Dunn created the confrontation, made it deadly & under FL's insane laws, the prosecution was limited

[TorchTheWitch]

12. And the law doesn't allow someone to assume they see a weapon

The law also doesn't allow you to shoot someone who has threatened you with a weapon but for whatever reason retreats as Dunn claimed in one of his multiple stories - that Davis was getting back into the car when Dunn shot him (ie: Davis was not a threat at the time because according to Dunn he was getting back into the car and thus retreating. And seeing as there was a ton of evidence that there was no weapon I don't believe the jury believed there ever was. The defense tried to claim that during the time the car of teenagers left the parking spot and when they came back that they could have stashed a weapon in the bushes, except that independent witnesses testified that the only time any of them got out of the car was when they realized that Davis was badly hurt, two of them got out of the car and went to Davis's side to try to help him - no weapon, and no one from the car trying to stash a weapon in shrubbery or a trash bin or whatever. Further, no weapon was discovered anywhere near the scene. Dunn was never shot at, and his actions of getting out of his car, and circled behind it making a huge target of himself in order to continue shooting at the fleeing car. Had he believed they had a gun he would never have made such a target of himself. Also, Dunn's actions after leaving the scene and going back to his hotel show that though he claims he was terrified that these gun toting kids were going to come after him he parked right in front of the hotel, left his gun in the car and took his dog out for a walk. He also never called the police to tell them that a car full of kids with a gun were driving around threatening people and he was terrified they were coming after him. On top of that, his own fiance - a DEFENSE witness, on rebuttal testimony swore that at no time did Dunn ever tell her he saw that the kids in the car had a gun or some other gun-like thing that he believed was a gun.

So, where does SYG come in to this case? It doesn't. There is simply FAR too much evidence that proved not only that there was no gun or gun-looking thing but that Dunn at no time believed that they had a gun or a gun-looking thing. Further, even with SYG language included in Florida's self-defense law, it says that there must be an immediate threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Again, the evidence showed clear as a bell that there never was an immediate threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm. This is likely why the first thing the jury asked for was to see the dummy and the sticks after watching testimony from the medical examiner that proved that Davis was shot while sitting in the back passenger seat in the car and that he was shot when his door was closed. Even with Dunn changing his story to try to fit the ME's findings in claiming that he shot Davis while Davis was BACK in the car that means that he had retreated and was no longer a threat at the time that Dunn fired at him.

In this case, SYG was not at issue - Dunn was never threatened with imminent death or severe bodily harm. There was no gun or gun-looking thing, the law doesn't allow him to assume a weapon exists, nor does it allow him to shoot anyone when they are in retreat (assuming that Davis ever got out of the car which he didn't and which other evidence showed).

The SYG law in Florida provides that a person does not have a duty to retreat when in a public place they have a right to be when they are threatened with imminent death or severe bodily harm. Dunn was not ever threatened with imminent death or severe bodily harm even according to his own claims concerning what occurred that he testified to. Florida's self-defense law including SYG do not allow a person to assume a "thing" that did not exist in the first place is a weapon, nor does it allow a person to kill someone who is in retreat (as Dunn testified that he shot Davis when he got back into the car and was therefore in retreat and no longer an imminent threat), nor does it allow for someone to continue to shoot at a car full of people that is in retreat and when there are other people in that car that were at no time any threat.

Show me where the SYG law had anything at all to do with this case. If you're going to make the claim you should be able to back it up.