Re: Michael Dunn found guilty of 1st-degree murder in loud-music trial
:doh
Understood. You got nothing, and wont even bother to learn the evidence.
Figures.
With all due respect, the jury's verdict suggests entirely the opposite. Instead, the claims that Dunn was a "victim" or deserved to be acquitted lacked credible basis as far as the jury (and the earlier one, too) was concerned.
I doubt that the verdict will be overturned on appeal, assuming any appeal is even attempted. The only plausible item that could be reversed, and even that appears less likely than not, could be the element of premeditation.
Several points:
1. The news story unequivocally points to Dunn's starting the whole affair seeking that the music be turned down (LA Times). He didn't like the music, describing it as "thug" music (NY Times). And given Dunn's description of the music as "thug" music, one can't automatically assume that Dunn didn't use derogatory descriptions of the music. A transcript of what exactly was said has not been published.
2. The teens rejected his demand, as they were free to do, and a "dispute" or "argument" ensued (NY Times and Washington Post). When they turned down his request, he could have walked away.
3. Dunn claimed that a teen pointed a shotgun at him and purportedly attempted to exit the vehicle. In fact, the teens were unarmed. Furthermore, the teens were fired upon when trying to leave the scene, not go after Dunn. (NY Times)
4. Afterward, Dunn went back to his hotel and the next day went home. He never reported his shooting to the police even as he, himself, stated he fired 'again and again' at the teens. (NY Times) Were it self-defense, he would have reported his shooting, as he would have asserted that he was compelled to use his gun to defend himself. He didn't. Only after his arrest did he suddenly assert "self-defense." Had he not been apprehended, he would almost certainly have never reported the shooting, as he had more than ample time to have done so prior to his arrest.
Key questions in the case:
1. Was it self-defense? No. First, the teens never pointed a shotgun at Davis. Second, the teens were attempting to leave the scene when they were shot at by Dunn. Third, Dunn never reported his shooting to the police despite more than ample time to have done so. He simply left the scene.
2. Would a reasonable person in Dunn's position feel threatened? Almost certainly not. The teens were attempting to leave the scene when he fired upon them. Earlier insults as part of an argument don't constitute a continuing "threat" when the party is trying to leave the scene.
3. Did Dunn make up an alibi of self-defense. Almost certainly, as it amounted to perhaps his only chance to escape conviction and prison. Moreover, he very likely did it some time after the incident. Dunn complained to his fiance about "thug" music. He never said anything about a gun having been pointed at him, even as she would have been the person most likely to have been told if such a situation occurred. Therefore, at some point afterward, possibly after his arrest (because he never reported the shooting), he came up with the alibi. Furthermore, a shotgun is large. To say he saw a shotgun when the teens were unarmed stretches the imagination. In any case, his former fiance's testimony shattered his thin alibi and demolished his credibility.
In sum, his actions were unnecessary. There was no need for him to have fired at the teens, much less 10 times. He killed an unarmed teen and could have injured or killed others. Most likely, his actions were the result of his being enraged that the teens refused his request to turn down their music (as was their right) and disrespected him. Disrespect and insults do not warrant one's being shot repeatedly. Dunn retaliated with unlawful and excessive use of force. Worse, he did so, even as the teens were trying to extricate themselves from the situation and were trying to leave. Afterward, Dunn became a fugitive, leaving the scene and never reporting the incident to the police.
The jury held him accountable for his violence as it properly should have. The jury, more than any person here or in the general public had complete access to all the evidence. Based on what was described in news accounts, even as that information is more limited than what the jury had available to it, there's no rational basis for disagreeing with the verdict. The judge's sentence reflects the jury's finding. Davis, not Dunn, was the victim of a savage and unwarranted attack. The perpetrator of the attack was convicted and is being held accountable for his crime.
That's the end of it. The jury made an evidence-based decision.
Sources:
LA Times:
Florida man sentenced to life in prison over loud-music killing - LA Times
NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/u...h-of-florida-youth-in-loud-music-dispute.html
Washington Post:
Michael Dunn sentenced to life without parole for ‘loud music’ killing of Jordan Davis - The Washington Post