Notice how he is still trying to take those WHO ACTUALLY SAW ALL THE EVIDENCE aka: the jury out of the picture. Like somehow it makes his whaaaa whaaaa argument any more credible. Just let it go. Best way to deal with arguments that are based on "I'm right because I say so!"
You not understanding that an appeal to their decision is a logical fallacy suits you just fine.
Wrong.No one is appealing anything. They had all the facts and you don't. End of story.
Thanks have a nice day!
Wrong.
We had what they heard and saw.
We watched it all as it was broadcast the first time. That evidence hasn't changed.
The only difference is that we had more time to review and evaluate it.
Dunn was reacting to a threat.
Hasn't this been over for weeks now? What are you all still talking about?
And again it matters not to a discussion of the evidence.And the majority of people agree with the decision based on the evidence and their decision to convict. He was convicted not one once, but two twice. The only real question that is even the slightest bit iffy is the premeditation. Of course even the police thought is was premeditated. So what you think or your opinion is flawed. You assume incorrectly everything he said was the truth, he was shown to be a liar, end of story.
So keep the blinders on and have a good one!
Notice how he is still trying to take those WHO ACTUALLY SAW ALL THE EVIDENCE aka: the jury out of the picture. Like somehow it makes his whaaaa whaaaa argument any more credible. Just let it go. Best way to deal with arguments that are based on "I'm right because I say so!"
I don't plan to post anything more on the case, as there isn't much more to add. The vital facts, all widely reported, support the verdict. Based on the linked news stories, the claim of self-defense was unsustainable and lacked credibility. Therefore, the verdict was proper and the sentence well-deserved given the gravity of what took place.
Claims to the contrary are little more than articles of faith, as they are disconnected from the full body of evidence that came before the jury (actually two juries) and the juries' methodical work to reach conclusions as to what happened. I'm a lot more comfortable accepting the juries' evidence-based conclusions from what I've read (noting that the jury had far more complete information), with some links provided, than alternative narratives that lie outside of the body of available evidence.
I don't plan to post anything more on the case, as there isn't much more to add. The vital facts, all widely reported, support the verdict. Based on the linked news stories, the claim of self-defense was unsustainable and lacked credibility. Therefore, the verdict was proper and the sentence well-deserved given the gravity of what took place.
Claims to the contrary are little more than articles of faith, as they are disconnected from the full body of evidence that came before the jury (actually two juries) and the juries' methodical work to reach conclusions as to what happened. I'm a lot more comfortable accepting the juries' evidence-based conclusions from what I've read (noting that the jury had far more complete information), with some links provided, than alternative narratives that lie outside of the body of available evidence.
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?