Michael Dunn was recently charged with first degree murder after shooting and killing 17-year-old Jordan Davis in 2012. After being tried only a few days ago, Dunn has finally been convicted for a crime that he committed almost two years ago.

In November of 2012, Davis and three of his friends were sitting in their car outside a convenience store listening to their music. Dunn who had been near the car approached the teenagers and told them to turn down their music. He soon got into an argument with the teens, and after claiming to see them draw a shotgun, he drew his weapon as well. Dunn shot at all four teenagers and killed Davis in his moment of rage.

The trial of the Jordan Davis murder case began on Saturday, February 15th. Dunn testified that Davis threatened him and appeared to be carrying a weapon which had led to Dunn’s attack. Prosecutors argued that Dunn shot recklessly at the teens but after finally being prosecuted, he was charged with second degree murder and the attempted murder of three other teenagers.

I feel that after the tragedy of the Travyon Martin case, the government has almost let it become tolerable to let these kinds of things happen to African American young adults. When first being tried, George Zimmerman was found not guilty before being acquitted with the charges of manslaughter in mid-2013. Michael Dunn was not prosecuted for shooting and killing a black teenager, he was prosecuted more so for threatening and endangering the lives of the others in and near the vehicle. Nowadays it seems as if any white person, or any person for that matter, can get away with the manslaughter of a minority. The court system has been driven to a state where a black teenager with “loud music” is seen as more of a threat than a white man with a gun. Those of a different racial background are seen as more intimidating due to stereotypes and have lead prosecutors to think of the kid with darker skin as being the one who provoked the violence.

As stated by Cliff Pinckard, a Cleveland reporter, “The problem here, though, would be with the jury’s buying Dunn’s story per se, and not with the state’s “Stand Your Ground” provision — which, it must be declared once again, was not even at play. Stand Your Ground, remember, is not a holistic measure that confers the right to murder people on would-be vigilantes, but the principle that an individual who has not started a fight does not have the responsibility to retreat from an objectively reasonable threat if there is a safe avenue by which he might do so.”