Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 118
  1. #51
    A neverending cycle Trainwreck2100's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    40,646
    yes thats true. but its much more difficult to brush aside 12 witnesses than it would be to brush aside 1

    12 witnesses saying the same thing would typically be more credible than 1 witness saying something

    its applicable here because we have multiple neighbors who say the cops didnt announce themselves (or at least not loud enough for them to have heard it), and 1 who said they did
    I don't know why he keeps harping on that either, if there was evidence that they announced themselves Walker is in jail and Taylor's family doesn't get anything. The juries decision most likely didn't come down to that because as I've said previously they were executing a warrant, I believe that's why they did not press charges for murder.

  2. #52
    A neverending cycle Trainwreck2100's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    40,646
    one stable, one in surgery

  3. #53
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Yeah that makes no sense how you came to that conclusion, my scenario is just as plausible as yours
    No, you cannot prove you were at home just because you said you were at home, that's circular reasoning. If someone told police they saw you at HEB, you'd be questioned and you'd need to provide an alibi. People get arrested all the time on false witness testimony.

    If one person can put you at the scene of the crime, that one person is all that is needed to put you at the scene of the crime IF THE JURY FINDS THEM CREDIBLE.

    If 30 people put you at the scene of the crime and the jury finds that all 30 of them were lying or mistaken "are these magic grits?" then number of times they saw more witnesses means nothing. It's all about credibility.

  4. #54
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    one stable, one in surgery
    Seems like the BLM folks need to get with some mass shooters to learn accuracy.

  5. #55
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    yes thats true. but its much more difficult to brush aside 12 witnesses than it would be to brush aside 1

    12 witnesses saying the same thing would typically be more credible than 1 witness saying something

    its applicable here because we have multiple neighbors who say the cops didnt announce themselves (or at least not loud enough for them to have heard it), and 1 who said they did
    That's a red herring. You gave the caveat, not me.

    You only need 1 credible witness to hear something to prove it was said. If it wasn't said it couldn't have been heard. Not the same with eye witnesses who think they saw something (without vivid recollection... he pulled up in a green Pontiac Tempest, he and a friend robbed the Sac-o-Suds...)

  6. #56
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    That's a red herring. You gave the caveat, not me.
    its not a red herring. we have multiple neighbors saying one thing and one neighbor saying another thing

  7. #57
    Alleged Michigander ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    144,590
    Seems like the BLM folks need to get with some mass shooters to learn accuracy.
    Is that humor?

  8. #58
    A neverending cycle Trainwreck2100's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    40,646
    No, you cannot prove you were at home just because you said you were at home, that's circular reasoning. If someone told police they saw you at HEB, you'd be questioned and you'd need to provide an alibi. People get arrested all the time on false witness testimony.

    If one person can put you at the scene of the crime, that one person is all that is needed to put you at the scene of the crime IF THE JURY FINDS THEM CREDIBLE.

    If 30 people put you at the scene of the crime and the jury finds that all 30 of them were lying or mistaken "are these magic grits?" then number of times they saw more witnesses means nothing. It's all about credibility.
    I'm saying I was at home. And the witness is mistaken. I can't provide an alibi I'm at home alone. The witness i wrong i go to jail. Hence "the appearance of evidence does not mean confirmation". A sentence you appear to disagree with.

  9. #59
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    its not a red herring. we have multiple neighbors saying one thing and one neighbor saying another thing
    They are saying they cannot corroborate it was said. They are not corroborating the claim that it wasn't said. One person who heard it corroborates it was said. Not seeing something doesn't make you a witness.

  10. #60
    Take the fcking keys away baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    93,154
    Two cops shot already.
    It is what it is

  11. #61
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    I'm saying I was at home. And the witness is mistaken. I can't provide an alibi I'm at home alone. The witness i wrong i go to jail. Hence "the appearance of evidence does not mean confirmation". A sentence you appear to disagree with.
    Proof for something isn't the same as proof against it. You need proof you were at home, or your attorney needs to show the witness is mistaken or lying. You cannot magically insert remote viewer evidence "I was at home" here. The court only sees your claim "I was at home" vs the eye witness claim "he was at HEB at the time of the murder". Truth doesn't matter (see what I did there?)

    In your example the witness isn't accusing you of anything, they are not the plaintiff.

  12. #62
    A neverending cycle Trainwreck2100's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    40,646
    Proof for something isn't the same as proof against it. You need proof you were at home, or your attorney needs to show the witness is mistaken or lying. You cannot magically insert remote viewer evidence "I was at home" here. The court only sees your claim "I was at home" vs the eye witness claim "he was at HEB at the time of the murder". Truth doesn't matter (see what I did there?)
    Proof of me being at home is proof against me being with victim

  13. #63
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Proof of me being at home is proof against me being with victim
    You said you have no proof you were at home.

  14. #64
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    They are saying they cannot corroborate it was said. They are not corroborating the claim that it wasn't said. One person who heard it corroborates it was said. Not seeing something doesn't make you a witness.
    yes thats true. but its much more difficult to brush aside 12 witnesses than it would be to brush aside 1

    12 witnesses saying the same thing would typically be more credible than 1 witness saying something

    its applicable here because we have multiple neighbors who say the cops didnt announce themselves (or at least not loud enough for them to have heard it), and 1 who said they did

  15. #65
    A neverending cycle Trainwreck2100's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    40,646
    You said you have no proof you were at home.
    you said "proof for isn't the same as proof against"

    I said "proof for is the same as proof against". Because evidence is evidence and there are no qualifiers for what you are trying to prove. The appearance of evidence does not magically absolve you of sin, and it does not condemn you either.

  16. #66
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    they werent wearing body cams

    plain clothes narcotics officers, from what i understand

    i believe 1 neighbor said he they announced, a bunch said they heard nothing
    This was your original statement. The subsequent statements are after my response "it only takes 1". You offered caveats and I allowed the same caveats for all witnesses because those are accepted caveats always.

    If you had 12 people who heard it and one who did not, it still wasn't loud enough for all people to hear it. You said the claim was they announced. You didn't say the claim was they announced loud enough for everyone in the building to hear.

    If even 1 person heard them announce, that's corroborating evidence they announced.

    "You better hope no one saw you" vs "you better hope 12 people didn't see you"

    Do you think cops ever consider whether or not their announcements are loud enough for everyone in the building to hear when they door kick a neighborhood or apt door? They announce because they are required to, by law.

  17. #67
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    This was your original statement. The subsequent statements are after my response "it only takes 1". You offered caveats and I allowed the same caveats for all witnesses because those are accepted caveats always.

    If you had 12 people who heard it and one who did not, it still wasn't loud enough for all people to hear it. You said the claim was they announced. You didn't say the claim was they announced loud enough for everyone in the building to hear.
    strawman

    obviously if the neighbors who said they didnt hear anything were located hundreds of feet away or substantially farther than the 1 who claims he did hear something, that would be factored into the calculus

  18. #68
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    If even 1 person heard them announce, that's corroborating evidence they announced.

    "You better hope no one saw you" vs "you better hope 12 people didn't see you"

    Do you think cops ever consider whether or not their announcements are loud enough for everyone in the building to hear when they door kick a neighborhood or apt door? They announce because they are required to, by law.
    a lesser person would say something like "I'm not revisiting your edits. Slow your F5 spamming and think about what you want to say before rapid fire posting."

    one person saying it would be corroborating evidence. but it may or may not be sufficient evidence for a jury to be convinced. if several other neighbors who were equally distant or possibly even closer said they heard nothing of the sort before gunshots, they jury would have to decide if one side is full of , or perhaps if the other neighbors are harder of hearing, or if the one neighbor is just wanting to be pro police, etc etc

    evidence =/= proof

  19. #69
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    you said "proof for isn't the same as proof against"

    I said "proof for is the same as proof against". Because evidence is evidence and there are no qualifiers for what you are trying to prove. The appearance of evidence does not magically absolve you of sin, and it does not condemn you either.
    If someone can reproduce a statement as evidence it was heard by them, that's evidence the statement was said. It's not proof, because the statement could be a generic statement all departments use.

    In your example you used two different somethings. You cannot provide proof you were at home and proof you were not at home using the same evidence. So proof for something is the same as proof against something. Proof you weren't at home would be camera footage with at time stamp AND your lack of evidence to support your alibi that you were at home. So if someone you don't even know proves you were at the scene of the crime (proof for you being suspect), and you have proof that you were at home (proof against you being suspect), then we are in two different universes or someone is wrong/lying. Only one of you can have proof. Sure, proof of anything means proof of other things or proof against other things. Higgs boson, for example.. doesn't exist. One found provides proof against the negative claim of non-existence. Two different claims, existence vs non-existence. They are not necessarily contingent upon one another.

  20. #70
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    a lesser person would say something like "I'm not revisiting your edits. Slow your F5 spamming and think about what you want to say before rapid fire posting."

    one person saying it would be corroborating evidence. but it may or may not be sufficient evidence for a jury to be convinced. if several other neighbors who were equally distant or possibly even closer said they heard nothing of the sort before gunshots, they jury would have to decide if one side is full of , or perhaps if the other neighbors are harder of hearing, or if the one neighbor is just wanting to be pro police, etc etc

    evidence =/= proof
    That's what I said.

  21. #71
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    strawman

    obviously if the neighbors who said they didnt hear anything were located hundreds of feet away or substantially farther than the 1 who claims he did hear something, that would be factored into the calculus
    Now you're getting into subjective conditions. If the one who said they did hear it was further away, that would put the testimony of that 1 in doubt. But if that 1 was the closest, then it stands to reason that they would be the one to hear it. Unless there are standards for distance witnesses need to be to have heard it, else it wasn't said... but you never know.

  22. #72
    A neverending cycle Trainwreck2100's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    40,646
    Proof for something isn't the same as proof against it. You need proof you were at home, or your attorney needs to show the witness is mistaken or lying. You cannot magically insert remote viewer evidence "I was at home" here. The court only sees your claim "I was at home" vs the eye witness claim "he was at HEB at the time of the murder". Truth doesn't matter (see what I did there?)

    In your example the witness isn't accusing you of anything, they are not the plaintiff.

    If someone can reproduce a statement as evidence it was heard by them, that's evidence the statement was said. It's not proof, because the statement could be a generic statement all departments use.

    In your example you used two different somethings. You cannot provide proof you were at home and proof you were not at home using the same evidence. So proof for something is the same as proof against something. Proof you weren't at home would be camera footage with at time stamp AND your lack of evidence to support your alibi that you were at home. So if someone you don't even know proves you were at the scene of the crime (proof for you being suspect), and you have proof that you were at home (proof against you being suspect), then we are in two different universes or someone is wrong/lying. Only one of you can have proof. Sure, proof of anything means proof of other things or proof against other things. Higgs boson, for example.. doesn't exist. One found provides proof against the negative claim of non-existence. Two different claims, existence vs non-existence. They are not necessarily contingent upon one another.
    It would appear that
    You are clueless about burden of proof.

    The prosecution rests

  23. #73
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    That's what I said.
    yes. because i was agreeing with you, in part.

  24. #74
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,013
    Now you're getting into subjective conditions. If the one who said they did hear it was further away, that would put the testimony of that 1 in doubt. But if that 1 was the closest, then it stands to reason that they would be the one to hear it. Unless there are standards for distance witnesses need to be to have heard it, else it wasn't said... but you never know.
    you introduced the "farther away" element by suggesting everyone in the building had to hear it

  25. #75
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,143
    Re following me around trying to salve his injured ego. You hate to see it.
    Wow.

    this is exactly what you do to me.
    good catch.

    wiggle and squirm, try to extricate yourself from your self burial
    You hate/love to see it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

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