Skip to comments.Jury Decides on Four of Five Counts in Loud-Music Murder Trial
Posted on 02/15/2014 3:24:49 PM PST by libstripper
urors in the trial of a white Florida man who fatally shot a black teenager over loud music said on their fourth day of mulling the case that they reached a verdict on four of five counts, but cannot come to a consensus on one count of first-degree murder.
Michael Dunn, 47, says he was acting in self-defense when he shot at an SUV 10 times while parked next to four teens at a Jacksonville, Fla., gas station in November 2012.
The shots killed Jordan Davis, 17, of Marietta, Ga. Dunn is charged with first-degree murder, three counts of attempted murder and one count of firing a deadly missile into an occupied vehicle.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Sounds like they already convicted him of firing into the automobile and attempted murder. It may just be a question of causation. He’s an idiot. Sort of like the old dude who shot the man texting in the theater.
I vote for acquittal. Sick of boom boxers forcing their evil crap on everyone around them.
I would have used a bat, stick or boot, then followed up with the firearm.
I just turn up my Christian radio channel and then leave as soon as possible.
I feel that there should be a “douchebag test” for anyone who wants to carry. That would cover this guy.
And then the Zimmerman types who need to play Manly Man need a “twitch” test.
Not taking Treyvon’s side. Read on.
Where I come from, “twitches” like Zimmerman abound: middle-aged white men, insecure, television-saturated and possessing failing personal lives. They’re unstable and dangerous.
When they meet up with a criminal up-and-comer like Treyvon...that’s what happens.
I could tell you some stories.
Tactically, this is fascinating.
To start with, practically he was facing *seven* charges, as for the first count, the jury could have reached a verdict for Murder 1, Murder 2 *or* Manslaughter.
Ordinarily I would suspect a “jury nullification” vote, but something is odd. On the other charges, the *attempted* murder charges of the other passengers, he could face 20 years on each charge.
And the jurors all agreed on those counts (likely not guilty). However, if just one juror had been nullifying the first count, the pro-conviction jurors could have “counter-nullified” the other charges, forcing them into a retrial as well.
They likely would have done so, if they were in a bad mood.
This makes me suspect that *most* of the jurors wanted to acquit on count 1, but just one or two demanded conviction.
The decedent was getting out of the car, probably to beat down the shooter. He was shot in the legs first. Shooter claims he saw a gun. I don’t really know much, as I haven’t been following the case. One thing is certain though, at least in my mind, the shooter is a dumba$$. But it’s another Angels Corey case, and the prosecutors are pulling the same kinda stunts the pulled in the Zimmerman trial.
I used to have a thunder-mobile (even though I didn't like loud music) but I'd deliver a full broadside of (really loud) Bach on occasions like that.
Quite possibly so. I had an incident about a week ago when I did not even remove my revolver from the glove compartment and achieved an excellent outcome. It was about 7:00 p.m. and I went to the local PetCo to get a bag of dog food for my two LARGE dogs, the smaller of whom is an 85 lb. Pitador and the larger of whom is a 110 lb. Great Dane. The Pitador was in the front seat beside me and the Dane was in the back seat. Just as I parked, I noticed a very grubby, old, unoccupied car to my left and, far worse, an almost equally grubby one to my right that was occupied by four guys who looked liked they just got out of the county jail and were up to no good, none of whom was Amish. Not wanting to display my revolver and escalate the situation, but very much wanting to send them a message not to fool with me or my vehicle, I rolled the front passenger side window down to display the Pitador. Then I rolled the tinted right rear window down to show them the Dane. They immediately left the scene. No cops, no gun use, no problem. Nevertheless, the revolver was there if I’d really needed it. Once a bullet leaves the muzzle it can’t be recalled.
——Sick of boom boxers forcing their evil crap on everyone around them.-——
I agree...people who cut you off in traffic need to be shot too...
So in your fantasy, “middle-aged white men” aren’t allowed to have guns? How are you any different from a left wing gun grabber?
Just call it the “white knock out game”
I don’t like teenagers who throw empty plastic water bottles in my yard.
It’s too bad my arsenal fell in the inland waterway...
Reading comprehension isn’t your strength, is it?
I described “twitches,” and a hypothetical test for same.
Get the joke?
Had a few too many beers tonight?
/I’m a gun-owner in my 40’s and my Marine Corps father taught me how to shoot on his M14when I was still a lad.
I do not usually come across as terse and concise as this: You are full of bovine excrement.
Any litmus test for the exercise of natural rights is absolute tyranny.
We all live and die by our decisions, behaviors and responses; 99.99% do it with aplomb. Few in a million or so screw up and pay.
FR has lots of gun grabbers as well as assorted other left wing types. It has defiantly changed over the years.
That depends on which of the shooter's two different stories you believe. In the first story given to police by Dunn, the decedent was in the car and wasn't attempting to get out of it.
Shooter claims he saw a gun.
Not in any initial statements. The shooter remembered the shotgun and being afraid for his life only after he spoke with his attorney. If Dunn had been threatened, one would think that he would have told his girlfriend that when she returned to the car after buying the wine. He didn't, as the girlfriend testified at the trial.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.