Stand your ground, confusion share stage

 

Here is the state of our state when it comes to Florida’s self-defense law and this latest stunner of a court case:

A man in Jacksonville is found guilty of shooting at an SUV full of teenagers after a dispute over their loud “thug music.” With this verdict, he is held to answer for three kids in that red Dodge Durango thankfully not hit by the 10 times he fired.

But our shoot-first stand your ground law may also be responsible for keeping that same jury from finding Michael Dunn guilty of fatally shooting a fourth teenager, 17-year-old Jordan Davis.

And yet again, we are left to puzzle over the potential impact of a law that says if you feel reasonably threatened, you can shoot. You don’t have to back down.

As the world (or anyone who surfs CNN) knows by now, Dunn, a white software developer, was found guilty of the attempted murders of three black teens parked outside a Jacksonville store. Their loud music was turned down after Dunn pulled in next to them and complained, then turned back up. Dunn exchanged words with Davis, a passenger in the SUV.

Dunn would later say he saw the barrel of a shotgun, grabbed his gun and fired. But no other witness saw a shotgun, no shotgun was found and no one fired at Dunn. His fiancee said that he did not mention a shotgun afterward.

People I talked to who could see how a jury acquitted George Zimmerman under our self-defense law — our most controversial such case, until now — thought this would end in a conviction. But after four days of deliberating, the jury could not reach a verdict on the most serious charge, first-degree murder.

This is not to blame jurors, who have only the evidence and the law they are given to work with. The law says if Dunn reasonably believed he was about to be badly hurt or killed — whatever “reasonably” means — he is not guilty. He can shoot.

Maybe jurors will step forward to answer the swell of people stunned by this after the death of Trayvon Martin, who see it as proof that the lives of young black men mean less. Maybe legislators who refused to budge during an alleged reconsideration of the law in this gun-happy state might think again.

I wondered if there might be a clue to what hung this jury in this: Dunn was charged with attempted first-degree murder of the three teenagers who were not wounded. The jury said he was guilty of attempted second. First meant the shooting was premeditated.

So in the death of Jordan Davis, could jurors have split on whether the murder was premeditated or instead a situation that escalated fast and exploded — more accurately, second-degree? Could they have been ultimately unable to agree on this point?

In a case closer to home, a man is shot and killed after a dispute over texting in a Pasco movie theater. Absurd, everyone said, and clearly, not a stand your ground case.

Then we see video that shows the victim making what appear to be aggressive moves before it happened. We have a 71-year-old shooter who the law says had no duty to retreat if he felt“reasonably” threatened. Stay tuned.

As a practical matter in Jacksonville, Dunn is looking at 60 years in prison. Why retry the murder charge? What’s another check on a verdict form?

The answer is because it’s a life lost, and a law that needs all the scrutiny it can get.

Sue Carlton is a columnist for the Tampa Bay Times.

Read more From Our Inbox stories from the Miami Herald

  • VA has a culture of retaliation

    You know those four Department of Veterans Affairs whistleblowers who testified that they’d been harassed, humiliated, reassigned, investigated and painted as unstable? They don’t even have stories that are out of the ordinary, according to Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

  • Religious freedom in peril

    A Sudanese court in May sentences a Christian woman married to an American to be hanged, after first being lashed 100 times, after she refuses to renounce her Christian faith.

  • When government is too open, it can’t work well

    Sens. Patrick Leahy of Vermont and John Cornyn of Texas, leaders of the Judiciary Committee, have long shown an admirable commitment to open government, and their recent bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act is winning a ton of praise. Some of its reforms make sense, but, unfortunately, its key provision is a horrible idea. By reducing the protection now given to deliberations within the executive branch, it would have a chilling effect on those discussions.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category