Page 32 of 36 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 355

Thread: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial[W:336]

  1. #311
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volunteer State
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 03:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,138
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Your understanding is limited and therefore faulty.
    It also makes you wrong to that we are speaking about.
    And you again show you know not the testimony being discussed, as nothing was retracted under oath.

    What is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?
    Evidence directed to the attending circumstances ; evidence which inferentially proves the principal fact by establishing a condition of surrounding and limiting circumstances, whose existence is a premise from which the existence of the principal fact may be concluded by necessary laws of reasoning. State v. Avery, 113 Mo. 475, 21 S. W. 193; Howard v. State, 34 Ark. 433; State v. Evans, 1 Marvel (Del.) 477, 41 Atl. 136; Comm. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 319, 52 Am. Dec. 711; Gardner v. Preston, 2 Day (Conn.) 205. 2 Am. Dec. 91; State v. Miller, 9 Houst. (Del.) 564, 32 Atl. 137. When the existence of any fact is attested by witnesses, as having come under the cognizance of their senses, or is stated in documents, the genuineness and veracity of which there seems no reason to question, the evidence of that fact is said to be direct or positive. When, on the contrary, the existence of the principal fact is only inferred from one or more circumstances which have been established directly, the evidence is said to be circumstantial. And when the existence of the principal fact does not follow from the evidentiary facts as a necessary consequence of the law of nature, but is deduced from them by a process of probable reasoning, the evidence and proof are said to be presumptive. Best, Pres. 240; Id. 12. All presumptive evidence is circumstantial, because necessarily derived from or made up of circumstances, but all circumstantial evidence is not presumptive, that is, it does not operate in the way of presumption, being sometimes of a higher grade, and lending to necessary conclusions, instead of probable ones. Burrill. CIRCUMSTANTIBUS, TALES DE. See TALES.

    Law Dictionary: What is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE? definition of CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)


    What is CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE? definition of CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE (Black's Law Dictionary)
    Maybe so that nothing was retracted under oath but the witness certainly did make clarification under oath of what he said he saw and didn't see that night.


    During the police interview and in the trial under oath the witness consistently and adamently maintained that the two who got out of the Durango weren't stashing anything. In fact, on that night and during trial under oath the witness and his sister said NOTHING about seeing a weapon let alone a shotgun. Here's what the witness who called the police told a 911 dispatcher:

    I don't know if they were trying to stash something in the car or look for something or what...


    So, tell me, where's the mention of a weapon let alone a shotgun? The "something" could be drugs, cigarette or cash. Since the two witnesses had heard some shots fired and soon after it was followed by the Durango reeling down towards them from the gas station next door, one could unknowingly assume the gas station was robbed and the two were trying to stash away something in the car. That's why the two witnesses said they didn't know what was going on and didn't know why they said that.


    Also, do you understand the meaning of the word "stash"?


    If you have no idea, here's the definition:

    to put (something) in a secret or hidden place


    to store in a usually secret place for future use —often used with away


    Stash - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


    So, where on earth did you get the idea of the weapon being thrown away by the two boys who were at the parking lot in front of the two witnesses the whole time and never left the Durango?


    Even if you want to make the argument by brute force that to stash" means "to throw away" then you also run into the problem of what was said by the witness to the 911 dispatcher in which he specifically said: "I don't know if they were trying to stash something in the car..."


    So, if you tried to force the meaning of "stash" to mean "to throw away", then "to stash something in the car" simply gives you "to throw away something in the car".


    See your self-defeating quandary here?

    But, don't forget that the witness also had said another two possibilities arising from their not knowing what was going on: "or look for something or what"

    As we know, the boys told the investigator that they got out to check on their friend and also to check on the damage to the vehicle caused by the barrage of bullets shooting at them. Logically, that was the more sensible scenario of what the two witnesses saw. The "or what" simply showed that they didn't know what was going on and thus was speculating.


    However, what's so pitiful is that you quoted the legal definition of "CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" from Black's Law dictionary but you apparently didn't bother to read what you quoted or somehow you just could not comprehend what you had read.


    Here's the pertinent part of the first sentence from your quote:

    Evidence directed to the attending circumstances...


    Now, let's see what's the legal definition provided by the same source of Black's Law dictionary:


    What is CIRCUMSTANCES? definition of CIRCUMSTANCES (Black's Law Dictionary)

    What is CIRCUMSTANCES?

    A principal act. or event being the object of investigation, the circumstances are the related or accessory facts or occurrences which attend upon it. which closely precede or follow it, which surround and accompany it, which depend upon it, or which support or qualify it


    Law Dictionary: What is CIRCUMSTANCES? definition of CIRCUMSTANCES (Black's Law Dictionary)


    Notice the pertinent part says: "A principal act. or event being the object of investigation"? In this case the "object of investigation" is the shotgun. The "principal act" in this case is the act of throwing away the shotgun as claimed by you and the defense. But here's the fact: neither the shotgun nor the act of throwing the shotgun away was stated by the two witnesses.


    Since the definition of "CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" you quoted defined it as: "Evidence directed to the attending circumstances...", clearly your attempt to use the witness testimony as circumstantial evidence to support your argument is a big FAIL because neither the shotgun nor the throwing away of the shotgun was alluded to by the witness and his sister. Therefore, this does not qualify as "CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" in Dunn's or your favor.


    Also, please know that one circumstantial evidence is worthless not to mention you have none despite your effort at distortion. So, when are you ever going to admit that you are wrong?
    Last edited by dolphinocean; 02-28-14 at 05:58 PM.

  2. #312
    Guru

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:28 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,078

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Conservatives like Excon still can't get over the verdict, eh?

  3. #313
    Sage
    reinoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Out West
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    16,124
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    No. It simply isn't.
    But Davis's friends actions in failing to immediately call as he lay dying was.
    Why is it ok for Dunn not to call and why is it suspicious for the teenagers not to call?

    Were there any inconsistencies in Dunn's statements?
    Trump Attacked A Syrian Airfield. Trump will be a one-term president.

  4. #314
    Guru

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 11:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,899

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Does anybody know when State vs Dunn, round II is scheduled?

  5. #315
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by reinoe View Post
    Why is it ok for Dunn not to call and why is it suspicious for the teenagers not to call?
    iLOL

    As already stated. Davis was dying in the back seat. Or don't you think a dying person warrants a call?


    Quote Originally Posted by reinoe View Post
    Were there any inconsistencies in Dunn's statements?
    YOu have already been told you need to back up your claims.
    All this time, and you have yet to do so. Figures.





    Quote Originally Posted by Puigb View Post
    Conservatives like Excon still can't get over the verdict, eh?
    I see we have another one who hasn't paid attention to what has been argued.

    Surrrrreeeee!
    I can't get over the verdict being hung! iLOL


    Your assertion is absurd.
    In addition, it is ridiculously absurd because I am not a conservative.
    Which would be why my lean say independence. Duh!





    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Maybe so that nothing was retracted under oath but the witness certainly did make clarification under oath of what he said he saw and didn't see that night.
    Oy vey! Are you not paying attention?
    The clarification on cross makes it abundantly clear that they did not have eyes on the people in the Durgano the whole time.
    Therefore, he and his sister, would not be able to say whether or not anything had been tossed, thrown, or stashed.


    The rest of what you said regarding that is nonsense to what was shown at trial.
    They would not know as they were not looking the whole time. Period.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    See your self-defeating quandary here?
    There is none, except for that which resides in your own head.
    Their actions is circumstantial evidence to the Gun having existed and being stashed.
    Because of their actions the prosecution can not disprove his account.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    However, what's so pitiful is that you quoted the legal definition of "CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE" from Black's Law dictionary but you apparently didn't bother to read what you quoted or somehow you just could not comprehend what you had read.
    [...]
    Also, please know that one circumstantial evidence is worthless not to mention you have none despite your effort at distortion.

    You have been continually shown to be out of your league when discussion legal issues. Nothing has changed. You still are.
    You obviously have no idea what you are reading, because you are wrong.
    It is circumstantial evidence that is suggestive that the gun Dunn saw actually existed.
    Try reading the underlined portion of what was provided.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  6. #316
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volunteer State
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 03:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,138
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Oy vey! Are you not paying attention?The clarification on cross makes it abundantly clear that they did not have eyes on the people in the Durgano the whole time.
    Therefore, he and his sister, would not be able to say whether or not anything had been tossed, thrown, or stashed.




    The rest of what you said regarding that is nonsense to what was shown at trial.
    They would not know as they were not looking the whole time. Period.

    Where in the testimony did you get "that they did not have eyes on the people in the Durgano the whole time"?


    Why on earth would two witnesses with a baby in tow in a parking lot facing two unknown persons who got out of their vehicle that had just came running towards them after hearing several shots fired and then not look at them the whole time?


    Really? You think they would look away long enough by coincidence so the two who got out could throw away the shotgun onto the parking lot in front of them and then drove away back to the gas station while the shotgun that was just thrown away and laying there on the ground just disappeared or evaporated out of thin air?


    Or did they just looked away long enough for the two black individuals to walk all the way to the back of the building where the dumpsters were located to dump their shotgun and only looked back at them where they happened to return to the Durango and then headed back to the gas station?


    You're the one who is spewing nonsense. Now, here is what was testified in sworn statement as follows:


    In his sworn statements to the state attorney's office the following month, the man from The Loop clarified that he did not see the men try to hide anything.


    "Just so it's clear, the whole time you saw the vehicle, you never saw them throw anything out of the vehicle?" an investigator asked.


    "Correct," the man said.


    "And you never saw any weapons of any kind?" the investigator asked.


    "Correct," the man said.




    Witness says he saw teens get out of SUV after shooting | News - Home


    Did you see the bold part of the sworn statement bold above that says: "the whole time you saw the vehicle"?


    That's the "whole time" they saw the vehicle and never saw them throw out anything out of the vehicle let alone a shotgun.


    There is none, except for that which resides in your own head.
    Their actions is circumstantial evidence to the Gun having existed and being stashed.
    Because of their actions the prosecution can not disprove his account.
    To claim that their "actions is circumstantial evidence to the Gun having existed" you must first provide a "circumstantial evidence" that at least alluded to the two witnesses seeing a "Gun" or what looked like one. So far, you have none whatsoever.


    Now, let me asked you again, where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere?


    And you kept harping on about a "Gun" "being stashed", but what part of NO "gun" being seen by the witnesses and what part of the witnesses' statement purporting to stashing something "in the car" do you not comprehend?


    Let me be specific. What part of stashing "IN THE CAR" do you not understand?


    Do you not understand that if they had taken out the shotgun out of the vehicle and then walked over to the back of the vehicle to open the hatchback door to stash the shotgun in the vehicle in full view of two adult witnesses in open public parking lot, which is so ridiculous a claim, the shotgun would have been found by the police when they impounded the vehicle at the gas station when they arrived?


    Why are you being ridiculous and intellectually dishonest through and through despite being shown the fact of sworn statement of witnesses accounts and logical reasoning?


    You have been continually shown to be out of your league when discussion legal issues. Nothing has changed. You still are.
    You obviously have no idea what you are reading, because you are wrong.
    It is circumstantial evidence that is suggestive that the gun Dunn saw actually existed.
    Try reading the underlined portion of what was provided.
    Nope. You're the one out of league when in my post 311 above I had already shredded your desperate appeal to "circumstantial evidence" using your own link to the legal definition of "circumstantial evidence" from the Black's Law dictionary.


    And let's be honest here, Dunn didn't claim he saw a shotgun. He made the claim that he "thought" he saw a shotgun on subsequent police interview and not when he was captured and apprehended by the police during his attempted but failed escape. He also never told his fiancee about seeing a shotgun or any weapon for that matter and as a scum he even tried to implicate her fiancee for perjury when he claimed he had told her about it. Also, no witness, not one, ever claim seeing the occupants in the Durango having a weapon let alone a shot gun.


    And of course we know he just made that up to cover his ass for his self-defense claim. So also your failed attempt to make up a non-existence "circumstantial evidence" to make an intellectually dishonest claim as your debate tactics.
    Last edited by dolphinocean; 03-02-14 at 04:00 PM.

  7. #317
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Where in the testimony did you get "that they did not have eyes on the people in the Durgano the whole time"?

    Why on earth would two witnesses with a baby in tow in a parking lot facing two unknown persons who got out of their vehicle that had just came running towards them after hearing several shots fired and then not look at them the whole time?

    Really? You think they would look away long enough by coincidence so the two who got out could throw away the shotgun onto the parking lot in front of them and then drove away back to the gas station while the shotgun that was just thrown away and laying there on the ground just disappeared or evaporated out of thin air?

    Or did they just looked away long enough for the two black individuals to walk all the way to the back of the building where the dumpsters were located to dump their shotgun and only looked back at them where they happened to return to the Durango and then headed back to the gas station?

    You're the one who is spewing nonsense. Now, here is what was testified in sworn statement as follows:

    In his sworn statements to the state attorney's office the following month, the man from The Loop clarified that he did not see the men try to hide anything.

    "Just so it's clear, the whole time you saw the vehicle, you never saw them throw anything out of the vehicle?" an investigator asked.

    "Correct," the man said.

    "And you never saw any weapons of any kind?" the investigator asked.

    "Correct," the man said.

    Witness says he saw teens get out of SUV after shooting | News - Home


    Did you see the bold part of the sworn statement bold above that says: "the whole time you saw the vehicle"?

    That's the "whole time" they saw the vehicle and never saw them throw out anything out of the vehicle let alone a shotgun.
    Oy vey!
    You have done a lot of typing to say absolutely nothing of worth.

    This has already been adressed.
    What exactly is it that you do not understand about, "The clarification on cross makes it abundantly clear "?

    They were not in observation of the vehicle or the people from the vehicle the entire time.
    What is it exactly that you do not understand about them looking away to attend to other things?
    Do you really not know what was said on cross examination?

    Everything else you said is nonsense as well. There was no "running towards them", and assuming how the gun would be left, is equally as absurd.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    To claim that their "actions is circumstantial evidence to the Gun having existed" you must first provide a "circumstantial evidence" that at least alluded to the two witnesses seeing a "Gun" or what looked like one..
    Wrong.
    Like I said. You are in over your head here.
    Had anyone seen them with an actual firearm, that would be direct evidence that a gun existed. Duh!

    Their actions, as witnessed, is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist.

    And apparently you are confused as to what their actions in toto are.
    From them getting out and looking for, or stashing something, to the driver lying about calling 911, to the driver calling his aunt, and his cousin immediately coming into the area, to them not telling the police they left the scene.
    It is all circumstantial evidence suggesting the gun did exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Now, let me asked you again, where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere?
    Don't need any such thing.
    They saw them get out, doing something.
    They did not have eyes on them the entire time to say they didn't get rid of something.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    And you kept harping on about a "Gun" "being stashed", but what part of NO "gun" being seen by the witnesses and what part of the witnesses' statement purporting to stashing something "in the car" do you not comprehend?

    iLOL
    No.
    You are the one harping on the word "stashed" as used by the witness. Not I.
    I am focusing on their actions which suggests they stashed the gun that was seen.
    The witnesses see activity that suggested they were "looking" for something or trying to stash something inside the vehicle, goes directly to the suggestion that they were trying to find the gun to get rid of it. What is it you do not understand about that circumstantial evidence?



    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Do you not understand that if they had taken out the shotgun out of the vehicle and then walked over to the back of the vehicle to open the hatchback door to stash the shotgun in the vehicle in full view of two adult witnesses in open public parking lot, which is so ridiculous a claim, the shotgun would have been found by the police when they impounded the vehicle at the gas station when they arrived?
    Do you not understand you are making things up in your head as an excuse?
    The witnesses did not have eyes on them the entire time.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Why are you being ridiculous and intellectually dishonest through and through despite being shown the fact of sworn statement of witnesses accounts and logical reasoning?

    No, that is you who are being ridiculous and dishonest (by ignoring what was said on cross) and intellectually dishonest (by making things up in your head as to how your think things happened. And then calling that logical reasoning... D'oh! iLOL Especially as it is nothing of the sort.).


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    You're the one out of league when in my post 311 above I had already shredded your desperate appeal to "circumstantial evidence" using your own link to the legal definition of "circumstantial evidence" from the Black's Law dictionary.
    Wrong! You are and were the one shredded by your failure to understand. That much is clearly evident.

    Your reading, as well as understanding, is flawed, as it is circumstantial evidence.

    Tell you what. Write the Judge and explain your lack of understanding regarding "circumstantial evidence" to him, and then ask why he allowed the defense to present and argue it as such to the jury when you believe it isn't.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    And let's be honest here, Dunn didn't claim he saw a shotgun. He made the claim that he "thought" he saw a shotgun on subsequent police interview and not when he was captured and apprehended by the police during his attempted but failed escape.
    Wrong.
    He has been adamant from the get.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    He also never told his fiancee about seeing a shotgun or any weapon for that matter and as a scum he even tried to implicate her fiancee for perjury when he claimed he had told her about it.
    Failed logic and dishonesty.
    He said he did tell her.
    Her not remembering does not mean he didn't.
    It does not mean she perjured herself.
    You again have clearly shown you do not know what you argue.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Also, no witness, not one, ever claim seeing the occupants in the Durango having a weapon let alone a shot gun.
    You are making no sense in regards to the argument.
    They didn't have to.
    The circumstantial evidence suggests it existed.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    And of course we know he just made that up to cover his ass for his self-defense claim.
    There is that failed logic again.
    You know no such thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    So also your failed attempt to make up a non-existence "circumstantial evidence" to make an intellectually dishonest claim as your debate tactics.
    There is that failed logic and dishonesty again.
    It is circumstantial evidence.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  8. #318
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Volunteer State
    Last Seen
    10-17-16 @ 03:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,138
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    Oy vey!
    You have done a lot of typing to say absolutely nothing of worth.

    This has already been adressed.
    What exactly is it that you do not understand about, "The clarification on cross makes it abundantly clear "?

    They were not in observation of the vehicle or the people from the vehicle the entire time.
    What is it exactly that you do not understand about them looking away to attend to other things?
    Do you really not know what was said on cross examination?

    Everything else you said is nonsense as well. There was no "running towards them", and assuming how the gun would be left, is equally as absurd.


    Wrong.
    Like I said. You are in over your head here.
    Had anyone seen them with an actual firearm, that would be direct evidence that a gun existed. Duh!

    Their actions, as witnessed, is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist.

    And apparently you are confused as to what their actions in toto are.
    From them getting out and looking for, or stashing something, to the driver lying about calling 911, to the driver calling his aunt, and his cousin immediately coming into the area, to them not telling the police they left the scene.
    It is all circumstantial evidence suggesting the gun did exist.


    Don't need any such thing.
    They saw them get out, doing something.
    They did not have eyes on them the entire time to say they didn't get rid of something.



    iLOL
    No.
    You are the one harping on the word "stashed" as used by the witness. Not I.
    I am focusing on their actions which suggests they stashed the gun that was seen.
    The witnesses see activity that suggested they were "looking" for something or trying to stash something inside the vehicle, goes directly to the suggestion that they were trying to find the gun to get rid of it. What is it you do not understand about that circumstantial evidence?



    Do you not understand you are making things up in your head as an excuse?
    The witnesses did not have eyes on them the entire time.



    No, that is you who are being ridiculous and dishonest (by ignoring what was said on cross) and intellectually dishonest (by making things up in your head as to how your think things happened. And then calling that logical reasoning... D'oh! iLOL Especially as it is nothing of the sort.).


    Wrong! You are and were the one shredded by your failure to understand. That much is clearly evident.

    Your reading, as well as understanding, is flawed, as it is circumstantial evidence.

    Tell you what. Write the Judge and explain your lack of understanding regarding "circumstantial evidence" to him, and then ask why he allowed the defense to present and argue it as such to the jury when you believe it isn't.


    Wrong.
    He has been adamant from the get.


    Failed logic and dishonesty.
    He said he did tell her.
    Her not remembering does not mean he didn't.
    It does not mean she perjured herself.
    You again have clearly shown you do not know what you argue.


    You are making no sense in regards to the argument.
    They didn't have to.
    The circumstantial evidence suggests it existed.


    There is that failed logic again.
    You know no such thing.


    There is that failed logic and dishonesty again.
    It is circumstantial evidence.
    Direct evidence would be the testimony of a witness at the crime scene of a crime in progress who directly witnessed one of the boys in the Durango pointing the barrel of shotgun through the window which directly supports Dunn's claim of such.


    Circumstantial Evidence, however, is any evidence that is not direct. Whatever happened after the fact and in a different location as witnessed by any witnesses at that location will not be a direct evidence in terms of supporting defendant's claim of a shotgun pointing at him that caused him fear for his life. Therefore, evidence of a gun, IF there was such, at that different location does not necessary prove that Davis was in possession of that gun and used it to point at Dunn. The defense, however, could certainly use that to indirectly "imply" he did, but that would be circumstantial evidence, not direct.


    The two witnesses at the adjacent parking lot who saw the Durango "sculling" towards them (that's how one of the two witnesses described), witnessed only what transpired after the fact of the shooting at a different location and therefore they did not witness what transpired when the crime was in progress in the other location where the shooting occurred.

    Throughout all that she testified she did not see anything or weapon in or around their persons and she also did not see them removed or threw away anything from the vehicle. She testified she knows what a shotgun looked like and didn't see one. Likewise her brother also testified he knows what a shotgun looked like and didn't see any. She also testified that the two men did not leave the immediate area of their vehicle. She guesstimate that they were probably out of their vehicle for about a minute and then got back in and reversed their vehicle back to the Gate gas station.


    As reported by The Attorney Depot:


    But LeBlanc, who was backed up by her brother, Christopher LeBlanc, testified she saw Stornes and Thompson the whole time they were in the parking lot, and they never took a weapon out of the car. "I never saw anything taken out of that car," she said.


    The only witness, who was right there at the Gate gas station and had just walked out of the convenient store, had a direct view towards the back window of the Durango. He did not claim to see any weapon let alone a shotgun. He testified that just before the shooting he heard Dunn said, "You are not going to talk to me like that."

    That's evidence of his pride being at risk of being hurt and not his life at risk of fatal harm. Now, that's the direct evidence for you.


    But, all these argument about direct vs circumstantial evidence are just pointless because we know very well that the two witnesses who witnessed the Durango speeding towards them testified in court that they did not see any thing, let alone a shotgun, stashed in or removed from the Durango or threw out when the two boys got out of the vehicle. So, how does that even constitute any evidence at all that there was a gun in the Durango?


    In fact, the two witnesses actually provided evidence to support prosecution's contention that the men did not stash anything into the SUV or ditch anything whatsoever from the vehicle, let alone a weapon or shotgun, that night. And the court testimonies of the brother-sister witnesses are evidence for the prosecution whereas your brutish claim that there exists a gun is just purely forced bs bogus concoction devoid of any support from court evidence whatsoever but in fact your baseless claim was in direct contradiction to what had been testified to in court.


    Now, let me asked you once again, where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere?


    Yes, you have to answer that if you want to use their testimonies to claim that there was a gun that was stashed in or ditched out of the Durango. Now, answer that!

  9. #319
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    And again you have done a lot of typing to say absolutely nothing of worth.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Direct evidence would be ...
    You have no point here.
    It is, and was, as I stated.

    You are in over your head here.
    Had anyone seen them with an actual firearm, that would be direct evidence that a gun existed. Duh!


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    The only witness, who was right there at the Gate gas station and had just walked out of the convenient store, had a direct view towards the back window of the Durango. He did not claim to see any weapon let alone a shotgun. He testified that just before the shooting he heard Dunn said, "You are not going to talk to me like that."

    That's evidence of his pride being at risk of being hurt and not his life at risk of fatal harm. Now, that's the direct evidence for you.
    Something no one said is now somehow direct evidnce to you.
    iLOL
    Although this was already dispelled on this forum, here you are spouting the same nonsense and clearly showing you do not know the evidence ... again.

    That means you are being dishonest and just winging it, as you obviously do not really know the evidence. That is pretty sad.

    And not only that, but you have dishonestly argued what was testified to by the brother and sister. It is more than clear that they did not have eyes on them the entire time or see everything that happened.
    Yet here you are dishonestly arguing that they had.
    That isn't just sad, but pathetic as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Now, let me asked you once again, where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere?

    Yes, you have to answer that if you want to use their testimonies to claim that there was a gun that was stashed in or ditched out of the Durango. Now, answer that!
    As you were already told, I need not provide any such thing, especially as no such claim was made.

    They saw them get out, doing something.
    They did not have eyes on them the entire time to say they didn't get rid of something.
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  10. #320
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: Dunn convicted of attempted murder; hung jury on murder in 'loud-music' trial

    Quote Originally Posted by dolphinocean View Post
    Circumstantial Evidence, however, is any evidence that is not direct. Whatever happened after the fact and in a different location as witnessed by any witnesses at that location will not be a direct evidence in terms of supporting defendant's claim of a shotgun pointing at him that caused him fear for his life. Therefore, evidence of a gun, IF there was such, at that different location does not necessary prove that Davis was in possession of that gun and used it to point at Dunn. The defense, however, could certainly use that to indirectly "imply" he did, but that would be circumstantial evidence, not direct.
    This crap above is you not paying attention to what was said.
    Pay attention!

    "Had anyone seen them with an actual firearm, that would be direct evidence that a gun existed. Duh!"
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

Page 32 of 36 FirstFirst ... 223031323334 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •