Moms Demand Action Respond to Dunn Verdict. Misleadingly

Idiots like Michael Dunn give responsible gun owners a bad name and America’s Civilian Disarmament Industrial Complex plenty of grist for their mills of misinformation. It would have been easy to exploit Dunn’s conviction in the shooting death of Jordan Davis on the merits. But no, Shannon’s gang decided to take the tragedy to another place – Florida’s stand your ground laws. As even ABC News has made abundantly clear, Florida’s stand your ground law played no role at all in the Dunn trial, let alone George Zimmerman’s. You’d think that with all of Michael Bloomberg’s money and minions at her disposal now, she’d be able to keep her facts straight and hone her message more effectively. You’d be wrong. MDA’s press release after the jump . . .

(Indianapolis, IN) Feb. 15, 2014We are saddened and disappointed that the jury in the trial of Jordan Davis’s killer was unable to reach a full verdict. Our hearts are with Jordan’s family as they learn that they will have to bear another trial and more waiting for justice. Jordan and his family deserve closure in the killing of their son, and we will continue to shine a spotlight on our country’s broken Stand Your Ground laws.

Stand Your Ground laws put our children, families, and communities at risk because they give everyday, untrained citizens more leeway to shoot than the United States military gives soldiers in war zones. Children – like Jordan Davis – who may simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time are now more likely to die at the hands of the armed and angry. This is unacceptable.

Jordan’s fate is not an isolated one: He is one of at least 26 children and teens killed in Florida Stand Your Ground cases since 2005. Stand Your Ground laws – also called “shoot first” laws because they empower armed vigilantism – are associated with a clear increase in homicides, resulting in up to 700 more homicides nationwide each year, according to a 2012 study by Texas A&M researchers.

Research indicates that Stand Your Ground laws embolden people to shoot when they could have resolved conflicts by using a lesser degree of force or simply walking away. After Florida passed its Stand Your Ground law, its justifiable homicide rate tripled. Over the same time period, the justifiable homicide rate decreased in states that did not pass Stand Your Ground laws.

This increase in homicides due to Stand Your Ground laws disproportionately affects communities of color. The Urban Institute found that when white shooters kill black victims, the resulting homicides are 11 times more likely to be deemed justifiable than when the shooter is black and the victim is white.

And despite the assertions of Stand Your Ground supporters, the Texas A&M researchers found no evidence that Stand Your Ground laws deter crime.

Now that the research on Stand Your Ground laws is clear, states are listening. Though at least seven states had Stand Your Ground legislation pending at the time of Trayvon Martin’s shooting death in February 2012, not one of those bills became law. Trayvon’s death served a national wake-up call: No additional states have become Stand Your Ground states since. And legislators in at least 11 states have introduced bills to scale back or repeal their laws, and one such reform bill passed in Louisiana.

During a recent legislative hearing to repeal Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, Davis’s mother Lucia McBath, a national spokesperson for Moms Demand Action, said, “My grief is unbearable at times. I’m here as a face of the countless victims of gun violence.” Lucia has funneled her grief into activism and moms will continue to fight along side her, committed to undoing the damage these ill-conceived laws have created.

American mothers have had enough and we are prepared to go toe-to-toe with our country’s insidious gun lobby. We will stand our ground for children like Jordan Davis and we will not stop until Stand Your Ground laws are rolled back.


  1. avatar John Boch says:

    Try again on Verdict spelling.

    1. avatar Scott says:

      and it should be ‘role’ not ‘roll’

      1. avatar Matt in FL says:

        Zapped it, thanks. (Although I saw it and fixed it before I saw your comment. 🙂 )

  2. avatar Scott in IA says:

    I find her comment about ROE laughable. I feel dumber for having read her words. I’ve been awarded no points.

    1. avatar Rad Man says:

      And may God have mercy on your soul.

      1. avatar Lucas D. says:

        A simple “wrong” hardly covers it here, though.

  3. If the justifiable homicide rate tripled doesn’t that mean three times as many guns stopping crime?

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      “…the justifiable homicide rate decreased in states that did not pass Stand Your Ground laws.”

      My question – Does this represent that fewer crimes were committed in these places, or only that the victims of those crimes had either legal reasons to accept their victimhood or no legal recourse or CCW to shoot the bastards?

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I would pick door #2.

        1. avatar htom says:

          Some states never needed to pass stand-your-ground law, since they never took it away with other laws?

  4. avatar JaxD says:

    Only Jordan Davis was hit. There wasn’t any other injuries. Where do you get the “wounding 2 others” from?

    1. Brain was thinking charges and convictions. Stupidly. Text amended.

  5. avatar Ben says:

    This aggravates me. It paints responsible gun owners and good laws as dangerous. It is even worse when we also do not condone the events, yet they are used against us.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Ben: “This aggravates me. It paints responsible gun owners and good laws as dangerous….”

      “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

      The Second Amendment contains no reference whatsoever to “responsible gun-owners” nor any provision or authority who may determine the standards that define “responsible gun-owners” and does indicate that since the RKBA “…shall not be infringed.” there are no GOOD (or Constitutional) gun laws, which makes ALL gun laws dangerous.

      1. avatar Ben says:

        Responsible gun owners is a relative and subjective term. I am using it to mean law abiding citizens- Not psychopaths who shoot up schools, or felons, or idiots who negligently discharge. As for good laws, that is also subjective, so I think stand your ground laws are good. By gun laws, I mean any laws that deal with guns. In this statement, the one I am referring to, benefits ccw holders.

  6. avatar ThomasR says:

    Lies, damn lies and then they lie about the statistics.

  7. avatar PeterK says:

    Not to be a jerk, but the only play these people have is to mislead. They are a one trick pony. Lie until you get what you want. Repeat.

    What else can you do when facts just don’t back your case?

    1. avatar Mina says:

      What else can you do? Imply and / or attempt to illustrate why the opposition is made up of nasty, vile, mean and corrupt – by any means necessary. Lying about facts is only one part of that.

  8. avatar William Burke says:

    “You’d think that with all of Michael Bloomberg’s money and minions at her disposal now, she’d be able to keep her facts straight an hone her message more effectively.”

    Neither MDA, Shannon Watts nor Bloomberg deal in facts. It sounds silly to act as if we ever should expect otherwise.

    1. avatar BillF says:

      Right. What would Bloomberg’s money have to do with getting facts straight? It merely allows Watts to tell Bloomberg’s lies to a larger audience with a louder, shriller voice.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      They deal in certain specific facts:

      1) We’ve got all the money in the world,
      2) We have philosophical control of the majority of the MSM, and
      3) We are willing to obfuscate the facts and lie our asses off to accomplish our goal of civilian disarmament.

      Oh, and one more,
      4) We are not going to admit our real agenda until goal #3 of civilian disarmament is accomplished.

  9. avatar Mark L says:

    Nothing MDA says should ever be put in print. Every time I read those imbecilic brainless twits ridiculous comments, I recognize they have lowered their collective credibility even more, (as if it could get even lower) The only people who pay attention to ANY of MDAs garbage are the busy-body old clueless hens with nothing to do except schedule a blessing with their spiritual adviser, watch reality TV and nod in a massive cesspool of self agreement over the idiotic lies and misinformation that MDA is now well known for.
    The one way to counter the brainless MDA folks is to make sure your legislators know you are on to them, and the MDAs views are not credible.
    The MDA only fools people who ALLOW themselves to be fooled and remain silent about it.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      “The MDA only fools people who ALLOW themselves to be fooled and remain silent about it.”

      At this point MDA apparently has completed the shift to an alternate, parallel universe. The only thing correct in that screed was the punctuation. And the only people delusional enough to buy those insanely incorrect arguments are the “true believers” who believe anything from MDA on its face. Sad, that…

      1. avatar Mina says:

        But notice this is the only side of the story that is published and broadcast to the average American.

  10. avatar Kent Unterseher says:

    What is really unfortunate is how many people will read their press release and not know any better.

  11. avatar Mina says:

    You miss the point. They don’t care about getting the facts straight. The facts don’t help their cause. They are about winning over the hearts & minds of the average American who is, by definition, uninterested in anything that doesn’t have something to do with the Kardasheians or who’s on American Idol tonight.

    That average American believes whatever message comes through their TV set from the nightly news and whatever quick n dirty news outlet they use to “keep in touch” with what is happening on the planet.

    The left, and by association Shannon’s group,want people to think that the Stand your Ground law was the problem here and so they will make it the problem.

    Lucky for them the mainstream media are all also on the left and no reporters ask tough questions of anyone who bats for their team and so that is what goes out on the news: The Stand Your Ground Law is a problem – something must be done. Innocent lives are being lost.

    The next several weeks will be all about making sure those lives looked as innocent as they possibly can ala Trayvvon Martin.

    1. avatar Mina says:

      Notice also all of the framing that they do: The man who was on trial is an angry man untrained yet carrying a gun. The person who was shot was a child. They pull in the racism angle using statistics about white on black gun crime. They frame the Zimmerman trial as “wake up call” regarding Stand Your Ground laws (implies their moral superiority – they, the lefties, heard the wake up call but those bad righties, they didn’t.) Then of course because they have no facts or data or anything substantial to back up anything in their argument they trot out the crying mothers and fathers and friends; the appeal to emotion in order to avoid any rational discussion of the issue at hand i.e. “If you are against repealing Stand your Ground laws, then you don’t care about these crying parents.”

      They are bullies. This is how they bully us.

  12. avatar DisThunder says:

    The guy was a total asshole and an idiot. He should’ve gotten much worse, but if you watched any of the news, you can see why they couldn’t convicted- nobody gets a fair trial anymore.
    I don’t remember where I saw the quote, but I remember after the Zimmerman case hearing a comment about how infuriating it was, to a black man, that a black kid’s life is only worth something if I white guy shoots him. When black kids kill each other, nobody cares.
    That’s stuck with me ever since.

    1. avatar JoshinGA says:

      They found him guilty of attempted murder (3 counts) and discharging a firearm into a occupied vehicle (1 count). They failed to reach a verdict on 1st degree murder charges, I think largely because it is hard to prove this was pre-meditated. A second degree murder charge would have been a slam dunk, and I have no clue why they didnt go for that…

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        I fully agree. First degree murder charge is incomprehensible. Moreover, according to the news last night, he will not be eligible for parole until long after he is dead. So why the hell are they planning on retrying him? What interest in “justice” is served by this complete waste of taxpayer money? and why does the DA and the parents of the dead kid complain that “justice was not done,” not because of the sentence he will receive–a first degree murder charge will not change that one bit–but because of the crime that is written on the verdict form. Give me a BREAK!!!

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:

        I think they wanted to hang the jerk on the highest cross they could find. First degree murder was riskier, but makes better headlines. They could always fall back to second degree murder if first degree failed to stick, but they didn’t plan on a mistrial.

      3. avatar Semper Why says:

        Andrew Branca has been following the Dunn trial extensively over at Legal Insurrection. The Murder 1 charge includes Murder 2 wrapped up inside it. If the jury had decided that Dunn did not act in self defense, they would later consider whether or not he was guilty of murder 1 vs murder 2. Because they couldn’t agree that the State had proved Dunn wasn’t acting in self defense, they never got to the point of deciding what type of murder it was.

        When I saw the charges, I had much the same reaction you did about 1st degree murder. It seemed like over charging. But apparently Dunn had to duck back into his car, open the glove box, retrieve his pistol, unholster it, chamber a round and then start shooting. There’s an argument in there that he intended to kill Davis ahead of bullets flying. It’s a stretch, but it wasn’t as unbelievable as my first assumption.

    2. avatar Randy Drescher says:

      Search, “man smoking cigar at trayvon ralley” on Google, the “tube” vid will pop up. This guys comments went viral & is real sobering to some of us whites.

      1. avatar ropingdown says:

        That was an interest video.

      2. avatar Jus Bill says:


      3. avatar Rambeast says:

        Uncle Ruckus is real!?

  13. avatar launchpadmech says:

    She is like the Rev.Wright. Remember him? Don’t even give the your time to read. This too shall pass thru the colon of Politics.

  14. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    Oh you foolish, foolish moms. This is how it all starts. I’ve seen it all before. I was there. I was there!

    Yeah! It was called the 80’s! Ford was President, Nixon was in the White House, FDR was running this country into the ground. I was bumming in a hole in the wall town in what is now called “Utah”.

    Some fellow from Colorado shows up- starts making all kinds of so called “improvements”, right? Before we knew what hit us, the streets were running us with lattes!

    Yup!… It got so bad that a fellow that liked to, you know, smoke a little grass or drink a little ripple. Crow like a rooster! Maybe challenge the mayor’s son to a gentlemen’s duel, is uncouth, “Against God!”

    More like bad for real estate values. SO I HAD TO GOOOO! My point is, Shannon, be careful what you wish for, be careful what you wish for!

  15. avatar BDub says:

    I am sick of the Muscular Dystrophy Association’s nonsensical and hardline encroachment into a politically charged topic that has frankly nothing to do with their aim or goals. They need to just but out!


    1. avatar Lucas D. says:

      Hmm, come think of it, their goal is actually noble and they used the acronym first. Do I smell a lawsuit?

      1. avatar NJDevil says:

        You do! The WWE was sued by the World Wildlife Fund and lost the use of WWF even though there was no way to confuse wrestling with saving animals. I like how you think.

        1. avatar pyratemime says:

          As I recall it was the WWE that sued and in losing were told the animals were there first and they could go pound canvas.

  16. avatar Paul G. says:

    I think this verdict should also say a lot about our drug laws. Why not, the degree of relevancy is the same.

  17. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    and you guys think John Watts married Shannon for her mind or her cooking? Ha!

    1. avatar Gene says:

      I’d suspect the third option.

      1. avatar Marcus Aurelius says:

        Because she told him to?

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:


    2. avatar dirk diggler says:

      she must have mad skillz . . . . . grrrrr.

  18. avatar surlycmd says:

    I sure hope her kids make it out the nest with the ability to think for themselves.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      If they made it out of the nest with the ability to function in society and hold a job I’d call it a victory for nature.

  19. avatar Templar says:

    I don’t know a single person in my daily life who knows what this organization is.

  20. avatar BTinAfghan says:

    “Stand Your Ground laws put our children, families, and communities at risk because they give everyday, untrained citizens more leeway to shoot than the United States military gives soldiers in war zones.”

    She is right about one thing. The ROE here puts US and Coalition members at far greater risk of being killed than it does the enemy. I am pretty sure that is not where she was trying to go with this. Sorry RF about not being nice; but I have to be honest – she really is a lying idiot.

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      Agree. That was a stunning comment by Watts. Obviously the problem isn’t SYG, which the anti-self-defense lobby attacks for only one reason: When people think it through they realize you ought to be able to stand your ground, but can you really do that against hoodlums without a gun in your hand? No. So the justice of standing your ground in a place where you are behaving lawfully and have the right to be..necessitates a handgun, which means legal carry is an obvious right. The grabbers hate the obvious logic that flows from the idea of SYG even when stated as a right sans guns.

      And yes, she no doubt didn’t get the strangeness of very burdensome ROE when a person is sent into a war. I think she only is thinking “will I get paid for this?” as she drafts her PR bits, which really are only read by us. No one else bothers. Even my two million-mom-march neighborhood CCW (well, LCF) permit references couldn’t tell me anything about her.

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Yeah, isn’t it amazing that she’s able to slander and misrepresent everyone, even Al-Quaeda. True talent, that.

  21. avatar Hannibal says:

    ^ Recently strangled by a 15 year old ‘child’ who ambushed her and made sure she would never come home to HER child.

    18 is not a magical number. Now, I’m not defending this guy… just tired of groups like MDA trying to sacrifice rights and reason over the alter of minor-worshipping.

  22. avatar Hal J. says:

    Well, surely they’ll correct their press release on their web page after their error is pointed out to them in the comments section.

    Oh. Wait….

  23. avatar Ralph says:

    What’s MDA’s complaint? The verdict was that Dunn done it, not that Dunn didn’t do it. So are we done now?

    1. avatar Butane says:


    2. avatar Dave357 says:

      Their complaint is shall issue carry.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        And to be fair, he strikes me as the kind of guy who probably wouldn’t illegally carry. He also strikes me as the kind of guy who wouldn’t pick a fight with several guys in the next car if he didn’t have a gun with him; so this might not have happened. Then again had someone not been blasting music it ALSO ‘might’ not have happened. The solution is to blame the murderer, not the victims or the method.

        1. avatar Dave357 says:

          Oh, there is no question in my mind that when something is freely available, some additional incidents will take place that would not have taken place otherwise. This is why desire for gun control is stronger in people who view even one incident as sufficient cause of tightening the rules, no matter what benefits are lost in the process. However, people often pick and choose when comparing costs and benefits, so the choices can end up being ideological rather than logical.

          Now, there are claims out there on the web that Mr. Dunn once put a gun to his ex-wife’s head, which if true would suggest a serious lack of stability even before the shooting incident. Some shall issue States still leave a bit of discretion for such cases (Colorado, Alabama, and Connecticut come to mind), but then there are constitutional carry States and any number of “hard” shall issue States (no discretion at all) that don’t seem to suffer for it, so I would need to dig into the history of such incidents in Florida and elsewhere to see if any pattern emerges.

  24. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Mothers against mayors could have also said, We are deeply saddened & dissapointed that the rule of law prevailed & we couldn’t execute a man for what was no more than possibly 2nd degree murder./// We are going to work tirelessly to see that our special sweethearts can’t be harmed & could care less what happens to good people running from POS criminals who obviously have done nothing wrong. We are looking into providing bullet proof vests for special criminals as this is just common sense. In summation I want to thank every one of our supporters for facilitating the wholesale slaughter of innocents

  25. avatar H.R. says:

    Dunn was found guilty of everything but the Murder 1 charge, right?
    I agree with the poster above who questioned why the prosecution didn’t go for Murder 2, which Dunn probably would have been found guilty of. But that’s got nothing to do with “stand your ground” laws or the “gun lobby” or anyone else. That has to do with a prosecutor who tried to reach too far and couldn’t pull it off. As it is, Dunn is still probably going to die in prison while serving a 60 year sentence, so not getting a Murder 1 conviction doesn’t really make a difference.

    FWIW, we have a lot that we can learn from the Dunn case. Like… if you are involved in a DGU, get the police on the phone as soon as you’re out of danger. By not involving the authorities after firing several rounds into an SUV, Dunn set himself up to be found guilty whether the occupants of the SUV had a shotgun or not (I don’t think they did, but I wasn’t there).

    So I don’t get what action “Moms Demand Action” are demanding. The guy was found guilty of all but one crime and he’s going to prison for the rest of his life.
    What more is there to demand?

    1. avatar ropingdown says:

      Why do people wonder why the murder count was over-charged? Two words: Angela Corey.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Angela Corey indeed. She overcharges like a Park Avenue hooker.

        1. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Looks good on paper, must be good, right?

    2. avatar Jus Bill says:

      “So I don’t get what action “Moms Demand Action” are demanding.”

      Complete civilian disarmament, as usual. Nothing new here – move along,

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      What what I read the option of a lesser charge was (automatically) included and they also deadlocked. Although Corey sucks, it might just be down to that one juror who had doubts. Ultimately our jury system is flawed but they’ve got another shot if they want it and it’s the best we can come up with.

  26. avatar Frodo says:

    Had some of these mothers demanding action put as much effort into raising their kids it is a safe bet many of them would be alive today notwithstanding the ones killed in Gun Free Zones whose very creation by liberals makes them partially responsible for anyone killed in a Gun Free Zone.

  27. avatar Steve in MD says:

    Question: Wouldn’t one expect justifiable homicides to increase and unjustifiable ones to decrease with clearer self-defense laws?

    1. avatar Mina says:

      Too logical. That’s how we think but that’s not how the left thinks.

      Vague laws that can be interpreted in accordance with the goal of the moment are much more useful and therefore valuable.

      Lefties live and die by lying, deceit and obfuscation of facts as well as complete ignorance as to the role of data in decision making. Everything is about however they feel about it.

      Value laws give them the ability to decide how they feel about it.

      Notice in New York carrying a gun into a Government building is a felony. But if you someone who is friends with the Governor well there is wiggle room to avoid charging you with any crime if you not only carry your gun into a Government building but then use the laser on your handgun as a pointer during a presentation – and as a special bonus while doing so sweep the room with your muzzle.

      The Governor feels ok with that. Now, had that person been an old, fat, angry ex-Marine who lives in a modest home on the edge of town from his pension with his disabled wife, arthritic dog and 2 ancient cats. He wouldn’t feel so good about that and that guy would be thrown in jail to serve the mandatory 20 years as called for by the law.

      See how that works? Feelings. The only things that matter!!

  28. avatar Tom says:

    I call the opponents of Stand Your Ground laws what they really are, criminal apologists and supporters of criminal activity. They dont deny these statements, in fact they wear it as a badge of pride. If STG laws are repealed, they will go after the Castle Doctrine and ultimately the right to defend self family or property.

  29. avatar int19h says:

    This just came up:

    Anyone has any detailed data etc on this? Unfortunately the report itself is not published yet so it’s not possible to go through it with a fine comb, but the statistics that they claim to have used should be public.

    1. avatar Murray says:

      This is the usual BBC crap, report any study which meets or supports your policy or standpoint, ignore studies that don’t, they’ve done this on unrestricted immigration, the EU, Islam, terrorism and multiculturalism and Global Warming too. None of these BBC/Media Libtard causes have ever been put in a General Election manifesto and hence before the British people for a vote nor are likely to be as all shades of UK politicians (UKIP apart) and the EU find democracy mightily inconvenient and you think you have problems!

  30. avatar Will says:

    Good thing the founding fathers knew the witches would be hunting us.

  31. avatar former water walker says:

    Can I steal the “altar of minor worshipping ” line Hannibal?

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Go for it although it sounds a little like a D&D item

  32. avatar cubby123 says:

    More factless claims MADE UP to suit the needs of factless idiots like her and her group of nonsense gatherers.Like Forrest said ;’STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES!’

  33. avatar Dennis says:

    Justifiable homicide increasing and unjustifiable homicides decreasing? What’s not to like?

    Unless they are confusing the definitions of homicide and murder.

  34. avatar Karlan in atx says:

    “Results in up to 700 homicides per year”

    Wonder how this was calculated. All justifiable homicides per year are half that number (all weapons combined)……

    This is an information war , and generally accepted conventions are not being respected… kinda like how terrorists don’t follow Geneva or Hague conventions….

    see what I just did there…. 🙂

  35. avatar Matt in FL says:

    “..the Texas A&M researchers found no evidence that Stand Your Ground laws deter crime.”

    To my knowledge, the point of Stand Your Ground laws wasn’t so much to deter crime as it was to protect people who found it necessary to use self-defense from overzealous and/or politically motivated unwarranted prosecution.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Yeah well it seems with Corey as the prosecutor it hasn’t done much of that either…

  36. avatar fuque says:

    Sure looked as if Dunn had a sort of perma grin going on.. the snicker and smile never left his face..

  37. avatar dan says:

    To’ moms demand action’………either get your facts straight and truthful….or KMA…..a law-abiding ‘ stand your ground’…when and if needed type of gun-owner…….also the military is ‘wussiefied’ by the same politicians that you snuggle up to…….you only have a right to criticize as you do because there were men and ‘moms’ that died for yours and mine freedom…so at least show the respect due them, to get your facts to be truthful….Semper Fi

  38. avatar David_TheMan says:

    You all can go at MDA all you want.
    I don’t think getting mad at anyone confused by this verdict is the smart way to do it.
    The verdict makes no sense to me, they could have got Dunn on lesser murder charges per jury instructions, but the jury must have found that the state didn’t prove that he did not act in self-defense, which makes absolutely no sense seeing that they convicted the man of attempted murder on those inside the car.

    I can only guess there are some things in play that aren’t said in the open regarding the verdict because it makes no sense to me.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email