quite different from 'shooting at' him. This may have been caused by the instructions to the jury.

Murder = unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

Manslaughter = 'the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder'

Murder 1 = first degree murder n. although it varies from state to state, it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait etc.)

As of right now, Florida's legal system recognizes no wrongful act committed by Dunn against Davis.

vis a vis Davis, does not at all mean Florida doesn't in fact recognize what he did was wrong.

None of them involve him shooting at Davis. He was convicted of shooting at the three other kids. And he was convicted of shooting at the car as it pulled out.

But, they deadlocked on whether he did anything wrong in shooting at and killing Jordan Davis.

but on whether he committed murder as charged against Davis.

They couldn't convict him of attempted murder because he succeeded.

At least one juror essentially said "good shoot" re avis.

It very likely was one or two jurors that wanted 1st murder while the others wanted 2nd murder or manslaughter.

of it due to self defense. The other jurors had to have to court explain they could not claim self defense for the other shootings.
So obviously, someone or two bought the claim it was self defense. Would that even be manslaughter, I wonder?

If there was a juror who felt that Dunn was justified, they wouldn't have convicted on any charges because unless that juror is a complete and utter moron he or she would have realized that convicting on the other counts would result in prison time.

The far more likely explanation is that the jury couldn't agree if the shooting met the standard for murder or manslaughter. Dunn will be retried and hopefully the prosecutor will make their case better, or go for just manslaughter unless there is hard evidence that Dunn intended to kill Davis in particular.

at least one juror felt that:

1) the shots he fired at Jordan Davis were justified since there was reasonable doubt as to whether he reasonably feared for his life from Davis because maybe he did have a shotgun

2) the shots he fired at the vehicle as it was pulling out, including at the three other kids who he testified were unarmed, were not self-defense

Each bullet is a separate act and judged separately from the others

be considered self defense also. Luckily, he had no where to go with that argument, and Dunn had to be found guilty of something.
But, yes- it appears one juror wanted to let him off for all of it. Otherwise they would not have asked about self defense on all counts.

not realizng till the last day that there was no way in hell he could claim it for all the shots fired. Idiot thought you get scared by one person, and you are justified spraying bullets at four.
That is shown by how they asked exactly that question to the judge. When the judge clarified that the other shooting could NOT be considered self defense, he idiot had no where to go with his argument. No reasons left to give.

He was wrong, but got charged for other things beside the murder imo that is NOT justice.

do you honestly not understand that the legal process is still going on? Were you unaware that a mistrial stops nothing, and that the State has already said that the case will be re-tried? This is just half-time for the State. Were you feeling the same concern on day 1 of the trial?

It's a little humorous. If, on day 1, you had said "As of right now, Florida's legal system recognizes no wrongful act committed by Dunn against Davis" you would have been accurate, but without reason. No one would have taken you seriously.

Why is that ANY different from today?

The prosecution goes on, but your outrage has been duly noted.

would be no convictions.

Here is the issue: one juror thought that he should get away with shooting an unarmed kid point blank.

for the standout juror who you claim "thought that he (Dunn) should get away with shooting an unarmed kid" and thus had problems with a guilty vote, also had zero problem voting guilty on the three Attempted Murder charges?

This juror is fine with killing a kid, but is not fine with 3 failed killings? THAT'S logical!

racism doesn't have to be "kill the (slur.)"

It can be finding that there was reasonable doubt as to whether shooting an unarmed kid sitting in a car is self-defense because that kid is black and inherently scary.

When he started shooting at a vehicle when it was pulling out, and shooting at kids he acknowledged never had a gun, almost literally impossible to acquit him.

Suddenly "Self-defense" didn't apply? Why not? It's an easy leap to imagine that if one "scary black kid" had a gun, then a car full of "scary black kids" may of had multiple weapons, and thus the shooter was in legitimate fear of his life.

But that didn't happen. The attempted murder charges brought back guilty verdicts. The jury knew that Dunn was wrong.

The TRUTH is that something went down between jurors, but we won't know what that was until the time when (and if) the jury speaks up.


And BTW - you're still moving the goalpost. Justice was, and is bring served.

argue it was not agressive on Dunn's part.

I think BB was pointing out that at least one juror tried to subvert justice, but his argument for self defense while spraying the car with bullets was roundly rejected by everyone- including Dunn's lawyers.

The jury is speaking out.

I still believe it"s preferable to not speculate, even if the speculation proves accurate, and especially when the speculation requires assuming that people we don't know will act on their most negative instincts.

Nonetheless, people suck. You were right

I knew - and really hoped- it was just one hold out for acquittal. They wouldn't have asked that judge about it if someone wasn't pushing for self defense. I think having the jury try to assess the fear level "reasonable" or not is a sticking point. SYG seems to make jurors feel they can't convict because they can't read minds. Yikes. Thanks for replying- sad read though. Even other just for man slaughter
Damn- life is so cheap.

A juror is speaking out. They argued over self-defense.

I still believe it"s preferable to not speculate, even if the speculation proves accurate, and especially when the speculation requires assuming that people we don't know will act on their most negative instincts.

Nonetheless, people suck. You were right. I gotta say I'm not upset about being wrong in general,but it saddens me to be wrong about this...

one juror thought that he should get away with shooting an unarmed kid point blank.

juror rather than your likely scenario.
I've said several times that this is what likely happened, but some are just convinced that it was a racist juror without any proof at all, if it was a racist juror, why would they convict on the other charges but vote for acquittal on this one?

I get where it is coming from - there are plenty of examples where racism does play a role. So people build up a prejudice about it and start applying it to all situations. But they are falling into the same pattern as the people who are prejudiced about race do.

down any similar "path".

Someone on that jury tried to get Dunn off on self defense for ALL he counts. That is clear from the question they asked the judge.
So, people going to speculate what sort of person would find excuses to totally give a pass to a racist piece of shit like Dunn, who would not value the lives of those four teenagers at all? BINGO.

fleeing kids. Even though Dunn's own lawyers didn't claim it. You explain that. Someone tried to let Dunn off for self defense for ALL counts. The court clarified that there were no grounds for it. But clearly, someone thought the actions of this violent racist time bomb were acceptable. It's not a big stretch to imagine it's someone who relates to Dunn's mindset.

the self defense BS so very hard- they wanted it to be used against all the charges. There is no other reason to ask that question. None.

none of us know what went on in the jury room, right now, it's all speculation and my scenario is just as good as yours.

they asked about it. and it's shameful someone even wanted to consider it. it's not at all speculation- it's something that actully happened whether we like it or not.

Before I make a judgement, I'll wait for a juror to come forward and tell us exactly what went on in the jury room, until then, my theory is just as good as yours.

Thy asked about a concept NOT brought up at trial because- no one was thinking about it or saying it? Interesting, and impossible- because they actually asked during deliberations. It could have been only one juror that brought it up, but someone did bring it up- directly to the judge, as their last question before coming in with a verdict. It's on the record, but go ahead and speculate instead.

difference is I have the honesty to admit it while you are stating it as a fact.

discussed because they are on record about it. On record. Not speculation. There's a big difference between those two things. Read the records.

and your saying that's what caused a hung jury on the murder verdict, that someone believed the self defense argument by the defense.

Sorry, there is no way to spin this and say the jury did not ask if they could consider self defense on all charges in addition to the murder. They did exactly that. You can pretend that is meaningless, but you were the one who wanted to "hear" from the jury. Just informing you that we already did, through their questioning. It;s not people speculating what their question meant- the question itself shows they were discussing self defense acquittal on all charges just hours before the verdict.

I would have never guessed it, seeing as how they asked the judge about it. Nope.

First set of bullets: fired at Jordan Davis, the guy he claimed he was afraid of because he had a gun

Second set of bullets: fired at everyone in the car, including the guys he testified didn't have guns, as it was pulling out of the parking lot

The second set of bullets is a pretty open and shut case of attempted murder and firing into a vehicle--self-defense couldn't possibly apply

And that's what he was convicted for.

The "they were debating 1st vs 2nd" theory falls apart when you review the questions from that morning, which were all about "if we acquit him for shooting at one guy in self-defense, does that mean we acquit on all counts against everyone?"

there would have been no convictions if only Jordan Davis had been shot. You cannot apply the current template to an unknown variable, and shame on you for trying to.

sequenced events that occurred to color the narrative. It is ludicrous to say the result would be the same without having actually experienced the event twice, once with just shooting Jordan Davis, and once with the other attacks. You are trying to oversimplify a very complex situation to get the result you want, life and reality do not work that way.

about here. Would he easily convict anyone for killing black teens? Hard to imagine given what he was prepared to make excuses for shooting at fleeing kids here. And that is exactly where one juror was.

All known facts were not enough to convince the jury of First Degree Murder, ergo there was probable cause to doubt First Degree Murder. You are speculating, I am trying to have a facts based discussion.

so they actually discussed the notion - brought it up to the judge. there is no speculation there- except your own that they were undecided about 1st or 2nd. Premeditation is not something they asked for clarification on, there are no "facts" indciating it was a sore point.

You can speculate they considered muder1 vs 2, , but don't kid yourself that is any way more than speculation. Fact is- they DID discuss letting him off all charges on self defense, on record. Luckily- they were told they could not. Read the record, and stop with the baseless speculation if you are trying to discuss facts.

Works.

with letting people kill black kids. So being cynical about the process, while regrettable is also pretty understandable.

Bryant

And I will add: DUH.

They couldn't agree on what degree murder it was. If they had come back not guilty, you would have a point. If they had come back manslaughter, you might have a point.

They came back hung. You have no point. Most likely, they were split on first and second degree murder. The prosecutor messed it up by going for first and unnecessarily complicating what would have been an easy finding of second degree. The jury did nothing wrong.

they had the option of convicting on 2nd degree.

note these questions from yesterday morning:

The fact that the jury could not reach a judgment on the 1st degree murder charge does not make it go away. Angela Corey, the state prosecutor, has already said they will retry the 1st degree murder charge.

As for the jury, I commend them for the guilty verdict for the 3 attempted murder charges.

I suspect there was at least one hold out on the 1st degree murder charge who felt the shooting was justified. If they all felt that way there would have been an acquittal; there wasn't, so at least some of the jurors, hopefully the majority wanted Mr. Dunn to pay for murdering Jordan Davis. Neither side was willing to acquiesce to the other. I commend those jurors who held out for the 1st degree murder verdict, even if it resulted in a hung jury. At least they gave the state another chance to get a guilty verdict.

...was made clear to then jury

I haven't seen them, but I didn't follow it closely.

a guilty verdict of the murder he committed and no less.

to send some to die and instead decided to sentence him to decades in prison, so much time so that he will die on prison.

Without more information to the contrary, I will not condemn them for their verdict.

and they failed Jordan Davis and his family, and every other young black man in the crosshairs of angry gun-humping racists like Dunn.

Because the rule seems to be that all you need to do is pretend that you were scared of a young black man, or a black boy, and it's justified to shoot him as self-defense.

One juror bought that load of crap here.

reminds me of the way religious fundies want to blame tragedy on Satan, and good fortune on God.

reminds me of how willing you are to to feel that good ole 'southern(florida) amerikkkan justice has been served. Do I have it right?

Because after life in prison (which is what Dunn will end up with) there's only one alternative - death.

Do you want justice, or vengeance?

sometimes, even necessary. I made my position known about the death penalty. A person like Dunn, who obviously murdered someone, and is found guilty of that murder, should be executed. For him to eat, breath air, curse blacks from his cell and join the white supremacist group in whatever prison he ends up in, is to me, a free pass for him. PERIOD..

PERIOD.

imagined in the head of an angry racist.
I am vehemently against the death penalty. That doesn't have anything to do with this case though.

but without knowing that, your suggestion is good.

I think the state erred in charging him with murder 1 if as appears they could not prove premeditation,

And if they couldn't agree between the lesser or greater charges they would be hung. Which, in my opinion, is far more likely than them being hung between some level of guilt and acquittal.

Heavens knows that the Texas-Envy state of Florida fields anti-death penalty Juries where nary a racist can be found. They didn't reach a verdict, out of the progressive goodness of their hearts.

Can you tell me this with a straight face? Really?

You can now take off your asshat, if in fact, you are wearing one.

Justice had not been served for Jordan Davis. Another disgusting verdict out of Florida.

Another jury may deliver justice for Jordan Davis and his family, but this one didn't.

He needs a conviction for the actual killing, if for no other reason than to make the next bastard think twice before he decides to start shooting when a black kid doesn't grovel before him. Otherwise the lesson is "Don't keep shooting until it's blatantly obvious we can't give you the benefit of the doubt on self defense.".

To those who continue to say that they blew it by asking for premeditated 1st Degree.....YOU ARE WRONG!!!

That had absolutely Nothing to do with the hung jury result. They could have found him guilty on 2nd degree or even manslaughter, which is lesser still, but they were hung on those lesser counts as well.

There was 1 or more who believed the self defense argument in regards to him versus Mr. Davis, and so it would not have mattered what they charged on that, this jury was going to be deadlocked on the self defense issue with regards to Jordan.

No conviction on the lesser charges means one or more jury members insisted on Murder One.

The jury is just as hung if someone won't be swayed from guilty as it is if someone is holding out for an acquittal. Given the length of the deliberations, it is very likely that they tried to negotiate and get a lesser charge. At least one jury had to have dug in and refused.

The State gets another chance to try him. It probably won't happen; he will probably plea to something less than first degree. He's going away for a long time anyway.

More than likely there were one or two that wouldn't budge from 1st murder while the others wanted 2nd murder or manslaughter, the verdict has to be unanimous, either 1st murder, 2nd murder, manslaughter, or acquittal, otherwise it's a mistrial.

If everyone was in agreement that he was guilty of murder, but they just couldn't decide on the degree, they would have compromised and gone with (probably) 2nd degree rather than remain hung and let a case they all felt was murder end in a mistrial.

It's more likely that one or more jurors were holding out for acquittal and thankfully the others didn't cave as they did in the Zimmerman trial.

why would they vote to convict him of the other charges?
It makes more sense that there were one or two who wouldn't budge from 1st murder while the others wanted to convict on the lesser charges.

so that pretty much shows you what at least one juror was fighting for. To pretend the entire episode was merely self defense.
Luckily, clarifying what they could and could not consider left that juror without legs to stand on.

Such things the province of technicalities and excuse making in some minds.

Understandably seeking some adjustment to add balance to the scales of justice in a deeply racist society and usually suggesting "corrections" that would make matters worse because they address symptoms rather than the way harder to get at root causes while forgetting who the usual targets of the system are.

Isn't this crystal clear? I've lived in Florida. They are open and public with their racism.

that is why they were written in the first place.

Lynching is frowned upon today in the New South but Shooting people of color is A-OK!

justice, at least not yet, I won't condemn the jury.

At least one of them decided to hang rather than acquit, and that's a good thing.

for 1st murder while the rest of the jurors wanted either 2nd murder or manslaughter?
That would make more sense that at least one juror deciding to hang rather than acquit.

agreement that he was guilty, there may have been a compromise verdict, from M1 down to M2 for example, rather than a hung jury.

Of course I'm just speculating, but I just think there would have been a guilty verdict on one of the murder or manslaughter charges if all 12 wanted him somehow convicted in Jordan's death.

I hope we hear from the jury eventually.

The state has already announced a retrial.

The jury couldn't decide on first or second degree murder. They convicted on 3 counts of attempted 2nd. If the prosecutor had gone only for second degree murder, it would have been a slam dunk.

This wasn't an acquittal. Repeat: NOT AN ACQUITTAL. He will be re-tried or he will plead. The jury should not be condemned. That is asinine.

as opposed to 2nd/1st degree vs acquittal based on self-defense?

that logic flows two ways...

They convicted on 3 counts of attempted 2nd. If only murder 2 had gone to the jury, it would have been a slam dunk.

It is not logical that they would convict on 3 counts attempted 2nd, but acquit on the one who died.

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2014, 04:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Actually, someone wanted to give him the benefit of the *self defense* doubt on all the shootings- but it was clarified that was not allowed. That's not a squabble between 1st and 2nd, that's letting him off for everything.
Thank god the other jurors asked for guidance from the court regarding the self defense claim.

You forget the corollary: "Legally, there has been no finding that Dunn did nothing wrong by killing Jordan Davis."

"Not yet convicted" is nowhere close to "acquitted."

the jury was unable to agree on that

Juries are made up of human beings, all of whom are flawed, some of whom are just total assholes.

What? # None?

So all your statements about what the jury did and did not do are just very imaginative guesses, right?

all of which were designed to figure out if they had to acquit him on all charges if they acquitted him on one charge due to a finding of self-defense.

asked because the Judges "verbal" answers were different than the "written" answers....as in "case" or "counts"
On that issue the Jury was right in getting clarification.
I haven't seen a polling of the Charge 1 and I suspect we won't.

To condemn an entire panel of jurists because there may have been 1 or 2...or 11 hold outs is to short sheet the entire process.

WE have no clue the deliberation process that occurred.
They may have been 5 jurors locked and 7 decided on man1.

The idiot is going to serve 75yrs, 3 20's and a 15 and the Prosecution CAN re try the 1st(and lesser included) charge.

The prosecutor..Angela Corey's office is the problem...NOT the Jurists.

the jury had the option to convict on a lesser-included charge.

And you're failing to account for the three jury questions from yesterday morning, all of which centered around what they were supposed to do if there was a finding of justification in one of the counts on the grounds of self-defense, specifically whether if they acquitted on grounds of self defense for one count whether that was binding on all counts

".....specifically whether if they acquitted on grounds of self defense for one count whether that was binding on all counts "
There was NO acquittal on ANY charge. There was an inability to find unanimously on the 1st charge.
The Judge clarified all the questions for the jury, they went back and deliberated on the clarification and returned 4 guilty and hung an another which may be retried without the fog of the other issues..

You look at this from an emotional vision..I've seen it for days. I look at it strictly from the legal side. This would have been a hard 100% here in NY if the statutes were the same.

Angela Corey couldn't get a conviction of Heinrich Himmler in Nuremburg

they meant? Someone was hoping to claim self defense for all ten bullets shot at those fleeing kids, but it didn't work.

I thought that he's going to get a mandatory 60 year sentence?

That seems plenty of justice to me.

the other boys got justice.

heck, their car got justice.

If they had charged him with 2nd degree, I think that he would have been convicted. The guy is a loon who should be incarcerated for life. Having said that, I don't think he woke up that morning planning to kill some young AA guy.

And? The jury saw something you did not see. For that they should be condemned? Interesting.

his gun into the chest of a black kid who is disrespectful and ergo scary.

And to be clear, it was likely only 1-2 racist dimwits who bought that there was reasonable doubt on the self-defense angle (self defense should be a burden placed on the defendant instead of beyond reasonable doubt on the prosecutor, but that's another story)

clear him once and then convict him 4 times......How on earth do you logically come to that conclusion? You can't.....You know it, I know it. The jury saw something in the 1st count that caused doubt, that is all they need, doubt. That is how jury trials work, one iota of doubt and you don't convict. I wasn't there, I have no idea what they saw, but it was something. Unless you have evidence of racism then you are just wish casting. Personally, I don't think it was self defense, but I wasn't on the jury, nor did I hear the arguments or see the evidence, so I can't really blame anyone.

racism doesn't necessarily mean they want to see black kids shot.

it can also mean that they see it as reasonable to be afraid for one's life if a young black man raises his voice to you

Dunn fired at a car fleeing him and at people he admitted were unarmed. there was no way to avoid conviction on those

moreover, "one iota of doubt" is NOT the legal standard. "reasonable doubt" is. They had to find that there was 'reasonable doubt' as to whether he was justified in shooting an kid sitting in a car next to him.

Sorry, but no rational human being could find that his story satisfied the reasonable doubt threshold. Not a single witness placed a gun in that car. No gun was found. The forensic evidence established that Davis was not brandishing a weapon when he was shot. The only person talking about a gun was the murderer himself, Dunn, and he didn't start mentioning a gun until the next day when the cops talked to him. He didn't even mention a gun to his girlfriend.

I will judge any fuckwit who finds it reasonable to shoot disrespectful black kids whether or not you like it.

any fuckwit who sees racism in anything they don't like. I understand things very well, you and I should not continue this discussion. You only see racism, I see justice. Again I don't think it was self defense, but the JURY did and I will not label 12 men and women racists (or 1 of them) because the case went against my wishes, grow the fuck up and admit that you don't know everything in this case. And yes I am sure you will have some shitty acidic retort about me not caring about Jordan Davis. I care quite a bit, but I won't throw the justice system under the bus because I didn't get my way. Grow the fuck up.

anyone needs to know about you

read up already on what the jury said and asked.... so you can stop with the wild speculation.

Prove it. Racists, real racists would have resulted in a hung jury on all counts. Prove it was racism. I don't think it was self defense but someone in jury did. THAT DOES NOT EQUAL RACISM, no matter how hard you want it to, it doesn't.

community here. I am sure they would appreciate it. And enough of the BS that they were splitting hairs over murder 1 or 2. We know better than that from the fact that they were considering it self defense to fire on an entire group of people fleeing. Whoever tried to push forth self defense on all counts- who ever made up that rationale for attempted murder (as it was not put forth by the lawyers), is a deeply troubled individual. That much we can judge.