A software engineer is currently on trial in In Jacksonville, Fla., facing charges of first-degree murder, three counts of attempted first-degree murder and one charge of shooting or throwing a deadly missile. Should he be found guilty, he will face life without parole.
However, Michael Dunn, 47, of Brevard County, Fla., is arguing that he was “standing his ground” when he fired upon and killed Jordan Davis, 17, of Marietta, Ga. on Nov. 23, 2012. Dunn is alleging that Davis, a black teenager, threatened him as he was entering a convenience store. This allegation is challenged by investigators’ testimony that Dunn fired into the rear door of a Dodge Durango to kill Davis, where Davis was listening to music. There were no weapons inside the SUV.
This incident reflects an increasing list of race-motivated shootings that are being potentially attributed to reasonable force or to “stand your ground,” including the shooting of Jonathan Ferrell, a 24-year-old former college football player who was shot 10 times despite being unarmed and seeking help by Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer Randall Kerrick.
As profiled by Think Progress, of the 134 fatal Florida cases in which a “stand your ground” defense was entered, 19 percent involved the death of a child or teenager — the youngest being nine-year-old Sherdavia Jenkins, who was caught in the cross-fire of a drug-related shooting.
While the controversial law — which has been heavily-lobbied for by the National Rifle Association and the American Legislative Exchange Council and has been enacted into law in more than two dozens states — is not inherently racially-biased, its broad definition and room for interpretation has left the law subject to racially biasing in sentencing.
A flash of violence
The Davis case started simply enough. Davis and some of his friends pulled into a convenient store’s parking lot. Davis, Leland Brunson — now 18, Tommie Stornes — now 20, and Tevin Thompson — now 18 — were on their way to the mall to go “girl shopping” during Black Friday and stopped for gum and cigarettes. While waiting in the SUV, the teenagers listened to “Beef” from Chicago-based rapper Lil Reese.
Dunn, who pulled in next to the teenagers, stopped at the convenient store after leaving his son’s wedding early. While the woman that accompanied Dunn went into the store, Dunn asked the teenagers to turn down the music. While Thompson complied, Davis demanded that the music be turned back up, cursing Dunn in the process. Thompson, who was in the front passenger seat, tried to defuse the situation by rolling up the window, cutting off Davis’ tirade.
Dunn must have perceived this as a slight, as — less than a minute later — Dunn had pulled a weapon and began firing at the SUV. Witnesses alleged that Dunn said that he had not been spoken to like that before pulling a pistol from his glove compartment and exiting his vehicle. Dunn fired nine bullets in three clusters at the SUV, striking Davis. Stornes and Thompson escaped the vehicle while Brunson tried to pull the bleeding Davis down. Davis died in Brunson’s arms. Only Stornes had a criminal record — a third-degree felony conviction that placed him on probation and curfew.
Dunn left the scene with his girlfriend. He was arrested the next day. Last month, he settled a wrongful death lawsuit with Davis’ family for an undisclosed amount.
Racial animus
While it is impossible to definitely ascertain what was Dunn’s motivation during the shooting, revealing facts came to light during the trial. In a letter released by the Florida State Attorney’s Office and written by Dunn while in custody to an unknown recipient, Dunn revealed his racial animus:
“It’s spooky how racist everyone is up here, and how biased toward blacks the courts are,” Dunn wrote. “This jail is full of blacks and they all act like thugs. … This may sound a bit radical, but if more people would arm themselves and kill these **** idiots when they’re threatening you, eventually they may take the hint and change their behavior.”
To his grandmother, he wrote: “I’m not really prejudiced against race, but I have no use for certain cultures. This gangster-rap, ghetto talking thug ‘culture’ that certain segments of society flock to is intolerable.”
While it is unreasonable to argue that Dunn intended to kill the teenagers when he pulled into the parking lot, or that the killings were anything short of an immediate reaction to Dunn feeling that he was insulted, it is fair to say that — without a “stand your ground” law — Dunn would have reconsidered taking action the way he did.
“I have truth and the law on my side,” Dunn wrote to his girlfriend.
On how a law is interpreted
“Stand Your Ground” — within itself — is not a discriminatory law. Nothing about the law — as it is written — gives preferential treatment to one group of people over another. In a study conducted by the Tampa Bay Times looking at those exonerated under Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, the breakdown is equal among black and white defendants.
Looking at the same study based on the race of the victim tells a different story. If the victim is white, the ratio of exoneration to conviction is 132%. However, if the victim is black, the ratio is 300%. The ratio is 350% if the victim is Latino. While this is only looking at one state, the notion that exoneration rate for “Stand Your Ground” cases involving black victims is more than twice that of cases involving white victims suggest that the flaw in “Stand Your Ground” is the sentencing bias the judiciary has in regards to race.
According to the Sentencing Project, a reform group seeking fair prison sentencing in the United States, one in every three African-American men in the U.S. will be imprisoned in his life, compared to one in six Latino men and one in 17 white men. Two-thirds of all drug offenses were charged to people of color. Per a 2005 report, Latinos and blacks are found to be more harshly sentenced, more likely to be sentenced and less likely to receive reductions of sentences than comparable white defendants. Cases in which the victim is white results in more death sentences than if the victim was any other race.
The perception that a person may “get away” with committing a crime encourages the crime. With murder rates rising in “Stand Your Ground” states and with half of all “Stand Your Ground” states sitting in the Deep South, while the law — as written — does not encourage prejudicial action, the means that it is interpreted do. While a community may argue that it has the right to “stand its ground,” it must be willing to accept the consequence of how this is interpreted — not only by the courts, but among the people, as well.
“My view is that ‘Stand Your Ground’ creates an enhanced view of self-defense,” said Norm Pattis, criminal defense attorney and author of “Juries & Justice,” to MintPress. “But like all self-defense doctrines, it has a subjective and an objective component. Threat is in the eye of the beholder, so if I feel threatened by a young man, I may be justified to use force. If the community is prepared to justify my action, that may excuse my willingness to use force.
“An honest question to ask is if you saw three black men walking toward you on the street, would you feel different if they were three white men? ‘Stand Your Ground’ is a question of how we see black lives in this country; in a way, it has became the new ‘Jim Crow’.”