Zimmerman and Dunn in Florida

Once again, Florida's Stand Your Ground Law most likely influenced the jury decision in a murder trial of a white man for killing an unarmed black youth.

George Zimmerman, the self-styled "neighborhood watch captain," was ostensibly protecting his residential community from a black teenager whose behavior he thought was suspicious.  In fact, Trayvon Martin was heading home from the convenience store to the condo where he was staying with his father, carrying only a soda and a bag of candy.

The jury acquitted Zimmerman of all charges, because he convinced the jury that he felt his life was in danger.

The case of Michael Dunn in Jacksonville just ended in a jury verdict of guilty of three counts of attempted murder and a mistrial on the stronger charge of murder.   He will get up to 60 years in jail on the attempted murder charges.

More importantly, unlike Zimmerman, he can be tried again for the murder charge because he was not acquitted.    The jury could not agree on either murder, a lesser manslaughter charge, or acquittal.   So it was a mistrial and can be redone with a different jury.

Both of these cases, however, show the dangers of Stand Your Ground Laws.  At least as written in Florida's law, a person has only to prove that he had a reasonable fear that his life was in danger.    He has no obligation to withdraw if possible.   He doesn't even have to be protecting his own home or property.   He can simply be in a public place and feel threatened -- then pull out his gun and shoot.   That's what Michael Dunn did.

Dunn had stopped at a convenience store for his girl friend to make a purchase.  He was parked next to a car with four African-American young men playing loud rap music on the car radio.   He told them to turn it down.   They "mouthed off" back at him, and he claims that one of them lifted up what he thought was a shotgun.

Dunn fired several shots into the car, killing one of them.  He continued firing at the car, even as they were driving away -- a total of 10 bullets into the car.   He and his girl friend then went to their motel and ordered in pizza.  She testified that he did not tell her about the "shotgun" nor did he call the police.   He did not report the incident to the police until the next day when they tracked him down and arrested him.   And, by the way, there was no shotgun.

Doesn't sound much like the behavior of a man who was legitimately fearing for his life.   Why not call the police?    Why not mention the shotgun to the girl friend?

Many people, myself included, feel that justice was not served by the acquittal of George Zimmerman -- but at the same time we recognize that the jury had little choice but to convict him, given the law, the judge's instructions, and Zimmerman's testimony and injuries to suggest that Martin was on top of him pounding his head into the pavement.

The question really came down to this:  Zimmerman's life may have been in danger at the moment he pulled his gun and shot Martin.   But Zimmerman initiated the threats and the attacks by stalking an unarmed young man and making him feel his life was threatened.   Did not he have a right to defend himself?    Do the Stand Your Ground Laws not also apply to the Trayvon Martins -- the unarmed, young black men whose lives are in danger from the likes of George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn?

Even with the same law, however, it should be fairly easy to get a conviction at least for manslaughter against Dunn.   He was clearly the aggressor with no valid reason to have shot and killed one man and continued firing even as the car sped away.   

If the jury convicted him of attempted murder of the three who were not killed, why wouldn't he be guilty of murder of the one he did kill in that same action and those same bullets?

The bottom line:   these Stand Your Grounds Laws are a malicious excuse for vigilante type mayhem -- which, along with the number of guns being carried, are taking us back to the lawless vigilantism of the Wild, Wild, West.

Ralph