Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

Mr Dunn shouldn't have Done what Mr Dunn Did

Discussion in 'The Soapbox' started by zorry, Feb 16, 2014.

  1. zorry

    zorry Active Expediter

    Mr Dunn, the guy that got into it with some teenagers in a gas station, over a loud radio, reached into his glovebox, pulled out a handgun and put 10 bullets into their vehicle. Killing one.
    He was convicted yesterday on manslaughter and other counts. No verdict on murder charge, may be retried on that.
    Facing 60 years.

    Elsewhere a 70 year old retired LEO gets into it with a young father in a movie theater. The young guy throws popcorn on him. He pulls out his concealed carry and shoots the guy dead.
    He never shot anyone previously.

    I'm surprised that I haven't seen either case discussed here.

    I wonder if either wishes they had left their weapons home that day ?
  2. zorry

    zorry Active Expediter

    Don't know how to edit a title. Someone plz add a D to Di. Thank you.
    (At the end. :) )
  3. Ragman

    Ragman Expert Expediter

    Straight truck
    did that work?
  4. muttly

    muttly Seasoned Expediter

    Mr Dunn is done.
  5. layoutshooter

    layoutshooter New Recruit

    Have no use for people like that. Gives us law abiding types a bad name.

    Have no use for the young "person?" I THINK it was a female, not sure, I saw in a car the other day. "IT" had a VERY young baby in the car and "IT" was playing "OOGA BOOGA" "music" SO LOAD it was making the windows "pulse". That poor baby is going to be deaf by the time it's two.

    Would NEVER shoot someone for that but a REALLY good butt whuppin might knock some sense into "IT". THEY can make themselves deaf if they wish, but a baby? It amazes me just what some "parents" are willing to do TO their children.

    Then there is THIS reason to carry a firearm:

    Woman attacks man with samurai sword on Detroit's west side | Detroit Free Press |

    Or THIS one:

    Cops could not stop them from these things. Someone has too. FAR more of this kind of crap going.
  6. xiggi

    xiggi Expert Expediter

    A butt whooping for playing a type of music you don't like too loud, priceless. That is exactly why the common man can't be trusted to decide on punishments.

    sent from my Fisher Price - ABC123
  7. layoutshooter

    layoutshooter New Recruit

    You have a reading problem? I SAID I don't give a CRAP what "IT" did to "ITSELF". I take exception with making a baby DEAF, and the level "IT" had the "NOISE" at, will. Too bad there is nothing can be done about it. "THINGS" like that should have their kids taken away until they learns some sense.

    I don't know who else you want to make laws beside a "common man". That's all there is out there. The bums we have makin 'em now ain't doing an exactly good job, now are they? I mean, if they were we would not be in the mess we are in.
  8. xiggi

    xiggi Expert Expediter

    We have a few ITS around here. My statement stands as a good example of what I pointed out. You have made it obvious time after time you have no respect for the majority of today's younger crowd.

    sent from my Fisher Price - ABC123
  9. layoutshooter

    layoutshooter New Recruit

    I can only comment on what I see. I see volunteer fires companies having problems getting young men/women to join. I see few young people joining in the work like Ducks Unlimited, or out at Pointe Mouillee.(last year there were a few at Pointe Mouilee, hopefully that continues) Specialized forest fire crews, the unpaid ones, are getting older and older with little young blood. I see local volunteer ambulance crews having problems fielding members.

    It is different than when I was younger, remember I am a good bit older then you. Maybe it was the places I lived, but when we were growing up there was a much larger percentage of young people DOING things.

    I am open if you can prove my assertions wrong, I hope they are.

    For those who have stood up and accept these responsibilities, thank you.
  10. davekc

    davekc Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Probably wish they had. This stuff has always been going on. The only difference today is it is reported more. Always had some isolated nut cases but I wouldn't see any of it as a vehicle for gun control.
    I am surprised they would waste taxpayers money to retry him on the first degree murder charge when he is already at 60 years. The guy is 67 now.
    The reality is probably to keep Al and Jesse from coming down and pulling a Martin march.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2014
  11. Turtle

    Turtle Administrator Staff Member

    Thank you for staying on-topic. :D

    I know the retired LEO was very remorseful. Said he couldn't believe he did that, and doesn't understand why. The guy who shot into the vehicle was found guilty of three charges of attempted first degree murder (the three teens who were not shot in the car) but the jury couldn't reach a decision on first degree murder of the dead teen. They couldn't agree on lesser charges of second or third degree. The prosecution, I think, overreached on first degree, premeditated murder, which they charged him with because they said he had time to reflect before grabbing the gun. I do think it's really odd that the jury can reach a decision on first degree attempted murder, but then think the actual murder, which happened at the same time, is somehow different.

    I think provocation (loss of control, and state of mind, i.e., outraged) mitigates it down to second degree instead of premeditated first degree. He claimed self-defense, because (after he started shooting) he thought he saw the muzzle of a gun in the back seat. But if the jury believed that, then why did they find him guilty of first degree attempted murder, especially since the muzzle of the gun (which didn't exist, it turns out) was in the back seat and not one held by the dead guy? Odd.

    Also odd was the fact that after the shooting, instead of calling 911, as most would do in a self-defense case, he went back to his hotel room and then the next morning drove two and a half hours to his home in Brevard County. Odd.
  12. layoutshooter

    layoutshooter New Recruit

    Was there a medical assessment on the shooter? Sounds like maybe he was not all there, considering the actions. I agree, first degree was a stretch, second or even a form of manslaughter.
  13. RLENT

    RLENT Seasoned Expediter

  14. zorry

    zorry Active Expediter

    The teens drove away. If they had a rifle they had time to dispose of it.
    If this is the case, if Mr Dunn had called 911, police may have secured the teens weapon.
    It surely would have helped his defense.
  15. Turtle

    Turtle Administrator Staff Member

    Describing the music as “thug music” to his fiancée, who was in the car with him, probably didn't help his case, either.

    Then again it could have been worse - he could have called it "OOGA BOOGA" music, which would had him found guilty on all charges.
  16. zorry

    zorry Active Expediter

    Guilty, even if he never drew his weapon. :)
  17. layoutshooter

    layoutshooter New Recruit

    Well, I guess it's ok to accept anything without regard, if one has no standards or values. Just as it must be fine to deafen a baby. I guess having no standards or values is today's definition of "enlightened".

    I would post some of what I heard being played during the drive to deafen a baby, but our software in EO does not allow that kind of garbage, for good reason.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2014
  18. zorry

    zorry Active Expediter

    He just left his kid's wedding reception. Stopped to buy wine and chips at gas station. While his girlfriend was looking for the fine wine section, he was out shooting into an Suv. Alcohol may have played a roll.
    He drove to motel. Police made contact with the shooter the next day.
  19. davekc

    davekc Senior Moderator Staff Member

    I don't see the point in trying him again for first degree murder.
  20. layoutshooter

    layoutshooter New Recruit

    Drinking is no excuse. There is no reason for his actions. When one chooses to drink, or do drugs, one must accept responsibility for what one does under the influence. The ONLY exception would be a reaction to a newly prescribed drug from a DR. There is no way to predict some reactions.

Share This Page