Simply because Dunn perceived a person as "threatening" does not make it OK to execute that threatening person. Dunn stated that he "thought" the person was armed thus it was OK to shoot them "preemptively" to eliminate the threat -
Oh FFS, you are ignoring the evidence to even say such, and nothing you said counters what has already been stated
multiple times.
It wasn't
simply because, and saying such flies in the face of the evidence.
As Davis's friends testified, Davis was the only one acting irate and angry
(toward Dunn). Not Dunn.
Davis threatened to kill him. Displayed a means to accomplish that threat, and then started getting out of the vehicle to carry through with the threat.
Those actions not only make it credible, but also immanent.
Under such circumstances anyone should be able to fire "preemptively" upon the threat.
Dunn thought he saw a gun, Davis's friend said he had a phone in his hand.
Well golly gee :doh Cops have mistaken a phone for a gun many times. Some are even adamant that they saw a gun despite the person being found with a phone, and they don't even get charged.
yet he decided not to stick around and explain that action.
1. He wasn't required to stick around.
2. And he gave legitimate reason for not doing so at the time.
People act differently, especially after traumatic events.
The jury evaluated the evidence (twice)
Twice? D'oh! iLOL
What exactly do you think that means? Especially as the first was hung.
Statistically? It meant he was pretty much screwed.
The jury evaluated the evidence (twice) and convicted Dunn based on that evidence.
As already pointed out, that is irrelevant to this discussion.
Pointing out that the Jury found guilt in a discussion of the actual evidence after the fact of their finding, especially as their finding is already known, is pretty ridiculous.
Secondly, unless a recent Juror has spoken out, you do not know why they found the way they did.
It could be any number of reasons, some of which have absolutely nothing to do with the actual law, and would be a miscarriage of Justice. And even within the bounds of the law, Juries get things wrong all the time.
Which is why an example of a Juror from the first trial was previously given. She voted to find him guilty because she said he had other options available to him.
Like rolling up his window. :doh
Like parking in a different spot. :doh
None of which have to do with the actual threat and response to it.
Had there been a conviction the first time around based on the way she voted, it would have been a miscarriage of justice.
So like I said, Juries get things wrong all the time, and you, nor anyone else at this time knows why this Jury found the way they did.
