commentary by Patrick H. Moore
I spent yesterday on tenterhooks waiting for the verdict in the Michael Dunn trial for the shooting death of Jordan Davis.
The jury’s seemingly endless vacillation on the 1st-degree-murder count was based on its inability to decide whether Dunn murdered Jordan Davis or whether he acted in self-defense.
One gets the impression that the jury decided fairly readily that Dunn was guilty of the three counts of attempted murder for shooting in the direction of Davis’s three companions and one count for firing at the vehicle at the same time he shot at Davis.
So why this distinction between the shots fired at Davis, some of which struck and killed him, and the shots fired at his companions and the vehicle? Although my response may not please either those who feel that Dunn should be convicted of 1st-degree-murder, or the “stand-your-ground/self-defense” contingent, who probably feel he should not have been convicted of anything, I will try and answer this.
Few would deny that Dunn fired at Davis’ with the intent to commit bodily harm. When you start firing bullets at someone, there’s always the distinct possibility that one or more of the shots will connect.
Therefore, first question is: how can Dunn justifiably argue self-defense when he obviously started the altercation?
Tevin Thompson
Tevin Thompson, 18, one of Davis’ companions, testified at the trial that he and his friends had pulled in at the gas station convenience store in order to buy gum “so our breath would smell good” because they had high hopes of meeting girls later that night.
Thompson testified that the driver, Stornes, went into the convenience store to buy gum and cigarettes while the other three boys waited for him in the Durango SUV. Then an odd thing happened. According to Thompson, Dunn pulled up in his car “really close” to their Durango, so close that he (Thompson) wouldn’t have been able to exit the passenger seat he was in. Both Thompson and another of the passengers, Leland Brunson, 18, testified that the music playing in the Durango was very loud. How loud? Loud enough that the bass literally shook the car.
Leland Brunson
So we should ask ourselves: If Michael Dunn was so bothered by the exceedingly loud music, complete with mega-bass, that “he couldn’t hear himself think,” then why in the world did he pull in so close to the Durango? If we were to analyze this in terms of body language, this is clearly an aggressive (and even hostile) action on Dunn’s part.
Thompson told the court that Dunn said: “Turn your music down I can’t hear myself think.” Thompson stated that he obliged, but that Jordan Davis objected, saying, according to Thompson, “F**k that, n****r, turn it back up.” Thompson turned the music back up, and that’s when the trouble escalated. Thompson explained that Davis and Dunn began “having a conversation back and forth.”
Displaying a commendable forthrightness, Thompson and Brunson both stated that it was Davis who escalated the verbal sparring. They told the court that they never heard Dunn curse or yell at Davis. Brunson said that at one point, Davis said, “I’m tired of people telling me what to do.”
Tevin Thompson
Thompson also testified that although he couldn’t hear everything Davis said, he didn’t hear him threaten Dunn in any way, and that he was certain Davis never tried to get out of the car during the argument. For his part, Brunson testified that in order for Davis, who was sitting in the back passenger seat, to get out of the car, someone in the driver’s seat would have had to unlock the child-proof locks for him.
This contradicts defense attorney Cory Strolla’s opening statement in which he told jurors that Davis was trying to get out of the Durango when Dunn shot him.
If all of the above is true, I see no valid “wiggle room” for a theory of self-defense unless Davis actually pointed the elusive shotgun at Dunn, in which case he would arguably have been justified in firing at Davis as part of a valid attempt to defend himself.
Since there is not a shred of solid evidence that the shotgun ever existed, it appears that Dunn’s theory of self-defense is preposterous. What was he defending himself against? If this is coupled with the fact that Dunn arguably instigated the altercation by parking really close to the Durango prior to asking the teens to turn the music down, it becomes crystal-clear that Dunn was the aggressor throughout.
Does this mean that he should have been convicted of 1st-degree-murder? I don’t think it necessarily does because I don’t see evidence that there was premeditation on Dunn’s part. Clearly, however, there was malevolence or “malice aforethought” in Dunn’s actions, which coupled with the fact he shot and killed Davis, strongly supports a conviction for 2nd-degree-murder.
Therefore, I have to take this jury to task for refusing, at this time, to convict Dunn of 2nd-degree murder. And this is critically important because the jury’s refusal at this time to convict Dunn of either 1st or 2nd-degree-murder sends a message that Florida is not yet ready to convict a white man of murder for killing a black youth in cold blood. Rather, the jury is hiding behind the overly broad Florida self-defense law which gives threatened individuals broad latitude to respond with lethal aggression when they feel their lives are in danger.
The three counts of conviction for the attempted murders of Davis’s companions are somewhat of a no-brainer. He fired at the vehicle in which they were sitting, thereby putting them in grave danger of being shot and killed. This is in some ways analogous to when a shooter fires at an occupied dwelling. If you take out your gun and fire at the occupied dwelling, you are guilty of a serious felony. In this case, Dunn took out his gun and fired at three innocent parties in a vehicle which is why he stands convicted of the three 2nd-degree-murder counts and the single count of firing in the direction of the vehicle.
It is extremely sobering to think that had Davis’s three companions not been with him, Dunn might not have been convicted on any charges whatsoever.
* * * * *
Under Florida law, inasmuch as all of the charges were triggered by a single action, the judge appears to have the right to run the sentences for the three counts of conviction, and the fourth count of shooting at the vehicle, concurrently which means Dunn could receive as little as 30 years total, 20 years for the attempted murders, to be run concurrently, and an additional 10 years based on the fact he used a firearm.
Judge Healey, however, is known to be a tough sentencer and Dunn could easily receive a much longer sentence.
Click below to view our previous Michael Dunn murder posts:
Did Michael Dunn Have the Bad Habit of Pointing Guns at His Wives?
Michael Dunn and Fiancée Rhonda Rouer Do Not Sing the Same Song