The Michael Dunn Verdict

nhboy

Ubi bene ibi patria
Link to original source.

"A Florida jury could not reach a verdict on the most serious charge facing Michael Dunn, a first degree murder charge for the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Jordan Davis after a dispute over loud music at a Jacksonville convenience store.

Nevertheless, Dunn is all but certain to face a lengthy prison sentence as he was convicted on three counts of attempted second degree murder — one for each of three of Dunn’s friends who were also in the line of fire.

Dunn had been charged with first-degree murder, as well as the attempted murder of three of Davis’ friends who were with him in his sport utility vehicle as Dunn shot ten rounds at the car.

The judge declared a mistrial on the first degree murder count, leaving prosecutors the option of seeking a new trial.

The Florida shooting was the most prominent fatal shooting of a teen in self-defense since the death of Trayvon Martin drew national attention to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. The law was also cited in Dunn’s trial. "
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Bizarre.

Convicted of attempted murder of the people he missed and a mistrial for the one he actually killed.
 

aps45819

24/7 Single Dad
Maybe if the daily news wasn't full of young black guys committing crimes on a daily basis, a jury would be more likely to convict someone of removing one from society
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Lots of facts missing in this story. Need more input.

One thing is sure , at this incident none of the parties involved was over equipped with brain cells. I wonder how many of the ten shots fired actually hit the victim and I did not see where anyone else was hit so I don't see attempted murder against the perp, lucky to get that conviction is my guess.

Perhaps the First degree murder conviction hung up the jury because the charge was too great to meet the criteria of First Degree. Maybe a lesser charge would have gained a conviction.
 
Last edited:

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Bizarre.

Convicted of attempted murder of the people he missed and a mistrial for the one he actually killed.

Apparently at least one of the jurors did not believe that this fell under First Degree murder and would not change his/her mind.

I think it's pretty clear that this Dunn person gunned down that kid in cold blood. They're trying to compare it to Trayvon Martin, but I fail to see the similarity other than the dead kid being a black teenager.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Maybe if the daily news wasn't full of young black guys committing crimes on a daily basis, a jury would be more likely to convict someone of removing one from society

You know, this is a great discussion topic. The media is so clearly on the side of criminals, especially black ones, that I think we do hesitate to be objective when it comes to some young punk getting killed. We get outraged over a story, then we find out later the situation was totally misrepresented by the media and not even close to what was "reported". No wonder we don't give a damn anymore and are so skeptical.

Jesse Jackson
Al Sharpton
NAACP

They've cried wolf too many times and not done black people any favors by it.
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Apparently at least one of the jurors did not believe that this fell under First Degree murder and would not change his/her mind.

I think it's pretty clear that this Dunn person gunned down that kid in cold blood. They're trying to compare it to Trayvon Martin, but I fail to see the similarity other than the dead kid being a black teenager.

Well the defendant claims there was a gun.. The three that survived left the scene.

Instead of assuming that one of the three picked up the gun and bolted, they are assuming that the 4 were unarmed and innocent.

A HUGE assumption on the juries part.
 

Hank

my war
Well the defendant claims there was a gun.. The three that survived left the scene.

Instead of assuming that one of the three picked up the gun and bolted, they are assuming that the 4 were unarmed and innocent.

A HUGE assumption on the juries part.

Yet he mentioned nothing about a gun to his girlfriend when he left the scene and carried on with his night like nothing happened. The dude should fry! There was no gun!
 

MarieB

New Member
Well the defendant claims there was a gun.. The three that survived left the scene.

Instead of assuming that one of the three picked up the gun and bolted, they are assuming that the 4 were unarmed and innocent.

A HUGE assumption on the juries part.


But, if true, I read that he never mentioned anything about seeing a gun to his fiancé

And how could they (Dunn and the fiancé ) just leave the scene and carry on "normally?"
 

RPMDAD

Well-Known Member
Lots of facts missing in this story. Need more input.

One thing is sure , at this incident none of the parties involved was over equipped with brain cells. I wonder how many of the ten shots fired actually hit the victim and I did not see where anyone else was hit so I don't see attempted murder against the perp, lucky to get that conviction is my guess.

Perhaps the First degree murder conviction hung up the jury because the charge was too great to meet the criteria of First Degree. Maybe a lesser charge would have gained a conviction.

Hijinx, according to this article the jury had the right to convict of lesser charges and didn't even do that.

Earlier in the day, the panel said in a note to Judge Russell L. Healey that they couldn't agree on the murder charge. They also had the option of convicting him of second-degree murder or manslaughter. The judge asked them to continue their work, and they went back to the deliberation room for two more hours before returning with a verdict.

Michael Dunn verdict: Lawyers plot next move after jury deadlocks on murder charge - CBS News
 

MarieB

New Member
Yet he mentioned nothing about a gun to his girlfriend when he left the scene and carried on with his night like nothing happened. The dude should fry! There was no gun!


Not sure about frying since I haven't heard all the facts, but I noted that about his behavior too.
 

MarieB

New Member
Hijinx, according to this article the jury had the right to convict of lesser charges and didn't even do that.

Earlier in the day, the panel said in a note to Judge Russell L. Healey that they couldn't agree on the murder charge. They also had the option of convicting him of second-degree murder or manslaughter. The judge asked them to continue their work, and they went back to the deliberation room for two more hours before returning with a verdict.

Michael Dunn verdict: Lawyers plot next move after jury deadlocks on murder charge - CBS News

So, maybe they weren't convinced that there was no gun or the victim used something to appear as though he had a gun?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Well the defendant claims there was a gun.. The three that survived left the scene.

Instead of assuming that one of the three picked up the gun and bolted, they are assuming that the 4 were unarmed and innocent.

A HUGE assumption on the juries part.

Stop it, Bob. He shot and killed a teenager, then left the scene and went about his day. He didn't call the police until the next day when he spoke to his neighbor. At that point it doesn't matter if the teens were armed or not. I'd have found him guilty as ####.

And plus honestly? He looks like a douchebag. I'm a gut instinct person, screw any facts :jet:, and this guy looks like a gun slinging Bubba. I fully believe that he told these kids to turn down their music, they gave him lip, and he shot them. Just like that. I don't believe he was in fear for his safety, I think he was angry at getting smart talked and annoyed at the loud music.
 

edinsomd

New Member
He brought this on himself by first not clearly recognizing his target and what was beyond it, and more so by leaving the scene, post shooting. Any evidence that may have helped his case walked as soon as he left; when he fess'es up hours later, evidence and any impartial witnesses were long gone.
 

MarieB

New Member
Stop it, Bob. He shot and killed a teenager, then left the scene and went about his day. He didn't call the police until the next day when he spoke to his neighbor. At that point it doesn't matter if the teens were armed or not. I'd have found him guilty as ####.

And plus honestly? He looks like a douchebag. I'm a gut instinct person, screw any facts :jet:, and this guy looks like a gun slinging Bubba. I fully believe that he told these kids to turn down their music, they gave him lip, and he shot them. Just like that. I don't believe he was in fear for his safety, I think he was angry at getting smart talked and annoyed at the loud music.

Lol

I was going to mention the fact that he looks like a sleazy #######, and that he's lucky that the jury isn't permitted to consider that. When I saw his picture, it's the first thing that popped into my mind
 

Hank

my war
Lol

I was going to mention the fact that he looks like a sleazy #######, and that he's lucky that the jury isn't permitted to consider that. When I saw his picture, it's the first thing that popped into my mind

He reminds me of Uncle Eddie in National Lampoon's Vacation.....:lmao:
 

itsrequired

New Member
A HUGE assumption on the juries part.

Isn't deciding on all evidence a huge assumption on a juries part? If the jury decided there was a gun and it was self defense wouldn't that be a huge assumption?

IMO it is less of a huge assumption that there was no gun being the criminal didn't stay and call the police. Being that the criminal fled the scene and didn't mention a gun fwhile explaining his actions for a day is a pretty good indicator that he is not telling the truth.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
I don't believe he was in fear for his safety, I think he was angry at getting smart talked and annoyed at the loud music.



Tuttle

Feb. 15, 2014 at 8:16pm
What is your address? I would like to make sure some homies loiter around it with their radio up high and giving you their best “prison stare.” Don’t bother calling the police – they will be of the same tribe, smack their lips and say “dey isn’t commitin’ no crime.”
 

itsrequired

New Member
Tuttle

Feb. 15, 2014 at 8:16pm
What is your address? I would like to make sure some homies loiter around it with their radio up high and giving you their best “prison stare.” Don’t bother calling the police – they will be of the same tribe, smack their lips and say “dey isn’t commitin’ no crime.”

Could you expound on this, as it makes no sense in it's current form.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
Apparently at least one of the jurors did not believe that this fell under First Degree murder and would not change his/her mind.

Apparently that was the only juror who bothered to read the applicable florida statute and the jury instructions.

Getting aggravated with someone and killing them spontaneously is second degree murder. The jury was smart enough to see that shooting at the car lacked premeditation but fulfilled the reckless and depraved mind criteria for second degree murder and downgraded the verdict from the charge appropriately.

This would have been a 5/5 verdict if the initial charge had been for one count of 2nd, 3 attempted 2nd and discharge into a occupied vehicle.
There should be negative consequences for prosecutors who over-charge.

I think it's pretty clear that this Dunn person gunned down that kid in cold blood. They're trying to compare it to Trayvon Martin, but I fail to see the similarity other than the dead kid being a black teenager.

Dunns problem was that he didn't keep his 'cold blood' but that he allowed these little punks to get his goat and acted on an emotion Idiot.
 
Top