So when you said Dunn was threatened by someone with a gun or gun-like object, you didn’t really mean it? If you weren’t convinced by his testimony, then why did you say it as if it was true?
In every US jurisdiction (except Ohio), the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense. This has been true since (at least) the 1930s (I haven’t done an exhaustive review, but there are a number of decisions in the 1920s-1940s rejecting the idea that the defense needs to “prove” self-defense to any degree).
No, you’re obviously inclined more to the “lone wolf lynching” kind of justice.
Really?
What witness other than Dunn said they saw Davis “point something” at Dunn and please provide a citation for it.
Thanks.
Why “witness other than Dunn?” Wasn’t Dunn a witness?
We have three witnesses testifying Dunn is either mistaken or a liar.
Sure he was. And really, when you have the uncorroborated claim of a witness who happens to be a killer on trial for murder, and would have no reason to lie other than to exonerate himself and avoid going to prison for life, what more evidence do you need?
How loud is too loud when you’re drunk, have a gun, and don’t care for the type of people playing the music?
Well, the sequence of conversation was:
It’s obvious that Dunn is a witness, yes? Your comment, Vinyl, relates to how much weight you assign to his testimony – but it doesn’t make his testimony vanish, does it?
The defense’s theory was that a weapon, or something that looked like a weapon, was displayed by the occupants of the vehicle. This was introduced into evidence by witness testimony. Correct?
Sure. And the number of witnesses is certainly a factor to consider. But the jury is entitled to believe one witness over three witnesses; they are the ones that hear each witness testify and observe their demeanor, right?
And if Florida juries consistently exonerate white defendants who kill black teenagers, it’s all just a coincidence, the majesty of the law, right?
Do we have more than one example of a jury exonerating white(ish) defendants who killed a black teenager?
How many do we need, before it is appropriate to be outraged?
It depends on why you’re outraged, I suppose. If you want to be outraged over a particular verdict, then you only need one. If you want to make claims about something consistently happening (and implying that you’ve identified the reason), then probably more than one.
If these hypothetical juries did that while similarly constituted juries convicted defendants of color who were similarly situated, I’d agree that it was deserving of harsh commentary, if not more.
But of course that’s not actually happening – Florida juries are not consistently exonerating white defendants who kill black teenagers. So your hypothetical isn’t a match to the actual situation, is it?
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!
“If they consistently exonerate white defendants, we should be outraged!”
“Um… they’re not consistently exonerating white defendants.”
“Even so!”
The answer, of course, is that your argument turns on the presence of consistency. The better assumption in a single example is that the jury assessed the credibility of the witnesses and reached a conclusion that accurately represents what they’re charged with doing: looking for guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and failing to return a guilty verdict where the evidence doesn’t meet that standard.
In other words, if you wish to be outraged because of a consistent practice, you need more than one example of the practice. ideally, you need to show not only raw numbers, but statistical prevalence.
Sure. Do you think it’s unreasonable to want some sort of corroborating evidence for the existence of a firearm that nobody else has seen, before assuming that the only guy who claims to have seen it, whose life depends on people believing it was present, and who has nothing to lose and everything to gain by lying about it, is telling the truth before blindly accepting it as established fact? If I’m not mistaken, that’s what Ibn Warraq was asking for. Seems reasonable to me, despite your and Steophan’s apparent satisfaction with the existing, ah, evidence.
Not to mention the fact that Dunn claims he told his fiancee about Davis having a gun, but she testified he never said that to her?
Because I wanted to know if the reason he was certain that Davis pointed an object at Dunn was because Dunn claimed he did.
As everybody can note he has said words to the effect that he knows that Davis pointed an object at Dunn and threatened him.
I wanted to know if he was basing this on anything other than Dunn’s testimony.
If so, I’d like to know what about Dunn’s testimony makes him so certain.
This is a genuinely curious question, becuase I didn’t follow this case at all until it was on the news when the jury was deliberating. Was there any testimony regarding the presence (or lack thereof) of a shotgun other than from the defendant or the other occupants of the vehicle?
No. What’s needed is compelling evidence he’s lying. The burden of proof is on the accusers, not the defendant. That still applies if said defendant claims self defence.
There’s likely to be a retrial, and at that trial it may be that evidence that compels the jury to find guilt will be presented. Until that point, he’s not guilty of murder.
I know the usual response to that is that it’s only a legal standard, to which my response would be that we’ve chosen that as the legal standard precisely because one should be extremely sure before claiming someone is guilty of something as serious as murder.