Michael Dunn Verdict
  • For the non-Americans, Michael Dunn is a 47 year-old white guy who, while driving home from a wedding where he had been drinking, pulled into a gas station.  In said gas station, four black teenagers were playing loud rap in their SUV.  Mr. Dunn told them to turn it down, and things escalated.  Mr. Dunn says he saw a shotgun, so he went to his glove box, got his pistol and fired ten rounds, killing Jordan Davis, 17.  No shotgun was found, Mr. Dunn is the only person in the case who says there was a gun, other than his own.  He then drove off, and did not present himself to the police until the news made it obvious that his vehicle had been made.

    The verdict came down, and he stands convicted of shooting at an occupied car and three counts of attempted murder.  He kept shooting at the SUV as it fled.  The SUV returned to the gas station quickly and called for help.  If he had stopped at seven rounds, perhaps he would have three fewer convictions.  The jury hung on the murder charge.  The central charge ended in mistrial.  I would like to think they got hung up on murder one vs murder two.  The man is a violent bigot, but how premeditated could this be?  I suppose information will leak from jurors and will find out what went on in there.  Mr. Dunn faces a potential number of years of incarceration greater than his expected lifespan, and may be retried for murder.

    Florida continues to reap the change in culture that stand your ground laws have caused, even when they are not specifically cited.  If you escalate conflict with an unarmed black boy, and surprise surprise he becomes angry, you are cleared to shoot him to death in the minds of many Floridians.  Once you remove the duty to retreat and "feeling threatened" becomes grounds for murder, you really make it much harder to convict people who have obviously killed another person.  You also make it much easier for prejudice to come out.  If one person on the jury "feels threatened" by angry black males, then the potential for this kind of crap going on and on exists.

    Sadly, a perfect test case is on the way.  The Reeve case, in Florida, or course, has a retired cop shooting a white guy for texting, then verbal escalation, then throwing popcorn, in a movie theater.  Same basic case.  Armed individual chooses to escalate a conflict with an unarmed one, "feels threatened", and then starts blasting away.  Because the corpse is white, I think the verdict will be guilty and the jury won't be out for three hours.  We will see if I am right.
    Noobied by 2sloth 8drawt
  • I'm really surprised that this sort of stuff still exists but thought that you wrote it all out very clearly and I'm thankful for that because I'm able to understand and chime in.

    I think the difference between manslaughter and murder is premeditation and intent (here in Australia). If you accidentally kill someone, that's manslaughter. If you do it while without full facilities/cognitive function (like intoxication) its still just manslaughter. The precedent is such with drunk drivers. Murder involves a bit of planning (like escape routes, cover stories, burial sites and generally thinking about the repurcussions etc.)

    I think he should be done for manslaughter and nothing thought about the race of the parties. This is on the assumption that this individual, however rancid he may be or whatever hate he spouts from his mouth, doesn't genuinely sit at home thinking about shooting whatever sections of humanity.

    I'd like to see the law upheld in the most objective way free from whatever emotions there may be over the sensitivity and frictitious nature of this. The media can yap all they want, but inferences have no base when next to the facts and what actually happened.

    Despite this view, we're having a hard time in Australia with discerning what we are bound by legally and public outcry/media magnification. "King hits" are when people get drunk and one hit KO somebody else. Their head falls onto the concrete pavement and they usually suffer serious damage/paralysis/death (we have some hard concrete here). What happened was: it was getting out of hand, lots of drunken brawls, people felt more and more unsafe, the media latched onto this and ran it like it was the plague, huge public outcry, and then the government changed the laws (from public outcry/for the votes) and made it so that its manslaughter with a minimum of 8 years. I'm not sure how I feel about this one as it targets a (boganistic) demographic that I don't like but at the same time, what about drunk drivers?
  • Cheers for that West, living in the UK and being ill informed i hadn't heard anything about this. Your post was interesting and well written summarizing what has happened :) . It deeply worries me that things like this still occur, i don't really know what to think but thankyou for posting.
  • One of the jurors came forward.  It turns out they were not hung up between murder one and murder two.  2 or 3 of the jurors believed this was self defense.  Talk about not being aware of your own racism.  Dude is in a car and can drive away, and a couple jurors think unloading seven shots at an unarmed black kid is the best answer?  How scared of black guys are you?  If he had not kept shooting at the SUV, as it fled, he would have had a mistrial all the way around.  Fucking Florida.  That Reeves case is going to be open and shut, if it is not pled out, and I am going to be very sad to be right.
  • i guess i could look it up but i will just say that my understanding was that mr dunn was convicted of 3 charges of attempted murder. now that still dosnt make sense but the fact is he will be doing his time anyway. i expect a response of wests telling me i am wrong or right. i like when there are people in a thread that need to look everything up, saves me the work.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Most Popular This Week