Juror in 'Loud Music' Trial Wanted Murder Conviction

[M0rpheus]

Last edited Wed Feb 19, 2014, 10:35 AM - Edit history (1)

One of the jurors in the controversial Florida “loud music” trial is speaking out, telling Nightline in an exclusive interview that the issue of self-defense forced the jury into a deadlock.

Juror #4 – who asked to be identified simply as “Valerie” – said two and then three jurors ultimately believed Michael Dunn was justified in the 2012 shooting death of 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.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/juror-loud-music-trial-wanted-murder-conviction/story?id=22571068

Video here >>> http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/video/loud-music-trial-juror-speaks-22574993
SMDH

[kcr]

1. Yep. That's what I figured.

I knew that was the most likely reason. Sadly, I was right and so were a lot of others. It was called correctly,

[BlueCheese]

3. What is with editing/journalism these days?

It's "imminent" threat, not "eminent". I also highly doubt the jury was asked "Do you believe that Michael Dunn was justified or unjustified in the murder of Jordan Davis?”. They wouldn't describe the incident as a murder in the question-- that would be way too prejudicial.

To the main point, it boggles the mind that three jurors wanted to acquit Dunn, likely of all charges. Thank goodness they were told they couldn't apply self-defense to all of the charges together.

[Boom Sound 416]

38. Eminent - love that dude

[dionysus]

45. it's a put on.

[Skittles]

83. I believe much of editing / "journalism" has been offshored

I too have noticed the increasingly dismal quality

[geek tragedy]

6. Remember how we got lectured for

being so mean to that jury when this was actually the prosecutor's fault?

Those B37s pissed on Jordan Davis's grave, racist shitheads.

[JustAnotherGen]

52. Yep - I sure do remember that. . .

Pssst - they won't apologize geek. Don't hold your breath for that one.

[geek tragedy]

53. one person--demwing--did, and he was very gracious about it.

Unfortunately, disagreements here sometimes come down to the ability to imagine just how stupid can be, because that's reality in the case of the jurors.

[Blue_Tires]

61. +1

They were using the same talking point after Zimmerman's acquittal until those jurors started giving interviews and two of them admitted their minds were made up to acquit even before the trial started...

[AnalystInParadise]

73. So self defense by some jurors

is now racism. Can we amend the sheep bible so I can keep up with what I must believe instead of common sense?

[geek tragedy]

74. for the jurors who thought it was reasonable for him to pump

lead into an unarmed black kid sitting in a car because he was afraid of that unarmed black kid in a car, yes those jurors are racist assholes.

No other word for them, other than maybe complete and utter morons.

Fuck those jurors, and fuck anyone who defends their desire to let Dunn get away with lynching Jordan Davis.

[JI7]

2. "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

exactly what many had suspected about the jury. but good for her and the others for making it a mistrial instead of not guilty and at least getting guilty on the other charges.

[geek tragedy]

4. As was obvious to those of us paying attention.

Racist fuckwit asshole jurors. Three Juror B37s.

[Fumesucker]

5. Imminent not eminent

ABC, really?

Nit being picked all I can say is WTF!

[geek tragedy]

7. Floriduh juries presume dead black kids guilty. nt

[woolldog]

8. only 3 jurors bought the self-defense argument.

I'm pleasantly surprised actually.

[geek tragedy]

9. I figured it was a lone racist idiot. So I'm disappointed.

They have to really bring in every piece of character evidence to prejudice the jury against this guy for the retrial, I guess.

[woolldog]

10. or do a better job in jury selection

There was more than enough evidence without the character stuff. They also need to stress that the standard requires he be in reasonable fear of his life. That's something that wasn't stressed enough by the prosecutors in the Zimmerman trial and in this trial, imo.

[JI7]

12. part of the defense strategy was to make sure to get some racists on the jury

and they got lucky with more than 1.

in the zimmerman case the prosecution did try to get b37 dismissed but were not able to.

[DallasNE]

21. The Jury Instructions Did Not Use "Reasonable"

It only asked if Dunn was justified and that is an even lower standard than reasonable and that is in the jury instructions. The word justify simply means that "a sufficient lawful reason" was present. The kids were scary because they were black and there were 4 of them -- that will clear the "sufficient" barrier with ease.

[woolldog]

44. Not true.

The standard is objective, not subjective.

From the nytimes:

Under Florida self-defense laws, people can use lethal force and do not have to retreat if they “reasonably believe” it is “necessary” to save their lives or avoid great harm. The jury must, in essence, decide what a “reasonable person” would have done under similar circumstances. “The law takes the position that you have to step into the shoes of the defendant,” said Michael Band, a Miami criminal defense lawyer who was a longtime prosecutor in the city.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/us/florida-self-defense-law-hung-over-jury-in-michael-dunn-trial.html

[DallasNE]

76. The Jury Instructions Are Conflicting.

I'm sure the Judge instructed that if Dunn had a reasonable fear that he did not have to retreat but could use force, including deadly force but that is separate from the jury instructions on guilt and innocence, that I was instead addressing, which said "do you believe that Michael Dunn was justified or unjustified in the murder of Jordan Davis?” The jury never got beyond answering this question unanimously so level of guilt was moot. Justify: "to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done". Sounds pretty subjective to me.

[woolldog]

78. I would assume that whether the killing is "justified"

depends on whether the claim of self defense is valid. I don't see any other defenses here that were alleged by the defense. So the analysis of whether it's justified collapses into the self defense analysis, which is where the reasonable man standard comes in.

My criticism would be that the prosecutors didn't make that clear. I could be wrong.

[Cha]

11. Yeah, Dumbass Dunn was so "frightened"..

he didn't even call the police. I believe pizza was on the menu.

[bravenak]

13. This is what I suspected.

Dumb ass jurors. The prosecutor did not overcharge, they would have wanted to aquit no matter what.

[SkyDaddy7]

16. EXACTLY!!

There are those who under no circumstance would ever convict a white man of murdering an African American regardless of how the prosecutor tried the case!!

I wish some here would stop blaming the prosecutor as they did their job as best they could in the confines of Florida Law...I have sat in on picking countless juries for many different criminal trials & it is at best an educated guessing game on what the jurors picked are going to do. Especially, when it comes to a case like this because potential jurors will LIE when questioned about race & have already made up their mind before the trial ever starts! And it is impossible to bring perjury charges against someone for being a racist.

I witnessed a really SAD & DISGUSTING trial that had to do with an elderly African American couple who was murdered with an ax. The murdered elderly couple's 15yr old granddaughter's "boyfriend" had already been convicted for the murder & was awaiting execution but the state of Georgia decided to try the 15yr old granddaughter for murder as well since she was with her so-called 37yr old boyfriend & his two accomplices both of who were in their 30's. The disgusting part is the State of Georgia, particularly the prosecutor & judge I honestly think were old school racist, decided to charge the 15yr old despite the fact they knew the age difference between the 15yr old & her 37yr old "boyfriend" who they knew forced the 15yr old to work the streets & who almost everyone on the "street" FEARED!! The man was known for cutting a man's head off & getting off in court yet the prosecutor & the judge blamed the 15yr old for the crime taking place because one of the male accomplices scared he was going to get the death penalty turn state's evidence by saying the 15yr old girl planned the entire thing! He tried to say she had them come to her grandparents to rob them despite the fact two of the men had testified she was screaming & puking as the ax murder took place & she even threw up in the car after the murders & her 37yr old "boyfriend" slapped her face & told her to shut the fuck up or she would be next!! But the state of Georgia went ahead with trying her on 37 felony counts...The lawyer I worked for managed to get her acquitted on all the charges except ONE & that was a possession of stolen property which ended in a hung jury...11 to acquit & 1 to convict! The state of Georgia actually retried her on the possession charge however one of the jurors, older white male, actually said during deliberations that "They were all "thugs" & need to be treated as such!" including the 15yr old girl & that she needed to be punished for what happened to her grandparents yet he was allowed to remain on the jury! And again it ended in a mistrial 11 to acquit & 1 to convict with the "one" being the white male who made such racist comments & was allowed to remain.

The truly SAD part is the state decided to try her again!! This time she had different lawyers & she was convicted...The judge gave her the max of 10yrs!!!

The entire case still haunts me...And I am a white male!

[bravenak]

18. That is some terrible stuff.

This is how the system us set up and it's wrong. We have to show people this stuff over and over and make them feel something, this stuff has to die. Keep treating the kids like thugs and they'll become thugs.

[world wide wally]

14. Florida should be held in perjury of the Constitution which promises the government will provide for

the greater welfare of the people, and Florida puts people in jeopardy. Since the "Stand your ground" law was passed, homicide is down my 6% nationwide and up 8% in Florida. Fuck those barbarians.

[Boom Sound 416]

56. Data link?

The constitution says provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare

[world wide wally]

84. Here is the link where I read the information

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024509925

It hardly promotes the general welfare

[Boom Sound 416]

85. Thanks. Great link. Many thoughts.

Two things (for starters)

One

From snipped DU
--

We found that homicide rates in states with a version of the Stand Your Ground law increased by an average of 8 percent over states without it — which translates to roughly 600 additional homicides per year. These homicides are classified by police as criminal homicides, not as justifiable homicides.

--
Ok, the last sentence. What does that mean? Does that mean at arrest and pre-trial? That might be important.

And 2


Snip from the rueters link to which global grind links
--
The critical question for our research is whether this relative increase in homicide rates was caused by these laws. Several factors lead us to believe that laws are in fact responsible. First, the relative increase in homicide rates occurred in adopting states only after the laws were passed, not before. Moreover, there is no history of homicide rates in adopting states (like Florida) increasing relative to other states. In fact, the post-law increase in homicide rates in states like Florida was larger than any relative increase observed in the last 40 years. Put differently, there is no evidence that states like Florida just generally experience increases in homicide rates relative to other states, even when they don’t pass these laws.
We also find no evidence that the increase is due to other factors we observe, such as demographics, policing, economic conditions, and welfare spending. Our results remain the same when we control for these factors. Along similar lines, if some other factor were driving the increase in homicides, we’d expect to see similar increases in other crimes like larceny, motor vehicle theft and burglary. We do not. We find that the magnitude of the increase in homicide rates is sufficiently large that it is unlikely to be explained by chance.
In fact, there is substantial empirical evidence that these laws led to more deadly confrontations. Making it easier to kill people does result in more people getting killed.
Of course, it is also possible that these laws have benefits. For example, perhaps criminals respond to these laws by committing fewer burglaries, given that victims are now more empowered to use lethal force to resist. Or perhaps people now avoid fights and confrontations out of a fear that they will end badly.
Unfortunately, there isn’t much evidence in the data of this type of deterrence. That means that whatever benefits these laws have, they are limited to the actual victims of crime, who may now be more willing or able to defend themselves, or may experience lower criminal or civil costs for doing so. We don’t know how to quantify those benefits. But we do know there is no evidence that fewer violent crimes are committed as a result of these laws.
So where does that leave us with respect to the Dunn trial, and the broader debate over Stand Your Ground laws? Regardless of the trial outcome, the main damage has been done, and cannot be undone by one verdict or another. But it would be a mistake to ignore the evidence that deadly confrontations like this are more likely to occur as a result of these laws.

--
It's a pretty balanced article and makes some compelling initial arguments, but these last few paragraphs need to be takent seriously, as well as, defining stand your ground may be more compleat than usual meters.

That and it would interesting to see the data two years from now for 2010-14.

Two more things
1. The "open season" arguement doesn't hold up to the data. See tampa tribune linked data

2. Both global grind and rueters frame the, let's say anti-SYG arguement around tow racially charged cases, but all the data they use against the law is omni-racial.

Thoughts?

[Boom Sound 416]

86. On promotion

My point is what it says.

--
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[DallasNE]

15. Jury Instructions Are Often Key To Understanding A Verdict

And this odd wording seems to give a jury an easy way out.

"do you believe that Michael Dunn was justified or unjustified in the murder of Jordan Davis?”

The Jury should have asked for clarification on the meaning of "justify" in the context of guilt or innocence.

Justify: &quot 1a) to show sufficient lawful reason for an act done".

That is not the proper standard (sufficient). The proper standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm guessing that "justify" is the language of stand your ground so is that even Constitutional. Can a State law change the standard in that manner. There is also the question of the word "murder" in that context. It is not murder if it is justified. On a scale of 1-10 sufficient is about a 3 while beyond a reasonable doubt is about a 9. Is that justice? It makes my head spin.

[Bazinga]

26. Isn't "beyond a reasonable doubt" the standard for the prosecution, not the defense?

Don't get me wrong, I think Dunn's as guilty as anybody, but his attorneys only had to show the 1 left over from the 9/10 that was BARD.

[DallasNE]

72. Correct - Should Have Said "Reasonable Fear" Rather than "Reasonable Doubt"

But even that is a higher standard than "sufficient" so there is a conflict in the language between the standard for in the wording of the law and the language in the jury instructions. Indeed, I would think the prosecution should cite case law showing the parameters of a similar case where the defendant was found guilty. As it is these juries are left dangling over vague words like "reasonable", "justify" and "sufficient". That is about 32 shades of gray right there so it invites mistrials. Then when the prosecution has to disprove a person's state of mind by showing that the person is lying because nothing they did indicates any degree of fear. It is the same bar that has to be crossed when a police officer fatally shoots an unarmed man. The police officer says the victims hand was reaching toward his waistband even though there is nothing in his waistband that would represent any type of threat. Doesn't matter. Unless it is on film the benefit of the doubt goes to the shooter. The victim is deemed responsible for his own death. That is what O'Mara kept hammering home in the Zimmerman trial.

[Kablooie]

17. When you're on a jury you sometimes must make decisions you disagree with...

Because you are given a detailed explanation of the law and and are told to make your decisions solely on the basis of that law.
The strict reading of the law may require you to agree to a verdict you think is wrong.
You are never required to explain your decision so you have the option of deciding based on your morals instead of the law, it's not against the law to do this because it can't be proven that you deliberately flaunted the law, but there is a lot of pressure to do the "right" thing and follow the letter of the law.

I'm not saying that anyone did this, I don't know, there could be honest differences in the interpetation of the evidence and application of the law, but when you're on a jury it is not alway easy to do what you believe is the just and moral thing.

[geek tragedy]

20. there is no honest, intelligent interpretation of a guy yelling at kids in a car and then shooting

them despite the fact they're unarmed and posed zero threat to him.

Sorry, it's just batshit insane that people would look at that and think "yeah he was justified in doing that, no crime here."

His supposed belief that he was in danger was not reasonable. It wasn't even honest, it was an after-the-fact excuse for his having executed the black kid who dared mouth off to him

[Kablooie]

51. Your right that the jurors had to be prejudiced.

Even with stand your ground, if you are sitting in a car yelling at someone else in a car using a gun is not a defense.

I wish they would interview one of the jurors that got him off.

[Skittles]

81. problem is, all it takes is a couple of gun humping racist cowards on the jury

and gun humping racist cowards are a dime a dozen in America

[NobodyHere]

32. You don't have to make decisions you disagree with

As a jurist you can make any decision you want. You can choose to follow the letter of the law or you can choose to follow your heart. Or you choose to just go with the flow in order to hand out a verdict quickly. It's all YOUR choice.

[rgbecker]

71. Read up on your rights as a Juror.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Usually this will allow a jury to let someone off rather than convict of a silly law. If the jury uses this to convict someone, the judge has many ways (Sentencing and just plan ignoring the jury) to "Make things right."

[davidpdx]

19. That figures

Those two probably went in wanting to acquit Dunn. I wonder if they'll be outed at some point.

[Hoyt]

22. So, if he had not shot at the fleeing van, he might have walked? Jeebus.

Prosecutors don't always retry if they are think same thing would happen. Gun fancying bigots will rejoice, shoot unarmed black kid, then smile and stand your ground waiting for the police to arrive.

[uponit7771]

37. which it looks like Dunn can appeal can't he

[geek tragedy]

62. won't be successful and he's run out of money to hire a lawyer nt

[B Calm]

23. I don't like anyone calling it the Loud Music trial. Calling it

that belittles a murderer!

[CANDO]

24. Can we stop with the gray box?

On a mobile browser, you can't resize the script and read it without side scrolling. Simple cut/paste is great. Thank you!

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. 'The gray box' is DU's standard 'excerpt' function

If it's causing you problems on your browser, maybe you could post in Ask the Administrators about it.

[CANDO]

80. Thanks for the reply...

My complaint probably seems insignificant, but I do plenty of my DU time while I'm on the go. With a normal cut and paste, when I resize the text it fills the screen and I can read it without doing any scrolling. Not so for the gray box. I can enlarge it to be able to read it, but then it won't resize within my screen. I then have to scroll back and forth to read it. Usually, when I see the gray box I just hit the back button and move on to another thread.

[gollygee]

25. I'm afraid to say

that I figured some people wouldn't want to convict him no matter what.

I wish more people had read this article yesterday about the though process behind people like Dunn. People like Dunn (and maybe three jurors) are living in a past world where African Americans were expected to obey white people no matter what, with no question. To do otherwise meant a lynching. And Dunn totally expected to get away with it. He had no question because that is his normal.

His "normal" needs to change, and the only way to change it is to have justice.

[morningfog]

27. Glad the juror spoke so we know why they hung.

The defense must have put the shotgun sufficiently in the three jurors' minds. Self defense is a tough issue for juries to decide, there is a lot of subjectivity to it. And that is complicated by Florida's stand your ground laws. At any rate, the prosecutor will get a second chance at it with a new jury.

[alsame]

28. Worse than

I thought, 3 of them believed SD

[etherealtruth]

87. I imagined one ....

I feared two ... but three?

These were unarmed teens ... I remain astounded!

[mythology]

29. This still doesn't make sense

If the jurors were convinced that Dunn was acting in self-defense, why would they vote to convict on the other charges? Did they think as long as the top charge was hung, Dunn wouldn't go to jail? Because if he was justified shooting at the car to hit one kid, then there's no logical way to assume that he wouldn't be presenting a threat to them all.

[dsc]

46. there were two sets of shots

one at the car before it moved and the other after it started to flee. It is the second set which they convicted him for firing.

[Yo_Mama]

60. He fired 10 shots in all

and 9 went into the car, according to what I read. From the trajectory and position of the shots one can see how they were fired when the car was attempting to escape.

[TorchTheWitch]

77. there were actually three sets of shots

The last two sets were shot into the car while it was retreating... the first volley was directly at Davis through his car door before the car started the move, the second volley was several seconds later at the car willy nilly as it was backing out of the space, and the third set was as the car was out of the space and driving forward again willy nilly into the back of the car. So it was the last two sets of shots that applied to the surviving passengers in the car as they were not aimed at anyone in particular and the car was in some state of retreat.

That was the point to their self-defense questions that the judge and attorneys spent a long time trying to answer specifically. Apparently the jury instructions were confusing concerning this, and even the judge during that discussion said it was the most confusing instruction and took them hours to try to figure out the right language. See that discussion here...

The judge was trying to explain for the jury that each circumstance during the whole (each separate volley of shots) needed to be considered by itself according to each person in the car. And without telling them that deadly force was or was not justified according to each volley and each person. The more they discussed how to answer the questions the more confusing it seemed to get. I think I understood it all a lot more clearly at the beginning of the discussion than I did at the end.

[magical thyme]

47. because Dunn shot into the vehicle as it was fleeing. SD clearly could not be applied at that point.

The defense didn't even try to claim self-defense on the lesser charges, which is why the jury specifically asked about it.

And yet Dunn still assumed he would walk. That's how arrogant and entitled he is.

[uponit7771]

30. This is WORSE than Zimmerman

[B Calm]

31. No they are the same. Fearful white men, shoot and murder innocent

black boys.

In a way GZ was worse because he stalked and provoked his victim.

[alsame]

33. At least with Zimmerman there

was an ACTUAL GUN that he could claim was being used against him. So the jurors could choose to believe Trayvon was reaching for it.

With Dunn, it was all in his imagination and they still believed it.

[B Calm]

34. Again, if GZ hadn't stalked his victim, there wouldn't be a gun and there

Wouldn't had been a murder.

[uponit7771]

36. Yeap that's my issue worth Zimmerman was the stalking.... FL a is

... throwing these cases

[alsame]

41. Oh, I absolutely agree with

you, there was nothing justified in any of GZ's actions.

I'm just looking from the jury perspective, with Dunn they must have believed in the imaginary gun in order to believe SD.

[uponit7771]

42. nah black kids don't need a weapon just existence to a gun nut

[alsame]

43. And to 3

jurors too

[etherealtruth]

70. ... to a "gun nut" and Florida juries

... apparently, one's racist bias (i.e. black teens and men are scary by virtue of their existence) is enough for some on these juries.

Crimony .... right wing nut jobs scare the hell out of me. I doubt a Florida Jury would hesitate to convict me because I shot them just because I felt threatened by them .... unless of course the right wing nut jobs were black teens or men

(to be clear: I actually would never own a gun and abhor all gun violence)

[uponit7771]

35. The act might be worse than Zimmerman but these people had video

.. to look at the was no question dunn provoked the event

[Skittles]

82. there's no question Zimmerman provoked, too

there was no reason for him to stalk and terrorize Trayvon - none - that boy simply walking home from the store

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. Can anyone give, or direct me to, a summary of the evidence on whether Davis got out?

I haven't followed the trial closely (I'm abroad), but I've heard that only Dunn said Davis got out of the SUV, and that there were witnesses other that the victims in the SUV who agree with that. Was it disputed whether Davis was inside the SUV when shot? That seems to be the kind of thing forensics would have been clear about. From what I've heard, it seems that Dunn's story that Davis got out doesn't hold up; and therefore his claim to have felt an 'imminent threat' wouldn't hold up either. Or was there independent evidence that Davis was outside the SUV when shot?

[Boom Sound 416]

48. From what I understand

Only Dunn claims Davis got out. Their was a lot of arguing that point because of the proximity of the vehicles and contradicts or not whether Davis had a gun.

Dunn did get out at the end to continue shooting at the car (three times) as it sped away.

[riverwalker]

54. ME said Davis shot in car

the forensics say he was in the SUV when shot. The cars were so close, Dunn could not get out, door would not open, that's why his girlfriend went in store alone (per Dunn). If so close, how could Davis have possibly opened his door? Prosecution should have demonstrated this. Two similar cars side by side, let jury attempt to reconstruct scene.

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. Thanks - if he was shot in the car, then the 'imminent threat' wasn't there

You're not an imminent threat when you're in your own car. Then I can't see, other than racial bias, how a juror could have decided it wasn't 1st degree murder.

[geek tragedy]

55. 2-3 jurors said "he was afraid, so he was justified"

didn't need no stinking evidence,

[TorchTheWitch]

79. there isn't a summary accept maybe the closing arguments

Though the closing arguments don't specify anything very specific really about what evidence showed that. You really have to watch the whole trial to be able to figure out what various bits of evidence showed that Davis never got out of the car. Dunn gave many different stories about Davis and his getting out of the car, what he said about that on the stand, what he said during his interrogation and what he said in his letters written while in jail which would need to be untangled and figure out what all that means. There was no independent witness that saw the entire encounter, but what each one was able to testify to covered almost all of it.

For me there was many pieces of compelling evidence that proved Davis never got out of the car with the child locks being engaged so he wasn't able to open his own door maybe being the most compelling. Had the driver been in the car at the time that Dunn said that Davis got out of the car it wouldn't be all that compelling since the driver had access to those controls and knew how to use them. But at that time the driver was not yet back in the car. Tevin was in the passenger seat in the front and could have disengaged the child locks so that Davis could get out, but Davis would have needed to ask him to do that, and Dunn says there was nothing said about disengaging the child locks. This would have also been only the first or second time that Tevin had ever been in the car, and I believe him when he said he didn't know how to disengage the child locks (I wouldn't know that either). All the surviving boys testified that as they went from here to there during their evening that any time they wanted to open their doors to get out the driver had to disengage the child locks or even get out of the car himself and go open someone's door from outside the car.

For me it's Dunn's continually changing story about Davis getting out of the car with a gun and at what point he fired the shots according to what Davis was doing (out of the car, partially out of the car, in the process of getting back in the car... Dunn changed his story claiming every scenario). Dunn knows exactly what happened and he wouldn't have multiple stories about what Davis was doing and what position he was in according to the car when he fired the gun... it's the fact that with every new piece of evidence Dunn learned that his story changed to try to accommodate that evidence. It's just impossible for me to understand how anyone can look at all that evidence and not see Dunn as a total liar concerning what he believed, all that he claimed and what actually occurred.

You really just have to watch the whole trial to piece together all the evidence. Every case is like a puzzle, and you have to weigh all the various pieces of evidence on their own and put them together to come up with a picture of the whole incident and what happened.

Whatever Dunn's claims are and how many different stories he has about whether or not Davis ever got out of the car the physical evidence is clear as a bell that Davis was back in the car with the door shut when he was shot. Even if he had gotten out of the car at some point as Dunn claimed he did, the threat left when he got back in the car not having done anything physically threatening to Dunn. Though a person may still be in fear of their life in such a situation (had it been what really happened) the law says that you can't shoot or otherwise retaliate when the threatening person has retreated, and Davis having gotten back into the car without having done anything to Dunn other than verbally, the threat had legally left. I just can't figure out with all the evidence there was both physical and circumstantial how anyone could believe that at any time Davis got out of the car, but it shouldn't matter if he did or not because at the time Dunn fired at him he even said that Davis was getting back into the car or was already back in with the door open meaning that Davis was in retreat.

By the physical evidence alone both Davis's body and the rounds that went through the car door that hit him there is just no question that Davis was seated inside the car facing forward with both feet on the floor in the foot-well with the door shut when he was shot. The ballistics are clear, the plastic bits the bullets blasted out of the interior of the door are clear, and the ME did a great job of explaining how Davis was seated in the car with the door shut when he was hit.

Again, I think you just really have to take the time to watch the trial. Croakerqueen123 has it all on her page on YouTube. Though it would take a lot of time, a lot of stuff you can skip over and still understand all the evidence, what it means and piece it all together. There is just a boat load of various evidence that more than sufficiently proves this or that aspect some by itself but more so when fit together.

[John1956PA]

49. 3 Jurors out of 12 is 25%, which is a percentage we all have heard about before.

When is comes a trial of a middle-aged white male shooting an African-American teen, I am afraid that the prosecution will have great difficulty overcoming the fact that 25% of the jury pool is right-wing.

[Courtesy Flush]

57. Um, isn't that what "hung jury" means?

Some wanted to convict, and some didn't?

[Yo_Mama]

59. Whole buncha people here were right and I was wrong.

My head just cratered the floor.

I cannot understand why anyone could see this as justified.

[uponit7771]

63. FWIW I wanted you to be right and me be wrong, I've just given up after Zimmerman

... I think a lot of other people will have that same feeling on this one

[alcibiades_mystery]

64. Impossible: Many very knowledgeable DU lawyers insisted that it was Murder 1 v Murder 2!!!

Of course there were jurors who thought killing the "scary" black kid was justified.

[bettyellen]

65. How many accusations of profiling jurors as racists did you see here?

Just for noting that they'd try to get cranky old white dudes on the jury- I was told I was worse than Dunn. Okaaay then.

[alcibiades_mystery]

66. There was an unsurprising confluence between those arguing that the jury was deadlocked

on charge rather than justification, and those telling us that this case was "never about race" at all.

Dipshits.

[bettyellen]

67. I think a few believed it was sooo clear cut that they thought

That naturally jurors were only split between murder1 and 2.

Others were really angry that people might ever assume racism might play into it. And yes- they're from planet Dipshit- where talking about racism IS racist.

[uponit7771]

69. +1, and these people are MIA for this thread

[uponit7771]

68. Amen

[geek tragedy]

75. it was obvious, and those of us who said "racists seeing it as justified" were

just "playing the race card"

[etherealtruth]

88. I held out hope (it was obviously dashed)

... he shot at and killed unarmed 'kids" ... teens that should have had essentially their lives ahead of them. He murdered an unarmed teen ... Why ... apparently because he is 'afraid' (cough , cough my ass he was afraid) ... because the unarmed teens were black and one has a "right" to defend one's self from the objects of their racist bias.

This is insane