I’m good with this. I’m good — both as a lawyer who fears the “slippery slope” and as an aunt whose nine nephews will likely at some point or another play loud music and be obnoxious teenagers. I gueessss I can maaaaybe somewhat understand the original jury’s indecision on first degree murder (ok not really; maybe theoretically but as a practical matter, no); but this new verdict works for me. I believe in open-minded factual review and benefit of the doubt for supposed self-defenders. I hesitate to second guess those who claim mortal fear, because I wouldn’t want Monday morning quarterbacks questioning me from the comfort of their barcaloungers if I ever found myself in a CCW situation. But we can’t allow stains on the Second Amendment. We can’t let self-defense become a pretext for murder.
Michael Dunn Verdict [Video]:
Guilty, First Degree Murder of Jordan Davis
One more thing. I know the question of race is always a lightning rod. There are huge divides when it comes to figuring out the extent to which (if at all) implicit racial biases play a part in shootings (and affect our justice system). And there are race baiters out there who stir the pot and only blur the issues more than they’re already blurred. But Jordan Davis’ father, Ron Davis, had something positive to say after the verdict was read:
I wanted Jacksonville to be a shining example that you can have a jury made up of mostly white people, white men, [and still convict a white man of murdering a black boy], and be an example to the rest of the world to stop the discriminatory practices, stop discriminating….
I’ll just say it: I think race does play a role. I think it is a factor sometimes — both in shootings and in the administration of justice. But I hope the social war mongerers will at least acknowledge what the Dunn verdict means. It is proof that maybe one day we won’t have to pay fancy national commentators to “look at juries and say what the [racial] makeup of juries are…“
I have mixed feelings on this case. W/O doubt it’s an unjustifiable shooting and an unlawful death. The subsequent actions after the initial shot are what rendered the final decree as it otherwise would have been a manslaughter and aggravated assault convection.
Did race play a part in the events leading up to the shooting? I’d say it did. In the final trial and conviction? I believe the jury would have rendered the same sentence regardless of the victims race. I do however believe race became an issue with the prosecution.
The specter of race, religion, gender or lifestyle is historically evident, regardless of social progress or educational advancements its not going away. From my viewpoint the best approach is an objective and questioning mindset and willingness to converse open mindedly with others. Of course I recognize that I’m an aberration as I’m neither an idealist or pragmatist.
Yep, prosecutors often struggle with the “race card” decision. The Zimmerman prosecutors played it down; others have played it up; it’s a tough call sometimes (at least in terms of layering strategy). Could resonate, but also could backfire.
A little aberration is good here and there to shake things up! 🙂
Even if escalating over loud music didn’t make him look less than innocent, his failure to call the police sealed his fate. When someone believes they have acted rightly, they call the cops to investigate. When I consider that he escalated the argument, and his girlfriend’s testimony that he did not mention the shotgun, I believe that he knew he had committed murder.
Agreed.
You know, unlike the situation in Detroit with Mr Wafer, I have great difficulty putting myself in this man’s shoes and trying to see what he was thinking. I’ve been next to people whose music was way too loud. I don’t recall getting into an argument over it and killing anyone. I don’t recall even drawing a gun or pointing it at someone. Hmm, maybe because loud music isn’t worth killing anyone over, especially at a gas station, since I’m likely to never encounter the soon to be hearing impaired individuals ever again. I pull away, and their annoying/loud music is no longer a concern. Crazy, I know.
His testimony did not add up, and was contradicted in multiple ways, including in his own witness and his own testimony.
If things went down the way he said (that someone in the car pointed a shotgun at him after arguing over the loud music) and the facts would bear that scenario out, I doubt he’d have been convicted.
As it is, I suspect, he stewed and stewed over the fact that they initially listened and turned it down, then ignored him by turning it back up and possibly even taunted him after doing it. He made up his mind then and there that he would show them.
Can’t prove it, just a gut feeling. But I also see why the original jury initially didn’t return a first degree murder charge. Is a slowly (or quickly) stewing anger that leads to a heat of the moment killing the same as premeditated killing where someone planned and coordinated a murder? Doesn’t the very definition of premeditated mean, thought out in advance, or something that was considered prior? Did his actions rise to that level? I don’t know.
I also wasn’t on the jury, and didn’t hear the instructions given by the judge, or the testimony. I only know what comes out in dribs and drabs from the media, and I can assume that some of that (if not most of it) is wrong, because, well–the media.
Regardless, I don’t disagree with the eventual verdict. If your version of events differs from what is provably true, then your testimony is probably not worth the oxygen you’ve used to give it.
Hey Shrimp! Yep, all makes sense. His version of the facts was a stretch to begin with, and then he didn’t exactly show himself to be the world’s most credible dude, for all the reasons you’ve noted. But as for M1 or M2, I’d say “stewing” is classic premeditation, no?
I don’t know. How long is “the moment” in heat of the moment? A minute? Half that? Three?
Don’t get me wrong, I feel like he stewed long enough (and by definition, ‘stewing’ is mulling it over, which SHOULD mean that he did think about what he was doing) that M1 is totally acceptable. I also can see how a jury might not think that the prosecution proved it. A man can be guilty as sin, but if the prosecution fails to prove it, well…
My gut feeling is M1, for sure. But my gut feeling shouldn’t send a man to prison. The prosecution should present enough evidence to convince me that he did it, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Again, I see nothing wrong with this man spending the rest of his days in the gray bar hotel. His actions warrant that.
Criminal law isn’t my area, but I think I remember reading cases to the effect that all you need for premeditation is a moment, as in literally seconds or less. But I might be wrong on that. I’d be interested to hear a criminal lawyer’s take. As always, thanks so much for your thoughtful comments, Shrimp!
Tiffany, I’m not a criminal lawyer but I’ve been a cop for 40 years and that’s my understanding also.
That means you know a whole lot more than most lawyers! 🙂
From the outside looking in this looks like an appropriate verdict. Every concealed carry permit holder should be made aware of this case and learn that rash action can carry long term consequences. However, I have to confess that I am disappointed that Angela Corey is benefitting from the verdict.
Ha! Not a fan, I presume?
From what little I know of the case, it was a fair and just verdict. Someday, maybe, we will live up to Dr King’s hope that everyone will be judged by the content of their character (and actions), not the color of their skin.
And let the church say Amen.