The Michael Dunn Case

The jury has spoken in the case of Michael Dunn, the Florida man who shot and killed a black teenager who was playing his music too loud in a convenience store parking lot. So many issues here to discuss.

The idiot media insists on comparing this case to the George Zimmerman case, when, from a legal standpoint, there are no significant similarities. The similarities that do exist are that in both cases a white adult shot an unarmed black teenager, and both incidents happened in Florida. To the idiot media this makes the cases similar, and the media insists on pandering to the basest instincts in all of us, which want to see everything in terms or race.

The two cases actually could not be more different. Mr. Dunn was not attacked, nor was he threatened with attack. Mr. Zimmerman, by contrast, was attacked, thrown to the ground, and had his head repeatedly pummeled into the concrete. Mr. Zimmerman called the police, and waited for the police to get there, hardly consistent with someone who had just killed a man in cold blood. By contrast, Mr. Dunn left, and drove 2 and a half hours home, leaving the police to have to track him down.

The idiot media also likes to obsess about Florida's "stand your ground" law. In actuality, that law was not an issue in either the Zimmerman or the Dunn cases.

One of CNN's resident idiots, Chris Cuomo, repeatedly said, after the Dunn verdict, that Florida needed to change its law on self-defense, without ever articulating what exactly his objections were  about the law as written. In fact, Florida's law is similar to that of every other state, and the law has nothing to do with the perceived problem which the idiot media has, which is consternation over the fact that that the Dunn jury was unable to reach a verdict on the most serious charge, that of killing Jordan Davis. They did convict Dunn of three attempted murder charges, which under Florida law will get him a minimum of sixty years in prison, i.e., a life sentence.

The Florida law says that "a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another." The issue is the same in every state; i.c., did the defendant believe he was in danger of "imminent death or great bodily harm", and, if so, was that belief "reasonable". The fact that at least one juror felt that Dunn met this test does not mean the law is flawed, it simply means the jury did its job and could not come up with a unanimous verdict on the murder charge.

And yet, the media continues to wring its collective hands over the hung jury on the murder charge. Why? Dunn will be in prison for the rest of his life. And it is not just the media; the head prosecutor, Angela Corey, immediately said Dunn would be retried on that one charge. What a waste of taxpayer dollars! 

Corey (and the media idiots) repeatedly talk about "justice for Jordan Davis". This shows a complete lack of understanding about the nature of our justice system. It is not the victim vs. the accused. That case would be pursued in civil court, which is where two citizens go who have a dispute that they cannot resolve between themselves. In the criminal court, it is the government pursuing a case against the accused because of the offense against society.