I commend the jurors who stood their ground to convict Dunn of Jordan Davis' murder

[MrScorpio]

Last edited Sun Feb 16, 2014, 05:49 AM - Edit history (1)

They didn't buckle under and make the immediately convenient and subsequently regretful decision to find him not guilty in count one. Those jurors, have served the interests of justice in the long run. By causing that count to mistrial, they have impelled prosecutors to retry Michael Dunn on the charge of First Degree Murder. We are looking for justice, and that he's convicted for his killing of Jordan Davis, an innocent young man.

Good luck with that, Florida. You still have a way to go.

That being said… This thing is not over and yet again, we have a situation that exposes the degree of potential for America to do the right thing in regards to the question of race. Only a fool would claim that race played no part in any of this. Race was all OVER the situation.

Race gave Michael Dunn the legitimacy of his claim, to some, that he essentially had to "defend" himself from the inherent and imminent threat of Jordan Davis' own blackness. Because, we all know, right off the bat, that Dunn could see, without any shadow of a doubt, that Jordan Davis was Black. Dunn didn't know anything else about the young man and simply depended upon his own well-established predisposition to judge Jordan Davis negatively and fearfully, simply because of his Blackness.

There, to Dunn, was the most immediate threat, nothing else… But his prejudicial belief that all young, Black men are inherently violent.

The only problem was, that the only inherently violent person in that situation was the very person who consciously and methodically used a firearm to shoot at and kill another person… Dunn was that violent person.

Which is why his entire "the Black 'sonuva bitch' had a shotgun" argument was total bullshit. If there was a shotgun being brandished by some inherently violent "thug," he wouldn't be playing peek-a-boo with the damn thing, he would be using it thusly and there would be no doubt about it whatsoever:



But we all know that there was no shotgun. We know this because, except in Dunn's imagination, there was no proof whatsoever of any shotgun and he was left with grasping for straws by being the only violent person who brandished and used a firearm and killed an unarmed person that day. His own slightly-induced feelings of guilt drove him to flee and to act in ways that only a guilty person would act. His guilt even drove his argument that he was justified to take Jordan Davis' life. His guilt, arrogance and racist beliefs were all on display and he had to dream up a fantasy world, which one or more of the jurors seemed to swallow in his favor.

So, what else, other than race can account for the lack of basic justice in the case of Jordan Davis' apparent murder? We really don't have a lot of options to choose from here. And it's not like we don't live in a world where some people think that it's OK to shoot young, unarmed men, simply because they are Black. Both HLN's Nancy Grace and Dr. Drew have been running a three-ring circus around one of these disgusting individuals: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024503666 AND through his own written words, Michael Dunn was shown to be one of these people as well. So that's simply the kind of people who are both walking around and who can also end up serving on jury duty at any given time.

The idea that justice can be served, without regard to the matter of race is still an honorable and wholly achievable goal… Apparently, we as a society, have not yet arrived at that place. I say this, simply because if a jury believes that there was no shotgun and that Davis never left the backseat of the Dodge Durango, then what justifies Dunn shooting him, where they felt that he was NOT justified in any of the other counts? Again, we are left with the powerfully driven concept of the inherent and immediate threat of Blackness in the minds of some White people.

You should understand that both Black people who have witnessed and have been the victims of injustice still generally believe that we can arrive at a place and time where one's race does not predetermine whether or not what kind of justice will be applied. There are people of all creeds and colors working for and waiting for that day. It's seen as an eventuality that the day will come, otherwise any belief in the entire system would be abandoned. The system, however broken, it still a valid work in progress.

To anyone who argues that simply because Dunn was found guilty on the other counts and will apparently spend the rest of his miserable life in prison: I say to you that, in regard of the life taken from Jordan Davis, justice has not yet been served. What we have here is a demonstration that we are not yet ready to go the additional step to afford a completely impartial coverage of justice for everyone in this country. That not all of the jurors, could find Dunn guilty on the count of murder, when they voted unanimously on all the other counts, speaks to fact that the concept of an innocent young victim's Blackness being an immediate and imminent threat is still holding us back.

The picture is incomplete. Simply, the jury is still out on whether or not armed White people retain carte blanche to shoot and kill unarmed and non-threatening Black people at will.

So, don't expect me, or anyone who's working toward and expecting as well that we can have completely impartial justice in America to settle for half-assed impartial justice instead. That's not going to happen. It's not happening because we've had jurors for the Dunn trail declare, from their unyielding stance, say that we CAN potentially go all the way. All we have to do is live up to their example that says that the potential still exists.

Lastly, I need to say that I had two different essays that I was going to write, based on the outcome of the trial. Obviously, this is not the one I wanted to write. It has pained me to do so.

But it's not like I have given up any hope that I will eventually write the other one… I'm sure that I will.

[freshwest]

1. Excellent. At least the world does not have to endure another Not Guilty. Long way to go, yes. n/t

[BlueCheese]

2. I have a very basic question.

Suppose all of the jurors agreed that Dunn was guilty of 2nd degree murder for killing Jordan Davis, but several of them were also convinced he was also guilty of 1st degree murder. Would that result in a hung jury? Or does the hung jury mean that at least one jury member didn't want to convict on anything?

[MrScorpio]

4. They had to come to an unanimous decision to render a verdict

Now which of the choices over what they were deadlocked has yet to come out.

I can't wait to see why they were and which ones.

[BlueCheese]

5. I'm very curious too.

I'm not sure if a juror would stick to Murder 1 to the point of losing a Murder 2 verdict. Maybe, maybe not.

I could definitely see a juror sticking to Murder 2 rather than accepting, say, manslaughter.

[sir pball]

24. I'm beginning to think it may have been a holdout or two for Murder 2..

My guy (yeah, terrible way to go, but that's all we have right now) says the general consensus was that he wasn't justified, based on the other counts - but it would take one hell of a Purist to hold out for M1 given the guilt on the rest of the charges; there's no meaningful addition to the punishment, no matter how fervently you believe it was a calculated, premeditated, planned slaying it would be idealistic to the point of utter idiocy to hang the jury over.

Now, if one or two people in that room feel that just reaching over to the glovebox isn't enough time to form intent, which is legally wrong but something I can honestly see your average (i.e. not so educated, easily cowed and manipulated) juror believing, you;d have ten or 11 Murder 1 votes and just a couple hanging for 2...which seems to be the closest we can get to the Sherlock Principle, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the answer."

[localroger]

25. Someone was holding out for murder 1.

If you're adamant that it has to be murder 1 but there are jurors you can't convince, then it's a sensible strategy to hang the jury (which doesn't get him off, and besides he's staying in jail because of the other verdicts) rather than affirm a lesser verdict you think is morally incorrect.

[bettyellen]

32. nonsense- the jury asked if they could consider a claim of self defense for ALL the shootings, so

someone obviously was always going to excuse the first murder as self defense. They just weren't allowed -by the court, who they asked- to claim it for all the shots fired. It wasn't a hold out for premeditated, it was a hold out trying to excuse the whole thing away.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

36. just as there might be somebody like you mentioned

that does not mean there wasn't somebody who thought murder 1 is the only suitable charge as well.

i know this doesn't really add anything to the debate, just wanted to point it out.

[bettyellen]

37. there could be- but there definately WAS one juror who wanted to let Dunn off for self defense.....

and it is troubling the jury had to argue that point with a juror when even the defendants own lawyer did not. Someone was using ANY excuse to let him off easy. Scary.

[flying rabbit]

3. K&R

[DLevine]

6. Agreed.

There is no question in my mind had the killer been black and the victim white there would have been a conviction of first degree murder. Either that, or the killer would have been shot by police while "resisting arrest". It is dangerous to be a young black man in America today, particularly Florida.

[cui bono]

7. I agree. Jordan's parents put it well when they said they were thankful to have some closure

and that they would wait for justice.

I do have somewhat of an objection to you using that pic since it will leave the impression of a young black man with a shotgun even though the point you were making was that there was no such shotgun. Images do stick in the mind though.

[raccoon]

8. Great post. K&R. nt

[Loudly]

9. Hand wringing over injustice rings pretty hollow with me.

As long as guns and ammunition in the hands of the public is tolerated by this society, shooters are fully empowered to act unjustly.

If Michael Dunn hangs himself in his jail cell, will that be justice for Trayvon I mean Jordan Davis?

None of our genuine rights amount to very much when we indulge an imaginary "right" to be armed.

And you completely omitted any reference to the pounding music emanating from the car. Why did you do that? It's perfectly relevant.

This is a guy with a gun who feels justified in standing his ground against an assault on his eardrums.

[handmade34]

11. not sure you understand...

No, Dunn hanging himself would not be justice... justice will be when the public says what he did is wrong with no caveats

the music is not relevant... it would have been another action or sight or sight that set Dunn off...

justice will only come when there is overwhelming public acknowledgement of the racial component of these killings and an abhorrence of SYG

[MrScorpio]

13. I take it that you're not happy with what I wrote...

That's perfectly reasonable. But allow me to address your objections...

Your point about guns & ammo is a valid one… However, empowered to act unjustly, people are not entitled to act that way without paying any commensurate consequences. People who murder should be brought to justice to pay for their crimes. My point is that race shouldn't determine whether a person is given carte blanche to shoot others or be victimized without justice being served in an equal and impartial fashion.

If Michael Dunn hangs himself, justice would not be served. Justice is to be served in a court of law. For the record, were he convicted of First Degree Murder, I would not hope that he'd get a death penalty. I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases without reservation.

I agree with your assessment of genuine rights versus the right to be armed.

The reason I never mentioned the music is because the music itself could never be construed as an actual immediate or imminent threat to Dunn. The music was always no more than a minor and a wholly avoidable inconvenience. He didn't have to park there and he didn't have to initiate an argument over it. It was Dunn who made the decision to be a complete asshole over the music. His actions immediately afterward was absolutely a tacit admission of his own guilt and wrongdoing.

Your argument about the music's relevancy is minor at best.

Dunn was much more than a man who was showing concern about his eardrums. You seem to disregard the fact that Dunn was a willing beneficiary of American White privilege, who was presented with an opportunity to exercise that privilege and was summarily dismissed by a Durango full of Black men. And in response, he pulled his gun and shot that Durango full of holes, killing an innocent, unarmed youngster.

Lastly, why are you bringing up Trayvon Martin's name in all of this? What's your real point about that? I would appreciate an honest answer. Don't hold anything back.

[Loudly]

16. I mentioned Trayvon to illustrate the anonymity of blackness to these shooters.

Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis are interchangeable.

Along with all the other riders in the Durango.

Couldn't disagree more about the pounding music as the precipitating factor.

But the empowerment to react impulsively with violent, unjust and ultimately fatal irrationality is all about the gun and the ammunition it contained.

Race is secondary in the story.

Michael Dunn can secretly harbor all the racial hatred he wants with little ill effect on others.

Instead, Florida thinks people with guns can be trusted to act reasonably and peaceably under stress and without bias. Foolish foolish Florida.

[MrScorpio]

17. I find it amusing, that on one hand, you're making a point about the validity of the music...

Last edited Mon Feb 17, 2014, 07:42 AM - Edit history (1)

And we are talking about loud Hip-Hop, are we not? But on the other hand, you're making point to diminish the impact of ambient racial animosity as a participatory factor in Dunn's pulling out of his gun and his killing Jordan Davis.

He was upset about being subjected to, not just loud music, but to loud BLACK music in a vehicle full of Black men… The same type of men which he had prejudicially regarded as inherently violent. Where he felt justified to respond violently himself, despite the absence of any credible or imminent threat from them. Where he felt justified to concoct a wholly unbelievable scenario (at least to anyone who's not a bigot) where an unarmed person was about to shoot him with a peek-a-boo fabricated shotgun.

Michael Dunn's own sense of power, prestige and authority inherent in his own Whiteness was threatened, nothing more. But since much of his own arrogance and self-importance was caught up in the web of his own sense of entitlement about his White privilege, he compensated for that moment of impotence in being dismissed and disrespected by pulling his gun and using it.

I empathize with your concern over the excessive availability of guns in this country… But let's face the fact that many people, White males especially, are armed because they are irrationally obsessed about the prospect of being made victims at the hands of "violent" Blacks. Just look at Michael Dunn to get a prime example.

Race is PRIMARY to this story. There's no way to talk around this fact.

[heaven05]

28. +1000

[Skittles]

38. I agree with this assessment

yes indeed

[gollygee]

19. So you think

if some white guy had been playing really loud country/western music, he would have shot them?

[Loudly]

22. My point is that society empowered him to impose his will.

It's secondary what his personal prejudices are.

Whatever sets him off, he's got a product to act out with.

A product available for purchase at the store.

Factory-made lethality in general circulation is the real issue for me.

[noiretextatique]

26. society also empowers his prejudices

It is called racism, white privilege, etc. And it is not personal, it is systemic. It is what empowered the Zimmerman acquittal and allowed Trayvon Martin and his friend to be put on trial instead of Zimmerman. I agree with Mr. Scorpio...thank goodness for the jurors who refused to "go along" in this case. But you do have a point about guns. However, you cannot dismiss racism as "personal".

[handmade34]

10. K&R

[Scuba]

12. K&R for this brilliant, moving essay. Thanks MrScorpio.

[Turbineguy]

14. What I learned about walking around armed

is you'd better be good or the other guy had better be unarmed. Being a gunfighter is a skill that takes time to learn and requires constant practice. Looking at all those westerns, it's clear that the gunfighters were seldom good at anything else.

Maybe the smart thing to do is, stay out of dangerous areas, avoid confrontations over small things. Have patience with others. That way you don't have to spend your lifesavings and valuable time dealing with the consequences. Then there's this, what if you kill somebody and don't like yourself afaterwards?

So you have to wonder what impells people like Mr. Dunn to arm themselves so that if and when the opportunity of a gunfight comes along, they are ready to join. Then there's the consideration of what happens afterwards. If Mr. Dunn had not been armed, would he have confronted those boys? Or would he have accepted their music as just one of those minor irritations of modern living and waited for it to end?

Mr. Dunn may very well spend a long time in prison. Did Mr. Dunn get up that morning and say to himself, "I think I'll do something today that will put me in the slammer for a long time!"? Maybe Mr. Dunn lives in a world so filled with fear that making rational judgements is impossible.

This is the work that the NRA, Fox News and Right-Wing Hate-radio is doing.

[myrna minx]

15. Wonderful essay. However, I too, wish we were reading your other essay.

[whopis01]

18. You do realize it is unlikely anyone on the jury voted for acquittal?

If there had been anyone on the jury who wanted an acquittal on the murder charge and was willing to hang the jury over that, why would they not have done the same on the attempted murder charges?

More likely the debate on the jury was whether or not this was 1st or 2nd degree murder. If they could not agree on that the jury would be just as hung as if someone was holding out for acquittal.

One aspect of this trial that makes me believe that is that the attempted murder charges were all attempted 2nd degree murder. The only charge that had 1st degree attached to it was the actual murder.

While it is popular to blame race and racism for undesirable jury outcomes I don't believe that is the case here. I think the jury did not accept the self defense theory. Had they done so, the other actions would have justifiable as well - certainly shooting into an occupied vehicle is justified if there is someone attacking you with a weapon from that vehicle. The jury cellar did not believe there was any threat, perceived or otherwise.

I hope we hear from the jury on this and imagine we will.

I bet when they retry him the charge will be 2nd degree murder. Not to say that a first degree murder charge isn't justified, just that they know that a 2nd degree charge will eliminate the chance of this situation arising again.

[MrScorpio]

20. Oh, yeah, I'm working with an incomplete picture here

I can't wait to see the Jury interviews to clarify this stuff.

[bettyellen]

33. nope- the jury asked if they were allowed to consdier self defense for ALL the shootings- so someone

on the jury was hoping to do that, and let him off easy.
The court told them they could not consider all of it self defense, and completely took the teeth out of that juror's arguments.
He would have had to find a whole other excuse not to find him guilty of spraying that car with bullets- but couldn't. For a while there he thought he could get Dunn off on self defense. And that is sad.

[alcibiades_mystery]

21. "we are left with the powerfully driven concept of the inherent and immediate threat of Blackness"

"...in the minds of some White people."

Perfectly stated. there is no other explanation. That this phantom threat seems to be inextricably tied to - and indeed may be the root of - US gun culture is clear enough.

"the jury is still out on whether or not armed White people retain carte blanche to shoot and kill unarmed and non-threatening Black people at will. "

This privilege is not only part and parcel of today's gunner culture; it is likely lurking in the writing of the Second Amendment itself. Peel away all the overblown nonsense about tyranny, and the 2nd Amendment looks like hyper-fear of Indian uprising and slave revolt. It's no surprise that this ideology imbues so many of its fanatical adherents.

[MoonRiver]

23. Wonderful analysis! Thank you Mr. Scorpio!

[CincyDem]

27. In Dunn's mind, Jordan was holding that shotgun...

...as sure as the picture in the OP. Because Dunn views the world through a lens that ALL black men, young and old, are pointing a shotgun at him in every part of his life just by virture of the fact they exist.

Dunn exemplifies racism at its deepest darkest core, in my mind. He seems like the type who thinks about killing a black man when he cleans his gun, when he holsters up for the day, and when he feels disappointed at night coming home with the realization that today wasn't that day. Reading his letters makes me sick with the idea that on the day Jordan died, Dunn when home thinking all his work was finally worth it.

I crossed paths with a guy about 10 years ago at a rural county fair in north-east Texas. Chit chattin', not saying much, killing time. For some reason he makes a comment about "me and James Earl here" and he pats his gun. I've heard them called "my friends Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson" before but this was new. James Earl, I asked. You can see where this obvious story is going. He named he's f'ing guy after James Earl Ray cuz he was this guys hero.

Dunn probably named his gun too, and you can be sure that if it wasn't something as obvious as James Earl, it was at least that racist.

[noiretextatique]

29. unfortunately he is not alone

There are many who share his mindset. And like Zimmerman, some think this murderer is a hero.

[MrScorpio]

30. It'll only be a matter of time before the next tragedy...

AS long as the only action is no action.

[calimary]

39. That's the saddest and truest part.

As long as we do nothing about that stupid Stand Your Ground bullshit. As long as we do nothing, it's bound to happen again.

Shit. I had such great hope that the election of Barack Obama meant our country had finally grown up and put the worst of our nature behind us. All it seemed to do was unleash the demons.

This guy is a murderer. NOTHING I've seen or heard or watched or read about this convinces me otherwise. This guy was spoiling for a fight, a shooting waiting to happen. And he got what he wanted. It's a shame we're back down in the "thank heavens for small favors" barrel. But at least he didn't get to walk. Still waiting for justice, though.

[Sissyk]

31. K&R

All I can add to your wonderful thread MrScorpio, is I agree.

[geek tragedy]

34. truth nt

[davidpdx]

35. Well put

The murder of Davis and Martin have both been well publicized and I'd hope that means more people are aware of and disgusted by these deaths and not willing to let the status quo (a not guilty verdict) take place. Oscar Grant's murder several years ago in California may have been the tipping point where people began to see just how fucked things are.

I like many of you am still worried about the ticking time bomb on the street, George Zimmerman. How many more people will he kill or hurt before he's finally arrested and convicted?

[lupinella]

40. K&R

Thank you for this post.