IMO, even as the details of the above two cases differ, the principles that define whether a claim of self-defense is justified are shared. Hence, it is no surprise that both cases resulted in the failure of the self-defense argument.
:doh
You don't even know why the Juries found the way they did. Yet here you are making it up. Truly sad.
The Wafer case in Michigan saw the argument of self-defense fail, because the shooter fired through a locked screen door at a woman. There was no imminent threat to the shooter's life. He could have easily closed and locked the door he had opened prior to shooting the woman and called the police.
Either of his accounts of purposely pulling the trigger or accidentally pulling the trigger after being startled by the person who was violently pounding to get into his home, are alone reasonable. Unfortunately he changed his story and the Jury didn't believe him because of it.
To the underlined.
What you state is nonsense. Had he been found guilty over such reasoning, it would have been a miscarriage of justice.
The law does not require that you do something else or call the police, it requires the actions of using the firearm in self defense at that moment to be reasonable.
But as we know, it wasn't for that, it was that the JUry didn't believe him because he changed his story.
The Dunn case also saw the argument of self-defense fail. In this case, the targets of the shooting were unarmed. Moreover, they were trying to drive away from the scene of the argument, in effect "disengaging" from the confrontation. Even if a threat had existed, and no witnesses saw the victims of the shooting ever draw a shotgun and the teens were found to have been unarmed, disengagement would indicate that the threat had ended. Therefore, the kind of imminent threat required to sustain a self-defense argument was lacking. That the shooter failed to contact the police afterward further undercut the self-defense argument, as reasonable people who had defended themselves would have contacted the police to report their actions confident that they had acted lawfully.
Still showing you do not know the evidence of the case and willing to spin what do, all the while substituting your judgement for what is reasonable.
:doh
The lack of a weapon is easily attributable to their suspicious activity, and return from, the other parking lot, as well as the Police failing to search that area. Which the young men suspiciously failed to tell the police about.
The Durango backed up and stopped behind him
(you know, within feet of him), which he then continued shooting. That is not disengagement.
(A vehicle with the armed threat is still a threat, and would remain a threat until it was far enough away, especially as no one could see in the vehicle with it's tinted windows.)
The Durango again started moving and only after it was no longer a threat did he stop shooting.
And given the trauma he just experienced, Dunn's actions after the shooting are what a normal person may do. Reasonable folks understand that.
Let's see if I can respond to this as some of our more addled...oops..I mean illustrious posters might....
The arguments made were/are about the evidence. You can't even refute the arguments made, and instead want to make completely untrue assertions. That is a demonstration of addled reasoning. :lamo