All the situations we’ve discussed include other evidence. There was other evidence in the Dunn case – his admission, the physical evidence (at the scene and the examination of the deceased), the witness testimony, and the testimony of Dunn’s girlfriend.
Further, all witness testimony is “potentially biased”. You are arguing that all witness testimony should be ignored.
My hypothetical with my wife also involved other evidence – the physical evidence at the scene, the admission from the accused that he pulled the trigger, etc.
As to the proof that Dunn did not have reasonable fear for his life – the physical evidence at the scene and in the vehicle (including no shotgun and no object that could reasonably be confused for a shotgun), his girlfriend’s testimony in which she refutes his assertion that he mentioned the shotgun after the shooting, and the testimony of the witnesses that Davis had no object that could be confused for a shotgun, in addition to the fact that he was lying about this other claim of self-defense, collectively added up, to the jury, as sufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not in reasonable fear for his life when he pulled the trigger.
No, I’m not suggesting that. I’m stating that unsupported, potentially biased witness testimony cannot prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.
I’ve stated that many times, and I have no idea what you find so incomprehensible about it, or why you keep claiming that I’m saying something different.
Perhaps because you think Dunn shouldn’t have been convicted, despite the fact that the evidence against him didn’t consist solely of “potentially biased witness testimony”.
I’m sorry, but I have to ask: the fact that you pretend you cannot figure this out on your own makes me think you are a troll or an idiot. I’m dying to know; which is it?
No, I think he shouldn’t have been convicted because the evidence that he wasn’t in reasonable fear of death or serious injury did consist solely of such testimony.
Can you really not tell the difference between the facts of one case and the underlying philosophy of justice?
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca.
Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk.
But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor.
Now think about it; that does not make sense!
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, can you be sure that Han shot first?
You now have a reasonable doubt.
Self defense, you must acquit!
They didn’t testify as to whether he did or did not fear for his life, as no one has the ability to know with certainty what another person thinks or feels. They testified that the person he shot and killed had not threatened him, contrary to what Dunn claimed. The jury apparently believed their testimony, and concluded that Dunn was lying. That’s why he was convicted.
There was also physical evidence; there were no items in the car that could have been mistaken for a shotgun. There was also testimony from his girlfriend, who couldn’t be called a biased witness.
iiandyiiii has carefully and repeatedly explained this to Steophan, who repeatedly and carefully ignores it. As I said, troll or idiot.
Want a shock? I believe in the right to defend yourself. I do not and never have subscribed to any “duty to retreat”. I believed in “stand your ground”… but now I believe it is being abused to cover up murders. Why pull punches?
However, I will NEVER simply write off a fatal shooting of any unarmed person - no matter how big and “scary looking”, without an investigation. ANY asshole can murder and then say “I was scared”.
Steophan, I’m repeating a question from before that you didn’t answer – what behavior from Davis causes you to call him a thug? What is the evidence for this behavior?
You need to stop this habit of repeatedly asking questions that have been answered. Davis’ deliberate antisocial behaviour towards Dunn is a matter of record, not disputed by anyone. He either felt he had the right to ignore Dunn’s request to stop breaking the law in a way that negatively affected Dunn, thinking his desires were more important than anyone else’s, or he actively wanted to piss Dunn off. Yes, it was “only” loud music. So what?
Note that the driver of the vehicle did comply with Dunn’s justified request. Note that (despite certain people’s implications in this thread) I’ve not referred to the driver, or any of the other passengers as thugs. Only the little shit who acted like one.