This incident, however, is not in any way similar to the Trayvon/Zimmerman shooting. The shooter fired 8-9 times into an occupied vehicle, claiming that he did so because he felt threatened. Well, he needs to prove that he had a sufficient reason to feel threatened, because so far it looks like there was an argument (with expletives and threats most probably) and things got out of hand, and his response was to settle a verbal argument with gunfire. All that is coming out so far is his lawyer is claiming it was 'self defense' (and per the several articles I've read saying nothing more, with one saying there were negative comments about the Zimmerman case). Was there a gun in the other car? There could have been an RPG-7 with a miniaturized thermobaric warhead, but without evidence of its presence it was never there.
As it stands, even without the media getting involved, this man shot at a highschool kid because of an argument over loud music. Even without any extraneous 'acceleration' that is quite damming. Throw in the media coming in on the tailends of the Trayvon/Zimmerman case, with the same prosecutor, and this man is finished.
Add to this that he left the scene, which would make sense if he was leaving (as he claims ...or was it some FReeper here) to avoid the chance that the people in the car were 'thugs' and more thugs would be coming. That would have made sense ...had he left to go straight to a police station and report what happened. However, that's not what he did, was it? He leaves and goes to a motel. His number is jotted down by witnesses. Witnesses who saw a shooting where the shooter appears to have fled the scene (and I use 'appears' loosely since it does seem that he actually fled the scene). And he only turns himself up when the story hits the evening news, with a chance that witness descriptions of the shooter/vehicle came up. Also not good.
The only way this guy is avoiding prison time is if CCTV shows the occupants of the other vehicle brandishing a weapon. Somehow I doubt such evidence will come up, and I also doubt it happened that way. This was probably a 'nice person' who was having a bad day and events just pushed him over the edge, and he responded in a manner that I believe he wishes he didn't. Unfortunately in the eyes of the law he killed someone over what appears to be verbal disagreement due to loud music.
Completely dissimilar to the Trayvon/Zimmerman case, and to be honest I would say that prosecutors pray for such cases because they are open and shut for the most part. Unless some CCTV evidence comes out this man will be spending a lot of time warming up to Bubba and Tyrone.
Bottom line: Without evidence to the contrary, what you have here is a person who shot at a car based on a verbal argument. This is different from the Zimmerman case, and different from the other case of the black lady who shot a white man that was attacking her car. In both of those cases a good lawyer can mount an effective defense. In this case? I hope he is a praying man, because only a veritable miracle would have a chance of saving him. This is a prosecutor's dream case.
Further reports state that the police found no weapon in the car or near the scene, and that all the passengers in the SUV remained on the scene to make reports.
As it stands, there is zero evidence that anyone in that car was armed.
As you say, the shooter fled the scene and did not contact the police until after the incident was being reported on the news.
The shooter has been described as a "gun collector" but there is no report I've yet seen saying he had a CCW.
More details about the dead teenager are emerging - unlike Trayvon Martin he was apparently a student in good standing at a magnet high school (we'll see if this claim changes) and he was reportedly gainfully employed in an after-school job at a supermarket.
It's unclear if the shooter was coming from or going to a wedding when the incident occurred, but if he was coming from the wedding, there will be testimony about how much he was drinking.
Barring any shocking new facts, this guy is done - and if he was a CCW holder, he may bring Floridians' 2A rights with him.
My impression is that this is the kind of thing you only see in the movies or among criminal perps. This being a regular guy, I have my doubts. I'm inclined to think that he saw a sudden movement inside the SUV suggesting that a weapon was being readied for use, whereupon he reached for his holstered gun and opened fire. While I think it was a bad idea for him to talk to a bunch of black teenagers who were strangers to him about the noise they were making, simply because of the risk (1) that they were criminals and (2) of escalation, it's not a crime to act in self-defense. Nonetheless, I think there's a chance he may go down for negligent homicide.
Here is some of Dunn’s side of the story coming out. Notice there are direct contradictions in the accounts.
This is becoming a he said/she said case. We will see who becomes more credible. Of course the black youths have a leg up because the black youths reported the shooting before he did.
It was a major mistake to not report it, but consider what the media has set up in the Trayvon Martin case. Zimmerman cooperated with the police from the start, yet he has been demonized. Dunn never knew if anyone had been hurt, until later, while Jordan’s friends had to come up with an explanation for his death. How long was it after the shooting that they reported the incident?