Interrogation of Michael Dunn

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jeff White

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
37,887
Location
Alma Illinois
The linked 57 minute video is the story of Michael Dunn who shot and killed a man in a car in a dispute over loud music. Dunn claimed self defense. I am not posting this to discuss the case. That's immaterial to this thread. I am posting this as an illustration of how these investigations are conducted and why it's important to know how to deal with the inevitable investigation after a defensive gun use. Make no mistake, this was a bad shoot. Dunn deserves what he got. But the police and the prosecuting attorney will look into every aspect of the shooting.

The days of someone standing up and saying; "the bad guy drew first, I saw it all sheriff, he had no choice" are over.

This is not a reenactment, this is real. This is why you should pay attention to experts like Branca and Ayoob.

 
Obviously, the defendant's having consented to be interviewed by the investigators without the presence of counsel, which is always a very bad idea, highlighted some damaging contradictions.

I'm not sure how damaging those actually proved.

The defendant fired numerous rounds into a car that was departing; he left the scene without reporting the incident; he went to his hotel; he drove home the next day without having called the police; and he was apprehended there.

He claimed self defense--his bullets in the SUV made it impossible to claim that he was not the shooter.

He had fired at a departing vehicle, there was no evidence at the scene, and there were no witnesses, that would support a credible legal defense of self defense.

He cooked his own goose.
 
I would say nothing to investigators without the presence of counsel.

And nothing more than "I am the victim, he attacked me" , "note that evidence and those witnesses" (if necessary) , and "two of them ran that way" ( if applicable) to first responders,
 
His story never made sense to me. A judge and jury would ask "what would a reasonable man do? In my opinion a reasonable man would not ask, in these uncertain times, for the music to be turned down as that is in effect asking for escalation. A reasonable man would probably move his car to another parking spot. This guy was looking for trouble and found it! There are no excuses here and he got what he deserved.
 
Again, this isn't about the case. It's about how an interview is conducted. The facts of the case are immaterial to this thread. The take away is how an interview is conducted and why you should never submit to one without counsel being present.
 
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to be truthful. In fact the police can tell any bald face lie they choose to make up. If the civilian lies to the police its a felony. And the prosecutors get to decide if you lied even if its just faulty recall in the heat of the moment. Sure, try and make a good impression just like Mom told you to do.....
 
It's not about the case. It's about how an interview is conducted and posted as an example of why one should not give anything more then "He attacked me, I was in fear for my life and I shot him" without counsel being present.
never utter the words "I shot" ... . just my 2 cents - really just say you were attacked and feel very badly and need medical attention and are having difficulty breathing. buy time, find your lawyer.. say nothing that you did anything, just that you are a victim who was attacked.
 
never utter the words "I shot" ... . just my 2 cents - really just say you were attacked and feel very badly and need medical attention and are having difficulty breathing. buy time, find your lawyer.. say nothing that you did anything, just that you are a victim who was attacked.
Why "buy time"?

Do what needs to be done at the scene and not more, and assert your right to remain silent.

Your lawyer will be most unlikely to join you at the scene of the incident.
 
I would say nothing to investigators without the presence of counsel.

And nothing more than "I am the victim, he attacked me" , "note that evidence and those witnesses" (if necessary) , and "two of them ran that way" ( if applicable) to first responders,

There's a big difference between saying nothing and saying nothing except...

To clarify, are you saying you'd have your lawyer on scene with as first responders arrive so that you could say which way the attackers went and note evidence/witnesses?
 
There's a big difference between saying nothing and saying nothing except...

To clarify, are you saying you'd have your lawyer on scene with as first responders arrive so that you could say which way the attackers went and note evidence/witnesses?
no, I'm not an expert, but I've dug into it a bit. my perspective is - to not say you did anything other than I defended myself against attackers, they were trying to kill me. saying something like "I shot them" sounds incriminating, and I'm willing to bet and those words if uttered will get bent and twisted by a lawyer. I can't see any harm in pointing responders in the direction to the attackers, but - in the environmnet we live in, words are twisted and bent, so - replacing the words "I shot", with "I defended" is a small difference, but depending on circumstances, may be an important small difference.
 
my perspective is - to not say you did anything other than I defended myself against attackers, ... I can't see any harm in pointing responders in the direction to the attackers

Imagine this: "A couple in a white Yukon saw it. I didn't get t the plate number. I don't know the year. It was white. A man and a woman. The police were there before they drove off. Surely they can find them."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top