Dillon Pearce told Ann Arbor police he didn't drive over ducklings in Hummer
Dillon Pearce, the man accused of intentionally running over four ducklings with a Hummer in a McDonald’s parking lot in Ann Arbor in April, repeatedly told a city police officer he didn’t hit the birds, a patrol car video shows.
“I swear on the Holy Bible I didn’t drive over them,” 19-year-old Pearce told Officer Kevin Kleitsch, who confronted him in a gas station parking lot after the incident.
But witnesses told officers another story, the police report says, including the restaurant’s manager, who said the Hummer “drove straight for the ducks” and the people in it “laughed as several of the ducklings were run over.”
AnnArbor.com recently obtained a copy of the video and police report from the Ann Arbor Police Department through the Freedom of Information Act. The records provide new details in the case against Pearce, who is awaiting trial on charges of killing an animal and possession of marijuana. Pearce is scheduled to return to court June 29 for a pretrial hearing in front of Washtenaw County Circuit Judge Archie Brown.
Pearce's attorney, David Nacht, declined to comment.
What witnesses told police
Debra Bell, the restaurant's manager, explained to police that a customer had called her earlier to tell her a nest of ducklings was near the drive-thru. Concerned the ducklings could be hit by a car, Bell and Craig Burkey, the shift leader, moved the nest and ducklings from the building's west side to a shaded grassy area behind a Dumpster on the northwest corner of the property.
Several men who had stopped at McDonald's earlier were sitting in a Hummer in a parking lot west of the property, watching as the nest was moved, she said. When the men had previously stopped at McDonald's, one of them attempted to capture a duckling, but a woman yelled at him to leave it alone, Bell told police.
After Bell moved the nest, she said the Hummer pulled out out of the adjacent lot and made a right turn into the restaurant's property. It drove straight for the ducklings and ran them over as the men inside laughed, she told police. The truck then left the lot, she said. Bell said she would recognize the driver and is willing to testify if necessary, the report says.
Police found four dead ducklings at the northwest entrance to the property. Restaurant surveillance cameras did not capture the incident.
Marie Louise Williams, who was working at the drive-thru, told police that other cars stopped to avoid the ducks. But she saw a big black truck head straight for four ducklings that were heading back to where the nest had been, she said. They were among at least eight ducklings in the area, she said.
Williams said she and Bell yelled, attempting to get the driver to stop. The driver's side window of the truck was down, she said.
Police question Pearce
Officer Kevin Kleitsch spotted the Hummer at a Speedway gas station on Plymouth Road and pulled up behind it, roughly 15 minutes after the ducks were hit. Pearce got out of the Hummer and was preparing to pump gas, when Kleitsch motioned for him to walk over to his patrol car.
On the video, Pearce told Kleitsch that McDonald’s employees were screaming at him, but he didn't know why. He said he suspected it was because one of his friends was trying to pet the ducks.
Kleitsch said he had video of the incident and witnesses to it. At one point, he asked, “Why did you drive over them?”
Pearce replied, “I didn’t drive over them. I swear to God...I swear on the Holy Bible I didn't drive over them."
Pearce explained that his friend "Moe" had gotten out to pet the ducks, but Pearce said he didn't hit them and even swerved to avoid them.
Two men in the Hummer with Pearce also told police that "Moe" got out to pet the ducks, but said Pearce didn't hit the birds, the report says. Those men were not charged.
Police smelled marijuana in the Hummer and searched it. In the center console, police found a small plastic medicine bottle with marijuana inside, the report says. The Hummer was towed. Pearce was arrested.
As Pearce was in the back of the patrol car being taken to the police station, he said if he hit the ducks, he would feel bad about it and it was a mistake.
“I wouldn’t hit ducks," he said. "Trust me."
Kleitsch said, “All I can say is we have all that we need.”
Pearce agreed to speak with police after being read his Miranda rights at the police station. He told police that he dropped "Moe" off at his house after his first stop at McDonald's.
Pearce then drove to a parking lot near McDonald's to pick up another friend, the report says, when he saw McDonald's employees put the ducks near the dumpster "in front of my car."
Pearce told police he pulled back into the restaurant's parking lot, planning to go through the drive-thru to buy "cookies or something" and didn't see any ducks. The report does not indicate that Pearce bought anything. Pearce said he left the lot.
Pearce told police that a woman was yelling at him when he drove away and he thought she was still upset about "Moe" playing with the ducks earlier.
He told police, "I did not see any ducks in the lot and I did not think I hit any."
Lee Higgins covers crime and courts for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached by phone at (734) 623-2527 and email at leehiggins@annarbor.com
Comments
Margaret
Tue, Aug 2, 2011 : 4:28 p.m.
The "mommys car" comment didn't bother me a bit. Maybe if this young man had EARNED something like his own vehicle & auto insurance, he might have more respect for himself & other breathing things. He needs to be made an EXAMPLE for others. I bet MOMMY isn't happy. Smarten up kid.
EatKeyLimePie
Thu, Jun 16, 2011 : 3:42 p.m.
Only 13 more days until your Pre-Trial Dillion! I bet you're getting pretty anxious, I know I am!
Roadman
Thu, Jun 9, 2011 : 6:27 a.m.
What if Pearce makes it big in the National Hockey League and he can use his reputation from this incident to cultivate a "bad boy" athlete image like Albert Belle, Lawrence Taylor, or John McEnroe have acquired in other sports? I suspect his pals think he is a very funny guy to be around. It seems that the incidents he is involved in are associated with laughter.
bedrog
Thu, Jun 9, 2011 : 11:38 p.m.
michael vick is the more apt parallel.
cowdogsrule
Thu, Jun 9, 2011 : 2:12 a.m.
Really? "Ducks on the road don't do it for you?" A young man [allegedly] purposefully drives over 4 little innocent ducklings for no reason other than outright indifference to wildlife or exhibiting just plain cruel behavior--and that doesn't "do it" for you? Wow. That is a sad statement. I'd hate to live in a world where someone like you is in power. That would be a scary place indeed. No matter how arrogant or sarcastic the officer was, I for one, am very glad that the A2 Police respond so quickly and seriously to calls about animal endangerment or cruelty. That makes me proud to be a lifelong Ann Arborite. As a steward for animal rights and someone who fights to end animal cruelty-abuse and neglect--I applaud the A2 Police and the prosecutor for arresting and charging this young man. I hope it's a wake-up call for him. The human brain is not yet fully developed into an adult brain until one is at least 26 years of age. Let's hope that Mr. Pearce's behavior choices were the result of immaturity and impulsivity-and not something darker or more sinister. I hope this process he's going through will help him to respect nature and himself.
A4K
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:38 a.m.
Thank you! So true :)
David J
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 9:03 p.m.
Officer Kevin Kleitsch is out of line with his "mommy's car" schtick. He was trying to elicit a response with his derogatory reference. Even if the accused and his mother have a documented history of issues with the law, he must not take that approach. Its sad that my tax dollars pay this officer's salary...
A4K
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:37 a.m.
Prove that he wasn't just saying it out of habit or for some other reason. I mean, really. Are you omnipotent or something? What on earth makes you so certain?
j5
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 3:58 a.m.
@huh7891 So the officer's conduct is beyond reproach? Not in this town pal.
huh7891
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 9:11 p.m.
Then move if you don't like it. Good officer...
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 9:09 p.m.
Not the best approach, but Kleitsch clearly scored points durng his questioning.
genetracy
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 8:55 p.m.
In all of my years on the planet, I came to the realization a long time ago whenever someone "swears to god" or "swears on a stack of bibles" or "swears on their mother's grave" they are lying.
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 9:43 p.m.
That's a very good assumption. Are you related to Dick Tracy?
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 6:45 p.m.
If I belonged to a law enforcement agency and someone smeared pop on the roof of a squad car, I might have beeen equally as rude to Pearce if he became suspected of another caper. The video interestingly shows a person in the passenger side of the Hummer alighting and disappearing from view. Why would he do that if there was no sense of criminal culpability? Tough case for Nacht to defend. Likely explains why he waived the preliminary xamination. Could one imagine the prosecution parading witnesses from McDonald's into the witness box to testify that Pearce and others in the Hummer as the ducklings lives were being literally crushed in the presence of horrified onlookers?
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 9:41 p.m.
Fresca was the favorite beverage of LBJ.
bedrog
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 8:11 p.m.
whats wrong with pop on a car ? dr pepper, pepsi, fresca etc all have a nice gleam.
grye
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 6:37 p.m.
First, no one is certain Pierce did or didn't run over the ducks on purpose except for Pierce or those with him in the Hummer. Second regarding the police and their actions, if the police are able to question me about something that I may or may not have done using false information to gain information or a confession and are able to use the information gathered against me, not sure I would answer any questions. If I am guilty, arrest me. Otherwise I would just walk away. Self incrimination is protected by the constitution. I would rather keep my mouth shut than have some over exhuberant officer decide I am guilty based upon my comments, especially if he is lying to me to extort a confession.
Mick52
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 6:01 p.m.
There is nothing wrong with the officer's interview. Various techniques are used to get the truth out of a suspect. Officer Kleitch did not exactly have a lot of time to plan his interview. And there is no proof he is lying about the video recordings. The article notes the restaurants cameras did have surveillance cameras but they not record the killing of the ducks, but it is possible that the officer may have been told the cameras did, or might have. Once he was in custody, another officer should have gone to "Moe's" house to interview him to see if he would admit Pearce intentionally ran over the ducks. It is true that in interrogations officers can lie, but if you do so, you are taking a big risk. If the person you are interviewing knows you are lying, you have blown your interview. The problem for the prosecution will be proving he knew the animals were in his path. Appears that will now rely on witness accounts.
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 6:38 p.m.
Except his attorney made the statement earlier that Pearce was attempting to rescue the ducklings, so it is apparent, though arguable, he knew the ducklings were in his path. Also, the running over of the four ducklings would have likely emitted a "crunching" sound that would have alerted Pearce to stop and investigate further. Pearce has stated he wanted to go back to get morefod; if so, why did he not stop to purcase more food - his flight from McDonald's the second time around without purchasing anything after running over the ducklings has not been explained. This is a strong circumstantial case. His pattern at evasive, deceptive and contradictory statements to the officer will almost certainly hurt his credibility at trial.
Bertha Venation
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 5:15 p.m.
Can we puleeze just move on?
John A2
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 5:13 p.m.
WOW, lots of witnesses and the unexperienced teen acted as expected, like a kid. Sense this is a felony charge the rest of the kids in the car should be accessories for leading him on. I bet it was a silly "I DARE YOU" from one of the other guys in the vehicle, and then escalated to calling him a sissy. Then blame, he had to do it or be named a sissy. What ever it was, all the kids in the car should be charged, and not just the one kid. bank robbery is a felony too and if your in the car then your just as guilty. Either way, these were wild animals and we are taking over their home lands and forcing them to move into the populated areas. These kids are really just being kids. They obviously have yet to find beauty in their hearts, and lacking discipline. I say they all should be given a chance to join the Armed Forces and there they will get the discipline they deserve to have a good life. If they choose not to go, then I would give them each two year suspended prison time and lifetime or five years probation. The probation would include a hundred page report on population and animal migration, to show up at the animal shelter and work cleaning up after animals, but not to interact with them for a time till the supervisor at the animal shelter sees that they can be trusted with another life. None of them can show up there at the same time, and do it at least three times a week for three hours a day, for the entire five years of the probation. This is four lives they selfishly waisted. Beside that , aren't we the last animal to show up here on earth? I do believe we are.
A4K
Mon, Jun 13, 2011 : 12:34 a.m.
Saying that 'kids will be kids' is a slippery slope, especially when the law is involved. I'm not saying that we should condemn the kid for life. But exactly where do you propose we stop saying 'kids will be kids' and start recognizing intentional acts of cruelty? We live in a society that tries not to support cruel and harmful acts. Mr. Pierce is overage. All the kids in the car should have known better -- if, indeed, the act was intentional.
Fatkitty
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 6:13 p.m.
Spoken like a true Ann Arbor-ite: "These kids are really just being kids". Geeze. Where I came from, "kids" didn't get their kicks from deliberately running over baby animals.
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:59 p.m.
Let's hope the County Prosecutor gets his ducks in order for trial.
Ron
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:11 p.m.
Maybe, Ms. Bell's sentence should read: as the men inside laughed, It [the truck] drove straight for the ducklings and ran them over. Think the "boys" may have been pre occupied or their vision a little blurry? Perhaps Ms. Bell and her assistant should take some responsibility, as we all learned (I hope) at an early age you don't disturb a nest. The animal's instinct is to return to the location of the nest not the nest itself. If they would have left the nest alone would the duck and ducklings have had to cross the road?
Matt Cooper
Thu, Jun 9, 2011 : 4:07 a.m.
Right. It's all their fault he (allegedly) ran over the ducklings...right? He was simply an innocent bystander...right?
Donald Martin
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 3:55 p.m.
Has it not occurred to anyone that the "mommy's car" comment is due to Pearce's previous history with Ann Arbor police, in particular the vandalization of a police car? I'm sure when the officer ran the plates and saw the name, whether it was Dillon's or his mother's or whoever's, that he recognized him from previous dealings and was impatient about having to deal with him yet again. Pearce appears to have a history of traffic infractions, so the officer was not out of line to be sarcastic with him about yet another car-oriented misbehavior. Seems to me, Pearce is lucky all he got from the officer was sarcasm.
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 6:33 p.m.
Mommy isn't exactly the pinnacle of responsible driving either, according to the 15th District Court Web site. Good Night and Good Grief.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 5:52 p.m.
Jeffrey Dahmer. Not Dolmer.
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:20 p.m.
Absolutely. I have been saying this right along. The fact that the officer asked for Pearce's Huron H.S. I.D. shows that he knew who Pearce was frm the poop incident and also possibly knew he walked in that case.
Lonnie
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 3:46 p.m.
In the video from :56-1:01, he explains that he returned to Ann Arbor because he has Crohn's Disease and kept throwing up.
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:53 p.m.
Probably from eating non-nutritious foods at fast food restaurants. I hope McDonalds Corporation does not start another McLibel suit over my comment.
Bertha Venation
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 1:39 p.m.
OK. This has been in the news for how long now? This kid is taking up way too much of our time. I'm all for kicking him to the curb and moving on.
Cash
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 1:09 p.m.
<a href="http://www.heritage.com/articles/2011/05/05/sports/doc4dc303d1bae75320121764.txt" rel='nofollow'>http://www.heritage.com/articles/2011/05/05/sports/doc4dc303d1bae75320121764.txt</a> I'm guessing most folks have read this article, but I had not and thought others might find it interesting.
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:50 p.m.
@Fatkitty: From students Pearce observed at U-M?
Fatkitty
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:26 p.m.
"Kids that stepped on to the field with a sense of entitlement and four years later walked off with nothing more than a few laughs and that same arrogant attitude" Ka-ching! And I betcha we know WHERE they get that arrogant attitude, don't we?
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:25 p.m.
Good article!
bedrog
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 3:43 p.m.
interesting indeed...however the verdict goes, eventually this kid might consider playing lacrosse for Duke ( per a scandal there a few years ago involving self-entitled jocks and hookers...not waterfowl.
RuralMom
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 12:57 p.m.
I am still waiting for someone to explain how its possible that it was an accident. The Clearance on the Hummer, the Height of the ducklings, make it hard for me to come to a conclusion that it was a total accident. Also since he knew they were there, why wasn't he watching for them? If Mr. Pearce doesn't like how the officer treated him, then maybe he has some work to do on his behavior and reputation. A bad reputation can make it hard to give you the benefit of doubt when its a reputation of less than stellar conduct.
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:54 p.m.
Maye Pearce can hire an automobile accident recostructionist to tell us how it "really" happened.
Wolf's Bane
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 12:26 p.m.
Dillon Pearce now has a reputation at Huron High School, at McDonalds, and in the city of Ann Arbor as trouble maker. This is a fact. The police officers who arrested him acted within the law and did what they perceived to be the right thing, namely arrest a known trouble maker who had and was using pot, operating a giant huge SUV, and according to witnesses, ran over ducks. Dillon clearly wasn't thinking about the consequences of his actions, but that does not excuse him from vandalizing police cars, carrying and using drugs, or running over ducks. Thanks.
bedrog
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 11:45 a.m.
I notice the kid was surprised when the ducklings didnt " move " when he said he asked them to. Clearly he is not aware that ducks dont acquire fluent english until a more advanced age....unless they've been raised by parrots (like the one another fine local bird lover beat up recently).... I think the officer was just fine in his dealings with the alleged perp.....and was alot milder and less sarcastic than, say , "law and order" cops lenny briscoe, elliot stabler or john munch would have been . ( although mind- games- master detective bobby goren would have had the kid confessing on camera).
bedrog
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 1:15 p.m.
oh ...and also 'i didnt see them' and 'i told them to move' are a tad self-contradictory, no?
huh7891
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 10:21 a.m.
Good job Officer Kleitsch..nothing wrong with being a wee bit impolite.
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 6:37 a.m.
There is a great deal being made over the officer's alleged disrespectful attitude toward Pearce. One of the most popular YouTube videos of annarbor.com was of the drunk driving arrest of Ann Arbor City Prosecutor Robert West by a deputy sheriff. In that video, which collected over 3,700 hits, the deputy was very respectful and attempted to call his boss to find a way how to keep West out of jail, finally taking him to the public safety office to be picked up by his wife. Notice that in this video Pearce is taunted about the Hummer being his "mommie's car ". Ironically the prosecutorial officer charging Pearce under the civil infraction marijuana ordinance was the very same Robert West. Maybe there was unprofessional swagger according to a class pecking order that placed West above Pearce in a that class pecking order. Remember the Lee incident in West Willow - now there is some real tough treatment dished out to the Lee brothers - whom law enforcement obviously saw as part of an underclass. The Lee brothers were made examples of by onsite deputies, albeit with legal consequences to their own careers. A person's class status determines how they are treated from law enforcement.
bedrog
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 12:25 p.m.
as usual ,total-self contradictions : viz "a persons class status determines how they are treated from ( sic) law enforcement" Yet upper class hummer-boy is being supposedly "taunted" while equally economic high status West supposedly wasnt while lower class yobs supposedly were...and on and on it's all so confusing on planet roadman.
Kelly Fineis
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 5:36 a.m.
Police are allowed to lie. They can say they have proof and of what kind and witnesses to get to the bottom of a situation very quickly. If there's enough evidence you go for a quick confession, cut the small talk, we got proof and witnesses. If there's not enough evidence to stick..it wont. The only thing police aren't allowed to do is promise anything when it comes to sentencing, or getting off. I'm sure part of an officers success is their ability to quickly "judge a book by its cover", not always are they right but they don't always know what they are walking into either. I've met nice officers and not so nice officers, in turn they have met nice citizens, and not so nice citizens. When most officers can qualify for food stamps, I wouldn't blame them for being "impolite". There used to be a time anyone in your neighborhood could "whup" your child, and were expected too if the child misbehaved, now we cry if a person in authority is impolite to them and us. I long for community, would not have been a need for the police.
Tru2Blu76
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:54 a.m.
Wondering: why so many people are questioning both the witnesses who lodged a legitimate and credible complaint with police AND the LEO who responded to the call. This kind of off-the-cuff criticism smells like attitude replacing thought. This AAPD officer had already been dispatched and acted according to protocol: questioning the witnesses first then making contact with the subject of the complaint. IF anyone is so shallow minded to think that police have an obligation to "remember their place" (hah!), then they are part of the problem we have with scofflaws and criminals of all kinds. When law enforcement engages someone they have reason to believe have committed a crime: "politeness" and deference are THE LAST THINGS we as citizens should ask for from law enforcement personnel. I'm sure any law enforcement people reading this will confirm: this kind of "rudeness" is intentional and serves an essential tactical purpose. What's really insane about this demand for "politeness" is that there have been police radio and tv shows which have actual police advising on the material content - since before the famous "Dragnet" show premiered in 1951! Every single one of these dozens of police procedurals FEATURES cops getting snotty with suspects!! Hooray for snotty cops! That's effective police work in action!
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.
Maybe Dillon Pearce should become a cop.
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:31 a.m.
My diagnosis is: affluenza.
Kelly Fineis
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 5:37 a.m.
That's what I'm talking about.
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:13 a.m.
Is the Dillon Pearce "Skateboarding Extravaganza" and the "Magic" YouTube uploads referenced after the end of the video the same fellow facing charges? Also, I believe the video and the witness statements that the police apparently have illustrate why Nacht waived his client's preliminary examination - he had no chance to get charges dismissed as there is ample proof of his guilt to warrant trial. All and all, Officer Kleitsch did a competent and excellent job in getting Pearce to make damaging admissions in front of a videocamera and making him look like a person with dubious credibility by getting him to deny facts that were clearly apparent. He and the AAPD should be congratulated for their fine job in investigating this case. In fact, criminal defense attorney David Nacht has been curiously silenced by this newly-released evidence. He likely will be calling up the County Prosecutor or the assistant handling the case in the near future and trying to negotiate some plea deal that will, hopefully for Pearce, keep him out of jail and with as little as a criminal record as possible. I believe there is no way this case will go to trial with the solid case the prosecution has and the possibility that Judge Archie Brown could send Pearce to prison for several years if he is angry and disgusted enough at Pearce over his actions.
John Spieser
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 3:35 a.m.
If this guy is innocent, he needs to have his driving privelges taken away and go back to driving school. It is not difficult to know what you are driving over ! If he didn't know he was running over ducks (did anyone check his tires for feathers ?) then how would he navigate his way through A2's potholes ? Plus, he is young and should have good reaction time. C'mon ! You know what you're driving over or you shouldn't have a lisence ! I pay attention to EVERYTHING on the road- that is what makes you a safe driver. If he can't pay attention take away the "privelge".
John Spieser
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:25 a.m.
Simple.
AACity12
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 3:21 a.m.
Really, you guys are going to get all worked up because he asked if it was his mommys car? Would it have been better if he asked if it was his moms car rather then mommy? How about you get worked up over something that matters like 4 AAPD officers getting laid off.
Terrin
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 2:17 a.m.
I have no problem with the way the police officer conducted himself. He didn't necessarily lie about the video. McDonald's does have video. It just didn't capture this event. The police officer could have been relying on third party information or making an assumption based on his knowledge that the place does have video cameras. Even if the Police Officer was lying, who cares? If a police officer pulls me over and says he has video of something I know I didn't do, that wouldn't bother me at all because I would know he was lying. I'd be nervous if I was either lying or wasn't sure what happened. Half of what police do is designed to get you to admit you did something. Why do you think when you get pulled over, do they all ask you, "Do you know why I pulled you over?" They are hoping you will confess to something other then what they pulled you over for. Watch any interrogation video, the police generally lie. The officer was doing his job. Further, a conviction is likely if a plea is not reached. First, there are eye witnesses. People get convicted of much less. Second, the police didn't do anything illegal. Even if the officer lied, that isn't illegal. Third, this is Ann Arbor where many people care about treating wild life with respect. "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated " Mahatma Gandhi
grye
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
First, I am not certain Pierce did or didn't run over the ducks. Second, if the police are able to question me about something that I may or may not have done and are able to use the information gathered against me, not sure I would answer any questions. If I am guilty, arrest me. Otherwise I would just walk away. Self incrimination is protected by the constitution. I would rather keep my mouth shut than have some over exhuberant officer decide I am guilty based upon my comments, especially if he is lying to me to extort a confession.
free form
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 1 p.m.
Well said, Terrin. I could not agree more!
Roadman
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 3:41 a.m.
It would be constitutionally irrelevant if the officer did ie to Pearce about the evidence he may have had - any statements in response by Pearce would still be admissible in a court of law. Many consider such lies to be valuable and accepted tools of police officers during the interrogation process.
Go Blue
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 2:13 a.m.
True, the officer's comments were out of line. Maybe, just maybe, the officer has had more than one, more than two or many run ins with this same "adult" and he is just sick and tired of having to spend his time, effort and energy and our tax dollars on someone that is not going to do anything more than continue in a downward spiral. Maybe the officer knows more of the situation, parents' involvement, etc., than anyone is aware of and he is just plain fed up. Who wouldn't be? Remember, the police are human too and they do take more than their share of the negative aspects of life. Does anyone ever say thank you to them? Nope. Hard job especially when its the repeat situations or persons that wear on them.
loves_fall
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 1:37 a.m.
Assume he didn't in fact run over the ducks, didn't know anything about the ducks being run over, and had just left Mc D's, gone to take his friend home, and gone to get gas as he claims. Is his behavior on this tape really reasonable? I really don't think so. Why is it that the first words out of his mouth are about the lady screaming at him for "something"? Then, (I think?) he even states that he knows why the police are there. I don't buy it, at all. Nothing about it strikes me as genuine. If you honestly didn't do anything, wouldn't you need to be told that something had been done? If a cop came up to you, wouldn't you ask why they were there before blurting out excuses?
Go Blue
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 2:16 a.m.
Youbetcha! Everyone but the "adult" seems to know that's its a ruse.
Jen Eyer
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 1:36 a.m.
Eight of the deleted comments from 4-4:30pm were from one user, who has since been banned.
RJA
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 1:27 a.m.
I personally could care less about the deleted comments. I have NEVER had an officer be less than polite to me. (pehaps because I have always been a law abiding citizen).
djm12652
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 11:54 a.m.
BINGO!
ypsicat
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 1:26 a.m.
I can't believe the large number of commenters who are outraged by the officer's demeanor. Hey people, cops are not automatons, they are humans too, and this one was obviously disgusted with what he found himself confronting. It's not like he punched the kid's lights out, which is what I would have been tempted to do.
j5
Fri, Jun 10, 2011 : 3:56 a.m.
They are not automatons, but they are paid to act professional in the course of performing their duties as an officer of the law. This is not an unreasonable expectation. This cop was not acting in a professional manner and does not belong in this job. It is especially abhorent to let your emotions guide your conduct towards someone who at that point is only ALLEGED to have committed a crime. I guess it's a good thing that you aren't a police officer if your first temptation is to physically assault someone who at that point has only been accused of crime by a third party. People these days... :|
genericreg
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 1:26 a.m.
Did nothing wrong. Drove fifteen minute. Several historic traffic violates. First thing says: McDonalds yelling at me. Not was I speeding?
tater
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 1:24 a.m.
I feel sorry for the Ann Arbor police department. Officer Kevin Klietsch's comment about "Mommy's car" was extremely unprofessional and condescending. I hope Klietsch is reprimanded and required to take more training. Most of the Ann Arbor police do their thankless jobs in a professional and dedicated manner. It is a shame to see one "bad apple" on video representing the entire department with such belligerence and lack of class. The Ann Arbor Police Department is a lot better than that video shows.
djm12652
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 11:53 a.m.
let's hope for your sake, god forbid, when you may need the assistance of an officer, you don't get Officer Klietsch! Because he's a bad apple...unlike the alleged perp, who has priors....when it comes down to having 6 covered, I'll take a "bad apple" from A2 any day, any time...because if Kletsch is the worst we have to keep us safe, we are indeed very lucky.
Mr. Ed
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 1:09 a.m.
Lets blame the police. Lets stay focused on the issue before us.
ez12c
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 12:45 a.m.
The officer demonstrates his ability to lie and disrespect a member of the public who had not been charged with any crime at that moment. I will always question whether he "baited" the guy in hopes of escalating bigger, trumped-up charges. Time to balance the budget by cutting FTE's rather than raising revenues through potentially entrapment policies. Kind of makes you not want to call the police for help in fear of getting some inappropriate response. UGH!!!! Yes, by the way, it is sad that the ducks were killed.
Roadman
Thu, Jun 9, 2011 : 6:30 a.m.
The officer seems pretty cool considering the poop incident. If there is a conviction in this case, the department could award him a toupee.LOL.
bedrog
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 11:35 a.m.
oh please!!
Jon
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 11:50 p.m.
I didnt see anything wrong with the way the officer questioned the suspect. As a police officer you want to find out whos vehicle that is. At that Police Officers are people and there is nothing wrong with getting irritated with a suspect there is no rule that says your be like yes sir no sir yes mam no mam everytime you have an encounted with a citizen or a suspect. And this guy is most likely lying so at that qhy be all cute and nice with them.
ez12c
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 12:51 a.m.
I see the video showing the police officer saying it is all on tape and the guy saying he didn't do it. Unless there is a tape of the guy doing it, the cop lied. You cannot say the guy lied and the cop didn't because the facts in this tape alone show the opposite to be true. Let the cop PROVE he didn't lie. In our justice system there myust be guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
cmilli
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 11:06 p.m.
I have alot of family and friends on all levels of law enforcement and when you start to get smug or bs with them i have no problem with the " or is this mommy's car" comment. As far as wasting tax dollars if every punk gets away with this stuff were does that leave us as higher intelligence humans trying to enforce nature conservancy? Heck maybe we can bring Dillon Pearce to your house and let him run over your dog ar cat with his hummer, then you might care.
bluenella
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 10:39 p.m.
Plenty of eyewitnesses so I hope they do their part & testify in court.
Roadman
Thu, Jun 9, 2011 : 6:33 a.m.
The prosecutor has subpoena power so no worry there unless they leave the state as students often do.
Major
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 10:29 p.m.
Love the video! Wish I could get this perspective all the time! I know some don't like the officer's "mommy's car" comment, but I feel it was proper in the line of questioning, after all, this is the real world, full of real liars...obviously!
ez12c
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 12:52 a.m.
especially this cop...obviously!
Blue
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 10:10 p.m.
It is right that none of us "knows" what happened. Probably why people believe this happened is because for most, it is a stretch of the imagination to think that the employees of McDonalds and the witnesses, would just make up a story - all seeing the same thing - just to conspire against this young man. It is also not a stretch of the imagination for a kid to not tell the truth when caught redhanded doing wrong. People are treated by the police, or anyone else for that matter, by the way in which they present themselves. The officer's demeanor was that of someone a little disgusted by what he was responding to. I do not think that the police have any obligation to make it a pleasant experience for wrongdoers. It is doubtful someone in a normal traffic stop would have anything to worry about, generally if you show respect, you'll be treated with respect.
ez12c
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 12:54 a.m.
The guy was showing respect, the cop wasn't. Watch teh video again.
ElleFordA2
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:59 p.m.
Time to stop this from every angle. The kid-- he has priors and will probably get in more trouble in the future. How do we break this cycle, wrist slapping hasn't worked, nobody's afraid if they know there won't be much of a punishment. The police-- are sick of cocky kids who don't stay home when stoned. Who wants to get called out for 19/20 year olds acting like a bunch of frat hazers? Now the ducks-The ducks have nested there for several years. I think it's time for the store to contact a wildlife group on how to get these wonderful animals to stop coming back year after year to a dangerous spot, relocate them to a sensible spot and block off the area so they are not drawn back the next year. I know several people who have had to do this on their properties and can send a note to the head office on how to do this. It's nice to see the ducks there, but too dangerous. I called once a few years back and nothing was done. Too many changes in management. Now the employees will have to testify. Lose/Lose situation all around. :(
Major
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 12:42 a.m.
The most sensible comment I've heard on this whole issue!
Mike Martin
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:42 p.m.
@Dr. Powell. Why doesn't he "man up"? Maybe he didn't do it. Why is it that a story posts, a crime is alleged, and everyone assumes the accused did it? I don't get it. What's happening to our society when the basic premise "innocent until proven guilty" has turned into a free for all on the internet of people condemning others when they have no idea what actually occurred? I thought innocent until proven guilty was a basic concept of our justice system. We don't like him because he was driving his mom's Hummer? So, he's guilty? As readers only, what do we know about this crime if there was one?
Matt Cooper
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 5:43 p.m.
Mike, you might want to re-evaluate your thought on the "zero chance this kid gets convicted". 1. Nobody ever knnows what a jury will do until they do it. 2. 4-5 eyewitnesses will testify that they saw him appearing to intentionally run over the ducklings. 3. This will most likely get plea bargained down to a far lesser offense for which Pearce will most likely do community service. But even then, plea bargains count as convictions.
Go Blue
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 12:55 p.m.
No, "we don't like him" because this isn't the first situation he has been involved in. There is a history of behavior that is not improving, an attitude that is escalating and we are all tired of the game. The attorney can tell his client what to say, how to act, what to wear to court and smooth it all over, yet again and again. That is why "we don't like him." Tired of the games that cost everone. Maybe if the first trangression had been dealt with strongly and effectively, we would not even be writing about this. Apparently not.
Mike Martin
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:53 p.m.
Yeah I suppose. I think people should be careful about accusing others when they really don't know what happened. The verdict is for the justice system to decide. The rush to judgement here is based on a few articles people have read. And this website has served as a virtual lynching for this guy.
Mike
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:44 p.m.
I think many people are assuming he is guilty due to his prior transgressions as well as numerous eyewitnesses all suggesting the same thing. I'm not saying he is guilty, but there is enough to suggest he did this intentionally, at least in the court of public opinion. That said, there is zero chance this kid gets convicted.
free form
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:18 p.m.
I agree that Officer Kleitsch was impolite to Mr. Pearce, but he was in no way improper.
Roadman
Thu, Jun 9, 2011 : 6:34 a.m.
Rudeness is a First Amendment right.
free form
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 12:52 p.m.
@ ez12c I also would not be able to demand a cop get out of their car, place both hands on the vehicle and let me pat them down either. I'm not a police officer. To pretend that cops and private citizens don't have different rights is ridiculous. The officer didn't break any laws in speaking rudely or lying to Mr. Pearce.
loves_fall
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 1:27 a.m.
Sure! See how that goes... :)
ez12c
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 12:56 a.m.
Ask yourself the question: "Can I reply to an officer with something regarding his mommy?"
Grimey
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9 p.m.
Even in Ann Arbor cops aren't going to treat you politely after you and your friends vandalized one of their cars and poured human waste all over it... Jus' sayin'.
greymom
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 11:14 a.m.
couldn't agree more!! I feel he will get away with this just like he did with the police car!!!
Mike
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:58 p.m.
If I were that kid, I would have stopped answering any questions the moment he used the phrase "mommy's car"
Matt Cooper
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 5:39 p.m.
Ok, so you stop talking. And then what? You think the cops just going to walk away saying "Oops, sorry I inconvenienced you!"? No, you would be immediately arrested and held downtown for several hours and eventually charged with a crime anyway. Refusing to talk to a cop is an invitation for him to place you under arrest.
Basic Bob
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 12:03 a.m.
Yes, you should try that. It is best to be cooperative even if the officer is being a jerk. Being uncooperative gets you a trip downtown.
Gramma
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:47 p.m.
Many people have commented that the policeman was not "polite." His demeanor and mode of qfuestioning would have been considered very polite in my neighborhood. The suspect was not ordered "up against the car," then patted down while another policeman checked the identifications of everyone in the car. Nothing was done to stop the other passenger from leaving the car. The idea that the police should "know their place" is foreign to many people in many sections of A2 and Ypsi. The attitudes of those with privilege is always amazing to me.
lynel
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:07 p.m.
That the officer wasn't being unprofessional?
kmgeb2000
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:04 p.m.
You mean like the gentleman who was recently shot by the officer as he stepped out of his car. I watched the car video of that incident and thought, I do those same movements that got him shot every time I get out of my car - check for phone and keys.
Mike Martin
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:57 p.m.
Well that makes a lot of sense. And variation in the treatment of suspects based on neighborhood is an age old story and plain wrong. But, that doesn't change the fact that if that guy pulled me over, no matter what neighborhood I am from, he certainly should not be talking to me that way. I wouldn't speak to him that way and am I am appalled at his lack of professionalism.
Mike
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:53 p.m.
What's your point?
trespass
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:44 p.m.
Personally, I think he sounds genuinely surprised to be told he ran over the ducklings. If they have no video, I don't see him being convicted and I thought the marijuana offense was just a ticket not a trial.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 5:36 p.m.
Tell ya what trespass, 4-5 eyewitnesses is more than enough to win a conviction. Despite what some people think, video is not the be all and the end all in evidence collection.
bedrog
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 11:33 a.m.
you would think he's innocent.
John Spelling
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:35 p.m.
There is absolutely no excuse for the unprofessional conduct of this police officer. Ann Arbor deserves (and pays for) much better. Maybe the budget cuts will take care of this problem?
Roadman
Thu, Jun 9, 2011 : 6:36 a.m.
Curiously some Metro Detroit police departments with "bad boy" images have seen big budget costs and layoffs. Citizens often complain to City Council members about rude cops and budget cutters hit the police first in fiscal crunches.
bedrog
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 11:33 a.m.
how was the officer " unprofessional", given the evidence he had??
mrshicks2000
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:23 p.m.
Anyone who has been around teenaged boys might understand that it's very plausible that they weren't paying any attention and probably distracted with each other the second time around that parking lot...he seriously may not have seen them. (Especially that big "a" vehicle he has.) Just saying.
Go Blue
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 12:49 p.m.
Plausible? Especially in light of the fact this is not his first, not second time around with a police action. When someone has been given the benefit of the doubt, once, then twice, then again....what's the old saying? Fooled me once, shame on you. Fooled me twice.......................distracted? Maybe when pigs fly.
lynel
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:03 p.m.
a person that was 3 inches tall.
Gramma
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:49 p.m.
If the driver were not paying any attention and was distracted, he could have just as easily hit a person.
Haran Rashes
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:18 p.m.
With respect to the comments on the officer's questioning Mr. Pearce if it is "mommy's car", we should keep in mind that in all likelihood the officer had already run the plates through the computer system in the squad car and knew that the car was registered to Mr. Pearce's mom, so as soon as Mr. Pearce said it was his car, his credibility with the officer had already taken a hit.
Matt Cooper
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 5:34 p.m.
Mike Martin, are you a cop? Have you ever questioned a criminal suspect? have you ever been involved in a traffic stop? Ever arrested someone? Ever been involved in a felony stop? A Terry stop? Been to the police academy? I just ask because I find it odd that you have cautioned everyone here to be careful about what they think they know, while continuously commenting on how wrong the cop was when in fact there is absolutely nothing unprofessional, unethical or improper about what the cop asked or how he asked it. Also the fact that the cop lied means nothing, as the courts have upheld ad nauseum the right of the police to lie to ellicit information from criminal suspects.
Mike
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 11:38 a.m.
Maybe the police officer drives a Prius and doesn't like gas guzzling SUV's owned by women.
Mike Martin
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:27 p.m.
So then the question is "The tags on this car are registered to someone other than you, Is this your parent's?" That's what I would expect the officer to say to me and that is what he should have said to Mr. Pearce. The "mommy" thing is unprofessional and purposefully belittling. Besides if you want to make it a semantics and honesty issue one could argue that the answer "yes" referred to him as the driver and current user as opposed to the others in the car.
Blue
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:13 p.m.
Again, attorney declines to comment......and Defendant swears to God....swears on the Holy Bible he didn't do it. Looks like birds of a feather have flocked together!
Basic Bob
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 11:54 p.m.
@Mike Martin, "aspersions"
Blue
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 10:19 p.m.
You're still not "getting" what I meant. This attorney was so vocal initially ( as defense attorneys are when they have a defense.) I always find it amusing when they don't have as much to say! Lighten up...
Mike Martin
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:59 p.m.
The "brids of a feather comment" casts dispersions on the attorney who was doing his job. If you managed a law firm you should have been aware of why the attorney chose not to comment and that it doesn't make him a "bird of a feather" with anyone. It's his job.
Blue
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:08 p.m.
Thank you Mr. Martin for your lesson on defense attorneys. I probably missed that in the years I managed a law firm. Where did you see me say I was so sure I knew what happened? - oh, that's right, you didn't! In previous articles this attorney had plenty to say - perhaps you missed them.
Mike Martin
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:20 p.m.
A defense attorney is hired to defend the accused. Commenting about this story serves no purpose to the defense. Making that call is the attorney's job. There is nothing in this story proving anything about either the attorney's ethics of Mr. Dillon. Why so sure you know what happened?
Tex Treeder
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:10 p.m.
While I think Mr. Pearce should be held accountable for his actions (whatever they may have been), this doesn't seem like a big news item. However, I applaud AnnArbor.com for using the FOIA to get information from the police. I have to wonder about all the deleted comments though.
lumberg48108
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:08 p.m.
Get ready for 100 plus posts and numerous clicks for annarbor.com and they continue to milk this non-story weeks later ... video? we need video of this highly sensitive police investigation? the investment (elitists) in ann arbor have for this story is only slighly as ironic as a rich snob teenager who behaved badly ... he is one of your own -- even if you want to chastize his parents for driving a BIG TRUCK - which is what a hummer basically is ... so keep commenting and maybe this will have a ripple effect and the increase in clicks will allow .com to hire more reporters to, you know, cover NEWS stories! (and commenting and mocking a situation is not the same thing HA)
Tony Dearing
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:06 p.m.
Numerous comments have been removed because they violated our conversation guidelines. In particular, we ask you not to post comments about the family of the suspect, and not to post comments that call for a specific punishment for someone who has not been convicted of a crime.
Townie
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:04 p.m.
This is just another try at boosting your sagging circulation, let's be honest here Tony.
paxsolace
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:13 p.m.
It's about time you did this! Comments about his family is totally inappropriate. Calling for a specific punishment for someone who has not been convicted of a crime is nothing more than "lynch mob" mentality!
paxsolace
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:57 p.m.
Stories like this can prevent someone from getting a fair trial if a trial is deemed necessary. I don't like what happened to the ducks or what is happening to Mr. Pierce from these stories. Some police can lie and be very nasty, some police are decent. A line has been crossed in due process.
Bob
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 6:48 p.m.
I also would like to know what this "line" is that was crossed.
John A2
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 6:07 p.m.
I don't care who you are, after you defecate in anyones car the driver of the car is going to have an attitude towards the poopatrater. "LOL" All jokes aside, the police have to maintain a high level of respect. Anyone who would do this to the police, are able to do it to anyone. They raise a big stink and then expect them to ignore the essence of their dastardly deeds. The cops have to deal with this kind of thing day in and day out. The funniest thing is that because of the muddy crime the cops are not going to be nice after that, I know I wouldn't be. That's why I give the police as much respect as I can, and usually stay out of their way. Lets not forget the human condition, the police are people too, and not robots.
Basic Bob
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 11:50 p.m.
Did I miss something? Was Dillon Pearce run over by a 3-ton truck?
nowayjose
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:09 p.m.
And what line would that be? Do you even know what due process means?
Jimmy McNulty
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:46 p.m.
Did you at least try to get a statement from the mother duck, AA.com?
Christopher LeClair
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:45 p.m.
May your souls rest in piece little duckies. Does anybody else find it slightly amusing that 90% of the comments thus far have been removed?
Bob
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 6:46 p.m.
Yes, it is interesting!
Steve
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:25 a.m.
With regard to your second point, I think it would be a lot more helpful if we could see more specifics on what grounds the comment was removed (but I understand why aa.com wants one catchall term. Otherwise the removed comments should be grouped together or only take up a single line for legibility.
David Briegel
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 2:40 a.m.
were you being funny with little duckies in "piece" or did you mean pieces?
Mike Martin
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:44 p.m.
@ypsijake Exactly- this guy has the right to be treated with respect as does anyone who is reacting respectfully to a police officer. Yet the police officer lies about a video and belittles him. Not professional at all in my opinion.
shadow wilson
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 3:28 a.m.
Spare me.Try that kind of idiotic attitude next time you are stopped by the cops.
free form
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:57 p.m.
@ Mike Martin, The "mommy's car" question that irked you in the video has no bearing on the evidence. It has nothing to do with the alleged crime.
Mike Martin
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:45 p.m.
Free from - You know the facts huh?
free form
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:27 p.m.
The officer being mean to poor little Dillon has no effect on the facts of the case.
ypsijake
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:40 p.m.
innocent until proven guilty huh? "or is it mommy's car?" how completely rude. serve your taxpayers officers...even their chidren!!
bruceae
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:39 p.m.
He played last year for the Boston Jr. Blackhawks of the International Junior Hockey League. Maybe send them an email mail telling how nice it must be to have this type of person representing them? Or better yet, contact the parent club the Chicago Blackhawks and ask them if this is the type of person they want in their farm clubs?
lumberg48108
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 8:13 p.m.
or better yet - get a life and dont worry about his future ...
dading dont delete me bro
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:36 p.m.
mickey d's doesn't have video? there is usually camera's all over those places.
pegret
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:36 p.m.
I found it interesting that the video shows a young man ducking out of the passenger side of the hummer, and stuffing something in his pocket before trotting off. Could it be the mysterious "Moe"? Where did he go? Why didn't he stay and talk to the nice officer with his buddy? Maybe he was going back to pet the ducks some more? Or maybe he just needed to use the restroom. But wait...why go all the way to the restroom when there's a convenient police car right there? So many unanswered questions...
Dot
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 1:16 a.m.
why would a passenger be allowed to leave a vehicle when an Officer is determining if it was involved in a crime? maybe he had to get rid of more of the same stuff found in the console?
Mike Martin
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:32 p.m.
Personally, I didn't like the question "Is this mommy's car". It reeks of the unprofessional swagger that some police officers bring to their jobs. First, ask pertinent questions and ask them like a professional. Don't forget your place. You are Ann Arbor police officer, nothing more, nothing less. Then the cop lied to him and said "we have it all on video" which is apparently not the case. Also out of bounds. And yet, Mr. Pearce is unshakable in his assertion that he didn't do it. Or didn't do it knowingly - that is a big car. He's not going to jail. They won't prove that he did this purposefully. To me it sounds like the prosecutor is wasting our tax dollars chasing this guy around. Go prosecute more important crimes, sorry ducks on the road just don't do it for me.
Bob
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 6:43 p.m.
It's hard to judge the policeman's behavior without knowing more about possible previous encounters. I have no problem with the way he handled the situation. Bottom line, if the young man is innocent, he has nothing to worry about.
Paige Briana
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 4:51 p.m.
What is one of the first signs of a future serial killer? Anyone? Oh, killing/torturing small animals. This is EXACTLY where I want my tax dollars going: towards preventing another John Norman Collins in our midst.
Mike
Wed, Jun 8, 2011 : 11:33 a.m.
Totally unprofessional and the kind of smart alec police we don't need. Just do your job and stay off the power trip. Who cares if it's mom's car and he thinks the kid is a spoiled rich kid?
johnnya2
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 10:07 p.m.
He was arresting the kid. He acted quite professionally. The police are trying to get an immediate response, not let the kid think about it for 20 minutes, then decide how to answer. As for lying, the police have every right, and ability to legally lie. They are investigating a CRIME. I will also point out, that the defense that "I didnt know or see them" just does not fly in reality. If he ran over your child and left the scene, would you be so sympathetic to his not knowing. His DUTY as a driver is to know what is in front of him and around him. If the car is too big for this kid to drive, he is still criminally responsible for what happens with it.
a2citizen
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:54 p.m.
Mike, Dillon readily admits it was his mommy's car. Cops can lie. But in this case you are the one lying. You state "...Then the cop lied to him and said "we have it all on video..." The copy actually says "I've got video. I've got witnesses." Have you ever been pulled over in Ann Arbor? You want to split hairs? Did the police act professionally.
alan
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:22 p.m.
Court after court has upheld the right of police to lie to you during questioning. Personally, I'm not sure if I see a problem or not.
nowayjose
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:19 p.m.
I agree free form. He sounds like he's better than everyone
free form
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:12 p.m.
Personally, I didn't like the phrase, "Don't forget your place" in regard to the police officers of our city. It reeks of the elitism that allows the wealthy to believe they are above the law.
nowayjose
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:07 p.m.
Police can and do lie during questioning if they want. No law says they can't unless they promise something they can't deliver such as no charges. Like a undercover cop is going to tell a drug dealer he's the police when asked. You must watch too much tv
Mike Martin
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:56 p.m.
I care if he is rude CT. Because if he pulls me over I expect professional treatment from this guy - period. Just as he will get a professional response from me. Belittling people and lying are not appropriate from police officers. They work for us the people and need to remember that.
CT
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:53 p.m.
Who cares if he was rude. He isn't in customer service.
Jimmy McNulty
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:51 p.m.
Totally agree with you about the mommy comment. He's trying to get a rise out of the kid.
A2comments
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:47 p.m.
No reason the police can't see if he'll admit what he did, but I agree that the tone in which he asked if it was Mommy's car was improper.
Go Blue
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:25 p.m.
At issue here is a far bigger problem than someone trying to bs their way out of alleged actions. This is small potatoes compared to the big picture. Apparently, per the news, there have been past incidences and rather than see any progress made towards improvement of attitude and behavior, there is clear evidence of just the opposite. Can anyone intercede, as it appears parents are not, at least not to any noticeable difference.
Adam Betz
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 7:14 p.m.
Ha Ha I love how the officer asks him "Is this mommies car?" This kid deserves to be humiliated. Thought he was cool for a minute...bet the pucker factor set in quite quickly when the police showed up.
nowayjose
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:16 p.m.
I agree very funny. And I don't care if I was there or not. Funny's funny
Mike Martin
Tue, Jun 7, 2011 : 9:01 p.m.
Did he think he was cool? Really? I don't see it. He looks worried and intimidated before they even speak. Why does he deserve to be humiliated? You know what happened here? I don't, I wasn't there. Why the rush to judgement on this website when a person is accused? Is that really mature and thoughtful?