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

[TorchTheWitch]

14. here we go again

The SYG law specifically provides that a person must REASONABLY believe that they are in immediate threat of death or severe bodily harm. By Dunn's own words under oath he testified that Davis got BACK into the car when Dunn shot him. Therefore, (if you believe that Davis ever did get out of the car (and evidenced proved he did not) he was in retreat and no longer a threat at the time that Dunn shot him. Florida's self-defense laws INCLUDING SYG do not allow a person to kill someone when they are in retreat as Dunn himself testified that he was because at that point there is no longer a threat. Florida's self-defense laws also do not allow someone to ASSUME they see a weapon, they have to be certain it is a weapon whether a gun or bat or fists or whatever and that they are threatened with IMMANENT death or severe bodily harm.

A TON of evidence showed that Dunn was never at any time threatened with immanent death or severe bodily harm and in part by his own words under oath in claiming that Davis RETREATED back into the car at the moment that he first pulled the trigger. Dunn even claimed that Davis was at the moment RETREATING when he pulled the trigger because he testified that Davis was still in the process of getting back into the car and only shut the door behind him after Dunn shot him when the ME proved wasn't true with the dummy and sticks as well as where the bullets went inside Davis's body and what they did (he would have been physically incapable of shutting the door after being shot). Further, other evidence proved that Davis's door was not open even a little with ballistic evidence as well as testimony from the other kids in the car that Davis COULDN'T have opened his door because of the automatic child locks that the driver had to operate, and at the time the driver was in the store (proven with surveillance cameras at the store).

Yes, the jury asked self-defense questions, but they pertained to the surviving members in the car which is made clear in this video of the judge and attorneys discussing how to answer those questions and the fact that very soon after they were answered the jury announced that they had verdicts concerning the three passengers...

Watch the whole thing. It is clear that the jury was confused by the instructions and the judge says that they struggled over the language and it was indeed unclear. But those questions were clearly about how they should apply self-defense for each person in the car - whether each person is considered together or each considered separately. They didn't have anything to do with SYG or what justifiable use of force consists of, etc.