it was discussed at some length on reddit that Stand Your Ground was not part of this case and that SYG is very misunderstood.
If it is so misunderstood, and Dunn was one of those who misunderstood it, then I think it's a problem. IF Dunn misunderstood what the law means, I hope that it is clearly and thoroughly discussed so that no other person is shot and killed because of that misunderstanding.
May or may not get a retrial based on sentencing of the current convictions plus what the parents of the young man that was killed would like.
A retrial is expensive to the taxpayers and with just and uncertain an outcome as this trial. If the sentences on the current convictions are long and the parents don't push for a retrial, there may not be one (he'll be in jail for a very long time anyway.)
Frankly, what is with all the lack of anger management issues. Guns are not appropriate solutions when someone makes you angry with their behavior. Guns are to defend yourself if needed... not seeing self-defense in most of these cases, just people angry at other peoples' behavior.
I'm afraid that (most) of the public thinks it's a reason to stand your ground no matter what. I cannot believe that is what it was intended for or that is the most useful way to interpret the law. We may never know, for sure, if Dunn used the law as a basis for asserting himself in this case or if he was just arrogant but if he did, then it needs seriously revamped.
This reminds me of the viewpoint that a pedestrian has the right of way in a crosswalk, but if they get hit, does it matter? If SYG is appropriate but the intended victim is shot and badly injured or jailed for the rest of his life, was that a good choice....just because s/he could? Personally it would not be for me. Just because I might have the right of way in a crosswalk, does not balance out being dead or permanently disabled due to HBC . Just because SYG is a law, does not balance out spending the rest of my life in prison. Of course, Dunn probably did not take into account he might be found guilty so there is that short sightedness to consider as well.
well huh? "Premeditation" is in the eye of the jurors, or the definition in the charge. In my state, GA, the charge reads "one can form the intent to kill in an instant, and immediately regret it after the killing and it is murder." Our statute on voluntary manslaughter, which would be like a 2nd degree murder, allows for anger to impair basic common sense and judgment. It's the intent at the time one pulls the trigger, and whether or not anger is a factor which determines the crime. In the FL case, killing like that, the jury was charge on several degrees of murder and manslaughter under the FL statute. Yet some whites did not want to convict a white man for killing a black kid. Period.
What the fool jurors don't understand is that they did not have to believe anything that the killer said in this case. Who thinks a guy has a gun right there, but cannot get out of his own car, but the kid could get out of car in same space and kid already had gun out, so says the killer, yet the killer has time to reach in glove compartment and pull out his own gun? Not plausible.
And now we find out that his letter to his daughter from jail he said that white males should kill more "thugs," aka blacks. And from his former neighbors, we are told he beat one of his 2 previous wives, both of whom were from hispanic countries, and that he made one of them go to the sex swapping parties. What a fun guy! He's said that hispanics and blacks are inferior to his wife male self. I wonder if the prosecution crossed him on that, since he did put up character witnesses in his defense? In my state, we could and did, impeach any defense character witnesses will evidence of bad character to others.
What people do not realize is that race is a factor in every case where everyone, victim, defendant, cops, etc., are not of the same race or religion or sexual preference. And jurors do retaliate in other trials when they feel that another race has been allowed to kill their race and get away with it. Nothing like a white male juror saying to 11 other jurors that he won't convict a black man for killing a white woman because she "deserved to die" for living with the black guy. (Fortunately a young white female juror who knew the old white dude told him she hoped he'd not do the same if she was killed like that.) Ditto when a young black male college professor goes into jury room and sits in corner and says he won't participate in a trial where a black man was accused of raping a white woman. (female black juror took care of that issue and they convicted.)
The issue or race is in every trial, because there are racists everywhere. Dunn could have been convicted of lesser degrees of murder or of manslaughter. Having dealt with hundreds and hundreds of jury verdicts, I have no doubt that some whites on that jury just did not want to convict a white man for blowing away a 17 yr old who played his music too loud, and gave the angry white male some lip. And who goes to his motel and orders and eats a pizza after killing another human being?
ETA I always did like our charge on murder which says that a defendant's actions during the incident can show "an abandoned and malignant heart" to prove murder. If anyone ever had an abandoned and malignant heart, it was Dunn when he drove off and ordered and ate his pizza.
A murder charge count can and often does, as in my state and in the charge in this case in FL, include "lesser included offenses." That jury could have convicted of 2nd degree murder or of manslaughter, and I think one other lesser included offense. Someone on that jury didn't want to convict him period on the killing.
Hey Cloudy, thanks for that description! Not being a legal eagle I wondered how the jury got "attempted murder" on several counts but when someone actually died could not get "murder",and figured it must be with the jury instructions? Maybe someone actually bought the "I saw a gun" story and thought it was self defense??? Or at least did not feel like first degree? Would they have had the chance to convict on a lesser, or only on the top count? It sounds like you think they definitely could have.
Like you, I find that very hard to believe. And if I did, I could not believe going to a hotel and ordering pizza