MICHAEL DUNN AND THE MURDER OF JORDAN DAVIS : LIKE THE GEORGE ZIMMERMAN-TRAYVON MARTIN CASE, THE OUTCOME CAME DOWN TO A MATTER OF RACE, AND NOT THE STAND YOUR GROUND LAW. BUT, THE JURY'S VOTE BREAKDOWN ON THE FIRST DEGREE MURDER CHARGE DOES PROVIDE SOME HOPE FOR THE FUTURE IN THE DIRECTION OF OBTAINING FAIR JURIES IN FLORIDA

Los Angeles, California


February 26, 2014
(Today's date)


February 24, 2014
(Original date)

*Denotes a change made in the original blog, either to add or delete information

**UPDATE (Denotes NEW information added to blog after the original blog was published)



I missed the Michael Dunn trial because news about the case and the trial was not heavily broadcast in Los Angeles by the major television stations or the major newspapers, i.e., the L.A. Times, so I first discovered information about the trial in the Times after jury deliberations had begun. Since then I've been able to obtain some additional information from some cable stations. I believe CNN probably covered the trial, as it did the Trayvon Martin trial, but I simply missed it, because I didn't know about the trial. Anyway, I've gathered enough vital information about the case and the outcome of the trial to write an assessment of what I find to be the most critical aspect of the outcome of the trial.

Briefly : Michael Dunn, a white man, became extremely annoyed about some Black youngsters playing loud music (black or rap music) as he sat next to them at a gas station. He and the youngsters apparently exchanged heated and expletive-filled words about the music after the youngsters continued to play the music. And, eventually, Dunn pulled a gun from his glove compartment and fired multiple rounds into the SUV that the youngsters were sitting in. At least one of the bullets killed Jordan Davis. After the youngsters took off to try and evade the gunfire, Dunn fired several more rounds towards and into the SUV. However, none of the other youngsters in the SUV was injured. Dunn was eventually arrested and tried for the killing of Davis and for firing shots at and/or into the SUV after it took off. Dunn was charged and tried for first degree murder for the killing of Davis and attempted second degree murder for shooting towards the SUV. After the trial, the jury came back with a mixed verdict or hung jury on the first degree murder charge and with a verdict of guilty on the attempted second degree murder charge (for shooting after the fleeing SUV).

From my view, the most significant aspect of the Michael Dunn trial was the jury makeup. There were eight white jurors (4 white men and 4 white women), two African American women, and one Hispanic man and one Asian woman. The fact that the jury was a mostly white jury, in a case where a white man is accused of killing a black man (in this case, a boy), set the tone for the entire trial, as well as the outcome. This is America, and as much as some of the non-racist minority of white people would like to believe, and would like others to believe, i.e., that we live in a colorblind society; in America, race matters. Especially where black-white confrontations are involved. The racist majority of white people in America already know this. America is still a racist country. That's reality. So, when the final jury was composed of eight white people, you knew that at minimum, at minimum, there likely would be a hung jury on the first degree murder charge (or second degree, if the killing had been charged as a second degree murder rather than a first degree), based on the jury makeup alone. At most, it would be a not guilty verdict like in the Trayvon Martin case.

So, I was not surprised to learn of the hung jury, after discovering the jury make-up. It was expected. Let me explain further what I mean about the racist majority of white people. I don't mean that the racism is necessarily hate-filled racism, but rather, the superiority type of racism. The "I'm superior because I'm white, and you are subservient because you're black", "I'm here and you're there", and "because I'm white, my life necessarily is worth more than your black life, and so if I kill you (a black man), in a confrontation between you and I, I, ordinarily, shouldn't be prosecuted for it, because your life has much less worth than mine" (i.e., just another dead "black"). This is the type of racism I'm speaking of when I refer to the racist majority of white people in America. It is this type, along with some of the hate-filled type as well, that likely supported George Zimmerman with his legal defense funds or other funds raised by Zimmerman. The non-racist white minority, which thankfully is significant, does not believe or feel this way. They truly believe "all men are created equal", or at least in the concept. And, it is the non-racist white minority who has supported Black people in our fight for civil and constitutional rights in America. The so-called "good" white people.

Another reason why the hung jury or a not guilty verdict was expected was for the same reason there was a not guilty verdict in the George Zimmerman case. The prosecution refused to prosecute the case as a hate crime, which it was. In the Zimmerman case, the judge refused to allow it; in Dunn, from my understanding, the prosecution simply refused to prosecute it as such. There has been much discussion about the ineffectiveness of the State Attorney's Office and Angela Corey, e.g., regarding her overcharging the murder, but the greatest ineffectiveness I've found is the office's failure to charge a hate crime in both the Zimmerman case or the Dunn case. I do not know what their motivation or reasoning is for not pursuing either case as a racially-motivated killing, but whatever their reasoning is, it's defective. In the Zimmerman case, the prosecution initially attempted to raise racial profiling as a motivation, but was halted by the judge (and refused to appeal the judge's decision); and in Dunn, from my understanding, the prosecutor simply refused to raise or argue a racial motivation. If true, this was ineffective and/or defective prosecution. Again, like I argued in a separate blog, white prosecutors cannot be counted on to protect the interests of black murder victims. Although Angela Corey appears to be black, her thought patterns and performance do not appear to be black. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is black in color, but not black "in kind". If Corey was truly "Black", she would have charged a hate crime in both Zimmerman and Dunn. Both cases were hate crimes, and there was sufficient evidence to prosecute them as such.

So, all this discussion about stand your ground laws is useless fodder. The Dunn verdict was not based strictly, or not even predominantly, on stand your ground law, although stand your ground law was relevant, to the extent that it, along with the overall self-defense defense, provided the controlling white jurors with a basis upon which to substantiate their not guilty verdict. The jury hung because some white jurors (based on racism) was not going to convict the white Michael Dunn of first degree murder for killing a black man or boy.

But, the ultimate 9 to 3 verdict, which caused the hung jury is encouraging for future trials in Florida and for the future of America towards the achievement of fair juries. Although I am not informed as to the color or race of the 3 jurors who voted for not guilty verdicts, I presume they were white. That means that 5 white people, or the majority of white people on the jury voted to convict Dunn of first degree murder. That is encouraging. It demonstrates that those five white jurors were fair, and not racist, because on the facts of the Dunn case, all fair-minded people would necessarily find Dunn guilty of at least second degree murder for the killing of Jordan Davis. Only a racist white person could find Dunn not guilty of murder under the circumstances of the Dunn case (I think the jurors that found him not guilty simply used the self-defense concept and instruction as justification for believing Dunn and for their verdict). Admittedly, the Martin case is different. I would not and cannot state that only a racist white person could have found Zimmerman not guilty under the facts of the Zimmerman case. Arguably, a non-racist white person could have found Zimmerman not guilty based on the facts of the Zimmerman case (without the racial profiling factor, which was precluded), if he or she believed Zimmerman's version, and/or gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. Nevertheless, whether the white people on the Zimmerman jury were racist or non-racist, race was a factor in the outcome of Zimmerman's trial; at minimum, based on the differences between white and black culture, without a consideration of racism.

So, with respect to the murder of an innocent Black boy (in both the Zimmerman and Dunn cases), and trying to obtain justice for that murder, the Dunn case is an improvement, and a reason for hope for the future. Unlike the Trayvon Martin case, where all the white jurors agreed to reduce the charge of murder to manslaughter, and thereafter, all agreed to find Zimmerman not guilty, the Dunn white people were divided, and the majority found Dunn guilty of first degree murder. So, there's hope for future murder trials in Florida involving black/white scenarios that the outcomes will be fairly decided on the facts, and not strictly decided on the basis of race.