Shooter should NOT have fled the scene if in fact it was self-defense, you've just fired your gun into a packed SUV, killed one of the passengers and you flee?. You are legally obliged to stay at the scene and call the police so an investigation can be started, if you claim you were still in danger move to a nearby area then call police, he did neither, he hauled ass from the scene and did NOT notify ANY LEO agency of what had just happened, kinda telling isn't it?..
Wow the DISINFORMATION of this post...
No, you are
NOT legally obliged to stay at the scene and call the police. You are wrong there that that statement.
He can flee to safety and the law does not put limits on what a person may consider to be a safe place. He felt safe at home, and you are going to be hard pressed to argue that a person can not drive home to feel reasonably safe before contacting law enforcement.
Speaking of which, it was the GF that told him not to call. As soon as he got home though he should have called, but I can see someone wrestling over being scared of the law at that point and hesitation about not calling. Not calling at that point is not an indication of guilt to a murder. Nor can it be presented as such in a court.
Even if it was self defense, he made some really bone headed mistakes and that we can all agree upon. Those mistakes were as follows:
1) He continued to fire even as the Durango was fleeing.
2) He did not call law enforcement once he learned that one of the kids he shot out had died from the news the next morning at the hotel.
Assuming it was self defense, number 1 is what is going to potentially land him in hot water. Especially if the prosecution can find actual hard evidence of a temper problem with him. Number 2 would be icing on the cake for number 1, but on its own is not enough of a reason to support evidence of murder.
Prosecution is going to do the following for the case to prove murder.
1) Dunn had a temper problem. There was a witness in the reports that called in with all sorts of claims of known temper and anger problems Dunn has had in the past. The prosecution is going to be looking for actual evidence of those claims.
2) With actual evidence of anger issues by Dunn and reckless behavior responses from his anger problems, they will present a picture of Dunn shooting not just to defend himself, but shooting to make sure he
hurt someone as the Durango was fleeing.
3) With number 1 and number 2 established, then the prosecution is going to show that his refusal to contact LEO immediately was a sign of guilty conscience of his actions. And that the shotgun was a red herring later conjured up. Since he knew the kids were driving away, he was stating there was a shotgun and that they dumped it as a cover.
That is how it is going to be played out. The prosecution is going to have to be very specific in how it presents the evidence. Personally speaking, if they find actual evidence of his anger problems and reckless responses then he's screwed. As a juror I'd convict him on that.
However, if it IS self defense, and Dunn really did see a shotgun, all it takes is his defense attorney acquiring the phone records of the kids from the Durango during and shortly after the shooting. Then checking to see if any made calls to friends. Then finding out the wereabouts of those friends during and immediately after the shooting. If the defense can show that there is reasonably credibility to the shotgun claim, then that casts massive reasonable doubt to any murder charge.
) with stormfront and found some of their members to be thoughtful and not racist in the slightest (just proud of their ethnicity)...but in general, nobody over there gives a shit about what these people think.
Facebook
Twitter