LolaMoon08
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 7,138
- Reaction score
- 78,396
The defence says there was a gun, it doesn't matter what the police did or did not find. If this guy believed a weapon was pointed at him, or it was (and not fired), the psychology behind how someone would react in those circumstances is exactly like how people can and do react in battle situations.
It does not seem likely that this guy would have deliberately shot this kid for no reason. So, obviously, there was stuff going on in the confrontation that caused him to panic. Other than leaving the scene there does not appear to be any obvious attempts to flee or hide.
Snipped for space.
I think it matters a great deal what the police found and didn't find? The defense can say anything they like, but evidence speaks for itself. There was no gun. So there was no gun pointed at Mr. Dunn.
It was very likely that Mr. Dunn had no problem starting a confrontation with a group of teenagers while he was packing a gun for no reason so why doesn't it seem likely he would shoot an unarmed kid for no reason? I am sure there were words exchanged between the teens and Mr. Dunn, but words do not mean Mr. Dunn had a right to unload a weapon into an occupied vehicle.
Mr. Dunn not only fled the scene the night of the shooting, but when he found out he had actually killed a kid, he fled hours south. The only thing, since there appears to be no video, that helped apprehend Mr. Dunn was a witness who wrote down his license plate. Mr. Dunn made no attempts to turn himself into police. Not even his own police station where he lived. Did he contact a lawyer before or after he was arrested?
Mr. Dunn did flee and flee some more.