Mistrial declared in Fla. loud-music killing

[RBP]

http://i.imgur.com/fpiEVq7.jpg?1

Man found guilty of 4 lesser charges in case

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — A 47-year-old software developer was convicted Saturday of attempted murder for shooting into a carful of teenagers after an argument over what he called their ‘‘thug music,’’ but jurors couldn’t agree on the most serious charge of first-degree murder.

After more than 30 hours of jury deliberations over four days, a mistrial was declared on the murder charge that Michael Dunn faced in the fatal shooting of one of the black teens.

The 12 jurors found him guilty of three counts of attempted second-degree murder and a count of firing into an occupied car.

Dunn was charged with fatally shooting 17-year-old Jordan Davis, of Marietta, Ga., in 2012 after the argument over loud music coming from the parked SUV occupied by Davis and three friends outside a Jacksonville convenience store.

Dunn, who is white, had described the music to his fiancee as ‘‘thug music.’’

Dunn showed no emotion as the verdicts were read. A sentencing date will be set at a hearing next month.

Each attempted second-degree murder charge carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison, while the fourth charge carries a maximum of 15 years.

Davis’ parents each left the courtroom in tears, and afterward his mother, Lucia McBath, expressed gratitude for the verdict.

Sunday would have been the teen’s 19th birthday.

‘‘We are so grateful for the charges that have been brought against him,’’ McBath said of Dunn. ‘‘We are so grateful for the truth. We are so grateful that the jurors were able to understand the common sense of it all.’’

On Dunn’s potentially lengthy sentence, Davis’ father, Ron Davis, said: ‘‘He’s going to learn that he must be remorseful for the killing of my son, that it was not just another day at the office.’’

State Attorney Angela Corey said her office planned to retry Dunn on a first-degree murder charge, and she hoped that jurors would come forward and tell prosecutors where they questioned their case.

Jurors declined to talk to the media.

Earlier in the day, the panel said in a note to Judge Russell L. Healey that they were having trouble reaching agreement on the murder charge. He asked them to continue their work, and they went back to the deliberation room for two more hours.

‘‘I’ve never seen a case where deliberations have gone on for this length of time. . .’’ Healey said after the verdict. ‘‘They’ve embraced their civic duty and they are to be commended for that.’’

Dunn claimed he acted in self-defense, testifying he thought he saw a firearm pointed at him from the SUV as Davis yelled insults at him and the argument escalated.

No weapon was found in the SUV.

Dunn told jurors he feared for his life, perceiving ‘‘this was a clear and present danger.’’ Dunn, who has a concealed weapons permit, fired 10 shots, hitting the vehicle nine times.

Prosecutors contended that Dunn opened fire because he felt disrespected by Davis.

The teen made his friend turn the music back up after they initially turned it down at Dunn’s request. Dunn was parked in the spot next to the SUV outside the convenience store.

‘‘That defendant didn’t shoot into a carful of kids to save his life. He shot into it to save his pride,’’ Assistant State Attorney John Guy told the jury earlier in the week. ‘‘Jordan Davis didn’t have a weapon, he had a big mouth.’’

The trial was the latest Florida case to raise questions about self-defense and race, coming six months after George Zimmerman was acquitted in the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, about 125 miles south of Jacksonville.

The Dunn trial was prosecuted by the same State Attorney’s Office that handled the Zimmerman case.

Dunn’s attorney, Cory Strolla, told reporters before the verdict that he believed there was political pressure on the prosecutors and an excess of media attention because of Zimmerman’s acquittal.

‘‘I believe there is a lot vested in this case, politically,’’ Strolla said. ‘‘The case, on the heels of not guilty in George Zimmerman, just escalated that political pressure.’’

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Tonyaa Weathersbee


Editor's note: Tonyaa Weathersbee is an award-winning columnist based in Jacksonville, Florida, who spent the past few weeks covering the Michael Dunn murder trial. Follow her on Twitter @tonyaajw or on Facebook at tonyaajweathersbee.

(CNN) -- So it looks like Michael Dunn, a white man who fatally shot black teenager Jordan Davis for refusing to turn down his "thug music," may be going to prison for the rest of his life.

But that's a consolation prize. Not a real victory.

It's not a real victory because the jury that convicted Dunn, 47, didn't convict him for killing the 17-year-old Davis. They convicted him for almost killing Davis' three friends who were riding in the Dodge Durango with him. They found Dunn guilty of three counts of second-degree attempted murder and one count of shooting deadly missiles. Each attempted murder count carries a minimum sentence of 20 years.

But it's a hollow victory.

It's hollow because it means that, in 21st century America, the notion that a mouthy young black male could be a threat carries more weight with some people than the fact that an impulsive middle-aged white man could be a liar.

Think about it.

Apparently someone on the Dunn jury -- a jury that took four days to deadlock on whether Dunn was justified in killing Davis -- believed that Davis' cursing at Dunn and arguing over the volume of his music equaled a serious enough threat to make Dunn reasonably fear for his life.

Gunman 'in disbelief' over loud-music verdict

Someone on that jury saw Davis with a shotgun that likely never existed, but didn't see the real bullets -- 10 in all -- that Dunn pumped into the SUV and into Davis' body, bullets that left Davis bleeding and dying in his friend's lap.

It's hollow because it underscores what seems to be a scary trend. I guess now any random white man can confront a black teenager whose style of dress or music he doesn't like or views as suspect. And when that teenager doesn't submit to him, or responds to him in a confrontational manner, or in a way that any rebellious teenager is apt to respond, then it's perfectly fine to exterminate him.

We first saw this with Trayvon Martin.

Martin was walking to his father's home when George Zimmerman took it upon himself to follow him because he was wearing a hoodie.

Yet just as Zimmerman thought Martin looked suspicious, the 17-year-old thought Zimmerman looked suspicious. But when Martin responded to Zimmerman's stalking and wound up in a fight with him, Zimmerman fatally shot him.

And he got away with it. Zimmerman claimed self-defense. In a confrontation that he provoked.

So did Dunn with Davis.

Dunn took it upon himself to drive up to a convenience store in Jacksonville and, even with a number of empty spaces available, decide to park next to the one vehicle full of young black men playing some thumping hip-hop music. Rather than avoid music he hated, he parked right next to it.

And when Davis didn't submit to his wishes to turn it down, he didn't like it. They had words. He didn't like that. Michael Dunn was not going to be sassed by a black kid.

So Dunn reached into his glove compartment, pulled out his 9 mm handgun and started shooting at Davis and his friends. And he killed him.

Yet this jury believed that the unarmed black teenager, Jordan Davis, was so scary, so profane that they couldn't see their way to convict Dunn of murdering him.

So even though Dunn is going to prison, it's tough to feel good about the verdict.

It feels hollow.

What the verdict says is that in this nation, in the 21st century, some white men still believe they have the right to intrude into the space of young black men and make demands. And if the black man is unarmed -- with no weapon except his words -- those white men can still kill him. And call it self-defense.

All they need is a jury to buy it.

[DemonGeminiX]

Always got to bitch about something. Dude's going to jail for 60 years, he'll more than likely die in prison. And the details about whether or not the kids had guns aren't clear. They left the scene after the encounter, then came back later. They could've dumped any weapons they might have had. The police didn't canvas the area until 5 days later. The guns could've been removed. Dunn said he was in fear for his life. According to Florida law, that's all that's needed to justify use of force for self-defense. Sure, Dunn could have lied, but the teens could have lied too.

The more I think about this, the more I think they railroaded this guy to head off any civil unrest, especially since it happened so soon after the Zimmerman acquittal.

And again, a kid died because he tried to be a badass when the other guy had a gun.

[DemonGeminiX]

I will say this, what Dunn should have done was go into the store and called the cops and reported their loud music as a violation of the local noise ordinance.

[RBP]

It cuts both ways, black on white violence has spiked. But that's not headlines.

[redred]

i thought you were allowed to kill black people in Florida ?

[DemonGeminiX]

The black people have been getting upset over it lately.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

It cuts both ways, black on white violence has spiked. But that's not headlines.

It's because only white people are racist :nono:

[redred]

The black people have been getting upset over it lately.

understandable :lol:

[Muddy]

There are white a lot of white people out there that can sympathize with the situation the guy was put into, and probably the profanity laced tyrade he received back from the yutes when he confronted them. The big lesson here is everyone just needs to be respectful in public or you just might get your punk ass shot.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By SENI TIENABESO - ABC News


A juror in the controversial Florida "loud music" trial says there was no chance from the start of a murder conviction in the shooting of an unarmed teen at a gas station because several jurors were convinced Michael Dunn acted in self-defense.

Juror #4 – who asked to be identified simply as "Valerie" – told ABC News in an exclusive interview that the issue of self-defense forced the jury into an immediate deadlock. Two and then three jurors ultimately believed Dunn, 47, was justified in the 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Jordan Davis. Valerie, who wanted a conviction, says the group knew within the first hour that they would be unable to reach a unanimous decision.

The first thing jurors did when handed the case was turn to page 25 in the jury instructions, she said. The question: do you believe that Michael Dunn was justified or unjustified in the murder of Jordan Davis?"

"It said if he believed that he had an eminent threat to himself or his fiancee, so that was a thing that those two folks believed – he was frightened and there was no other option for him in regards to Mr. Davis," Valerie said. "The rest of us were 100 percent sure, you didn't have to react [with gunfire], you could have had another option.

"We looked at a lot of evidence – and myself, it was where the gunshots were, the timing. Could he have had other options? To me, [the shooting] was unnecessary."

Dunn never denied that he shot and killed Davis in a gas station parking lot after they got into an argument over loud music. But he pleaded self-defense from the witness stand. Jurors found the middle-aged software developer guilty on four of five charges for shooting at Davis' friends, who were also in the car, as well as firing a gun into a car in the 2012 incident. But the mistrial on the first-degree murder charge for shooting Davis has sparked outrage.

According to Valerie, the jurors who believed Dunn was guilty were split between first-degree, second-degree and manslaughter – but because they were unable to unanimously overcome the issue of self-defense, the jury was deadlocked. The jurors yelled and screamed at each other at one point, but all were respectful of each other's position.

Valerie believes Dunn got away with murder.

"A life was taken. There is no longer a Jordan Davis, and there is only one reason why that is. The boy was shot and killed for reasons that should not have happened," she said.

Valerie believes that Dunn could have rolled up his window, put his car in reverse, or simply ignored the loud music blaring from the other car. Despite the disagreement over whether shooting Davis was justified, all the jurors agreed that Dunn escalated the situation by then shooting at the others inside the car, she said.

Valerie decided to come forward after reading and hearing the outrage the verdict generated. She wants the world to know that the jurors valued the life of Davis. Race was never mentioned in deliberations and was not a factor in the decision, she said.

"Folks don't know the law. It's not that we didn't value Mr. Davis life. We had to make a choice," she said.

[DemonGeminiX]

Valerie's showing her ignorance and unwillingness to adhere to the law. Her logic is off. Whether he should have or shouldn't have reacted has nothing to do with the criteria listed in the law. All that matters was how he felt at the time of the shooting... if he genuinely believed that he was in imminent danger, if he was afraid for his life. That's what the law says. Period. In the heat of the moment, under duress, you can't always see every option available. And you don't have time to think about it. Reasonable fear is the requirement here. Not considering options when someone could be bearing down on you with malicious intent.

[Hal-9000]

Of course it's first degree murder....he had motive and it was premeditated action with intent.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

Of course it's first degree murder....he had motive and it was premeditated action with intent.

No way it's Murder 1....even if you think that he murdered the kid, you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he showed up at that place at that time specifically to kill someone. No way you could prove he had that intent.

[Hal-9000]

No way it's Murder 1....even if you think that he murdered the kid, you would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he showed up at that place at that time specifically to kill someone. No way you could prove he had that intent.

So it all happened within 5 seconds and he was defending himself...from the music? He had time to ready his weapon and shoot multiple targets with the premeditated thought of stopping the music



:lol: that didn't come out right..