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 ...
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.
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.