If the gun was chucked into a storm drain, wouldn’t it be pretty easy for investigators to find, even days later? If they looked, and didn’t find it, isn’t that pretty solid evidence that a gun was not thrown into a drain?
I don’t actually know if they looked… but guns in drains don’t just disappear.
I didn’t mean that his argument was right, just that it’s not an example of reductio ad absurdum. Wrong label.
This is why we have juries. They decide who to believe when no gun was found, but someone says there was one.
I’m relieved no gun was found. Because then it would have been treated as an uncontestable fact that they guys had attempted to brandish it, even if there had been no corroborating evidence to support that. Dunn might have then walked completely.
Well, you don’t know that. But I think if someone said “they brandished a gun” and a gun was found, it would strengthen the believability of the claim that they brandished it, don’t you? Not unconstestably though.
Yes, because when two guys have guns and one of them is dead, he is always the aggressor. It’s an article of faith with the gun crowd.
But the “gun crowd” is not the jury. Nor is it us on this thread.
Thanks for the correction. It’s been decades since I heard of it so I wasn’t sure.
Not if the defendant’s own girlfriend admitted that little detail was left out of the story she was told, and none of the other witnesses at the scene purported to seeing that.
When someone has an incentive to lie about their culpability, this means their claims can not be taken at face value.
Unless they’re white dudes who murder black dudes, in which case they’re national heroes.
Considering that people have gone to jail for defending themselves against racist neo-nazis, this just helps prove the mockery that our justice system is.
By “slightly,” do you mean more than one order of magnitude?
See, this was the problem: you make ridiculously over-the-top statements, and then when you’re called on them, apparently you feel terrified to respond by saying, “Look, that was just an over-the-top bit of hyperbole. I did not literally mean ‘microscopic chance.’”
What’s wrong with sticking to actual, true statements?
True. I’d be curious to know how much searching was done on the route that the vehicle followed, or if there was any attempt to do so.
Again, I regard the existence of the gun as pretty unlikely, but it would have been another nail in the defense’s coffin for the police to be able to say that not only was there no weapon found in the vehicle, but that police had searched the path the vehicle traveled and found nothing.
This is pretty rich coming from the guy who said it’s OK for right wing groups to outright, knowingly lie, if telling the truth would make them look bad.
But wouldn’t the other passengers in the vehicle also be culpable if they brandished a firearm?
Or are you talking about another witness, one who was neither in the vehicle or Dunn?
You really have that hard of time recognizing hyperbole and rhetoric? Did you think I was over here with my slide rule, going through actuary tables in order find out that there is precisely 0.00000003765883653983974% chance that there was a gun?
I’m finished rising to your bait. You know precisely the points I’m making and you know full well I’m using rhetoric to accomplish it. So spare me the smoke and mirrors, okay?
By “pretty unlikely” do you mean more or less than 25%, with a standard deviation of +/- 5%? Without this vital definition of your terms I’m afraid we’ll just have to discount every argument you make.
See … I can do it too.
Are they on trial for murder? They have less incentive to lie than the guy who has been charged with such.
As has already been pointed, the circumstances alone make it hard to believe they ever brandished gun. Because we would then have to accept they’d spend time hiding it at precisely the time a reasonable person in their situation would have actually used it.
So forget about the credibility of the other passengers. In a contest between the man with an incentive to lie his ass off and Occam’s razor, the latter prevails.
Not every person here is using hyberbole in their rhetoric, however. I did not, in fact, know if you understood your statement was literally untenable. Why couldn’t you just say, the first time I took issue with it, that you weren’t speaking literally?
I’m certainly in agreement that the evidence for a shotgun existing is very thin. If you had said that, I’d have posted in agreement. Instead, you for some reason felt that this simple but accurate declaration didn’t serve your purpose, and it would only be useful if you ramped it up with a claim that it wasn’t simply thin – it was virtually impossible, so that even in a dream, the chances would be no more than microscopic.
Why? What’s wrong with simply stating accurate facts?
Yes, I agree – with nothing else to go on, I’m inclined to believe three sets of consistent testimony over one, and to question self-serving testimony over testimony over that which is less self-serving.
But the jury – or at least some of them – actually heard the testimony, saw the demeanor of the witnesses, and apparently were not completely convinced of some aspect of the story. Others were.
So more than any general rule of thumb about Occam’s razor, I’m inclined to credit the jury system.