What thread am I on?Figures.
Still with the dishonesty and going in circles with crap that has already been dispelled.
Facts are not insults. Stop trying to confuse the two.
You have been dishonest.
You have ignored the actual evidence.
You have engaged in irrational thought.
You have engaged in logical fallacies.
You have avoided addressing the actual evidence.
And have repeatedly shown you are ignorant of the actual evidence.
All the while failing to recognize that the logical fallacy you rely on, is a logical fallacy, and is irrelevant to a discussion of the actual evidence.
Such behavior illustrates the remarkably shallow nature of your position.
Your arguments are entirely the result of an absence of concrete substance and appropriate legal principles to rebut what the evidence actually supports, all in an effort to support your illogical emotional personal preferences.
Dunn's account is the only account supported by the evidence, as you have been shown, yet continually avoid addressing.
Already dispelled by the actual circumstances around the event.
The evidence allows for Davis to have been armed.
That is your failure in not recognizing that.
The evidence also allows for Dunn to have incorrectly identified a phone as a gun, which we all know police officers are cleared all the time for such errors. Even though they had not been verbally threatened as Dunn was.
Her, an emotional disturbed person, not remembering what she was told after a traumatic experience in no way means he did not tell her.
It is ridiculously absurd and unrealistic to hold to any other position.
Again, this is your failure to know the actual evidence even though you have already been informed of it.
That is called being dishonest.
That fact that you have already been informed yet still cling to a failed argument speaks clearly, not only to your dishonesty, but to the shallow nature of your claims and your need to cling to your illogical emotional personal preferences.
Already dispelled, and again showing a desire to cling to your illogical emotional personal preferences.
He was not required to do so.
Rational and reasonable people all act differently, especially after traumatic experiences. There is no set way a person does, or must act. Reasonable people understand that.
Unreasonable and cynical people who want to find guilt assume it means something nefarious.
You are the only one engaging in such behavior.
You have already been proven wrong, as three jurors from the first trial wanted to acquit him, as well as a significant minority that believes his account.
All it really boils down to was the capability of the Lawyer to frame and make the arguments.
Wrong. Your argument, as well on reliance on irrelevant reports was dispelled in the reply.
What a laugh.
You again are just showing your ignorance of the evidence.
She was discredited during the trial, by the not having been given all the evidence to draw her conclusions from, to the rebuttal by an actual expert, which she clearly was not.
Said the person ignoring the actual evidence.
Your claim is pathetic given that the actual evidence actually dispels your claim and clearly puts it in the category of false.
Opinions and reports of the actual evidence is not the actual evidence or a substitute for it.
Any lack of understanding, as previously shown, is on your end.
And we already know that three jurors wanted to acquit him from the first trial. Which just shows your position is again wrong.
Which is what you have repeatedly shown you are doing.
You are absurdly relying on an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.
Have repeatedly shown you are ignorant of the evidence, and have relied on reports and opinion which are not the actual evidence.
Another failed and dispelled argument.
It was shown during trial that he was not seated.
Already dispelled, as it did not and could not cease to exist within the circumstances until the threat was far enough away to make any return fire from the threat ineffective.
Which is the only way such a moving threat could become a non-threat.
This just shows that you, as well as the juror, failed to recognize reality and exemplifies one reason why Juries get things wrong all the time.
And opened fire on the threat which was Davis.
Given the evidence, you are again speaking nonsense.
More illogical reliance on a logical fallacy.
The Judges remarks mean absolutely nothing to this discussion. Had he been found not guilty the Judges remarks would have fit that verdict as well.