With different mind sets applied concerning Dunn's actions. There may have been some jurors that felt there never was any fear for his life or gun or threat at all while others may have thought that maybe there was a legitimate reason to have feared for his life with the first volley that was at Davis while the car was stopped, but the two second volleys were when the car was fleeing and when there was no longer a threat. Self-defense is defined as use of force is only justifiable if there is immediate threat to life or serious bodily harm but the use of force can only be so much that the threat is stopped. Dunn shooting at the car when it is in retreat is not justifiable self-defense especially considering no one was firing back at him. This is why Dunn said on the stand that his intention when he continued firing at the car was to keep them from firing back at him thereby attempting to make it appear that there was still a threat even though they were fleeing. However, this didn't fly with the jury because according to Dunn there was ONE person in the car with a gun making ONE person of the four a threat had he believed there was one. Firing willy nilly at the car when at no time Dunn himself said that the three other boys were not a threat makes his actions during those second and third volleys at the car as it is fleeing unjustifiable self-defense though the first volley at Davis some jurors might have believed could have been justified.
However, I still think they deadlocked on Murder 1 versus Murder 2. Some jurors likely believed as I do and everyone else seems to here that there was never any gun nor any threat at any time, and that is premeditation - Murder 1. He didn't shoot because he felt his life was threatened but because he was angry at this kid for defying him and talking back to him. For some jurors they may not have been willing to agree to lesser included charges because they emphatically believed that he first fired at Davis because he was angry with him never being justifiably threatened and been unwilling to budge off that. Had there been more than one person unwilling to budge off of Murder 1 as being the right verdict the more likely that the counts concerning Davis of Murder 1 and lesser included they couldn't come to agreement on with some being willing to go down to a lesser charge while others just wouldn't do it just to come to a guilty verdict of some kind. If I was the only holdout for Murder 1 I might agree to a Murder 2 charge, but I'd hate myself for it and believe the rest of my life that it was the wrong decision. Had there been even one more juror that felt absolutely that it was Murder 1 than I'd dig in my heels with them. I'd rather hang a jury for the right reason than agree to a lesser charge I didn't believe was the right one just to render a verdict... I have to live with what decision I make, and for me I couldn't live with myself in making a decision I emphatically didn't agree was correct. When people say why didn't they do this or that, it's easy when you aren't the one having to make that decision and live with it your own self.
This is discussed in the long discussion between the attorneys and the judge when they were trying to figure out how to answer the jury questions about self-defense...
Whoever Phipps is he hasn't been paying very close attention to this case or he would know how not absurd at all this is and why.
= new reply since forum marked as read
