I am not a lawyer. I have to say that because I am a paralegal. Now that I'm done with my obligatory disclosure, I will disclose something else about myself. I am, in my opinion, a reasonable, rational, well-educated person. That said, I found the Dunn verdicts as much of a stumper as it seemed a lot of people across the country. And now, thanks to Nightline, and DK http://www.dailykos.com/... we can begin to see why what happened happened. At least 2, and eventually 3 of the people in the jury room had taken the Zimmerman verdict (self defense) and SYG (used and not used, take your pick) to be germane to the Dunn case. Why? Because they'd heard it on TV over the past several months. And, they were most likely confused as to the "reasonable doubt v shadow of a doubt" language that is slung about on TV/radio too.
This means that they were not reasonable due to prior information and indoctrination by outside media. They were so confused that even after the judge gave them further information on self-defense and SYG, it seems to have only been used to convince another juror to change their mind. Shooting at someone for playing loud music is not a rational or reasonable response. Getting a gun into play instead of getting in your car and leaving is not a rational or reasonable response. "Feelings" have no place in the law as they are imminently subjective and are, by their very nature, not based in reason i.e. reasonable or rational. So, we have an unreasonable act, based on an irrational law, that appears, to the average Floridian and lots of others, to give them license to kill if someone hurts their "feelings". And yes, I know, you cannot use reasonable arguments when dealing with unreasonable people. But seriously, what are we, 2yr olds? I can tell you one thing we are not: We are not all "post-racial" or whatever other crap those in that jury room thought they were being, when the juror that spoke said, Jordan's race was never brought up. It didn't have to be, it was in their minds and their hearts.