South Carolina church shooting: Nine killed in Charleston

First topic message reminder :

Nine people have died in a shooting at a historic African-American church in Charleston in the US state of South Carolina, officials say.
City police chief Gregory Mullen said eight of the victims were killed inside the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church on Thursday evening, while another person died shortly afterwards.
Police are now searching for a white male suspect in his 20s.
"I do believe it was a hate crime," Mr Mullen said.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33179019

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems to me that what Tommy is talking about is the issue of what constitutes a hate crime, or a racially-motivated crime, yes?

I've seen him repeat, like a mantra, that black-on-white violence is disproportionately high compared to white-on-black. Like that could somehow excuse the church murders as vengeance or something.

I've already pretty well defined what makes a crime a hate crime.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems to me that what Tommy is talking about is the issue of what constitutes a hate crime, or a racially-motivated crime, yes?

I think we are all talking about that.  Only you and tommy are denying that Zimmerman was racially motivated to commit murder.  Tommy is additionally trying to falsify the record, to the misguided effect that blacks prey on whites in crime.

I'm hoping to move on and discuss the Charleston murders.  My point is that Mr. Roof will be given leniency in whatever way, but the southern jury.

Well Zimmerman didn't commit murder, so your argument is flawed.

Tommy is talking about Roof anyway. It's you who brought Zimmerman into the whole thing for some bizarre reason.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems to me that what Tommy is talking about is the issue of what constitutes a hate crime, or a racially-motivated crime, yes?

I've seen him repeat, like a mantra, that black-on-white violence is disproportionately high compared to white-on-black. Like that could somehow excuse the church murders as vengeance or something.

I've already pretty well defined what makes a crime a hate crime.

I thought he was saying that if a black person attacks a white person, it's not generally called a racially-motivated crime.

TM wrote:It was your statement quill... but you don't apply the same to blacks or Muslim criminals... to you they are all just innocent victims.

Tommy, that is a false equivalency.  Look around you, mate.  All you see are whites killing blacks.  Police officers!  Madmen like Mr. Roof.

There's not even a proper example for you to bring up black-on-white crime.

I think what is unusual about this particular mass murder is the fact that the perpetrator is still alive. Whenever I read about mass shootings in schools or wherever, the perpetrator is generally killed - either by their own hand or by the police.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems to me that what Tommy is talking about is the issue of what constitutes a hate crime, or a racially-motivated crime, yes?

I've seen him repeat, like a mantra, that black-on-white violence is disproportionately high compared to white-on-black. Like that could somehow excuse the church murders as vengeance or something.

I've already pretty well defined what makes a crime a hate crime.

I thought he was saying that if a black person attacks a white person, it's not generally called a racially-motivated crime.

It's generally not a racially-motivated crime when a black person attacks a white person, so yeah, it's not usually called a hate crime.

Maybe you should have a look at some of the inconvenient truths here...



http://www.infowars.com/black-crime-facts-that-the-white-liberal-media-darent-talk-about/

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I thought he was saying that if a black person attacks a white person, it's not generally called a racially-motivated crime.

It's generally not a racially-motivated crime when a black person attacks a white person, so yeah, it's not usually called a hate crime.

And yet when a black person is killed by a non-black person, a lot of people are very quick to say that it's racially motivated without much in the way of evidence.

While the murder of white lad Danny O'Shea by a gang of blacks was not treated as racist...even though they were travelling around in a van looking for a white lad to attack...

Tommy Monk wrote:Maybe you should have a look at some of the inconvenient truths here...

http://www.infowars.com/black-crime-facts-that-the-white-liberal-media-darent-talk-about/

Tommy pleeeze. That website is just someone who can lie and spell. Chrissake, not everyone on the web tells the truth. Look at yourself.

That site is a rehash of all the lies and abuses that racists put out all the time. Jeeze, I shudder to think what you would do with a Nazi website.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I thought he was saying that if a black person attacks a white person, it's not generally called a racially-motivated crime.

It's generally not a racially-motivated crime when a black person attacks a white person, so yeah, it's not usually called a hate crime.

And yet when a black person is killed by a non-black person, a lot of people are very quick to say that it's racially motivated without much in the way of evidence.

Let's just stick with this shooting. This is obviously a hate crime. But you do bring up an interesting point, in that hate is usually the motivating factor in white-on-black crime.

Tommy Monk wrote:While the murder of white lad Danny O'Shea by a gang of blacks was not treated as racist...even though they were travelling around in a van looking for a white lad to attack...

I believe they were traveling in a van looking for Danny O'Shea, who they believed had stolen a phone from them.

Tommy Monk wrote:While the murder of white lad Danny O'Shea by a gang of blacks was not treated as racist...even though they were travelling around in a van looking for a white lad to attack...

They haven't even caught anyone in the death of Danny O'Shea.

There have been no arrests.

John MacDonald, detective chief inspector of the Homicide and Serious Crime Command, said...

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

And yet when a black person is killed by a non-black person, a lot of people are very quick to say that it's racially motivated without much in the way of evidence.

Let's just stick with this shooting. This is obviously a hate crime. But you do bring up an interesting point, in that hate is usually the motivating factor in white-on-black crime.

That's not what I said - I said that a lot of people assume that it's the motivating factor.

As for this particular crime, I'm not sure what can be said about it. It goes without saying that it was a horrible crime. I'm assuming that the chap did it, and there's no chance of mistaken identity. From what I've read, it does appear to be racially motivated.

The question is - are there lessons to be learnt generally? I guess the usual issue of gun control will come up, and I think also the possibility of mental health issues and substance abuse. I guess we'll hear all about his childhood in due course, and anything which might have influenced him to commit such a dreadful crime.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Let's just stick with this shooting. This is obviously a hate crime. But you do bring up an interesting point, in that hate is usually the motivating factor in white-on-black crime.

That's not what I said - I said that a lot of people assume that it's the motivating factor.

As for this particular crime, I'm not sure what can be said about it. It goes without saying that it was a horrible crime. I'm assuming that the chap did it, and there's no chance of mistaken identity. From what I've read, it does appear to be racially motivated.

The question is - are there lessons to be learnt generally? I guess the usual issue of gun control will come up, and I think also the possibility of mental health issues and substance abuse. I guess we'll hear all about his childhood in due course, and anything which might have influenced him to commit such a dreadful crime.

Then will come the Not Guilty verdict. It's Zimmerman all over again.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

That's not what I said - I said that a lot of people assume that it's the motivating factor.

As for this particular crime, I'm not sure what can be said about it. It goes without saying that it was a horrible crime. I'm assuming that the chap did it, and there's no chance of mistaken identity. From what I've read, it does appear to be racially motivated.

The question is - are there lessons to be learnt generally? I guess the usual issue of gun control will come up, and I think also the possibility of mental health issues and substance abuse. I guess we'll hear all about his childhood in due course, and anything which might have influenced him to commit such a dreadful crime.

Then will come the Not Guilty verdict.  It's Zimmerman all over again.

It's nothing to do with Zimmerman - Zimmerman acted in self defence.

There's no way there will be a not guilty verdict, unless he's so psychotic that he didn't know what he was doing. All the indications are that he knew exactly what he was doing though.

You see, there's no need to connect this with Zimmerman at all. You're only doing it because the victims were black.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad77Bzv7uSc

Good video that goes into the background and history of incidents like this one.

I have posted up FBI statistics before on this issue and even some here tried to dismiss them as false.



And Yes some of Danny O'Shea killers have been prosecuted, but only a couple out of the gang... joint enterprise should have convicted them all.


And they weren't looking for Danny specifically but just looking for a white lad... yes the criminals did say it ncr about a phone being stolen but as you said earlier quill... criminals lie and use deceit and 90% of what they testify is Bollocks... except when they are black it appears...

Raggamuffin wrote:You see, there's no need to connect this with Zimmerman at all. You're only doing it because the victims were black.

You are unfamiliar with the use of example and metaphor.  You should take a look at a book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, called Metaphors We Live By.

Examples are meant only to be illustrative.  They are comparisons.  They are offered by way of the logic of analogy.  You don't argue the details of an example, you argue whether or not they fit the the topic at hand.  People who run off on the details of a comparison have lost the plot of the thread.

You have run off with this thread, arguing the details of the Zimmerman case for 4-pages.  That's called high-jacking.  It is only a comparison.  It is only an example.  Argue it's aptness as an analogy, not the details of it.

The analogy I am making is that a southern jury will give Mr. Roof leniency, no matter how heinous the crime, as they did with Mr. Zimmerman.  The plot being on the proclivities of a southern jury, not the details of Mr. Zimmerman's crime.  You might properly argue that southern juries are not biased, but Zimmerman is only an example.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You see, there's no need to connect this with Zimmerman at all. You're only doing it because the victims were black.

You are unfamiliar with the use of example and metaphor.  You should take a look at a book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, called Metaphors We Live By.

Examples are meant only to be illustrative.  They are comparisons.  They are offered by way of the logic of analogy.  You don't argue the details of an example, you argue whether or not they fit the the topic at hand.  People who run off on the details of a comparison have lost the plot of the thread.

You have run off with this thread, arguing the details of the Zimmerman case for 4-pages.  That's called high-jacking.  It is only a comparison.  It is only an example.  Argue it's aptness as an analogy, not the details of it.

The analogy I am making is that a southern jury will give Mr. Roof leniency, no matter how heinous the crime, as they did with Mr. Zimmerman.  The plot being on the proclivities of a southern jury, not the details of Mr. Zimmerman's crime.  You might properly argue that southern juries are not biased, but Zimmerman is only an example.

The only thing these two shootings have in common is the fact that the dead people are black. That is not a good reason to compare them.

I'll continue to argue the details of the Zimmerman case because the evidence that he acted in self defence is contained in the detail. The jury acquitted Zimmerman because they clearly didn't believe that he murdered Trayvon Martin. You will disagree I know, but you're just going on your own feelings and bias rather than the evidence.

It's absurd to assume that a southern jury would automatically acquit a white person who shot a black person.

Think about Michael Dunn ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are unfamiliar with the use of example and metaphor.  You should take a look at a book by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, called Metaphors We Live By.

Examples are meant only to be illustrative.  They are comparisons.  They are offered by way of the logic of analogy.  You don't argue the details of an example, you argue whether or not they fit the the topic at hand.  People who run off on the details of a comparison have lost the plot of the thread.

You have run off with this thread, arguing the details of the Zimmerman case for 4-pages.  That's called high-jacking.  It is only a comparison.  It is only an example.  Argue it's aptness as an analogy, not the details of it.

The analogy I am making is that a southern jury will give Mr. Roof leniency, no matter how heinous the crime, as they did with Mr. Zimmerman.  The plot being on the proclivities of a southern jury, not the details of Mr. Zimmerman's crime.  You might properly argue that southern juries are not biased, but Zimmerman is only an example.

The only thing these two shootings have in common is the fact that the dead people are black. That is not a good reason to compare them.

I'll continue to argue the details of the Zimmerman case because the evidence that he acted in self defence is contained in the detail. The jury acquitted Zimmerman because they clearly didn't believe that he murdered Trayvon Martin. You will disagree I know, but you're just going on your own feelings and bias rather than the evidence.

Wrong again.

Things in common.

Both innocent.
Both unarmed.
Both Black.
Both stereotyped.
Both singled out.

Yes the facts do speak for themselves, Zimmerman singled out an innocent black unarmed teenager who would still be alive today if not for the fact Zimmerman has anger issues, wrongly views blacks as criminals by his admission by his statement to the Police on his call using the word "they". TM had committed no crime but in Zimmerman's mind he had because he was black and hence why he lost control of the situation with anger.. No doubt you would start to run from someone following you if we go by the phone conversation with TM's girlfriend which supports the car slowly following him, which is hearsay, but would make sense as to why TM started to run feeling threatened. Though you would not understand this feeling not being black living in America. Thus Zimmerman ignored the Police to remain where he was tried to apprehend and innocent child, TM is scared for his life struggles and is shot dead by the Zimmerman. There is no doubt Zimmerman is guilty of killing TM and only because the defense was able to offer doubt by self defense did he get off being convicted. It is far easier to defend someone than it is to convict and where most of the evidence comes from someone who stereotypes black people and has anger issues makes the case even harder to convict that person.

The church, itself born out of a protest movement, is a symbol’ for many African Americans – and terrorizing houses of worship goes back centuries


During a 1998 trial following the 1995 race-related burning of a black church in South Carolina, one witness on the stand recalled a casual conversation between two male members of a local white supremacist group: “hell, let’s burn a church”, one white supremacist said to the other, according to records by the Southern Poverty Law Center. “There’s one right down the road.”

From 1822 when the historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church in Charleston was attacked for the first time and burned to the ground, to 1963 when four school girls were killed in a church basement in Birmingham, Alabama, following a racially motivated bombing, and through the 1990s when dozens of churches were set on fire across the American south, ending this week in Charleston, South Carolina: the pattern is undeniably, disturbingly there.

“The African American church, itself born out of a protest movement, is a symbol to African American community and culture,” says Yolanda Pierce, an associate professor of African American Religion at Princeton Theological Seminary, pointing out that the site of Wednesday’s killings, fondly referred to by some as “Mother Emanuel”, was a church that was founded because of black freemen and slaves’ very marginalization from white religious services in the first place.

“Whether we are looking at the 16th street bombing in Alabama in 1963, or this recent massacre, these are targeted specific attacks on African American communities, against African American lives. It is quite clear that it is about race,” she said.

Pierce said striking in a place of worship that has traditionally been a sanctuary and a refuge – where black people have been able to retreat away from racist practices and oppression – sends a message: “You are not safe in a place that you call home.”
“The attack is actually on the African American community at large and the church acts as the symbol for this,” she closes. It is hard to grapple with the reality of Wednesday’s horrific church attack in Charleston, South Carolina, where a white 21-year-old man is charged with fatally gunning down nine African American women and men as they attended Bible study.

And yet – as uniquely shocking as the incident is – from a historical standpoint, it is no isolated event. The attack somewhat disturbingly inscribes itself within a long American tradition of physical attacks on black churches – sometimes deadly, sometimes not – by white Americans.

These are targeted specific attacks on African American communities. It is quite clear that it is about race
Yolanda Pierce, associate professor at Princeton Theological Seminary

The practice of terrorizing black churches goes back centuries, starting during slavery – when black churches were often forbidden, or dismantled, sometimes burned – and stretches over the few decades of American’s still young history into the 1990s, when more than 70 burnings of black churches, predominantly in the south, led to a congressional hearing on the subject. “People have been talking about this as a terrible mistake, or tragedy. But when you think about it historically, it is not a mistake. It is actually a part of a system and a process of terrorizing black people and black bodies, particularly in spaces that they have carved out as sanctuaries,” Pierce said. “Today has been a very difficult day,” the Rev Terrence Evans said on the phone.

The weight of the church killings rested heavy on the shoulders of the pastor, who leads another predominantly African American AME congregation in Dallas, Georgia, an Atlanta suburb of 5,000 or so residents that lies 300 miles to the west of Charleston. He spoke to a few members of his own congregation following the news of the church attacks, he says, and they have been thinking of ways to help. People have been worried about his safety. He has brushed concerns off. “We are going to have to look into ways to be more vigilant with security,” he said. “But that does not mean we will carry guns, that does not mean we will have security outside the door.”

Above everything, “the doors of the church will remain open to whomever,” he said. Perhaps one of the most painful details to emerge from Wednesday’s series of events was that the white accused perpetrator of the mass killing was welcomed into the black church in Charleston to join Bible study for an hour before turning on his hosts and shooting them dead.Four little girls and other senseless attacks. Evans’s mind has been so preoccupied with senseless killings, racial injustices tied to Ferguson, police violence against black people, and addressing the issue of violence within the community, that it had not dawned on him to draw any parallels with the history of his own church, which was burned in 1995.
On the surface, the 1995 episode is a curious blip, one that created no physical harm to anyone, but for the fact that the place of worship of a small community was burned down, and that the church took a short while (a year) to properly rebuild.

“It was a child. A very young boy who was only maybe 11 or 12 years old that broke into the church. “For whatever reason, he decided that he wanted to burn the church. He set the church on fire in the choir area. Watched it burn for a little while and then he actually called the fire department himself. There wasn’t any major issue, other than the church burned.” Evans, whose almost entirely African American congregation practices within the majority white city of Dallas, Georgia, has tried to piece together the events of what happened one day in June 1995 – almost exactly 20 years ago – when a young white boy decided to set fire to the church he leads.

But the details have proven murky. Evans, who has been the pastor at St Paul AME in Dallas for the last five years, wasn’t in the area at the time, and news clippings are few and far between. He has had to mostly rely on oral history from members of his congregation.
It was probably race-motivated, he says. There were, after all, many other churches in the area – with much whiter congregations – that could have been targeted, and yet this is the one that was.
Unlike the events in Charleston this week, which demand action and attention in and of themselves, it may be conceivable to push this two-decade-old episode away, and categorize it as negligible.
But the 1995 burning happened at a time when black churches were being burned by the dozens in the south.

That same month in Clarendon County, South Carolina, a century-old church was burned to the ground in an organized attack by members of the local branch of the Ku Klux Klan. A subsequent, successful court case brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center on behalf of the church, that fined the Klansmen millions of dollars for their role in the attack, effectively dismantled the South Carolina chapter by bankrupting it. But Richard Cohen, president of SPLC, says that while many of the 1990s attacks on black churches were certainly racially motivated, most of them were not organized responses against civil rights advances the way that black church attacks in the 1960s had been.

In 1963, the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama, undertaken by four Ku Klux Klan white, male members, killed four African American girls aged 11 to 14. The church in question had been the site of civil rights organizing in the months leading up to the deadly bombing. A lot of them could probably be put on the backs of kids doing “thrill crimes at rural black churches where they could get away with things”, he said. But Pierce, the professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, says one incident cannot be divorced from the other. “When we understand it as a pattern of behavior, when we understand it as a historical construct, then we have to sit with questions of: what causes this to happen? And what allows it to be? And how is it that we are having these conversations again and again?”

The Charleston Emanuel AME church was burned to the ground in 1822 after white residents uncovered a meticulously planned slave revolt partially organized and conceived by one of the church’s founders, Denmark Vesey. Vesey, who was put to death 40 years before the Emancipation Proclamation that formally ended American slavery, was a black man who had bought his way out of slavery, but had been unable to secure the freedom of his wife and children.
For Greg Carr, an associate professor at Howard University who chairs its Afro-American studies department, the reason for ongoing, historical attacks on black churches can be placed on a fear by white America of an armed, black populace – a fear that in turn has origins within the American revolution against the British.
“One of the chief forces of colonial England unrest in terms of the American colony is the accusation – specifically in places like South Carolina and Virginia – was that the British were considering, and they were, abolishing slavery, and offering to the enslaved Africans a negotiated access to different forms of citizenship, which would have included the right to bear arms,” Carr says.

Carr says he is fed up with talks of an American dream, and of black martyrs like those young girls in Birmingham, Alabama, of calls by a president for gun control, a culture of which was conceived precisely to keep black Americans down. “Those words ring hollow to African Americans who do not seem to enjoy protection from state violence, or from private paramilitary acts of violence,” he says. “This speaks to the structural failure of America to protect its black citizens.”


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/charleston-shooting-echoes-a-painful-history-of-attacks-on-black-churches/

Raggamuffin wrote:It's absurd to assume that a southern jury would automatically acquit a white person who shot a black person.

Think about Michael Dunn ...

Quite frankly that statement on it own shows you know squat about the American south Michael Dunn is the exception rather than the rule

Raggamuffin wrote:It's absurd to assume that a southern jury would automatically acquit a white person who shot a black person.

Think about Michael Dunn ...

Actually, the Dunn case proves my point:

After the jury was unable to return a unanimous verdict on a charge of first-degree murder, the judge declared a mistrial on that count. Dunn was convicted, however, on three counts of attempted second-degree murder for firing at three other teenagers who were with Davis and one count of firing into a vehicle. The three other teenagers were not injured.

Dunn was given a pass for the murder of Jordan Davis, the one person he was trying to kill.  However, Dunn was convicted of attempted 2nd-degree murder on the others in the vehicle, from which he could not proffer the self-defense excuse.

So, your example backfires on you.  Again, a southern jury gave a white murderer a walk, because the victim was black.  I don't accuse the southern jury of ignoring the law completely, just looking for loop-holes for the white man who killed a black.  That's why I continually use the term leniency.  The loop-hole in Dunn's case was self-defense, even though no gun was found and witnesses say Jordan Davis was not carrying a gun.  I'd say Dunn was given a pretty big gift.

You've gotta face facts, Raggs.  Southern juries don't value the black man's life as much as the white man's.  Racism is alive in well in the South.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's absurd to assume that a southern jury would automatically acquit a white person who shot a black person.

Think about Michael Dunn ...

Actually, the Dunn case proves my point:

After the jury was unable to return a unanimous verdict on a charge of first-degree murder, the judge declared a mistrial on that count. Dunn was convicted, however, on three counts of attempted second-degree murder for firing at three other teenagers who were with Davis and one count of firing into a vehicle. The three other teenagers were not injured.

Dunn was given a pass for the murder of Jordan Davis, the one person he was trying to kill.  However, Dunn was convicted of attempted 2nd-degree murder on the others in the vehicle, from which he could not proffer the self-defense excuse.

So, your example backfires on you.  Again, a southern jury gave a white murderer a walk, because the victim was black.  I don't accuse the southern jury of ignoring the law completely, just looking for loop-holes for the white man who killed a black.  That's why I continually use the term leniency.  The loop-hole in Dunn's case was self-defense, even though no gun was found and witnesses say Jordan Davis was not carrying a gun.  I'd say Dunn was given a pretty big gift.

You've gotta face facts, Raggs.  Southern juries don't value the black man's life as much as the white man's.  Racism is alive in well in the South.

No, they couldn't agree that it was first degree murder. He was then convicted, and sentenced to life without parole plus 90 years. I wouldn't say he was given a "pass", and I wouldn't say that his conviction and sentence was "lenient".

Raggamuffin wrote:No, they couldn't agree that it was first degree murder. He was then convicted, and sentenced to life without parole plus 90 years. I wouldn't say he was given a "pass", and I wouldn't say that his conviction and sentence was "lenient".

The prosecution of Michael Dunn for the murder of Jordan Davis resulted in a hung jury.  He was never retried, meaning he was given a walk.

The life sentence was for attempted murder of the others in the vehicle.  Two entirely separate crimes.  Many people are unaware that an 'attempted' crime is usually given the same, or nearly the same sentence, because it was the same intent...but for fortune in the outcome.

Law is quite logical, and you have to take it apart and analyze it just as would an engineer.  Look at what the jury was thinking, not what the judge sentenced him to on another crime.  The Florida jury failed to convict on the question of the murder of Jordan Davis.  Michael Dunn was given a walk by the Florida jury for the murder of Jordan Davis.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:No, they couldn't agree that it was first degree murder. He was then convicted, and sentenced to life without parole plus 90 years. I wouldn't say he was given a "pass", and I wouldn't say that his conviction and sentence was "lenient".

The prosecution of Michael Dunn for the murder of Jordan Davis resulted in a hung jury.  He was never retried, meaning he was given a walk.

The life sentence was for attempted murder of the others in the vehicle.  Two entirely separate crimes.  Many people are unaware that an 'attempted' crime is usually given the same, or nearly the same sentence, because it was the same intent...but for fortune in the outcome.

Law is quite logical, and you have to take it apart and analyze it just as would an engineer.  Look at what the jury was thinking, not what the judge sentenced him to on another crime.  The Florida jury failed to convict on the question of the murder of Jordan Davis.  Michael Dunn was given a walk by the Florida jury for the murder of Jordan Davis.

No. There was a retrial, and he was convicted of first degree murder at that retrial, and sentenced to life without parole for that murder. He was sentenced to 90 years for the attempted murder of the other three.

Is quill being lazy with his research or just lying again...???

Tommy Monk wrote:Is quill being lazy with his research or just lying again...???

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The prosecution of Michael Dunn for the murder of Jordan Davis resulted in a hung jury.  He was never retried, meaning he was given a walk.

The life sentence was for attempted murder of the others in the vehicle.  Two entirely separate crimes.  Many people are unaware that an 'attempted' crime is usually given the same, or nearly the same sentence, because it was the same intent...but for fortune in the outcome.

Law is quite logical, and you have to take it apart and analyze it just as would an engineer.  Look at what the jury was thinking, not what the judge sentenced him to on another crime.  The Florida jury failed to convict on the question of the murder of Jordan Davis.  Michael Dunn was given a walk by the Florida jury for the murder of Jordan Davis.

No. There was a retrial, and he was convicted of first degree murder at that retrial, and sentenced to life without parole for that murder. He was sentenced to 90 years for the attempted murder of the other three.

No, it was you that was being deceptive. The issue, if you recall, was the prejudice of southern juries...not the Dunn case alone. You completely failed to mention that a southern jury--the first--failed to convict Dunn for the murder of Jordan Davis. Your point was that Dunn was an counterexample to George Zimmerman. Had you mentioned the first time around Dunn was treated with leniency, he would have been an example for the opposite argument.

As a counter-example, your argument failed. It was not as you represented.

He has accused me of being lazy with my research a little while ago... and of lying elsewhere too...!

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No. There was a retrial, and he was convicted of first degree murder at that retrial, and sentenced to life without parole for that murder. He was sentenced to 90 years for the attempted murder of the other three.

No, it was you that was being deceptive.  The issue, if you recall, was the prejudice of southern juries...not the Dunn case alone.  You completely failed to mention that a southern jury--the first--failed to convict Dunn for the murder of Jordan Davis.  Your point was that Dunn was an counterexample to George Zimmerman.  Had you mentioned the first time around Dunn was treated with leniency, he would have been an example for the opposite argument.

As a counter-example, your argument failed.  It was not as you represented.

Quill, you got it wrong - just admit it.

He was never retried

The first jury failed to convict Dunn because they could not agree on whether it should be first degree murder or another verdict.

Tommy Monk wrote:He has accused me of being lazy with my research a little while ago... and of lying elsewhere too...!

Now it's my fault for being "deceptive" apparently.

The lefties will twist and turn so much that they end up believing their own bullshit and everything as always someone elses fault!


Haven't you learnt this base setting of theirs yet?

Tommy Monk wrote:



The lefties will twist and turn so much that they end up believing their own bullshit and everything as always someone elses fault!


Haven't you learnt this base setting of theirs yet?

Yes. I'm just wondering what excuse Quill will come up with next ...

He'll find one... lefties are good at excuses...!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, it was you that was being deceptive.  The issue, if you recall, was the prejudice of southern juries...not the Dunn case alone.  You completely failed to mention that a southern jury--the first--failed to convict Dunn for the murder of Jordan Davis.  Your point was that Dunn was an counterexample to George Zimmerman.  Had you mentioned the first time around Dunn was treated with leniency, he would have been an example for the opposite argument.

As a counter-example, your argument failed.  It was not as you represented.

Quill, you got it wrong - just admit it.

He was never retried

The first jury failed to convict Dunn because they could not agree on whether it should be first degree murder or another verdict.

Yes, I shouldn't have said that.

That aside, the point of the discussion was lenient southern juries. Michael Dunn is a poor example for you to raise when he was actually given a walk by the first jury. It proves that southerners are biased in precisely the direction that you want to deny.

It confirms the hypothesis that southern juries favor whites in trials. The case of George Zimmerman also confirms this. Although in the case of Dylann Roof his admissions leave little wiggle room, I think you will find that a South Carolina jury will give him leniency.

South Carolina has the death penalty. My money says he is never given the death sentence.

Lazy research quill...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Lazy research quill...!?

No, missed point by Raggs. She obviously didn't research the case before she brought it out and dusted it off. Dunn is a case-in-point in the opposition.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Lazy research quill...!?

No, missed point by Raggs.  She obviously didn't research the case before she brought it out and dusted it off.  Dunn is a case-in-point in the opposition.

Does Raggs know your an American lawyer seems odd she thinks she knows more about American jurisprudence that you doesn`t it


armchair experts eh !!

She knew more about the Dunn case...

korban dallas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, missed point by Raggs.  She obviously didn't research the case before she brought it out and dusted it off.  Dunn is a case-in-point in the opposition.

Does Raggs know your an American lawyer seems odd she thinks she knows more about American jurisprudence that you doesn`t it

Well, Raggs is opportunistic in her arguments. Winning is not a concept for her; as long as she keeps going, she is happy. (Incidentally: she denies that I am a lawyer; say's it can't be.)

Tommy Monk wrote:She knew more about the Dunn case...

Apparently not. She should never have raised the Dunn case.

Original Quill wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
Does Raggs know your an American lawyer seems odd she thinks she knows more about American jurisprudence that you doesn`t it

Well, Raggs is opportunistic in her arguments.  Winning is not a concept for her; as long as she keeps going, she is happy.  (Incidentally: she denies that I am a lawyer; say's it can't be.)

Wel not that she will believe me
But i can assure her you are and that is a fact

It was relevant to your claim about leniency to white defendants...

It was relevant to your claim about leniency to white defendants...

Tommy Monk wrote:It was relevant to your claim about leniency to white defendants...

Well, I don't deny that it was relevant. It is just imprudent of Raggs to raise the case, that's all. She raised an example that, ultimately, proved quite the opposite point. The fact that Dunn was ultimately convicted was not nearly as poignant as the stumble made by the Florida criminal justice system along the way.

Not the way to build an argument, that's for sure.

You previously said she should never have raised the case but now admit it was relevant...



Make your mind up!