- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'm still slack-jawed over the fact that they found the guy guilty of three counts of attempted murder on the guys he didn't manage to kill, but couldn't agree on a murder conviction on the guy he did manage to kill. WTF is up with that?? I can't imagine what the parents of that poor dead teenager must be going through right now, knowing that their son has still not received justice.
****ing Florida juries are all nutjobs.
Dunn testified that he saw Davis with a gun.Had anyone seen them with an actual%
:naughtyAll the nonsense and dishonesty are coming directly from you, so please spare me your false sense of indignation.
Irrelevant.The brother and sister did not both turn away their attention at the same time. Both of them had their attention on the Durango most of the time from the time the Durango sped towards their direction to the time two men got out of the vehicle and then getting back in while they stood there watching because they were afraid that night after hearing gun shots and weren't sure what was going on.
Irrelevant. The angles show he is not being truthful.At one point the sister opened her purse and looked down for a split second to get her car keys while the brother was still watching at the other end. The brother only put the toddler into the car seat just before the Durngo back away in reverse course towards the gas station. That part he did not see when the Durango starting to back away but as he testified, he had been putting the toddler into the car seat for so many times that it didn't take him but a few second and was still able to look up through the back window of the car.
To recap, you have no case.So, to recap, both did see the main part where the Durango came towards them, two got out of the vehicle inspecting car, one with cell phone talking and going to the hatchback to check inside. Nothing was witnessed by the two witnesses during those crucial moment before they back away with their Durango. And certainly no gun or shot gun was seen in their possession, stashed into the Durango or ditched somewhere in the parking lot, for the two never left the location where the Durango was stopped.
So, really, you have no case.
You have a real problem in understanding what has been said.Why do you have to resort to lying, Excon?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.
You certainly did make a strong suggestion that a gun did exist many times. The last one you made was just two posts away from your current one in post #317. Let me quote you:
"It is all circumstantial evidence suggesting the gun did exist."
So, please don't try to run away and answer me the question: 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 suggest "the gun did exist" and/or to claim that there was a gun that was stashed in or ditched out of the Durango. Now, answer that!!!
PLEASE ANSWER THE DAMN SIMPLE QUESTION, EXCON!!!
Really?Well, my previous quote from the legal definition of Direct vs Indirect (Circumstantial evidence gave the illustrations:
If, however, John testifies that he saw Tom and Ann go into another room and that he heard Tom say to Ann that he was going to shoot her, heard a shot, and saw Tom leave the room with a smoking gun, then John's testimony is circumstantial evidence from which it can be inferred that Tom shot Ann.
You see that, Excon? John saw Tom leaving the room with a smoking gun and yet John's testimony about seeing the smoking gun is just circumstantial evidence. Therefore, same as in Dunn's case, what the brother and sister saw that night at a location 200 yards from the shooting, whether they saw a gun or not, their testimony is simply circumstantial evidence.
But, we know the two witnesses testified that they didn't even see the boys had anything other the a cell phone, so go figure with your imaginary gun.
You have been thoroughly refuted and utterly defeated in your ongoing craps by me with clear logic, reason, legal definition and with fact of witness testimonies. All you have is turning the table and accusing me of your own follies and acting out your false sense of indignation that doesn't even belong.
The only one dishing out crapola and making things up is you.Yes, it has been addressed several times ad nauseam and yet you continue to dish out crapola.
Your crapola will not sink in because it is wrong as crapola is.So, let me repeat one more time maybe hopefully this time it will sink in:
A ridiculous argument that comes directly from you making **** up in your own head.The brother and sister did not both turn away their attention at the same time. Both of them had their attention on the Durango most of the time from the time the Durango sped towards their direction to the time two men got out of the vehicle and then getting back in while they stood there watching because they were afraid that night after hearing gun shots and weren't sure what was going on.
At one point the sister opened her purse and looked down for a split second to get her car keys while the brother was still watching at the other end. The brother only put the toddler into the car seat just before the Durngo back away in reverse course towards the gas station. That part he did not see when the Durango starting to back away but as he testified, he had been putting the toddler into the car seat for so many times that it didn't take him but a few second and was still able to look up through the back window of the car.
And you even want to convince people of a draw of luck, a very convenient co-incidence that one witness just turned away and the other happened not to watch at the right time and at a split moment the boys ditched the shotgun right in front of them from a shot distance and never saw or heard a thing. Not even after the Durango left, nothing, nada of a shot gun on the parking lot. Too convenient it just doesn't wash.
So, to recap, both did see the main part where the Durango came towards them, two got out of the vehicle inspecting car, one with cell phone talking and going to the hatchback to check inside. Nothing was witnessed by the two witnesses during those crucial moment before they back away with their Durango. And certainly no gun or shot gun was seen in their possession, stashed into the Durango or ditched somewhere in the parking lot, for the two never left the location where the Durango was stopped. If they had ditched the shot gun from the Durango, the witnesses would have seen it laying somewhere on the ground. How can one miss seeing a shot gun being tossed out or laying on the ground in the parking lot?
The angle involved says he was being untruthful. Especially with the doors being open.The brother wasn't lying about seeing both sides of the SUV. He was there, you weren't, so stop making stuffs up to falsely accuse people of lying.
Which does not give him a view of the other side of the Durango.The brother testified that he and his sister was not standing together at the same location. When the Durango came towards them he went one way and his sister went the other way taking coverage behind her car by the front passenger door overlooking the Durango. The brother was actually running away and was standing at the other end behind her car. So, where he stood he could see directly at the Durango and therefore at both sides of the SUV doors.
You clearly have no idea what has been argued.But, the whole point of your argument is that the brother would not have been able to see both sides and they couldn't have seen anything because they turned their attention away from the two men is just a self-defeating argument considering that you are relying on their testimonies as your evidence that the boys had a shotgun in the Durango that was ditched or stashed away.
No I do not, because as already shown, I did not make the claim you say I made.Remember, when another poster had asked you for evidence regarding your insistent claim that the boys had gun in their possession, the testimonies of these two witnesses were cited by you as your evidence. So, there you go again, shooting yourself in the foot at every turn while acting like you have conquered the whole wide world.
So, please don't try to run away but answer me the question: 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 suggest "the gun did exist" and/or to claim that there was a gun that was stashed in or ditched out of the Durango. Now, answer that!!!
That's where all thugs and wanna-bes should be in prison.Read more: Michael Dunn guilty on four counts, including attempted murder; mistrial declared on first-degree murder charge* - NY Daily News
Back-up links
Michael Dunn guilty on four counts, including attempted murder; mistrial declared on first-degree murder charge* - NY Daily News
Jury couldn't agree on first-degree murder in Dunn trial
Fla. man guilty of lesser counts in 'loud music' shooting | Fox News
Good riddance to that nut case, that thug will probably die in prison making the streets a safer place.
So, now you're crawling back to Dunn's account to save your soul?Dunn testified that he saw Davis with a gun.
Dunn's account is evidence.
Like I said; You are in over your head here.
:naughty
Get your facts straight, that is all which you have provided.
And still are.
Irrelevant.
She did not see the other side of the vehicle as she honestly stated. And he said he didn't have eyes on them the whole time.
And like her brother, she too was at the rear of the car and saw nothing to the other side of the Durango, because it was impossible to see such from that vantage point.
Irrelevant. The angles show he is not being truthful.
And by his own testimony, he said he did not have eyes on them to entire time.
To recap, you have no case.
She did not, as she could not, see what happened on the passenger side of the Durango.
He did not have eyes on them the entire time, and the angles in question would not have allowed him to see what happened on the passenger side of the Durango either.
You have a real problem in understanding what has been said.
It is either that or you are straight out lying. Which is it?
And no, I do not have to answer to your idiotic assertion.
What I pointed out is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist.
No one else had to see a gun for that to be an accurate statement.
That is your problem for not fully understanding what circumstantial evidence is.
Really?
You are pretending that you are so uneducated that you can not see the distinct difference between these?
Wow! Simply wow!
Well you are wrong, and are the only one who has been "thoroughly refuted and utterly destroyed by the facts.
1. Your quoted scenario is not relevant to this situation at all.
2. It is nothing more, as shown, than circumstantial evidence to Tom doing the shooting.
NOt to the existence of a gun.
But your quoted example is providing direct evidence to the existence of a gun. Duh!
This is just another example of you not knowing what the hell you are talking about, and explains your ridiculously absurd question above.
You simply do not understand.
Apparently the Durango was orientated and angled directly towards the two witnesses. So they should be able to see as much as they claimed to have seen, not to mention that for one of the two men to have ditched the shotgun without walking away from the Durango the shotgun would have just laid there in plain view especially so when the vehicle reversed back towards the gas station.The only one dishing out crapola and making things up is you.
Your crapola will not sink in because it is wrong as crapola is.
Stop spewing it.
A ridiculous argument that comes directly from you making **** up in your own head.
Not even the prosecutor would make such an argument because it can not be shown to be true.
The sister could not even see the other side of the vehicle at all, which she honestly stated. Period.
And even though her brother can clearly be shown to be untruthful by the line of sight he had, he has already stated he did not have his eyes on them the entire time.
So you have absolutely nothing to your argument.
It is nothing but foolishness on your part.
The angle involved says he was being untruthful. Especially with the doors being open.
Which does not give him a view of the other side of the Durango.
Not to mention the fact that he moved towards her car anyways, and had to interact with it, thus taking his eyes off of the Durango. Duh!
Location from her testimony.
He would have had to been up in the blue area the whole time to see what happened on that side of the vehicle. But he wasn't.
So stop with your nonsense.
Location from his testimony.
She honestly indicated that she was not able to see what happened on the other side of the Durngo, and by the angles involved, nether was he.
But beside that, he already stated he did not have eyes on them the entire time, and as we can see by the angles involved he couldn't have regardless if he was on either side of the car or at it's rear.
For him to be able to say such, he would have had to be standing far into the roadway the entire time they were out of the Durango. And he simply wasn't. He was preoccupied with the safty of his son.
So you can just stop with all your nonsense. He didn't have his eyes on them the entire time.
You clearly have no idea what has been argued.
No I do not, because as already shown, I did not make the claim you say I made.
And you have just now shown that you did not understand what was said to another poster as well.
As usual, you are wrong and batting zero.
Moderator's Warning: |
Dunn testified that he saw Davis with a gun.
Dunn's account is evidence.
Like I said; You are in over your head here.
:dohAnd the jury has the ability to decide if they believe him or not.
People can say lots of things. Does not make them true.
Given Dunn's actions after the shooting...a jury would be well within their rights to decide he was less than truthful.
:doh
:lamo
It is like you think you are saying something that no one knows.
As you are the one who has shown they do not fully understand things, you can only be thinking about yourself.Not sure you do......
Wtf are you talking about this time?So, now you're crawling back to Dunn's account to save your soul?
:doh:lamoSo what if you want to claim Dunn's self-serving statement as "evidence".
Davis's friends came off as not believable. I am sure you already know that.The three boys in the Durango claimed no shotgun was in the vehicle and a witness at the shooting scene did not see a shotgun from the Durango pointing at Dunn which was towards the direction of vision of the witness. And then at another location by the loop parking lot two witnesses, brother and sister, testified they didn't see the boys with any weapon.
iLOLSo, six evidence gainst your one, you loose, Excon.
This is nothing more than you making things up that you want to be true.She could see enough to be able to tell if the men was just standing and then walking to the back of their vehicle vs ditching away a shotgun right there on the parking lot.
Obviously you do not know what her not being able to see what was happening on the other side of the vehicle means.She certainly could see that the men did not walk away from the vehicle with a shotgun and then ditched it somewhere else, that much is certain.
Wrong. He stated where he was. At the end of her vehicle.Like I said the brother was standing at different location from her and watched the men got out of the Durango (which was pointed at an angle towards them) until both men got back in.
This is you ignoring what has been said, or not understanding it.You claimed what you have "pointed out is circumstantial evidence suggesting that the gun did exist."
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.
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 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?
So since you were not paying attention previously, just why do you think this evidence was pointed out and allowed to be presented as such during the trial?See your bind there?
:naughtySo, you can't answer my question claiming because no one else had to see a gun for that to be an accurate statement? That's a very pathetic claim.
Wrong.The illustrations from the definition of circumstantial vs direct evidence parallel that of the situation of the witnesses in Dunn's case.
In the illustration John saw Tom leaving the room with a smoking gun and yet John's testimony about seeing the smoking gun is just circumstantial evidence. Therefore, same as in Dunn's case, what the brother and sister saw that night at a location 200 yards from the shooting, whether they saw a gun or not, their testimony is simply circumstantial evidence.
Therefore direct means direct observation of an event by a witness. Circumstantial means evidence gathered together as presumptive or inferential ...
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.
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 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?
This is you again making things up to suite your false narrative.Apparently the Durango was orientated and angled directly towards the two witnesses.
This is your inability and wrongness that you speak to.Why are you being so difficult to admit that you are plain wrong?
Hmmmm? Let's see. You are the one wasting time, spouting nonsense and trying to baffle with bs about something that the Leblanc's can not establish because they both said they did not have their attention on them the entire time.And why are you wasting so much time and energy on these two witnesses whom you claimed could not see what happened on the other side and did not have eyes on the two men the entire time
See. More nonsense. This is nothing more than you making something up.(even though they had during the crucial moment)
And again. This is you not paying attention to what was said.How are their testimonies in any way shape or form support your contention that the two men had the shotgun but was ditched or stashed? Where is your evidence to that?
That is nothing other than you not understanding what you read.Remember, when another poster had asked you for evidence regarding your insistent claim that the boys had gun in their possession, the testimonies of these two witnesses were cited by you as your evidence. So, there you go again, shooting yourself in the foot at every turn while acting like you have conquered the whole wide world.
iLOLSo, please don't try to run away but answer me the question: where in the two witnesses' testimony where they said they saw or thought they saw a "Gun" anywhere? But, never mind, Excon, I know you can't answer that question without putting yourself in a bind. For crying out loud, I just have to put it there to remind you of your predicament.
iLOLIt is only an account of what happened if he is not lying.
His first target was making threats and reaching for something, so that first shot might be justified.I'm still slack-jawed over the fact that they found the guy guilty of three counts of attempted murder on the guys he didn't manage to kill, but couldn't agree on a murder conviction on the guy he did manage to kill. WTF is up with that?? I can't imagine what the parents of that poor dead teenager must be going through right now, knowing that their son has still not received justice.
****ing Florida juries are all nutjobs.
Wtf are you talking about this time?
Dunn's account is the root of what we are speaking about, with the actions of Davis's friends after the shooting being circumstantial evidence that a gun did exist. (Especially in conjunction with their lies.) Which can not be disproved by the bother's or sister's testimony.
Or did you forget all of that?
Nope. Davis' friends are much more honest than Dunn. Dunn perjured himself in many ways in the court under oath.Davis's friends came off as not believable. I am sure you already know that.
Their actions, after the fact, are outright suspicious. The lies about the call, and lies about the child safety locks being on.
You can even say they lied about the window being up and the door not being opened. Physics proves they lied about those things as well.
They had absolutely no reason to lie about those things if they were not covering something up.
And there you go talking about two irrelevant witnesses (the Leblanc's) who did not, and could not see everything, as they themselves testified.
Which of course makes your claims even more absurd.
The absurdity is your and your alone. You are the one offering the two witnesses' testimony as you "circumstantial evidence" to support your claim that the boys had a gun. So, now you're adknowledging that they did not and could not see everything and so they are irrelevant?And there you go talking about two irrelevant witnesses (the Leblanc's) who did not, and could not see everything, as they themselves testified.
Which of course makes your claims even more absurd.
Even so, one truthful female LeBlanc defeats your one perjured defendant on trial for killing another person and shooting at another three boys while they were fleeing for their life.iLOL
That isn't how it works. Duh!
Especially as you only have one obviously truthful person there. The female Leblanc.
His account is of what happened.
It is also the account which the prosecution has to disprove or show wasn't justified. Which we already know she couldn't do.
But if you want to go down the road of self serving statements, then we can point out that Davis's friends who lied, all gave self serving accounts.
That Christopher Leblanc gave a self serving account, just as Shawn Atkins did as well.
His account is of what happened.
It is also the account which the prosecution has to disprove or show wasn't justified. Which we already know she couldn't do.
But if you want to go down the road of self serving statements, then we can point out that Davis's friends who lied, all gave self serving accounts.
That Christopher Leblanc gave a self serving account, just as Shawn Atkins did as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?