At least until we get an actual verdict and not speculation.

The only question is whether they agree on whether it was okay to shoot at his friends while they were fleeing

nt

they would not be asking that unless they thought was justified vs one.

I just don't see why people are already getting outraged by a verdict that hasn't even been determined yet.

I guess you don't have anything else in the tank. Speculating about something is a time honored tradition that has been around forever, if you do not want to participate then why do you keep getting outraged at others that do?

Just nothing else to do?

I just don't get the outrage.

nt.

gunning down an unarmed teenager seems to upset people who aren't gun humping cowards? And that Florida has already said that is a swell thing to do?

of gun humping cowards; yes INDEED

before ranting, raving and frothing at the mouth.

be expressing your outrage, yes?

I haven't followed the trial especially closely, but nothing I have read suggests Dunn was justified in shooting Davis.

instead of what I want them to be.
It's because I actually understand the laws regarding use of lethal force.
It's because I recognize that not being on the jury means I didn't get all of the facts.
It's because if I AM sitting on a jury, I am going to be damn sure I cover EVERYTHING before I send someone to jail for the rest of their life.

that the shooting was justified.

Florida has taken the presumption of innocence too far when it comes to racist white men who shoot black people

nt.

I am not saying Dunn is not guilty or deserves to get off for what he did.

I am saying that virtually every post I have seen you make, on a variety of subjects, usually consists of wild speculation, decisions based on emotions, an ignorance of facts and when confronted with facts, an inability to discuss things without personal insults, playing the race card or by trying to twist what the person responding to you said.

"Racist idiotic assholes. One of the worst juries ever."

"Florida law: white people get to shoot black people until they start running away"

All before the jury has even come back with a decision

and I have been saying all along...there are racist gun humpers (at least one) who cannot abide what the repercussions will for themselves if he or she puts a White man behind bars for shooting a car full of "thugs"....

and THOSE racists wanted to say that it wasn't really a murder of that hard-working Black mother with two small children....because she "might have tried to call 911 and that would be provocation" for this Black defendant to kill her.....let's just settle for Manslaughter instead"

Or do you have to be a control freak over every conversation on an open forum?

Yes, 202 posts (including this one) over the last 90 days, surely indicates that I am a control freak over every conversation on DU.

Grossly exaggerate much?

something you pretend not to care about. Seriously, why do you care so much if other people want to speculate? Just an off day and bored?

nt

but I don't know the law so my opinion is as worthless as most others.

I don't care if the jury is sequestered. That is an incredible statement to make by the judge. Seems like it would be grounds for a mistrial by the defense if there was a conviction.

Can the presiding judge comment on an ongoing case?

It doesn't say that in the article.

Seems odd that the actual trial judge would be commenting before the verdict was reached.

jury deliberations at all. That could be grounds for a mistrial, at a minimum.

There's a theory that the state deliberately threw the Martin case. Now this one seems to be going the same way! If Dunn's not acquitted, the judge has just guaranteed a mistrial!

So I guess crime is okay in Florida under certain circumstances.

The judge is conferring with attorneys on both sides to gain consensus and listen to objections, if any, before answering the jury questions. He's not making comments to the press.

The judge is speculating in the course of framing and interpreting the jury's questions in front of both sets of attorneys before crafting an answer.

Because this is a televised trial we get to see how all the sausage is made.

It appears he said it in open court. The story is short on information, though, so I could be misunderstanding. In any case whoever wrote that story knew about it, which indicates to me that the reporter heard the judge say that. I just don't know for sure.

We (you and me, and anyone watching CNN) are not part of the deliberations. There are no more witnesses to hear from, no more experts to testify, and the jury is not in the room- what impact could the discussion have on the case?

Why make that secret? What's the impact on deliberations? None, that I can tell.

They answer questions from juries, generally with simple yes or no answers, and return them to their deliberations.

It's a matter of allowing the jury to decide, which is its responsibility. It's not good practice for a judge to comment publicly on what he or she thinks is going on in the jury room.

Where'd you get this nonsense about 'yes or no answers'?!?

Judges present the questions from the jury, both sides get to discuss what the answer should be, raise objections to proposed answers, etc. It's the same process as the rest of the trial.

Good grief.

It seems arguments and objections get made in public and on camera because Florida has open courts laws/policies. That seems to be the case here - the judge was discussing for potential objections and consensus.

Some discussions do take place at side bar with microphones off. I don't know what the distinction is but I'll defer to the judge's discretion as he seems to be very fair.

The way the article is written you would think the guy is on the courthouse lawn answering questions from Orly Taitz.

to ascertain exactly what transpired. I'm not watching this trial at all. After the jury returns, I'll know what they decided.

He was giving his reasoning to both attorneys and the defendant on why he wanted to answer the questions the way he did. So far, he has walked a straight line so appeals would not be his doing.

I will wait until the jury reaches a verdict before I call them all racist. If they don't convict, then it's obvious.

I blame the Prosecutors, in part, for the length of the jury deliberations. Giving that many charges, options, pages of jury instructions, etc. takes time if they are trying to make the right decision.

I think (and seriously hope) Dunn is done.

seems he went way too far, but i did think that was something that had to be done.

Really? I hate this shit!!

pretty fed up with the others. I know I would be at this point. The length of time that this is being dragged out is way and beyond "thoughtful deliberation." I would love to be a fly on the wall of the jury room. I would love to know if there is a lot of yelling and fighting going on by now.

hope a jury not polluted by KKK members hears the next trial

This is my vote _______________, I am not going to change my mind, you can talk until the cows come home, I am still not going to change my mind. I just hope that if there is one or more racist gun nut on the jury, the others will out last the person (persons) and just hang the jury. I would rather have a hung jury, mistrial and start over again then let this piece of sh** walk.

I'm not sure the judge is ever supposed to comment on jury deliberations, much less before the jury has even delivered a verdict.

go free if they're white and their victim is black

Never thought I'd give AZ a thumbs up. It's all relative though.

Just totally shocked. I think they are arguing among themselves over what they are going to find him guilty of, rather than whether he's guilty.

The parting shots make it impossible to acquit. Parting shots are only defensive in a war, and then usually a waste of ammo.

I bet the jury is split on unpremeditated murder for the Davis kid, and agreed on premeditation for the assault charges.
http://www.mynews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2014/2/14/michael_dunn_trial.html

fairly certain of acquittal on shooting Davis, 50/50 on the shots fired while vehicle fleeing (with acquittal on those charges getting more likely every hour)

Because of the parting shots. No one's going to believe that he was just acting defensively, because his own actions prove he wasn't.

Well, I hope you are not right but if you are, the seismic counters will register my body hitting the floor as my brain convulses. I just cannot imagine more than 1 in a thousand juries acquitting this guy on the death, and I can't imagine any jury acquitting this guy on the assault charges, which still carry a long prison term.

Even in Florida, you can't shoot at people who are driving away and claim self-defense. Those were not defensive shots. Even if he thought they were shooting at him, he'd be diving for cover. This is not a very defensible case.

Gosh I hope you are not right!

in the old confederacy own a white pointy hood and you'll usually be pretty accurate

Race trumps law in old Dixie.

As Hassin Bin Sober puts it, because this trial is televised, people get to see how the sausage is made.

I haven't been watching the trial (I don't even own a TV), and I haven't even been following the press coverage because I just assumed it was a done deal, with the jury arguing over murder 1 vs murder 2.

This thread made me look up some articles, and boy that was bad reporting. I am sure you're right, and I was freaking out over the idea of FL judges going for the TV gold with controversial cases. There seem to be quite few in Florida.

As I read closer however I think it may be a case of the reporter presenting the judge's words out of context. The quote in the third paragraph does not quite match what the reporter claims in the first paragraph, I did not see a quote from Healey stating what the jurors believed instead he gave an example of something they may say. If he said this in response to the juror question that was presented to him then it would seem to me he may have just been explaining that the jury could decide that it started out as self defense and then went too far, this would be more of an explanation of the law than a prediction of the verdict.

At least I hope that is the case because if the judge really did predict a verdict that would be an extremely stupid move on his part.

It seemed totally unethical -even for Florida- that a trial judge would commit such a breach.

based on the courtroom discussion when the jury question came up this morning. They make it sound like the judge was just opining about the case, but that's not what happened.

I was watching the live feed and it sounds just like what he was discussing with the attorneys while they were formulating the response to the jury. They were hypothesizing about what the jury was struggling with so they would know how to respond. The jury was not present at the time.

I am outraged at your outrage!

to control the State government? This is just another in a series of wake up calls.

They can retry him for the charge if they are hung.