I don’t know about standard deviation in this circumstance, but i can certainly give a rough estimate of what I’m talking about here. I’d say that in twenty similar circumstances, I’d expect to learn that there had actually been a shotgun present in at most one of them – so less than 5%. Definitely less than 25%, in other words.
You’ll have to refresh my memory – I don’t recall saying any such thing.
When you said it was ok for anti-abortion groups to claim they had never talked to and never had anything to do with murderers, when in fact they did, just because liberals like myself might think badly of them if they told the truth. Ring any bells? Your standard of strict “truth” and decency don’t apply to people you like, that much has been made painfully clear.
You know, I don’t usually intend to get so snippy with you, but this is just standard operating procedure with you. You knew damn well when I said, “microscopic” I mean extremely unlikely. But I didn’t say, “extremely unlikely,” or, in deference to you, “pretty unlikely,” or any other sort of Bricker-authorized “unlikely,” so you just had to have a court-room flashback or something, flitting off on a flight of rule-of-law fantasy in and effort to trip me up on a piece of rhetoric as though I were going to say, “Drat, you’ve caught me; maybe there really was a gun in the car.”
Do you think, just once, you can have an internet argument that doesn’t read like a Perry Mason script?
That doesn’t ring any bell at all, no. At this point I’m going call “Link or bullshit.” Got a link?
There’s a huge difference between “pretty unlikely” – what I’m calling a one in 20 chance as an admittedly rough estimate – and what’s evoked by “microscopic” chances even in the dream of an advocate for the position. Orders of magnitude difference.
It’s as though you said tens of millions, and it was tens of billions, and you shrugged off corrections with a “What’s the difference?” grin. The difference is substantial. And you didn’t clarify when asked – you upped the stakes, saying that the chances of tossing a gun down a storm drain were on par with someone using a cloaking device. Sorry – there’s only one person in that argument being unreasonable, and it wasn’t me. Even if your initial foray into hyperbole was ambiguous, when I called you on it you doubled down, rather than retreat and clarify. That suggests you were in fact serious, and only now are beginning to realize that just maybe you might be on thin ice.
I can’t speak for Falchion, but that’s an amusingly incorrect characterisation of me. But hey, believe whatever makes you happy.
As for the nonsense about “thug” being racist, that would only make sense if it was being used against Indians, which has nothing to do with this case. Definition of thug -
from here.
I was obviously using it in the first sense, a sense that has no racial connotations at all.
Fuck this ridiculous shit, okay.
You, me, everyone who stumbles across this thread, and probably some who haven’t*, knows precisely what I was talking about and it has nothing to do with the level of odds. You don’t want to argue anything about this particular case but microscopic (heh) minutia of the several different possible meanings of rhetoric.
So take your law degree and rub it all over yourself, and have fun masturbating in your big pile of pedantry.
*Just in cast you’re planning on twisting out another three pages about how someone who hadn’t read the thread would know I was talking about … I wasn’t being serious here, either.
Obviously so, and I’ve made that very clear. I’m also saying that I believe innocent until proven guilty to be an important moral point, not just a legal one, and that Dunn has yet to be proven guilty, and so is innocent.
What doesn’t make sense is that people are leaping to the conclusion that it was an inexplicable unprovoked shooting, rather than a massive overreaction to an actual threat. This idea that there has to be a narrative of good guys and bad guys should be left to Hollywood, and to the Wild West that people keep referring to. Much more realistic is the idea that none of them were in the right.
You’re right about one thing: I don’t want to argue about much else relating to this case. I’m reasonably convinced that Dunn never saw a shotgun; i don’t think the existing guilty verdicts are any sort of miscarriage of justice, and I’d be fine with Florida re-trying him on the first degree murder charges. So I have no real dispute with you on those key points.
My dispute with you arises when that isn’t enough, and you feel you need to buttress your case with made-up shit. Contrary to what you’re saying – the confidence that you, I, and all readers knew exactly what you meant – the plain truth is that I didn’t. I was perfectly prepared to believe that you believed that we were talking about an event literally of microscopic chance dimension. Nor do I share your sanguine certainty that every other reader knew you were exaggerating for effect.
Notably, after all this time, you still don’t address or explain why, if indeed you were just joking for effect, why you didn’t explain that instead of doubling down when I first called you on it.
Why is that?
True – but there are degrees of “right.” It’s bad manners to play your music so loudly that others nearby are discommoded. It’s feloniously criminal to shoot at an occupied car.
Now, Dunn starts with the presumption of innocence. But at least as to some issues, that presumption is vitiated: he has, in fact, been found guilty of attempted murder. Right?
He was proved guilty of first degree murder to nine of the twelve jurors. He wasn’t convicted, but nine of his peers concluded he was proven guilty. I agree with them.
Oh, absolutely, and I said earlier that I’m quite happy that someone who shoots at a car that’s driving away from him is guilty of attempted murder and locked up for a long time. Because in that circumstance, there is no credible threat that can be defended against by the shooting.
Which doesn’t mean the threat never existed, that he wasn’t defending against it originally, or that he’s a murderer.
It’s also my opinion that if 3 out of 12 of a jury think he’s not guilty, then there’s clearly reasonable doubt (unless the jurors were unreasonable, but in that case they should not have been selected in the first place) and that a retrial should be considered a violation of double jeopardy. I doubt that will be a popular view, though…
Our system of justice is not perfect.
We abhor convicting an innocent man much more than we fear the failure to convict a factually guilty man. For this reason, of course, 9 of 12 jurors doesn’t suffice for a criminal conviction.
When (if) Dunn faces a new jury, he’ll do so with his presumption of innocence for the crime of first degree murder intact.
I don’t say it’s unreasonable for you to agree with the nine jurors – there was certainly a legally sufficient case made for his guilt. But at the same time, I’m uncomfortable with a blanket declaration that he’s guilty of first degree murder before a jury unanimously says so.
Perhaps this is simply the vestigial criminal defense lawyer in me.
Wow.
Look, I admit that I tend to view almost every criminal case from the point of view of the defense lawyer’s chair. I can’t help it.
But that’s a point of view that goes well beyond even the most generous protections afforded under double jeopardy. The whole point of requiring unanimity for conviction is to get a degree of certainty. But the same goes for acquittal – if the jury does not unanimously acquit, a retrial is fair game. Why do you say that even three out of twelve jurors should be able to forever acquit an accused criminal?
How about 1 out of 12? And if the jurors were unreasonable, only then do you think it’s OK to retry them? Are you serious here?
The dictionary does not always catch the full use of slang terms like ‘thug’. Nowadays, ‘thug’ can and does (sometimes) have a racial connotation against African Americans. As an example, see the treatment of NFL player Richard Sherman after the NFC Championship. Also, see the massive disparity in the use of the word ‘thug’ to describe young black men vs people who are not young black men.
Because you have a system where jurors are (supposedly) carefully chosen to avoid bias. As I said, if they don’t agree on guilt, that is reason to doubt the defendant’s guilt. In a system of randomly selected jurors I might have a different opinion, but maybe not. If a trial can’t find someone guilty, then that should be the end of it, for the reason of preventing the harassing of innocent people by the courts.
How many times do you think it’s acceptable to retry someone? The defendant is not responsible for the failure of the system.
I understand that, and agree he was not convicted. But there were nine people who heard all the evidence, and they were convinced he was proved guilty. So if I say the evidence leads me to a similar conclusion that he was proved guilty, I don’t feel like I am completely unreasonable. The law says he can’t be convicted unless it is unanimous, and I accept that. But as far as my own conclusion is concerned, it was proven.
OK. That certainly makes sense.