I disagree, too. It's like saying a provocatively dressed woman asked for a rape.
You can be a complete asshole verbally, threaten, taunt tease...
but never have any plan or preference to raise your hand to another person.
The same for the poor murdered boy. Talk all you like.
When a weapon is produced and you are being threatened with it -
or when the first blow is struck - I think this is when you can righteously claim self-defense.
People talk smack in the street all the time.
That doesn't equate with a legitimate claim to self-defense for their murderer.
I cannot believe the way this case ended.
I also hear people saying Dunn can be tried again.
How does double indemnity not figure into this one?
I can't understand why Dunn wasn't found guilty of second degree murder
or manslaughter in the very least.
Whether he can be tried again or not is un-certain,
but he was not acquitted of murder.
It remains to be seen whether double jeopardy
can be invoked defensively on his behalf.
Maybe the reason that he was not convicted
of murder is that some of the jurors considered
the possibility that Dunn REALLY WAS
threatened with a gun
which was disposed of before the arrival of the police.
Apparently, decedent 's vehicle actually left the scene.
It is theoretically possible that its occupants
preferred that police not find guns in it
so soon after a killing.