I’ve repeatedly explained why. There is always reason to doubt potentially biased, unsupported, testimony. It’s not complicated, and that’s really all there is to it.
That there can be reason to doubt such testimony doesn’t logically lead to the necessity that juries must always doubt such testimony. If the physical evidence matches the witnesses claims, and the accused has already been established as a liar, then it is entirely reasonable that the jury might find beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was lying.
I’m staying with this because this idea is so insane, frankly, that I still don’t think you’ve entirely thought it through – or you’re just unwilling to accept that maybe you had a bad idea. It would literally make getting away with murder trivially easy.
If there’s any physical evidence that he wasn’t threatened, such as a recording, or that he shot at their backs (such as in the attempted murders he was rightly convicted of) then yes, of course.
Him being a liar has no bearing on whether anyone else is telling the truth. If he’s lying, all that means is you can discount his testimony, not assume the opposite.
So, we’re left with someone claiming their friend didn’t threaten Dunn, and no other evidence. You think that’s enough for a murder charge? You really think it proves beyond reasonable doubt that it was murder? And you say I haven’t thought things through?
And yes, it should be easy to “get away” with a crime - or rather, it should be hard to prove guilt. The benefit of any doubt should always go to the defendant. We’ve got pages and pages here of people claiming the police or the courts judge too harshly, and punish innocent people. And yet, here you are wanted to convict someone of murder based solely on another’s word. Do you not see the contradiction?
It is worse - far, far worse - for an innocent person, especially someone who’s the victim of an assault, to go to prison, than it is for a murderer to get away with it. And in this particular case, Dunn would still be in prison for decades, so it would literally cost nothing to apply the principle correctly. And yet, you still argue against people having the right to defend themselves without having to then prove their innocence. I can’t imagine how you can believe that is right.
Do I think the following is enough for a murder charge: admission that he shot Davis, multiple witnesses’ testimony that he shot Davis and that Davis didn’t threaten him, and tons of physical evidence that he shot Davis, and a dead body with a bullet in it? Yes, I do. That’s definitely enough for a murder charge.
I truly find it hard to believe that anyone could disagree that this collection of evidence is not enough for a murder charge.
As to whether it proves beyond reasonable doubt that it’s murder – I think it’s reasonable that a jury can conclude this. It might also be reasonable that a jury concludes the opposite, depending on the nature of the testimony. In the Dunn case, the jury reasonably found Dunn guilty. It’s reasonable that they thought Dunn was lying, and it’s reasonable that they believed the witnesses were telling the truth.
Sometimes it’s hard to prove guilt – sometimes it’s not so hard. When we have an admission by Dunn that Davis was shot, physical evidence he was shot, witness testimony that it was not self-defense, zero physical evidence that it was self-defense, a dead body, and only a proven liar’s assertion that it was self-defense in opposition, then it’s not so hard to prove guilt. By no means is it “based solely on another’s word”. It’s based on an admission that Dunn shot Davis, a dead body, physical evidence, and multiple witnesses’ testimony. That’s way, way more than just someone’s word.
I’m absolutely for the principle of self-defense. Nothing I’ve said is against self-defense. Asserting that juries should have the ability (as they do) to make judgments about whether claims of self-defense are credible or not is not arguing against people having the right to make such claims. People definitely have the right to claim self-defense – and juries definitely have the right to determine, based on physical evidence and other witness testimony, if these claims are credible or not.
What evidence, apart from the the testimony of the deceased’s friends, is there that it was not self defence?
Oh, and you’ve contradicted yourself. You acknowledge that a jury could reasonably have found him not guilty. Therefore, there is reason to doubt his guilt, therefore he is not guilty. That is how it’s supposed to work.
In this case, it is clearly reasonable to doubt that it was not self defence. It may only be a tiny bit of doubt, simply acknowledging the possibility that his friends’ may have lied to protect his reputation. Doubt. Not guilty.
This isn’t a civil case. The standard isn’t what is most likely to have happened.
That Davis was unarmed, that no weapon was found, that there was no evidence of a struggle, that Dunn’s own girlfriend who got into the car right after the shooting testified that Dunn did not mention anything about a shotgun in the other vehicle, etc. And the testimony counts – that really is evidence. Witness testimony counts as evidence, and it should. It’s a good and positive thing for the search for the truth that the jury was able to hear the testimony from the witnesses.
No, I’m saying that a jury can reasonably find someone not guilty in such a circumstance depending on the nature of the testimony. They can also reasonably find someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the witnesses’ testimony was contradicted by physical evidence, as the accused’s was (and Dunn’s testimony about self-defense was also contradicted by his girlfriend, who stated that Dunn never mentioned he saw a shotgun in the other car), then it’s entirely reasonable to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
It all depends on the testimony, and how it is perceived and evaluated by the jury.
In this case, the jury did not feel this way. The jury, all 12 (for the retrial) believed that there was no reasonable doubt that he lied and the witnesses did not.
And it’s entirely reasonable that juries can feel this way, depending on the evidence.
Are you even willing to retract your assertion that Jordan Davis, a dead teenager, was a thug? Do you really still feel happy that he’s dead?
Are you constitutionally able to admit that you might have been wrong?
What physical evidence contradicted Dunn’s claim he was threatened?
I mean, it’s clear that you are legally right here - that in many self defence cases the law permits conviction where there’s reasonable doubt. My argument is that it shouldn’t, and further that it’s abhorrent that it does, and that anyone would support that.
Look, I doubt the claim that he wasn’t threatened, and I’ve provided reasons. That should be all that’s necessary to show he’s not guilty, that a reasonable person could doubt that he is. It doesn’t matter if it’s only a slight doubt, if it’s there, and if it’s reasonable, not guilty.
ETA I’ll admit I’m wrong when I’m shown that I am. One good example was that I originally believed George Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter, until I saw the actual evidence. Serves me right for believing headlines, I guess.
What I listed – the lack of a weapon in the car or with Davis, no signs of a struggle, etc.
There couldn’t be any more physical evidence, without a recording, that would be consistent with the witnesses’ testimony. The physical evidence matches closely the witnesses and does not match closely Dunn’s testimonies. It also matches closely Dunn’s girlfriend’s testimony, which refutes Dunn’s testimony.
Your view leads to the conclusion that (without a tape) there’s no possible way Dunn could be found guilty as long as he claims self-defense, because there’s no more possible physical evidence that could be present.
Were you wrong that Davis was a thug? Were you wrong to be happy that Davis is dead?
You think the lack of a weapon prevents someone saying they’re going to shoot you, or you reasonably mistaking something else for a weapon?
And yes, without proof otherwise, someone should be able to claim self defence and be believed. I really don’t understand how anyone could think otherwise. You’d have to completely ignore the presumption of innocence, and the idea that people don’t have to prove their own innocence, to think otherwise.
And I didn’t say I was happy he was killed, I said I was happy Dunn was able to defend himself, happy he was put away for the attempted murders he actually did commit, and not upset that a young thug died. There’s nothing there I’d wish to retract. I don’t take joy in people dying, but that doesn’t mean I have to mourn them.
You seem very comfortable calling the kid a thug for no good reason. I wonder why? What did he do that makes him a thug? And if you say he threatened Dunn, please know that you’re completely full of shit.
In your world, is it possible for more than one person/group to be at fault for something, or is it all or nothing to you? Isn’t it possible, hell, actually true, that BOTH the prosecution AND the jury fucked up? I agree with you wholeheartedly that the prosecution was horrible, I’ve said so on these boards for over a decade.
Your willingness to leap to a patently wrong conclusion about my views, and to do so with such disdain, says volumes about you too.
I’m quite comfortable calling someone who goes out of their way to offend someone who makes a polite request of them a thug. Or, for that matter, the people who go around making other people’s lives that little bit worse for no reason.
Playing music so loud that it shakes nearby cars isn’t acceptable behaviour. Doesn’t mean that someone who does it deserves to be shot, obviously, but stop pretending these antisocial little shits are decent, upstanding people.
See … you’re completely full of shit.
Music shaking cars? Polite request? Antisocial little shits? All inventions of your little mind. But you know all that is absolute fact because your hero - the pussy who had to pull the gun and start shooting - said so.
So go ahead and virtually fellate Dunn if it makes your tonsil’s tickle, but everybody here sees through you like Saran Wrap.
No – that’s why his testimony should be heard. It should be listened to, and the jury should be able to make a judgment on it and on the rest of the testimony and evidence.
You’re not saying someone should be able claim self-defense and be believed – you’re saying they must be believed. That they must be trusted, and witnesses who tell a different story must be ignored. At least, as far as the Dunn case.
This doesn’t ignore the presumption of innocence at all. Dunn is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And it’s reasonable that a jury can hear testimony and decide beyond a reasonable doubt that Dunn’s claim about self-defense is false.
Dunn’s own girlfriend’s testimony refutes his own. The other witnesses’ testimony refutes his own. How many witnesses must refute Dunn’s testimony for a jury to find that he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?
You’re still calling Davis a thug. Why?
Are you really not upset that Davis is dead? Either you’re absolutely certain Davis threatened Dunn (when the only evidence for this is Dunn’s testimony, refuted by his girlfriend and the other witnesses), or you’re heartless, it seems to me.
It’s pretty clear that the only actual input into **Steophan’s **opinion is the race of the parties. For example, he’s all for the rule of law unless it results in a person being convicted for murdering an unarmed black teen, and then he’s against it. He’s all for the absolute right of self defense, unless it’s a black person defending himself, and then he’s against it.
I’m willing to bet that there isn’t a single legal action that he’s ever discussed on this board where his opinion wasn’t 100% predictable by simply looking at the races of the parties, facts be damned.
It would be odd that I support self defence laws and Stand Your Ground, then, as the majority of people who benefit from those laws are black.
I don’t think being murdered is a benefit.
But feel free to prove me wrong if you want–just link to a post of yours where you unambiguously defend a black person defending himself against a white person (self-defense). Or unambiguously support the conviction of a white person who killed a black person despite claiming self defense (rule of law).
Edited to add: can you link to any discussion you’ve had about any black person where you haven’t at some point referred to that person as a criminal or a thug? That should be painfully easy.
If you weren’t such a fucking ignorant twat, you’d realise that I was referring to the fact that the majority of people who have to kill in self defence in the US are black. Fortunately they’re not being locked up for being victims of crime, unlike what you and iiandyiiii would like.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a discussion on this message board.
I’m unlikely, to put it mildly, to support the conviction of anyone who kills in self defence. Race is irrelevant.
I don’t tend to memorise the race of people I’m talking about. I’d be astonished if I haven’t praised some black actors or musicians here at some point. I’m wearing a fucking Miles Davis t-shirt right now…
Frankly, the idea that, because I don’t like or approve of thugs and thuggish behaviour, I must be racist shows you, not me, making the connection between that behaviour and a certain race. It’s bullshit.
This isn’t what we would like. We would like juries to have the authority, as they do, to evaluate claims of self-defense based on evidence and witness testimony.
He didn’t say someone who killed in self-defense – he said someone who claimed self-defense. Unless you believe that every claim of self defense is legitimate.
Why did you call Jordan Davis a thug? Do you still think he’s a thug? Do you still feel absolutely no sadness that he’s dead?