Ken’s Comments (group member since Nov 10, 2012)

Ken’s comments from the Q & A with Detective Ken Lang group.

Judith, the states attorney must be charging first degree again because they feel they have a premeditated case and can show it. I'm surprised they aren't charging first degree and second degree to give the jury an option to find him guilty on a lesser charge that still carries a significant sentence.

We were all shocked to hear about the case stemming from Florida where Michael Dunn was charged with first degree murder after shooting Jordan Davis over the loud music coming from his vehicle. This past week the trial came to a conclusion and the jurors deliberated. Guilty verdicts were returned for charges two, three, and four: attempted murder for the three other individuals who were in the vehicle when Dunn discharged the firearm into the SUV.

So, why wasn’t Michael Dunn found guilty of first degree murder?

The answer is simple—all of the jurors weren’t in agreement as to Dunn’s intent when firing the weapon—they were deadlocked!

From what we know an argument broke out at the convenience store between Dunn and Davis about the loud music resonating from Davis’ SUV. Then Dunn indicates that he became fearful and began firing rounds into the occupied vehicle.

The question of intent—a criminal element required for nearly every crime—is one in which the jurors have to deliberate about. They need to ask themselves, “Does the evidence presented clearly show that Michael Dunn acted with premeditation and developed the intent to kill Jordan Davis when he fired the rounds?”

This in turn raises the question, “Why did the authorities decide to charge Michael Dunn with first degree murder as opposed to second degree murder?” In a charge of first degree murder the onus is on the state to prove—beyond a reasonable doubt—that Michael Dunn developed a premeditated thought (which is capable of happening within a split second) to kill Jordan Davis and not merely shoot at him to ward him off. Whereas, with a second degree murder charge, the state does not need to show premeditation, only the killing of another through an unlawful or criminal act.

Clearly the jurors struggled with this legal question based on the totality of circumstances that were presented to them through the course of the trial.

So the question remains, do you think Michael Dunn showed intent to commit first degree murder when he pulled the trigger?

Ken Lang

Brenda,

Your points bring up a thought process I've been weighing on since the case hit the media... If Zimmerman didn't follow the directions of the 911 operator could it be that the "Stand Your Ground" law turned in Trayvon's favor? Doesn't he have the same right under the same law to protect himself? I think this will be a big part of the deciding factor for the jurors.

Also, when the story first hit the mainstream there was a large outcry for justice. Then we learned that Zimmerman was brutally attacked according to some reports. But this past week the ME testifies that Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant. I think this was a huge blow to the defense and may be hard to overcome.

But them again, who knows what a jury is thinking?

Now that the prosecution has presented its case and the defense will be wrapping up its side soon, I'm curious, do you think George Zimmerman is innocent or guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin?

NOTE: Please keep it civil. As a law enforcement professional who works in a state that does NOT have a "Stand Your Ground" law I'm interested to hear about the differing opinions about your interpretation of the law and which witnesses you believe.

This event just occurred this past week. City police were dispatched to a fellow officer's residence for a domestic dispute. When they arrive, tensions heat up and his fiance is killed in front of officers. Here is the story:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/mary...

From what I've heard, and I don't have the specifics, even if an American citizen conducts a war-like offense against the nation, they can actually be tried either way; combatant or citizen. The key to determining this is whether or not the accused was part of an organized group (al Qaeda or other group) who is an enemy of the State. The benefit to being treated as a combatant is that Constitutional Rights do not attach and the detainee can be interrogated through military protocol (such as water-boarding). However, military courts have not had the success in keeping terrorists in jail for long periods of time as the stateside courts have. I've actually heard some TV news commentators explain that it is possible to start the Boston Bomber as a combatant, and then after securing the needed information, relinquish him to the state for criminal charges, and secure several life sentences.

True. They are American citizens. But I'm curious if at some point your act of violence can become so violent that it's considered an act of war by your own citizenry (treason).

The brut honest truth is that I believe the second will be apprehended...by gunfire. I can't think of any cop who would want to walk up to him to put the cuffs on him with the chance that his last act would be a suicide bomber. If I were the cop who found him I'd shoot. No questions asked.

For all my true crime fans I wanted to throw out the question to you about the Boston Marathon Bombers regarding if they should be considered criminals (have Constitutional rights) or Combatants (and fall under the military code). I realize as I write this that the first suspect is dead. The second is still at large. But IF captured, should the 2nd suspect fall under the criminal or military system? I know my opinion, what's yours?

Tabatha,

Sorry for the delay in my response. I am still employed as a detective full time and duty called (...meaning: I've been working a lot of overtime recently). Anyway, to answer your question...

In my first book Walking Among The Dead there is a case that begins in chapter 14; a burned up body on the side of the interstate. That will forever be the greatest case I ever worked in my career. It literally touch every forensic genre currently available (forensic art, biology, trace, latents, etc...).

Lucy wrote: "Thank you Ken! Whew... I would love, love to discuss with you more. I have had no one to chew this over with. My husband is a lawyer, very intelligent but not his interest. So I've been struggling..."

I'll catch up on this when I get a chance. Am getting ready for a radio interview (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/criminal...)

I also wanted to apologize for the delay in my response. I had a number of issues (1) I had to update my DOB in the profile to be allowed back into my forum here, (2) I have a dear friend suffering from cancer and have been by his side much lately...

But I think I'm back in the saddle now.

Tonight I'll be on the Criminal Lines Radio show (9pm CST) with host Marguerite Ashton, discussing the current issues raised since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and ways that we can protect our children.

I can say that being a LE official in the State of MD (which has gun control laws) there is a great deal of limitations to enacting such laws.

I'll also be touching on some suggestions for protecting our children and discussing why these areas can be more effective the simply writing new gun legislation.

You can tune in here:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/criminal...

Lucy,

Believe it or not I came up with the concepts and bought the pics from stock photos off the internet. As for Walking Among the Dead I had parsed down my selection to four pics of graveyards, my wife liked the wintry scene best because with the footprints in the snow the pic restated the title--which is the trick I use when designing my covers, I find a pic the restates the title.

Then I had a friend who is talented on PhotoShop Work the cover together using a template from CreateSpace. The next thing you know I have a cover.

Thanks for the compliments, I appreciate them.

Lucy wrote: "Perhaps this was the wrong discussion string? I should not have posted here. Is there a way to take my subject matter onto another posting?"

Sorry for the delay in my response. Michael hit some very important points with the issues (many, many issues at hand). You need to understand that all police departments do not have the same hiring practices and if this guy had a high ranking connection in the agency he could have been easily waltz into the agency and hired.

I do work for an accredited police agency (which will remain unnamed) and can say that for us it would be unusual for a traffic cop to investigate an attempt murder. We have a specific unit designed to investigate such cases. And we have a specific unit because they are the more proficient detectives who have been trained to handle such cases. However, as Michael eluded to, this type of investigation may have been over his head. However, after further reading about this potential "sociopath" I must say that there sounds to be plenty of material that would make for a fascinating true crime book.

Keep up the good work. And as far as posting this here, its all good!

Have a great day!

Very true

I totally agree. Some people think us cops just clear cases on anyone we can pin it on. The reality is we go with what we got and if its enough to show guilt over innocence we charge them and let the judge and jury decide.

Michael wrote: "LAPD is probably going to hate discussing this at all. It was a real embarrassment to the department. Now it's going to get stirred up again and worse, they let a serial killer get away. Not sure i..."

They're going to do what they can to make sure it stays cleared off the books. When they charged OJ they cleared it off the books which means they reported to the FBI that there was an arrest which affects stats. I agree, they'll look into this to make a determination to pursue it or not. If not, the case is still cleared...

Okay, so I'm just coming on board with the whole OJ thing going on in the news... this serial killer Rogers confessed to the murders?!?! Interesting...

So I did a quick check on Google and found some quick details about Rogers' family making indication of their brother's involvement in the murder of Simpson and Goldman in a documentary.

It was briefly mentioned, with no specificity, that Rogers was able to give intimate details of the crime, including drawing a picture of the type of knife that was used. Evidently, according to the documentary, this matches what forensic experts believed to be used as the murder weapon.

Most interesting was that the article revealed how Rogers made these admissions in the weeks following the conclusion of the OJ Simpson trial. Meaning, many intimate details had already been disclosed via the televised trial and other media outlets. So begs the question, is this guy one of those people looking for attention by confessing to a notorious murder?

I believe with all certainty that his confession to the crime should certainly be investigated by the homicide unit to determine whether or not he could potentially be the killer. Even though some evidence was thrown out of court, it can actually be used in the investigation providing that you do not intend to use it for trial. Given that Rogers is already on Florida's death row the prosecution could decline to prosecute even if the "tainted evidence" shows he is the killer.

Detectives could determine through an interview if Rogers is the true killer, simply because only the killer would have intimate details of the crime, how it was completed, and what happened to certain evidence. If the original detectives did their job right there may still be intimate information about the crime that wasn't made publicly known through the trial that would quickly give them indication if Rogers is the real killer.

We'll have to wait and see what LAPD's next move is!

I was alive (just a kid) when Elvis died in '77. I don't remember, maybe it wasn't spoken of, but I don't recall mass suicides. That is an interesting storyline though.

Darcia wrote: "That's one heck of a first homicide case. It must be incredibly frustrating from a cop's perspective when the District Attorneys and/or courts fail so miserably."

...the DA quoted some new law about the "burning bed syndrome" at the time. When we further discussed it they simply said they wouldn't charge because a defense attorney would introduce expert evidence and they didn't think they could win the case based on the expert evidence. Yes, at times it can be very frustrating.

Lynn wrote: "I'd say you are a blessed man. Look forward to seeing more about your newest endeavor.

Lynn"

Thanks Lynn...