I don’t assume he’s telling the truth, but I do start by assuming that the truth is he’s innocent.
Do you? It doesn’t seem so, if your immediate reaction is to demand that he prove his innocence.
Dunn’s testimony, and nothing more, establishes that an object was pointed. It’s then up to the state to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt, or show that the even if an object was pointed, it didn’t constitute a threat.
Earlier you were certain (or at least you posted as if you were certain) that Davis raised a gun or gun-like object at Dunn. Now, I take it, you’re not so certain. Why were you certain before?
Dunn’s testimony doesn’t “establish” that an object was pointed - it merely offers the claim that an object was pointed. The three not-dead victims claim that there was no weapon in the car, and that no scary barrel-like object was pointed at anybody in a threatening manner. As a matter of fact (meant literally, not as a turn of phrase), there was no weapon found in the victims’ car. But that apparently doesn’t quite push Dunn’s bullshit claims in to non-reasonableness, because otherwise … gosh, why would he have pulled his gun out in the first place?
Again, golly, it just doesn’t make any sense that a drunk, belligerent would act drunk and belligerent if he’s a lawful gun owner.
I’m simply giving the benefit of the doubt where it’s due.
It’s quite amusing how you present the correct argument as though it’s somehow ridiculous. Although your opening sentence shows you don’t understand a thing about how the law works, or the general principle of giving benefit of the doubt to the accused.
If self defence is claimed, it is up to the state to disprove it, not the accused to prove it. That is how it should be - the burden of proof should always rest on the prosecution.
Yes, in fact, from an evidentiary standpoint, it does. To allege self-defense, the accused must show the anything beyond a mere scintilla of evidence supporting self-defense. This establishes the claim, which the state must then disprove beyond a reasonable doubt.
This point was cited repeatedly during the long discussions about the Zimmerman case.
I’m sorry for the snarky tone – but I am genuinely puzzled. This is not a matter of “well, reasonable people can disagree.” This is the legal standard, period. It’s not mysterious, especially since it was explained in excruciating detail in threads I know you were reading, since you participated in them. Was that particular point not made clear, somehow?
Then you need to explain to me how: “I saw a gun,” is not disproven by, “there was no gun.” Sounds pretty proven to me.
The claim seems to be that the police didn’t search everywhere the the gun could theoretically have been hidden. So, it’s not conclusively proven that there wasn’t a gun.
A neutral witness who said there was no gun could also count as proof, but there doesn’t appear to be one of those either.
This stuff isn’t complicated, and you know it all already, as you’ve followed threads where it’s been discussed before - as Bricker rightly said.
You need a statistically significant number greater than those situations where they exonerate blacks who kill whites.
There’s no way and no place the victims of this crime could have stashed a shot-gun somewhere in the parking lot they never left. That is such a bullshit reach in order mitigate Dunn’s crock of shit about being in fear for his life. Fuck sakes, the cops didn’t search for a grenade either; do we have to assume they might have one of those too?
And how about his girlfriend for a witness who testified that Dunn never mentioned anything about seeing a gun until after he’d been arrested.
And while we’re at it … Dunn had been drinking but he wasn’t issued a BAC test; why can’t we just go ahead an assume he was wasted when he shot at the victim’s car? Your logic, not mine.
It’s about 3 and a half times as many, which is statistically significant. It’s a well known fact that poor people in America get shitty defence in court, and that black people are on average poorer than whites. That black people who should go free are being convicted doesn’t mean that we should jail innocent white people.
It’s a different story when it comes to standing your ground against a member of your own race, whereblack people have a higher acquittal rate overall.
I can’t find the cite now, but I recently read that the vast majority of killings with guns, both legal and illegal, are by black people, although the Chicago Tribune article hints at that.
I must have missed where the defendant claimed he was threatened with a grenade, but if he did then yes, obviously, we must. And we believe it (or more importantly, act as though we do) until proven otherwise.
Perhaps he was too busy trying not to be shot to have a chat?
If Dunn claimed that then yes, we should assume it. If the prosecution claim it then no, they must prove it.
If some random idiot on the internet claims it it really doesn’t matter.
Repeat: THERE WAS NO GUN IN THE CAR. The victims did not have a gun. The defendant’s claim that he saw a gun was disproven. Roundly. Your disapproval of the cops search methods don’t enter into the picture.
And wait a minute … Dunn was too busy trying not to be shot for 40 miles, a dog-walk, a rum and Coke, a pizza, an overnight slumber and another 40 mile trip back? Fuck, those fellas with the non-existent shot-gun sure are amazing shots.
That would be a more convincing argument if your first sentence was actually true.
The undisputed (as far as I know) evidence was that the SUV took off once it came under fire and drove to a nearby “plaza” (I’m not entirely sure what that is). Then, once they determined that Davis had been shot, the car returned to the parking lot.
Witnesses who observed the vehicle in the plaza testified that they saw the occupants running around the vehicle (checking on each other, I presume) and did not see them discard anything, but were not able to see the full extent of the goings on around the vehicle.
I’m not sure how much of a search of the plaza took place, but my understanding is that it was cursory at best (especially if they didn’t catch Dunn until the next day, the police would not have known to look around the plaza to disprove his discarded weapon claim).
Makes as much sense as your argument that they couldn’t possibly have hidden a gun in that time frame.
Dunn’s downfall was not having the foresight to claim that there were *four *guns, one in the hand of each occupant of the car he unloaded into. Or hell, let’s say eight. They each have two hands, right? Guy sees eight guns pointing his way, clearly he’s gonna be in fear for his life, and the only reasonable response is to start spraying bullets. Since we have to take everything the killer says as gospel, why not shoot for the sky? Metaphorically, I mean. No reason to waste ammo.
And not for nothing, did you see how black those guys were? Sure they said there was no gun, but let’s be honest, they might be just a little biased, hmm? After all, they’re facing… well, nothing, actually… but still, my point stands! Who are you gonna believe, the drunk guy shooting at people, or the four people he shot at? (Oops… three. Guy needs to spend some time at the range, obviously…)
Bullshit. My claim is rooted in reality. Yours is rooted in that lump you call a skull.
The witness who testified there was a shotgun was not a neutral witness.
The two positions are not equal. We start out by assuming the innocence of the accused.
Now, there’s no question that if you believe “There was no gun,” then you have sufficient, competent evidence that does disprove the existence of a gun.
But since I didn’t hear the witnesses testify, I can’t really gauge their trustiworthiness. So I’ll defer to the jury, who were there and listened to the testimony. Some of them apparently did believe “There was a gun,” and others seemed to believe “There was no gun.”
Perhaps I missed that – I have not followed the trial closely.
To what do you attribute the jury’s failure to convict, if not their lack of agreement concerning the existence of a gun?