Argument from ignorance.
There really ought to be a sticky for these logical fallacies, especially for the supposedly enlightened Doper population.
How do you know he was “defending himself”?
What other evidence do you have other than the testimony of Dunn, who the jury didn’t believe, and was contradicted by every other witness to the shooting, that Dunn was acting in self-defense?
Please be specific.
You’re the one who said Zimmerman never confirmed the friendship. Argument from ignorance.
As I said, I’d be shocked that he had ANY friends.
No, he has a documented history of being accused of violence, and those accusations collapsing under investigation.
You’ll think it’s about time an innocent man was killed? You’re a psychopath.
How are you so certain Dunn was defending himself? The other witnesses disagreed with his story, IIRC. Why do you take his word for it?
You have it backwards. His innocence doesn’t need to be proven, it is assumed. Anyone who kills, and claims self defence, should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise.
Witness statements by the friends of the dead man don’t cut it. He should not have been convicted of murder.
Of course, he’d still be in prison for many, many years for the three proven counts of attempted murder, so this is purely about principle, not about anything that would actually change his life. But the principle is that someone who kills in self defence is a victim of crime, and should be treated as such. What is happening here is nothing more than victim blaming.
Are you kidding? The word of witnesses who were shot at by the accused can’t be trusted?
Does this go for anytime someone is killed? If their friends witness it, their word can’t be trusted?
Because he’s the accused. He gets all the benefit of the doubt. Innocent until proven guilty. Those who kill in self defence are victims, not criminals. Stop victim blaming.
This stuff is honestly not complicated. The law should protect those who have to defend themselves, not punish them. It’s that simple. And unless proven otherwise, someone who claims to have defended themself did so.
No.
High schools should require a course in logic.
There is a difference between saying, as I essentially did: The claim that this guy is Zimmerman’s best friend is insufficiently supported, and an argumentum ad ignoratium. We start from the proposition that the proponent of the claim has a burden to support his claim. Saying that his claim isn’t disproved is invoking the argument from ignorance, and shifts the burden of persuasion.
The witnesses said it wasn’t self-defense. It’s ridiculous to disregard a witness because they were friends of someone killed. It’s entirely reasonable for a jury to believe the witnesses’ accounts and not believe Dunn’s.
Have you really thought this through, Steophan? Someone was shot, and his friends witnessed it, and their story should be disregarded??
There’s no more reason to trust them than to trust Dunn. You want to dismiss Dunn’s statement because… reasons.
Please note that Dunn was correctly jailed for attempting to murder them as they fled. it’s not that I’m claiming he’s not a criminal or shouldn’t be in jail. I’m claiming that he had every right to defend himself.
Bricker, care to chime in on the Dunn case? You may have already… I don’t recall.
No, I’m saying that a jury is entitled to make a judgment about which story they believe. I’m not dismissing Dunn’s statements – the jury did… they found that the witnesses statements were more believable.
This is entirely reasonable.
That’s how trials work. A jury hears multiple points of evidence, including witness testimony (if possible), and makes a judgment about what is most persuasive.
The jury in the Dunn case found that the witness accounts were more believable than Dunn’s.
Why are you certain that the jury got it wrong?
Have you thought this through? Someone was threatened by another person, who claimed they had a weapon. Why should their story be disregarded?
Two people, or groups of people. Both have motivation to lie, if you want to look at it that way - one to clear their own name, one to clear their friend’s name. What’s the difference? Except that, only one is being accused of a crime, and therefore they get the benefit of the doubt.
This is the “loud music,” shooter?
I can’t imagine what issue is in contention. The jury heard his story and disbelieved it, and he was convicted. Who is saying that something else should have happened?
Except that the jury, not you, got to see the witness’ demeanor and hear them testify. They are in a far better position to judge the credibility of each witness.
How do you know someone was threatened? The jury didn’t believe Dunn’s story. Why should I?
You’re dismissing witness testimony that comes from friends of the deceased in any situation here. That’s just ridiculous.
No one gets “the benefit of the doubt”. The jury hears both stories and decides which one they believe.
Are you really saying that if the jury thinks Dunn lied and the witnesses told the truth they should still find him not guilty?