Is the only principle at “stake in this trial” whether a white person will even be charged with murder in Florida for killing a black person? Whether a Jury of mainly white people managed to even grasp that it might be a bad idea for men to shoot up cars full of teenagers? That’s setting the bar for our principles as a people really pretty low. In addition it matters to me, and it should matter to all of us, that the Jury basically was forced to accept the notion that Dunn’s only real crime was shooting up a vehicle and nearly killing lots of kids—that actually killing the kid he claimed to be aiming at was, in some sense, justifiable because a black child—and I have a 17 year old who I still consider a child—is considered so naturally, culturally, dangerous that Dunn can claim to be in fear for his life regardless of the actual circumstances of the shooting. If Dunn had asserted that all the kids were armed would he have gotten off even for shooting blindly into the car? Florida’s SYG law is a horrendous, destructive, immoral law and as a country we ought to be protesting it. Under it, as far as I can see, a lunatic gun owner is immunized from his actions even if his actions are based on a complete misapprhension of the situation. If an armed paranoid hears a car backfire is he legally immunized against shooting up the car and its occupants? If Adam Lanza walked into a highschool and opened fire on the teenagers there and survived to claim that he was in fear for his life because, obviously, teenagers…am I right? would the state of Florida charge him?