Skip to comments.Florida 'loud music' trial juror: 'I believed he was guilty'
Posted on 02/19/2014 3:41:55 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
One of the jurors who convicted Michael Dunn of attempted murder after he fired into an SUV during a fatal argument over loud music believes he should have been convicted of first-degree murder.
"I believed he was guilty," Valerie said in an interview with ABC's "Nightline" early Wednesday. Also known as juror No. 4, she asked that her full name not be given in order to protect her identity.
A jury on Saturday night convicted Dunn of three charges of attempted murder for shooting at three teenagers in an SUV and one count of shooting into the vehicle on November 23, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
First-degree...means you planned this out, and you knew precisely what would occur. Second-degree...means you just did it on the spur-of-the-moment, and there was no intent or plan in progress. So, it’s hard to imagine anyone coming up to a first-degree verdict.
If folks aren’t happy with the process...they can go to North Korea and just throw some dice on the floor to figure your verdict, and wait to be shot...with the innocent or guilty vote.
Weren’t there jurors in Zimmerman who thought he was guilty too? This is more media nonsense designed to fan the flames.
I wonder if there would be so much outrage if the defendant was black.
First degree means you had intent. That intent can be formed in an instant. When Dunn RETURNED to his car to GET HIS GUN that is intent. He could have just returned to his car and been upset.
As much as I am not fond of mouthy youth, I have never thought that pointing a gun at a car full would end well
Today the letters to editor all support removing the law so I guess one cannot argue with one with more ink then they have and expect to be heard.
The next day when he saw TV reports that the guy died, Dunn STILL did nothing. L/E then tracked him down.
Anyone who leaves the scene of a crime is automatically guilty, according to L/E.
I have, previously, gotten in trouble for saying this in a less than politically correct manner so I will say it as politely as possible. There are really no circumstances where I can see myself approaching a black male or group of black males out on the streets and initiating any kind of conversation with them for any reason and I am quite happy to have them extend the same courtesy to me. This is especially true for groups of young black men. I will say it again. I will NEVER EVER under any circumstances approach a black man or a group of black men and initiate ANY kind of conversation with them because this is the kind of trouble that it leads to in this exceedingly hostile era. Call it racist if you want but I call it common freaking sense.
Common sense is racist these days. One must view the world through melanin-colored glasses.
He had several options....could have just returned to his car.....or he could have notified L/E about the noisy kids, and let them handle it.
That’s just how they want things to be. But I agree with you.
I agree. Leaving the scene was moronic.
My understanding is that Dunn was parked next to the teens and never left his car prior to the shooting.
Angela Corey argued the fact that Dunn reached into his glove box, removed a handgun then chambered a round before shooting met the 'intent' requirement for the first degree murder charge.
“This is more media nonsense designed to fan the flames.”
Yep, I live in J’ville and thats exactly what the local media is doing. A few days ago there was supposed to be a “protest” in the form of people riding around with there music blaring for “justice for jordan”. The local media was reporting it would be using social media to help get the word out. If that ain’t stirring it up, I don’t know what is.
The killer got what he deserved. Case closed.
yeah, this guy is guilty.
I agree the way he acted afterwards proves it.
Returning to your car and getting your gun does not prove intent to murder. It could prove intent to scare, attempt to detain until police arrive, etc.
Funny that this case didn’t get more traction, since it was certainly more clear-cut than the Zimmerman/Trayvon situation.
2nd degree would have been a lock.
Angela Corey must deliberately overcharge to assure acquittal and the accompanying outrage from the low-information types.
” full court press on here in Florida to remove the Stand Your Ground law.”
Exactly, and it started well before the verdict. I heard a discussion of this case on NPR by an anti-SYG activist (actually two of them, the host and the guest) on the first day of the trail. No need for evidence, no need to distinguish between trying to use a SYG defense and succeeding — SYG was GUILTY. Guilty verdicts on the attempted murder charges make it clear that the jury did not think SYG applied and the law “worked”. First Degree murder was another Corey overcharge — the woman either can’t understand the law or is pathologically dishonest in her strategy. Maybe she wants to stir up riots and mayhem to build her business. She needs to go.
The rabble-rousers’ logic in the Dunn case makes me wonder how they feel about the classic “alibi defense”. Some defendants try to use fake alibis, the jury doesn’t buy them, and the defendants are convicted. Therefore “alibi defenses” should be illegal.
I saw this juror on ABC this morning —
She said that the jury was divided 9 to 3 on the murder one count with 3 holding out for self defense.
It’s hard to understand their agreement on the other counts but inability to find a compromise on this one.
It would be nice to hear from one of the other three — did they really believe that he had a gun in the vehicle or were they just being absurd to make apolitical point against Stand Your Ground.
The reason I say this is because of the interview with Davis’s parents following this lady’s interview. His parents said that justice will have been achieved for her son when Stand Your Ground is amended — not when Dunn is convicted of her son’s murder.
I couldn't hear the radio in my car over the noise. It was so loud and distorted it scared the crap out of one of my dogs and made my broken inner ear vibrate in a very painful way. OMG Make it STOP!
This went on for each of the next three long wait lights, each about a block apart, and I was lucky to finally find a break in traffic to get away from the painful noise.
After that, I could see how someone could get shot for inflicting that sort of discomfort/pain on others and I can see how someone might "snap" and pull the trigger, trading one kind of noise for another.
A lot of the law for this was originally formulated after jury decisions in the 19th Century, mostly West of the Mississippi. Importantly, juries back then were not terribly different from juries today, and there were pro- and anti-gun jurors. Much of what they did concerned both the context of the event, and the common sense involved.
In this case, he approached their vehicle to ask them to turn down their music. Just that, by itself, was a civil act and not unusual. But then, when they turned their music back up, this was an act of defiance and passive aggression. But still legal.
His major error was in arming himself and returning to their vehicle. This was a major blunder in two ways. First it made him an armed aggressor. And second, he made the deadly assumption that having a gun gives you control and domination over others.
At that point, it didn’t matter whether they were armed or not, because that in no way mitigates his bad behavior. At that point, the assumption has to be that his gun was not for defense, but for either coercion or attack.
He started a fight, and murdered a man. And having returned to his vehicle and retrieved a gun, then going back, shows premeditation, not irrational heat of anger.
I understand what you’re saying, but am still skeptical that he INTENDED to murder someone.
He never got out of his vehicle -- he sat in the drivers seat the whole time, according to what came out in court.
Dunn claims that after he asked the antisocial unmannerly punks to turn down their extremely loud “music” they responded by pointing a shotgun at him and he shot at them in self-defense. I believe him. He is being railroaded because he killed a son of Obama.
Methinks you do not understand the necessary 'intent' element of first degree murder.
It doesn't matter a whit what Dunn intended when he went to the convenience store.
It matters only whether Dunn had formed the requisite intent before he reached across the console, opened the glove compartment, removed his handgun, chambered a round, and began shooting. Crim. Law 101.
I agree with you that second degree murder should have been a lock.
If one of the black teens knew Dunn was standing behind a door, and the teen intentionally fired nine shots through the door, I'd have a difficult time finding anyone on FR who was skeptical that the teen intended to murder Dunn.
Dunn fired nine shots through the doors of any SUV he knew was occupied by the teens (it appears he missed the SUV with his tenth shot). What do you think he intended?
Its all emotional with these people who want to convict everyone of 1st degree murder.
This guy Dunn is guilty of poor judgement leading to the death of someone and he is prolly guilty of attempted murder or agravated manslaughter but not 1st degree murder. In any case he is going to the slam for a long time.
I agree but it's not for the lack of trying by the local media, they've been beating the crap out of this story for months.
I live relatively close to where this happened and drove by there a couple of days ago and there was a news camera man in the parking lot........................why?
It doesn't sound like the degree of the murder charge was the issue. Three jurors thought it was self defense, and probably would have hung the verdict if it had been second degree murder or even manslaugher.
Why doesn't his fiancee? She didn't see a gun, and testified to that effect. Dunn never mentioned a gun to her in the days following the murder, and testified to that effect. Police didn't find a gun or any evidence of one.
How could she see the shotgun? She was in the store when the confrontation and shooting happened.
Do you think those young thugs would have kept the shotgun and turned it in to the police as evidence?
Depending on which story of his you choose, Dunn himself didn't see a shotgun. His original story was that he fired after seeing what he thought was four inches of a shotgun barrel in the car window. But he never mentioned seeing any gun, shotgun or otherwise, to his fiancee. So I'd say he was a less than credible witness.
And maybe if he'd stuck around and talked to the police they might have tracked down some supporting evidence. Instead he takes off and they have to track him down.
I was always taught to deescalate or avoid trouble whenever possible but I will stand my ground on my own property or when there isn’t another choice. On the other hand, I get the impression that most blacks will invoke stand your ground rights if they simply think you have done anything to disrespect them.
He was under no threat. He got out of his car went over and talked (probably yelled) at the people in the car to turn down their music then returned to his cr to get his gun.
He had any of a dozen options than firing on this car full of people.....
And of course he NEVER called the police so he certainly wasn’t detaining waiting for the police.
Sorry this jerk was irritated and obviously has anger problems. You do not draw a weapon on someone because you don’t like their music.
I was disputing what you said in your post.
and I am telling you you apparently have not read the testimony.
I totally agree. I might have not even parked next to the yutes in the first place.
Doesn’t matter......You still can’t prove that he is guilty of 1st degree murder. Negligent manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, at the most, 2nd degree murder maybe. That’s why the attempted murder convictions are wrong.
That never happened and it would help if you got your facts straight before offering an opinion.