Not true. Tommie Stornes was on probation for a third degree felony.
No – you said it was essentially impossible. I gave you a viable possibility. I’m asking you why it’s not possible. In contrast to a melting Soviet gun, anyone reading this can picture the ease of pulling over to the side of the road next to a storm drain and pitching a gun into that drain. I want to know why you say that’s so impossible.
(emphasis added)
I think you’re misunderstanding Steophan (who can. of course, speak for himself just fine). I think he’s arguing for the presumption of innocence, not so much for the factual innocence of Dunn.
Certainly I don’t believe there was a shotgun in the vehicle – but I’m arguing the point against someone who isn’t satisfied in saying simply that he doesn’t believe it, but insists on defending the position that it was virtually impossible for a shotgun to have been in the truck. THAT, i disagree with.
My position is: before I believe there was a shotgun, I would want stronger evidence than I’ve seen so far. But I certainly accept the possibility.
Sow me the sewer drain they dumped it in, Mr. Evidence. And here I thought speculating gave you hives.
I repeat (for the thousandth time): There was no gun!
All this, “oh yeah, what if, what if, what if,” is nothing short of fantasy concocted by the shooter in the first place and lapped up like pablum by every gun nut who doesn’t want to admit that this particular lawful gun owner acted unlawfully with his gun.
Steophan has claimed, at times (and then walked it back) that Dunn shot Davis because Davis had a gun or gun-like object pointed back at him. Whatever he meant, he certainly stated it as if he believe that was what happened. And Steophan has also called Davis a thug.
But we can let him defend himself.
Remember; the word of a white guy who tries to murder innocents is more trustworthy than the word of his victims. It reminds me how people are more willing to hire white felons than black people.
Also, Bricker, Steophan had said this:
He literally said “factually innocent”. And you’re claiming he isn’t arguing for the factual innocence.
I assume the reason that you didn’t link to the post is that you’re aware that he is quite obviously talking about the Zimmerman trial and you’re just maliciously misrepresenting his position for some reason.
Nope, that’s just me reading too fast and being dumb, because I know I had seen the phrase before. My apologies.
I WILL, however, provide these other Steophan quotes in compensation:
In any case, he’s being amazingly, blatantly racist, using the “we know it’s your fucking codeword, why do you even pretend otherwise” of ‘thug’, and then act like it’s SO STRANGE that someone thinks neo-nazis are more likely to be white and that’s racist.
I’m really confused as to this “We have someone who’s been legally convicted of violently attacking random innocents, and we’ll take his word over other people, claiming he’s been proven innocent even when he’s not”.
But you know, the bigots of the SDMB have to stick together. I assume the reason Falchion is defending Steophan is because he enjoys seeing people shot to death, and is quite obviously aware Steophan is a violent, racist nutjub.
The only thing I’m defending anyone from in this thread (be it Steophan or Dunn) are inaccurate factual claims or misstatements about the law.
And he was discussing the Zimmerman case when he said it.
I am not in agreement with Steophan’s moral framework, but I’m in even sharper disagreement with people who actively misrepresent the facts of a case (or, as here, of a discussion) in order to shore up their point. Look at what you just did. Look at Jack Batty, vigorously defending the claim that only in an NRA member’s “wet dream” is there even a “microscopic chance” that the youths discarded a shotgun. Now, I regarded the shotgun as unproven, to be sure – but that’s a far cry from the indefensible “microscopic chance” claim Batty makes.
I don’t know if Steophan is a secret racist. But I do know he’s not making factually false claims to advance his argument.
Whoa.
Sounds like Dunn was lucky the trial wasn’t in Oregon or Louisiana. I don’t know if it’s still true, but Oregon used to allow 10-2 verdicts and I think Louisiana still allows 9-3 verdicts.
I believe that both states require 10-2 verdicts, but I could be wrong (I read about this when the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal). I also think that first-degree murder still required unanimous verdicts in both states (but maybe only in death penalty cases?).
To be fair, I don’t think anyone is claiming Steophan is a secret racist.
So he said “I’m a racist and I hate black people”?
With no shotgun in the car, there was no reason for Dunn to be afraid for his life. With a scary black teenager pointing a shotgun out the window and yelling, “This shit is going down right now, motherfucker!” Dunn turns into Arnold Schwarzeneggar, heroically defending freedom from the forces of evil. That’s the NRA wet dream, one that Dunn-defenders are flogging like a dead horse, because it’s all they have.
You say that the shotgun in the car was not proven, but we have to consider that maybe there really was one because the criminal defendant thinks there was one. And then we all have to put on our creativity beanies and start coming up with the myriad ways in which a shotgun that never existed might have disappeared.
You’re bordering on reductio ad absurdum … "oh yeah, what if there really was a storm drain, or the witnesses that all saw them and said they didn’t stash anything all coincidentally closed their eyes for ten seconds at the precise same time, or there was secret fifth co-conspirator with a cloaking device hidden in the bushes who rushed out and spirited the gun away for them, or any series of equally ridiculous what ifs that do nothing but serve to make a killer look like a hero.
FYI, you used reductio ad absurdum wrong. It’s a logically valid argument.
What’s your best estimate, in terms of percentage probability, for the truth of the following statements?
[ol]
[li]There’s at least one storm drain from the parking lot in which the shooting occurred and along the path the vehicle traveled following the shooting[/li][li]There was secret fifth co-conspirator with a cloaking device hidden in the bushes who rushed out and spirited the gun away for them[/li][/ol]
Note that you characterized these as “equally ridiculous.”
Oh ferchrissakes.
Fine, there is slightly more chance at the blinking thing than the cloaking device too.