The Michael Dunn Trial

I've been following this case but not commenting for various reasons. However; there is one note on the trial that I think needs to be written. The judge instructed the jury as follows:

“If we determine deadly force is justified against one person, is it justified for the others?”

“No,” the judge replied as he read the questions in open court. “Self-defense and use of justifiable deadly force applies separately to each count.”

I'm not sure how the judge (or the law) can actually be read that way. If a group of people confront you and one person takes the "initiative" to punch you in the face, how is it that you cannot be in fear of your life from the entire group? That doesn't make sense.

What the judge's statement says is that in such a case, you ONLY can be in fear of the person who attacked you and should consider the rest of the group as non threatening as a person in his vehicle over a mile away minding his business. That makes no sense.

The only proper instruction is that so long as the victim (or alleged victim) feels that a group is acting in concert that the actions of any one of them warrants fear of deadly harm by any of the others.

Indeed the law already covers this in felony murder. If a group goes to commit a crime and in the commission of that crime a person is killed, then all persons involved, regardless as to whether they pulled the trigger or even had intent that a murder happens would be held liable.

I expect that if Dunn is convicted that those instructions will be a point of contention in the appeal. Edit: Just to be clear: Dunn perjured himself on the stand with his claim that he called "A friend in law enforcement" and that he told his fiance that "they" had a gun. Those two points alone will go against him.