It is my understanding that the jury could have found Dunn guilty of a lesser charge (i.e. 2nd degree murder) if they could not agree on 1st degree murder. After all, 1st degree murder assumes some degree of premeditation which I don't think was present. However, their lack of agreement on a lesser charge suggests to me that some on the jury believed that Dunn was in fear of his life; that he acted in self defense. He may well have thought that was in fear of his life but was it a rational or irrational fear?
Since rationality is a subjective term, some on the jury obviously thought that Dunn was behaving rationally and others thought he behaved irrationally. I would love to see an analysis of the verdict based on the jurors' race/gender/ethnicity.
Personally, I don't think that Dunn acted out of fear. I think he was in a blind rage because some young black thugs mouthed off at him. Dunn had a gun and didn't have to endure the indignity of being verbally accosted by some young black thugs. He was "mad as hell and not going to take it any more".
The lies that Dunn told to justify his actions should have made the jury suspect his self defense claim:
Lie #1: Dunn testified that Davis got out of the van. It's been reported that 1) eyewitnesses said that Davis never exited the van and 2) the coroner testified that based on the wounds, etc., Davis was still in the van when he was shot.
Lie #2: Dunn testified that he told his girlfriend on numerous occasions that he saw a gun. His fiance testified that he never mentioned a gun. His fiance had no reason to lie; Dunn had every reason to lie.
I don't care how many years Dunn got; FL should retry the case.