Count 1 mistrial
Count 2 Guilty - attempted murder
Count 3 - Guilty attempted second degree murder
Count 4 - Guilty attempted second degree murder

Anyone who could buy that "self defense" claim is obviously a racist scumbag and it looks like there was at least one of them on the jury as they failed to reach a verdict on the murder charge.

I'd think an obvious racist scumbag would have hung the jury up on every charge. Maybe just a partial racist? Maybe more of a disliker than a hater?

Can you give any plausible reason besides racism that anyone could possibly see validity in Dunn's absurd self defense claim?

I didn't hear the prosecution nor the defense. I don't know every piece of evidence raised, I didn't hear all of the testimony. Therefore, I can hardly give a reason to validate or not validate any sort of self-defense claim.

I'm just glad that the jury did their job and came to a conclusion that, in spite of armchair lawyers and detectives all over, they felt correct yet might not be popular. Especially considering the number of people that will possibly think you a racist JUST because you didn't find how they wanted you to. They, frankly, are the idiots.

There were multiple witnesses to the event and not one of them backed any of Dunn's three different versions of his story. Dunn fled the scene and ordered pizza rather than calling an ambulance.

Anyone who thinks this could be justified is a racist piece of shit scum bag who supports human hunting, people who support shitbag racist murderers like Dunn and Zimmerman are no better than KKK and Aryan Nation supporters.

If I had the time and/or cared enough about it, upon reading the entirety of the stenographer(s) records of the trial, judicial instruction, etc (you know, like you obviously have) I would be happy to agree with you.

Until then, all I have is what the media has given me (and even then, it's not a whole lot as I haven't followed the case very closely). I don't tend to trust them.

You just know that the jury did what they were summoned to do despite the fact that they failed to reach a verdict on the murder charge despite the mountain of evidence that existed against this guy, but when I present my belief that Dunn is guilty you suggest I could not possibly come to a conclusion without reading every last thing that was typed by the stenographer. I guess it is fine for you to reach conclusions despite the fact that you just admitted you don't care about the evidence, but you suggest that we can't say Dunn is guilty of murder unless we read every last stenographer's report. Fuck anyone who would try to justify what Dunn did.

As we have an outcome.

You've leveraged that the jury failed to reach an outcome based on your "belief" and that there HAS to be at least one racist gun-nut KKK Zimmerman bankroller on the jury. I never said you couldn't come to a conclusion of your own, that would be silly as you obviously already have. I'm stating that without having been there and knowing all that the jury knows, it's not possible to pass such a bold judgment of guilty or not guilty. My conclusion is that I don't have one, except that the jury reached a decision. Or in a certain instance, couldn't come to one. That means that what was presented on that count wasn't definitive enough to put this guy in Ole Sparky (or however the state sanctions murder around here these days).

See, I do care about the evidence. That's why I don't run around half-cocked about racist jurors humping guns who want to shoot black people. I don't care about personally taking the effort and time to reach such a conclusion as to either agree or disagree with random folks on the internet.

It's okay to be upset about it. Lots of bloodlust around here over it. Some folks didn't get their way and are pissed about it. The prison rape humor won't quite be the same, I suppose. Dunn is obviously a bad guy and I hope he rots in prison for what he was found guilty for. If they retry the first count, I look forward to an outcome on that. I hope the kid's loved ones somehow find some peace.

Because at least one RACIST pigfucker on that jury thought Dunn had the legal right to kill Davis.

The jury found no crime in the killing of Davis. Not due to a lack of evidence, but rather due to at least one RACIST pigfucker buying that a white person can unload his weapon into the chest of any black kid that makes him nervous.

I've been pretty clear, and you're not remotely good enough, smart enough or even in the same league to get what you want here.

I'd alert if I didn't find it so profoundly laughable that you'd try this. Here's the mirror, racism on you. Back out of it, please.

Here's a very good comment explaining what did/did not happen:

Comment by laxman:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024507361#post11

but there are a few here who are convinced that it just HAD to be a racist juror holding out for acquittal, which doesn't make any damn sense, if there were a racist on that jury, why would they vote to convict on the 4 other charges?

Officially, Jordan Davis is not a crime victim, thanks to at least one racist fuckwit juror.

There was nothing for an obvious racist scumbag to argue on the attempted murder charges. But he/they could stick with the self-defense argument on the murder. I soundly believe that's what hung them on that count. It wasn't about whether it was premeditated or not. It was about whether it was justified (self defense) or not.

I hope they retry this murder case.

On the killing of Davis, for which he can be retried (this is a mistrial only), the jurors had to decide between Murder 1, Murder 2 and Manslaughter or acquittal. Under FL law, the second two are lesser included charges to Murder 1.

Murder 1 includes premeditation. It's likely that some jurors were convinced on Murder 1 and some on Murder 2, with the Murder 2 lot thinking about it being a chance encounter and balking at the premeditation.

Suppose there were two jurors who were holding out for Murder 1. Those are the persons you are now claiming were racist scumbags. Racist scumbags wouldn't have convicted him on the attempted murder charges, would they? If you convict on the attempted murder charges, you are not going to acquit on the murder charge.

then should he not be guilty of Murder 1 or Murder 2. Was Murder 2 not given to them as an option and if not why not?

One can argue whether that was correct or not... I think there are some arguments on both side of that.


But once the separation is done. It follows that the homicide was treated separately and that there was disagreement among the jurors about whether that homicide was justified, while the shooting at the three other young men and the car were considered separately and found not justifiably covered by SYG.

It really was 5 separate issues/charges, and they all had to be looked at and decided upon separately. This is normal. They didn't divide the shooting into subparts. It was several separate shootings.

The evidence of events has to be considered with respect to the criteria that must be met for each charge.

In that way, the collective evidence is 'divided' (which may not be the best way to say it) and selectively used to demonstrate that it meets or exceeds the criteria of each charge.

Murder 1, murder 2 manslaughter, or acquittal. Those were they options the jury had for count 1.. the killing of Jordan Davis.

Due to one of the questions the jury asked (about self defense), I honestly believe the jury was hung because somebody wanted acquittal and wouldn't budge.

It doesn't make sense that anyone would hang a jury if they all agreed that it was murder but couldn't decide on which degree. In that case common sense says they would come to a compromise verdict rather than have a mistrial declared.

They were also given those same options for the attempted murder charges. Attempted M1, attempted M2, or attempted manslaughter. They decided on attempted murder 2.

and wouldn't budge while the others were for 2nd murder or manslaughter, remember, the verdict has to be unanimous otherwise it's a hung jury.
This seems to be the most likely scenario.

In the same way he attempted to kill the others, he killed Jordan Davis.

In the case of Jordan Davis, Dunn "claimed" self defense. His story was b.s., but evidently at least somebody in that jury went for it, decided the shooting was justified, and probably held out for acquittal.

In the case of the other shootings, there was never a claim of self defense. Dunn never said those other boys threatened him at all, and he was shooting at the car as they were trying to leave. He never gave any reason to justifying shooting at them. So legally that's attempted murder.. no justification.. nothing for a juror to look at and say "here's why he shot at them and it makes sense to me".

These are separate shootings and had to be looked at separately.

15 years for the last charge. I think they run consecutively but I am not sure about that point.

It's a shame he'll do more time for shooting the SUV than killing the black young man.

and it's unlikely they will. He's an old geezer and is unlikely to be around to be released 15 years from now.

I'm in trouble.

that status.

I haven't stayed glued to the news so all I knew is that some guy told a bunch of black kids in a car to turn the music down and then unloaded his gun at them when they told him to go to hell.

Now if he'd shot the CD player, he'd be a national hero.

But yes, I was unaware he was that young.

The theater shooter in Florida recently was a retired cop. I don't think this guy was (but I may be wrong)

for some gunloon to blast anybody who sasses him.

All that remains to be seen is how much of a backlash all this stuff is going to bring about.

I know if I see some idiot who is neither military nor police swaggering around with a gun on his hip, I leave the area. I have a big mouth and too many of those dudes have a hair trigger temper.

Guilty on counts 2-5, mistrial on #1

murder.

Murder 1 or Murder 2 but definitely murder.

one or two jurors wanted 1st murder and wouldn't budge while the others wanted either 2nd murder or manslaughter.

To all the people prematurely bashing the jury, I hope you reflect upon your negativity and apologize to them. Justice prevails and the system works!

Sorry, but that's the way it is, which is why I hope the juror anonymity is respected.

Mark O'Mara just said on CNN that this is a mandatory minimum of 60 years based on Florida law. I think they should have convicted of 2nd degree murder on count 1, and I hope they still do, but in my eyes the system worked in this case.

I think it's quite likely that they all voted to convict him of murder - but varied on the murder count. Most likely it was split between 1 & 2 on the murder charge, with some not able to find beyond-a-doubt premeditation necessary for murder 1.

Castigating these people as racists is not fair, and demanding that those on the jury who believed it was murder 1 bargain down to murder 2 is even more unfair.

Basically, you are saying that you would have preferred that some convict of a lesser charge when they were convinced that he was guilty of the greater crime, and I don't agree with you under the circumstances. Juries will do that when they have only one charge to consider, because otherwise the guy might get out on bail, which they don't want if they are convinced he is a murderer. But in this case, all it means is a retrial.

I think the allegation of such extreme racism carried to the point where one would not convict for an obvious murder is a very serious claim and should not be leveled without proof.

I based my concerns on past practice..

Because I live in this world, I am as free to be concerned or not as the next guy.



Tikki

I'm listening via the tunein app. stream is also at http://www.wokv.com/

The defendant is going to jail for the rest of his life just based on the three Attempted Murder convictions, which each carry a 20-25 year minimum sentence since they involved a gun.

Dunn is in his late 40s. A 60 year sentence is the equivalent of life in prison.

Racist Gun Asshole: 0 / Justice: 60

i.e. they are a mother frakking racist...

It clearly was. Dunn will spend the rest of his life in prison.

And, when the 1st degree murder charge is tried again, justice will have the opportunity to be twice served.

Go smoke a bowl, friend. It went well for justice.

It's not just a choice between murder and acquittal, or murder and manslaughter. It's between four charges - murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter and acquittal.

The question they asked about self-defense goes to the premeditation element of murder 1. If some of the jurors thought the shots at Davis were inspired by a motive of self-defense, then they couldn't convict on Murder 1 because the required premeditation element was not met.

They didn't buy the self-defense argument as justification, but it still is involved in the murder 1/murder 2 issue.

To argue self-defense, a reasonable man would have acted similarly. They did not go for that, it seems from the verdicts. But even if self-defense were not justified, if some of the jurors believed he fired from a non-reasonable fear at Davis, it still precludes Murder 1.

Based on the jury's question earlier from the day, it's clear at least one person bought that line of crap.

Based on the questions the jury was asking, at least one person believed that Dunn was reasonably in fear for his life, wanted a not guilty verdict, and wouldn't budge.

Since there was no evidence -- other than Dunn's lying testimony -- that Jordan had a gun or anything that resembled a gun, there's only one reason I can think of that anyone would believe the lies. They believed it because they understand an inherent fear of young Black men. Disgusting.

and the sun is bright.

I don't know what goes on in other people's hearts and heads, but your point seems logical.

A mistrial on count 1 doesn't mean he walks, does it?

On edit: never mind, I see that he won't. Thanks.

Dunn will go to prison for the attempted murder conviction. Could be in for a long time.

Literally.

For anyone over 20, a 60 year term is a life sentence. Dunn is 47.

I have no idea quite how that works.

was for each individual.

This jerk is going away for a long time.

I'm just sorry he wasn't found guilty on all counts. It's infuriating.

I assume so. also when is sentencing? thx.

I believe the was on a no bail hold.

He deserves a guilty murder convction, but he's going to prison forever anyway.

Still won't bring Jordan back though.

If any of them talk to the media, I would be very interested in what they have to say.

Even in some future date he could still be tried for the murder if circumstances lead towards his release. In that sense this is a positive. Can the prosecution wait for some future date to retry?

on the first charge. Apparently, retrials are more likely to result in convictions.

though in most cases sooner is preferable to later.

But given that there's apparently no doubt as to whether Dunn fired the shots that killed Mr. Davis, I hope the prosecutors retry him on the first charge, even if he's already going to prison for life.

It seems to me that first degree murder is very difficult to prove except for serial killers, mass shooters, high profile victims, or the defendant knew the victim.

Wouldn't second degree murder along with the other charges be a quick and easy way to ensure he never walks free?

seems like 1st degree murder to me.

Which means that the burden is on the state to completely discredit any story or any defense that his attorneys come up with to suggest otherwise.

I suppose that would be a task because they will believe that a black person is a threat just because they are black.

they asked specific questions that wondered if they could also apply self defense to shooting into a car that was trying to escape the first burst of shooting. Apparently someone on that jury wanted to believe shooting 10 bullets at four unarmed teens fleeing was somehow self defense. Doubt he;d have gone for murder 2.
Luckily, the lawyers in no way claimed that part of it was self defense. They were not convincing about the first part either- but someone wanted to give that fuck the benefit of the doubt.

It sounds like it's an open and shut case that he killed someone who posed absolutely no threat to him and it's bad luck that you get a juror who thinks otherwise, so you re-try. But the standards to prove murder 1 are high (as they ought to be) and I'm not sure I see the rationale for trying to get it in this case.

want to believe that part of the law- so they ignore it. But the jurors had a choice of murder 2. I think someone would hve let him slide or go for manslaughter only, and others felt that was just too wrong to compromise on it. Luckily, they defeated that juror's argument that shooting at people fleeing could possibly be self defense. One nut case almost hung the whole thing. Scary.