juries. Reporters should reports facts, not what they THINK the facts are.

The idea of an impartial reporter is a very recent one (dating from the mid-20th Century), and there are at least 3 "news" networks who cannot be called "objective" by any stretch of the imagination. They are: CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. Anybody who relies upon one of those networks for their primary source for news (or really any single source) is stupid.

A claim made by the accused without any evidence to back up said claim can hardly be considered a "fact."

Methinks you're just cranky because a middle-aged white gun owner didn't get away with shooting someone that disrespected him.

Under-informed protesters? He shot and killed an unarmed teenager who was sitting in a car and posed no threat to him. You can say he didn't deserve Murder One because it wasn't premeditated, and I'd probably agree, but that he wasn't even convicted of a lesser charge means he got to kill someone without being punished for it. That he'll still go to jail for something else doesn't make that any less of a travesty.

It doesn't mean that.

He can still face trial for the murder.

It is a fact of the case that he claims this. The reporter is obligated therefore to report the facts of the case, not ignore them.

Methinks you may fuck yourself up your presumptive ass with a white hot AR-15 barrel and pull the trigger. I'm talking about a reporter not doing his job right for the sake of stirring up shit, which I'm sick of - not making judgements on the case.

Did he say "eledged"? If he didn't even say "eledged" that's just bullshit.

Do you mean "alleged"? In either case, its CNN, so of course its bullshit.

No. I meen "eledged". Wanna fight about it?

It depends. if i pay you $20 will you run around yelling, "Oh no! They're after me Lucky Charms!"?

Accused criminals make all sorts of ridiculous claims that don't hold up to basic scrutiny. Should reporters be obligated to report each and every one of them as though they're facts?

Lemon did report the information as known. He reported the verified chain of events. No one disputes there was loud music. No one disputes there was an argument. No one disputes Dunn shot a car full of people. That's what he reported.

Regardless of how distasteful I might find someones music, I would never presume to tell someone in a car to turn it down. Get out of here with that shit.

What? First I've heard of this.

He should have been found guilty on all counts. Don't understand what this jury was thinking. The state has said however that it will retry him on the one charge the jury hung on.

As for Lemon...... Forbin there are no "reporters" anymore at the national level. All of them on all channels are biased in their own way.

A great lawyer can confuse a jury and that's what happened here. Otherwise, only an idiot could possibly believe the defense's narrative.

Got it. We should accept only what the reporter says, and not what was actually said. Only points that fit the expected narrative are valid. The reporter is the one who tells us what to think and how to feel. Good man. Good little sheep.

The teen ended up not carrying out any threat, but did indeed present (and conveyed) a threat regardless of any weapons involved. He was yelling racial slurs, cursing and threatening, and had three friends to back him up. How would you react? With a Coke and a smile? That said, knowing I have a weapon and obviously know how to use it, I would lock my doors, call 911 and see how that plays out. If they wanted to escalate the situation by trying to get into the vehicle, so be it - then I can use deadly force, but not before.
Fucking hotheads like Dunn make every gun owner look bad.