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

Excon said:

This is nothing more than you making things up that you want to be true.
Unlike her dishonest bother, she honestly testified that she could not see what was happening on the other side of the vehicle. End of argument.


Obviously you do not know what her not being able to see what was happening on the other side of the vehicle means.


Wrong. He stated where he was. At the end of her vehicle.
He had no angle to see anything.
And as he testified to, he was moving from one side of the vehicle to the other. He had no angle to see on the other side of the Durango.
His eyes were not on the vehicle the whole time, and as such, he can not testify to any absolute.
His angle of view did not allow him to see what was happening on the other side of the Durango, and as such, he can not testify to any absolute.
Do you really not understand these things?


This is you ignoring what has been said, or not understanding it.

So again.
The testimony/evidence is that a gun was seen.
Davis's friends actions after the fact is the circumstantial evidence suggesting that there was a gun.

Or as previously said, several times now;

​

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?
Huh?
Like I said, you are in way over your head.


:naughty
What is pathetic is claiming I said something I didn't say, and then asking me to prove that which I didn't assert.
That is dishonesty as well.

Click to expand...

Excon said:

Wrong.
The example was that of circumstantial evidence to the shooting. Not to the existence of a gun.
And the existence of the gun was already established in the example.

The actual example.

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.​

As you have already been told, that is circumstantial evidence to Tom shooting Ann. That is all. Duh!
It is also direct evidence that he had a gun, as in, the gun existed. Double D'oh!

Not understanding that, is called being in over your head.





Which part of above underlined don't you understand?


So right back to what previously stated.

​

Click to expand...

Excon said:

This is you again making things up to suite your false narrative.
Everybody testified that the Durango drove straight in and stopped, and then after a while backed straight out.
Not that it drove straight in, turned a little and then stopped, only to then after a while straightened out to back straight out. D'oh!


Christopher Leblanc stated clearly that "it stopped straight right in the middle".
Do you understand that?
That is what he stated. It stopped straight.


Think. He doesn't have x-ray vision. The body of the vehicle and the open doors blocked his view of what was going on on the [passengers side. Duh!
His saying he could see both sides of the vehicle is bs. There were blind spots because of his angle to the vehicle. (as shown)

He stated that he ended up at the rear of his sisters vehicle. Not out in the middle of the lanes of traffic.
That puts him at an angle where he was not able to see what was going on on the other side.
Just as it did fort his sister.


This is your inability and wrongness that you speak to.
You have been wrong at every turn and just trying to make excuses and move the goal posts to try and justify your absurd beliefs.
This latest (the vehicle was at an angle allowing him to .... blah, blah, blah), is just another great example of the contortions you will go through to try and baffle folks with bs, especially when the evidence says otherwise.



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.
That is you doing that, not me.
I am just refuting your ridiculous claims.


See. More nonsense. This is nothing more than you making something up.
Especially as no one could see what was going on, as established by testimony and angles, on the passengers side.


And again. This is you not paying attention to what was said.

So again. Pay attention this time.
The actions of Davis's friends (from their lies to their suspicious activity) is the circumstantial evidence that suggests that a gun did exist.
This evidence can not be disproved by the Leblanc's inability to see anything.


That is nothing other than you not understanding what you read.


iLOL
:doh
I am not in any predicament.
:lamo
You are with your false assertion.

Click to expand...

Capster78 said:

This is what happens when guns are as available as they are and prevailent in our society. There are a lot of dummies out there, and some of those dummies have really bad tempers and little self control. Mix that with their ability to purchase a firearm, and its no wonder the US is at the top when it comes to firearm deaths. It's not brain science!

Click to expand...

• Statistical publications | Home Office

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:
Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

Click to expand...

EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

<snip>
Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.

<snip>

Click to expand...

• Australia: More Violent Crime Despite Gun Ban
• More children die from accidental drowning’s or burns than from gun accidents.
• Two Little Square Black Dogs: I do not have a gun... I am not a murderer
• UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph[/B]
• The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
• England's Homicide Rate
• England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study