The Dunn - Davis Trial

[msmoneybags48]

Here is another case that shows you that justice is not fair.  I heard on the news about this man who shot into a SUV and killed a 17 year old Black teenager, Jordan Davis,  in Florida for playing loud music at a gas station.  The latest is that this man has been convicted of 3 counts of attempted murder and acquitted in the death of this 17 year old.  Where do they get these juries?  Out of a jury of 12, 8 were White.  I pretty much speculated that he would get off as George Zimmerman, the man that killed Trayvon Martin, did.  They have the Stand Your Ground law in Florida, which gives the defendant defense for doing things like this.  Dunn was not using the law as a defense.  Whether you liked or disliked loud music, the last thing you should do is shoot into a car and kill.  Instead of Dunn minding his business, he was more concerned with involving himself in shooting into the SUV and did not call police.  Yet he got off.  I think it is a downright travesty of justice.  What do you think?

[skinnygwenny]

The last I heard was playing loud music is not a crime, its being a public nuisance. If people start getting killed for being a public nuisance, our population is going to drop drastically.

[lvstephanie]

Several issues with what you just posted... Dunn was convicted of 4 charges -- 3 attempted murder charges and 1 charge of firing into a vehicle.

Also, the jury hung on the remaining charges; Mr. Dunn was not acquitted. There is a huge difference between a hung jury and a jury finding a defendant not guilty. In a criminal case, to be convicted all members of a jury must find the defendant guilty, a hung jury means that at least one juror could not find the defendant guilty, and an acquittal means that all jurors found the defendant not guilty. In a case where the jury becomes deadlocked and cannot deliver a unanimous finding, the case is declared a mistrial and the defendant can be tried again with a new jury. And sometimes this actually helps the prosecution by interviewing the jurors after the trial to determine where certain jurors had a hard time of producing a guilty verdict. After those post-trial interviews, the prosecution could use that information to change how they go about their case, perhaps providing more evidence for a certain issue that the first jury had difficulty with.

You say that the Stand Your Ground gives the defendant defense for doing "things like this", which if you mean gives him a defense to shoot because of loud music, then you do not understand what that law is about. The Stand Your Ground provision is a type of self-defense plead that essentially says that a defendant can be not guilty of murder if they perceive that they were being threatened by the victim. Since Mr. Dunn stated on the stand that he thought Mr. Davis had pulled out a shotgun, made a comment something like "It's time this guy is going to get it!", at which point Mr. Dunn pulled out his gun and proceeded to fire. If Mr. Dunn's account is true, then this would be a clear case for the Stand Your Ground to protect Mr. Dunn in allowing him to fire against the threat of a shotgun. However since it was at the trial when Mr. Dunn's fiancee first heard about this shotgun, and considering that the police never found that weapon when examining the victims' vehicle, it is possible that this story was indeed fabricated by Mr. Dunn, in which case it would be one of the best areas for the prosecution to target for their retrial.

I too was a little surprised (and disgusted) about the verdict, but as I heard more about what went on in the actual trial as well as that the jury was just hung on the remaining murder charges, I decided that it wasn't a travesty of our judicial system. It just showed that the prosecution just didn't have enough evidence to convince everyone on the jury, or more likely that Mr. Dunn's account of the night added a twist to the prosecution's case that they were not expecting. But now that they know what Mr. Dunn's story is, they can try to strengthen their case.

[loulizlee]

This is another case for which people will draw conclusions without knowing all the facts.  I agree that I thought it was a slam dunk case in the beginning, but I also agree that, if they decide on a retrial, the prosecution will be at an advantage.  The one thing about the Florida Stand Your Ground law is that, to me, it is very hard to understand.  My main question was, If they are using that defense, how does Dunn's running after the car and shooting at it come into play as Stand Your Ground?

[jmccaskill]

I have not followed this case at all, but I can't imagine how this guy was acquitted. The ONLY justification I can imagine for shooting into a car would be if he were in imminent danger of being shot by the person he killed. I have not heard that this was the case. Whatever the facts are it appears that this guy will probably spend the rest of his life locked away and that is a good thing! Don't want this dude milling around in public at all, EVER!

[sigmapi1501]

I have not followed this case at all, but I can't imagine how this guy was acquitted.

He wasn't. He is going to prison for 60 years and still has the murder charges hanging over his head.

[rdy2pl8]

I agree it's not fair, but in reality, he really didn't get off. It's sad this had to happen, and I hope Florida changes their stand your ground laws.

[mjoseph1]

i don't think they will change the laws until it adversely effects someone it was designed to help