first-degree murder. the judge declared a mistrial on that charge and prosecutors intend to try it again. now, many will say dunn may be going to jail for life anyway, but that's not the point. the point is the message it sends to both potential shooters and to our kids. this is about the value of jordan's life, a teenager who would have been celebrating his 19th birthday yesterday. dunn said he saw jordan with a gun, but that story wasn't backed up by any other witness or any other evidence in the case. his fiancee said she was never told about a gun. dunn fled the scene after the shooting. he went back to his hotel and ordered a pizza. but we have a dead 17-year-old and a hung jury. how is that possible? we don't know what happened inside that jury room, but it came likely down to florida's self-defense law that includes stand your ground, saying if you feel reasonably threatened, and the person isn't engaged in unlawful activity in a place they have a right to be, they have no duty to retreat. a right to stand their ground, and can meet force with force, including deadly force. if they reasonably believe it is necessary. the trial sends a chilling message to parents that you can shoot first and ask questions later. that's not justice, and this law needs to change. back with us tonight, former prosecutor faith jenkins, florida criminal defense lawyer ken padowitz, and legal analyst lisa bloom. i want to hear from all of you first, starting with you, lisa. your reaction to the verdict. >> well we got justice for the three young men who by the grace of god survived this incident, even though bullets were whizzing by their heads in those three attempted murder convictions. we got justice for the car because he was convicted of shooting into a car. but we did not get justice for jordan davis, the 17-year-old unarmed kid who was -- who was killed by michael dunn. and so i think a retrial is very important. i think it's important that these prosecutors learn from their mistakes. we all make mistakes. the only problem is when we don't learn from them. we see that happening with angela corey especially losing the zimmerman case, being unable to get a murder conviction against this man for shooting an unarmed teenager. this should be a second-degree murder murder trial the next time around with six people on the jury. it will be easier to get a consensus. we've got second-degree attempted murder convictions for the three young men. let's get a second-degree murder conviction now for taking the life of jordan davis. >> all right. ken, your reaction to the verdict. >> well, justice was not completely served here. we have a stand your ground law in florida which trips up juries. it creates violence out on the streets. it places our young men and women in danger. and when it comes time for justice at a courtroom and a trial, the stand your ground law is inserted into the law, and it makes it more difficult for juries to understand how to apply this law and how to get to justice. when the evidence is as clear as it is in this case, and this was a very strong, very clear second-degree murder case. when you have a case like that, and then you insert this law that makes it very difficult for jurors to apply and to understand and be able to not be confused, you lead to problems where you can't get a verdict and you get a hung jury. and then on top of that, a prosecution team where the jury makes the same mistakes. it was clearly a case of being overcharged. it was clearly a second-degree murder case in my mind, and the time and energy should have been spent on explaining to the jury the application of the second-degree murder instructions. and that really was not done here. enough time wasn't spent on that. they placed all of their forces on first-degree, and we ended up here now with a partial verdict. and now the taxpayers of the state of florida have to have this case retried while the poor family has to sit through another case. >> faith? >> i think the evidence in this case was really overwhelming and compelling against michael dunn, and there should have been a conviction for the murder charge against jordan davis. and so for me, when justice isn't served, i really have to look at the system. and there are some larger issues that have to be addressed or history will continue to repeat itself. one, we have to look at the continued cultural demonization of young black men in this country and how that impacts juries, and when they are the victims of crime, how is that jurors aren't able to see them in that way? they always think they are the initial aggressors. two, the law you talked about, stand your ground, and how this law is encouraging people to take the law into their own hands, based on their own fear. and a person can have a true and real and honest fear, but it could be based on a completely false and erroneous presumption about another person. and then they're taking to it trial. and the jurors are supposed to determine if their fear is reasonable. and then the third thing is jury selection. i think we have to look at the jury selection process and how demographics may a role in our jury selection process, and how people, implicit biases are not exposed during the process and how that could impact their decision in cases like this where i think the evidence was crystal clear. >> now, ken, you talked about and faith just spoke about it as well about the complexity of the stand your ground laws when things need to be dealt. it's no secret i've taken this position for some time now. these laws in 23 states need to be repealed around stand your ground. what was very telling to me is even the judge in this case admitted how confusing the self-defense law is. and even though he read to it the jury when they asked for a reread, that portion of the jury, watch what he said. this is the judge in that trial. >> he wants me to read the first paragraph of justifiable use of deadly force? >> yes, your honor. >> which is an incomplete instruction. and i do not want to go through that whole justifiable use of deadly force instruction because that is the most confusing thing -- one of the most confusing things i read to them. >> one of the most confusing things i read to them. now, he had already read it. he would not read it again. it was not clarified. here you have the judge at the trial saying it's a very confusing to the jury. so why do we have something on the books like that? and how do we sit there and allow this jury who the judge says may be confused. he had already read it one time. make a decision when you have a young man that lost his life. >> well, that's exactly it, reverend. shame on the state of florida. the law is confusing in every criminal case to begin with. and all lawyers, whether they be prosecutors or defense attorneys are well aware of this. but when you hamstring the prosecution with this self-defense law that basically confuses the jurors even further, confusion leads to reasonable doubt. as a defense attorney, i'm going to use the law in representing my clients to the best of my ability. but the prosecution shouldn't be hamstrung. they already have a very high burden, which they should in a free society such as ours that they have to prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the defendant is presumed innocent. but you should not have laws that are so confusing that when the jury goes back into the jury room and tries to apply the law to the evidence, you're going to have a lot of misinterpretation. you're going to have a lot of confusion. and confusion leads to reasonable doubt. so it's a problem for the state of florida. if you want to enforce the laws, you want to get rid of this law. >> now, lisa, you had talked about earlier this law with me. you had talked about how it was in this case the defendant that seemed to almost tell her some of the things that he said when he took the stand that fit the elements of this law. let me give you an example. >> i was trying to get her to relax and stop hyperventilating and calm down, explaining to her that it was self-defense, that we were not in trouble with the police. we might be in trouble with the local gangsters, but not, you know -- i didn't do anything wrong. >> and she, as you said, was a wreck, right? >> yes, she was. >> because she knew that you had just fired into a car with human beings inside? >> she doesn't understand self-defense. he is showing me a gun and he is threatening me. i thought i was going to be killed. it was self-defense. i had no choice but to defend myself. it was life or death. i'd already been afraid for my life, but now the fear was imminent. >> i had no choice but to defend myself, which fits elements of stand your ground. i had no choice. it was self defendants. she didn't understand self-defense. talking about his fiancee, because they were questioning him about his fiancee was a wreck. this is his reaction. she didn't understand self-defense, meaning he does. and if he understood the self-defense law, he was possibly creating his defense there. she didn't understand. and it's interesting. he never told her he had a gun when he was saying to her you don't understand the self-defense law. he left out a little object like the other guy had a gun, the young man had a gun. jordan davis had a gun. he left that out while he was explaining to her they were not in trouble with the police, that she didn't understand self-defense. you would have thought if he really thought he saw a gun, he would have brought that up at that point. >> right. so of course she didn't understand that it was self-defense, because what she saw was an argument over loud music. he takes out a gun. shoots into a car, and then doesn't even mention this imaginary magical gun that only he saw. none of the other people in the car, none of the other people at the scene, not of the bystanders who rushed to try to save the life of jordan davis saw. only he saw that gun. and yet she doesn't understand why it's self-defense. so i think that's evidence of michael dunn's arrogance. but it also points to something else that i think you're getting at. and very much like george zimmerman. i michael dunn understand the law of self-defense. well, you know what? a lot of people in florida do understand the law of self-defense because stand your ground has been talked about a great deal. and they understand that under the prior law, you had to prove that there was no possible way that you could safely retreat before you take that gun out and shoot it. that law is now gone. stand your ground is now the law, and you don't have to retreat. he gets in his car to get the gun. he takes the time to open the glove compartment, take it out, unholster it. he could have used that time to step on the pedal and get the heck out of there. a life would have been saved that would have been required under the prior law. no longer required under stand your ground. >> and every shot he had to pull the trigger, and there was even a pause. faith, let me ask you this quickly. we talked last week about race in this. and the application of stand your ground when it's a difference in race. when you look at the fact this same prosecutor did not allow stand your ground for marissa alexander, a black female who was sentenced to 20 years in jail for a warning shot that didn't shoot or hit anyone, didn't harm anyone, she was prosecuted. couldn't use stand your ground, got 20 years from the same prosecutor. yet the same prosecutor missed two convictions now. where is race in this now that we've seen the verdict, and where is it going forward to a retrial? >> well, the racial animus in this case was clear from the very beginning when michael dunn's fiancee got on the witness stand and said he didn't like this thug music. so it started there from the very beginning, and all of his actions follow through i think on some very clear racial biases and stereotypes and frankly prejudice that this man possessed. and dwloong that was clearly set forth in the trial. but it was sort of one of those underlying issues. we've got to figure out how we address these issues as prosecutors, because i know that on the one hand, it's a very polarizing issue for the jury. you sort of insert that and for some juries, they don't believe that racism is still an issue. or they don't want to be confronted with it and have to address it. so prosecutors sort of dance around it sometimes. but in a case like this where this man has been so explicit in his letters about how he feels about black people, he even said he didn't want black jurors on this the juror for this very reason because he knew he went through that narrative in his testimony. going forward, i think we have to look at that in jury selection and how we address that issue going forward. >> well, we'll talk more about him and his opinions of race coming up. faith jenkins, ken padowitz and lisa bloom, thank you for your time tonight. . >> thank you. >> thank you. coming up, fighting to repeal the unjust stand your ground law. congresswoman corrine brown was inside the courtroom and joins me next. plus, the race factor. michael dunn's language of gangsters and thugs and new questions about the state case. plus, trayvon martin's parents speak out about the verdict. plus, who was jordan davis? we remember a young man who would have been celebrating his 19th birthday over the weekend. stay with us. whoa! sweet mother of softness. paws off pal. [ female announcer ] new charmin ultra soft is so soft you can actually see the softness with our new comfort cushions. plus you can use up to 4 times less. enjoy the go with new charmin ultra soft. it's a law that permits someone to shoot first and ask questions later. we cannot stand for it. congresswoman corrine brown of florida was in the courtroom every day. she's fighting to repeal the law. that's next. yes, please. of course. a rich, never bitter taste cup after cup. 340 grams. [ sighs ] [ male announcer ] always rich, never bitter. gevalia. cut! [bell rings] this...is jane. her long day on set starts with shoulder pain... ...and a choice take 6 tylenol in a day which is 2 aleve for... ...all day relief. hmm. [bell ring] "roll sound!" "action!" we are the thinkers. the job jugglers. the up all-nighters. and the ones who turn ideas into action. we've made our passions our life's work. we strive for the moments where we can say, "i did it!" ♪ we are entrepreneurs who started it all... with a signature. legalzoom has helped start over 1 million businesses, turning dreamers into business owners. and we're here to help start yours. the mess trial of michael dunn on first-degree murder charges has thrust the debate over shoot first law back into the spotlight once again. the controversial stand your ground law says if you reasonably feel threatened, there is no duty to retreat or withdraw before using deadly force to defend yourself. but i believe this law is emboldening people into confrontation. florida was the first state to add the stand your ground language to its books in 2005, and it quickly spread across the country. over 20 states. but dunn's trial is the latest in florida re-igniting calls for change to its self-defense law. there were calls for change when george zimmerman was acquitted in the killing of trayvon martin, and it came up again in florida, again when marissa alexander was sentenced to 20 years after firing what she says was a warning shot. her husband had a history of domestic abuse. yet she wasn't allowed to claim stand your ground. she is currently awaiting a new trial. so that's three high profile cases in florida alone. this law is dangerous and frightening, and we must fight to change it. joining me now is congresswoman corrine brown, democratic of florida and a tireless fighter to repeal stand your ground. congresswoman, thanks for being here. >> thank you. and thank you for your leadership. >> you were in the courtroom. >> yes. >> for jury deliberations. how does this dunn case affect the fight against stand your ground? >> well, the point is regardless of the outcome, it was always a feeling that we must change this law and we all must go to tallahassee and change it there. because even when you talk about the jury deliberation, part of it was in the instructions to the jury. stand your ground is a part of the instruction. whether it was discussed or not. it was in the zimmerman case. and so basically, it is part of the jury's instruction. and we must deal with it. it's too broad. it's a sloppy law. it says that you can shoot and kill. you can start the fight, and then say i felt threatened. that's bull. i mean, it's just unacceptable. >> congresswoman, a study of race in stand your ground cases showed there is a clear division between white and black victims. the tampa bay times found that in 200 cases, people who killed a black person walked 73% of the time. those who killed a white person went free only 59% of the time. and this is whether it's blacks killing blacks. you know how hard we fight that as well in our own community. but this data is startling and is grounds for review just on the application based on race of stand your ground. >> absolutely. that's true. but it embolds people to do things they ordinarily would not do. for example, texting. so you are texting now. and so i feel like, well, i feel threatened so i kill you. it sends the wrong message. and it's not a message we want for our children. it's not a message we want for our community, for our state, and it started in florida 2005. and what we need to do is repeal it. it's like a cancer and it's spreading to 22 -- 24 different states. i now, the florida statute, so people understand it, the florida statute on stand your ground allows a person to use deadly force if they are not engaged in unlawful activities or in a place that they have a right to be, they have no duty to retreat. they have the right to stand their ground and meet force with force, including deadly force when they reasonably believe it is necessary. >> right. >> but who decides what is reasonable, congresswoman? >> but the main thing is you started the fight. >> right. >> you approach me. and i take up my gun. i shoot you, and i feel threatened. i mean, that's my story afterwards. that's my story, and i'm sticking to it. there is something wrong with that. >> and sticking to the story, both the zimmer case, which as you said stand your ground was part of the summations and the defense, and now this case, two very high profile cases, no conviction in either, you have a case of marissa alexander, same county as this case that we are dealing with now. and that prosecutor who you confronted by the way denied and fought for her having the right to use stand your ground. she is sentenced to 20 years. not only didn't kill anybody, doesn't even shoot anybody. shot a warning shot at her husband who had threatened her life and has a history of domestic violence. >> and not only that, when it was discussed, i was told, well, someone could have gotten hurt. could have. we're talking about cases where people got killed. and the person who did it walked. it's something wrong with that process. >> congresswoman -- >> i mean, no one can understand it. and we must change the law. >> well, we're going to stay on this, and we're going to keep fighting. thank you so much, congresswoman corrine brown for your time tonight. >> thank you. ahead, did the prosecutor mishandle the case against michael dunn? new questions tonight about whether angela corey repeated her mistakes from the zimmerman trial. also, what happened to those racially charged letters that dunn wrote from jail? why weren't they used at trial? the answer might surprise you. plus, marching for justice in peace. what young men of color are feeling in states where stand your ground is th