'No-knock' searches plus stand-your-ground laws: A deadly combo for civilians and police

[ChumpDumper]

non sequitur. It only takes one person to acknowledge they heard it, since the cops weren't yelling for the neighbors to hear. If it was heard, it had to have been said. Everyone in HEB doesn't need to remember you being there, one cashier will suffice.

HEB has cameras.

Strange the cops don't since cameras can only help them.

[spurraider21]

Same with 12 witnesses if they all lived together.

huh?

if 12 different people living together all heard it, it would be much stronger evidence than 1 person hearing it

[DMC]

this is true, apparently they changed it to respond to this.

That's it, don't let your rational mind be ass ed by impulse. You got this.

[DMC]

huh?

if 12 different people living together all heard it, it would be much stronger evidence than 1 person hearing it

Not if the jury didn't believe them

[spurraider21]

Not if the jury didn't believe them

would be much more difficult for a jury to look past 12 witnesses than 1

[DMC]

would be much more difficult for a jury to look past 12 witnesses than 1

Completely irrelevant to my statement and yours. You said if the jury found one credible. I said same with 12.

[spurraider21]

Completely irrelevant to my statement and yours. You said if the jury found one credible. I said same with 12.

you're not making any sense

the odds of a jury not finding 1 witness credible is not that extreme

the odds of a jury finding 12 separate witnesses saying the same thing as non-credible would be pretty extreme

[Trainwreck2100]

non sequitur. It only takes one person to acknowledge they heard it, since the cops weren't yelling for the neighbors to hear. If it was heard, it had to have been said. Everyone in HEB doesn't need to remember you being there, one cashier will suffice.

Only one person said trump sexually assaulted them, it must be true because by your own definition all we need it one person to be a witness

[DMC]

you're not making any sense

the odds of a jury not finding 1 witness credible is not that extreme

the odds of a jury finding 12 separate witnesses saying the same thing as non-credible would be pretty extreme

No one mentioned the odds. You keep moving the goalposts.

You gave a caveat for 1. I applied it to all. It exists for all, regardless of the odds, since people don't testify in groups, but individually.

[DMC]

Only one person said trump sexually assaulted them, it must be true because by your own definition all we need it one person to be a witness

If someone in the building heard the cops say they were entering, without being coached to say it, then there is evidence that the cops announced their presence. Whataboutism deflected successfully.

[Trainwreck2100]

Completely irrelevant to my statement and yours. You said if the jury found one credible. I said same with 12.

Oh i see, it appears you think the grand jury took a neighbors word into account when they found the cops not guilty rather than the other 12. The cops were found not guilty because the cops had a warrant to search the premises, hence why I said they murdered her, but didn't break the law. The same reason Walker gets away with shooting a cop, he shot a cop but didn't break the law. The same reason that cop was fired, he broke the law.

thinking the grand jury's decision came down to some ESL witness.

[pgardn]

Stop DMC.

There is still some time to save your...
Never mind.

continue.

Man I hate reruns, seen this slaughter before.

[spurraider21]

No one mentioned the odds. You keep moving the goalposts.

You gave a caveat for 1. I applied it to all. It exists for all, regardless of the odds, since people don't testify in groups, but individually.

i didnt use the term odds but i said 12 witnesses would be stronger than 1, to which you said "Not if the jury didnt believe them"

when i said 12 witnesses would be stronger than 1, the obvious implication is that it would be more difficult for a jury to overlook that amount of evidence than it would for them to overlook 1

[DMC]

Only takes 1

could be. normally would depend on how much credibility the jury assigns to that one witness. but without charges, we may never know

Same with 12 witnesses if they all lived together. It depends on how it was asked. "did you hear anything the night of"... "yes"... "what did you hear".... "open up, police"...

Instead of "did you hear 'open up, police?" ... "yes".

Oh i see, it appears you think the grand jury took a neighbors word into account when they found the cops not guilty rather than the other 12. The cops were found not guilty because the cops had a warrant to search the premises, hence why I said they murdered her, but didn't break the law. The same reason Walker gets away with shooting a cop, he shot a cop but didn't break the law. The same reason that cop was fired, he broke the law.

thinking the grand jury's decision came down to some ESL witness.

Obviously you don't see.

"Trainwreck claims to have been at HEB when the murder took place, did anyone see him there?"

"Just the cashier, but we asked 12 other people who worked there and no one else saw him"

The cashier is a valid witness and your alibi would be solid unless it was discovered the cashier was in on it.

Lack of evidence against doesn't equal evidence for.

[DMC]

you're not making any sense

the odds of a jury not finding 1 witness credible is not that extreme

the odds of a jury finding 12 separate witnesses saying the same thing as non-credible would be pretty extreme

i didnt use the term odds but i said 12 witnesses would be stronger than 1, to which you said "Not if the jury didnt believe them"

when i said 12 witnesses would be stronger than 1, the obvious implication is that it would be more difficult for a jury to overlook that amount of evidence than it would for them to overlook 1

You're mixing up to suit your cause.

Just quote, it's much easier, unless you prefer to paraphrase to defend your position with inaccurate recollection.

[DMC]

Stop DMC.

There is still some time to save your...
Never mind.

continue.

Man I hate reruns, seen this slaughter before.

Re following me around trying to salve his injured ego. You hate to see it.

[Trainwreck2100]

Obviously you don't see.

"Trainwreck claims to have been at HEB when the murder took place, did anyone see him there?"

"Just the cashier, but we asked 12 other people who worked there and no one else saw him"

The cashier is a valid witness and your alibi would be solid unless it was discovered the cashier was in on it.

Lack of evidence against doesn't equal evidence for.

Trainwreck claimed to be at home
"That one heb cashier said she saw him at HEB down the road from the victim even though 12 other people didn't"

Appearance of evidence does not equal confimation (trainwreck was at home)

[DarrinS]

Two cops shot already.

[spurraider21]

You're mixing up to suit your cause.

Just quote, it's much easier, unless you prefer to paraphrase to defend your position with inaccurate recollection.

for s sake i think you're just being intentionally obtuse.

No one mentioned the odds. You keep moving the goalposts.

You gave a caveat for 1. I applied it to all. It exists for all, regardless of the odds, since people don't testify in groups, but individually.

when you said "no one mentioned the odds" i went on to acknowledge that while i had not previously used the word "odds" it had implied in my previous post

[DMC]

Trainwreck claimed to be at home
"That one heb cashier said she saw him at HEB down the road from the victim even though 12 other people didn't"

Appearance of evidence does not equal confimation (trainwreck was at home)

You are clueless about burden of proof.

[DMC]

for s sake i think you're just being intentionally obtuse.

when you said "no one mentioned the odds" i went on to acknowledge that while i had not previously used the word "odds" it was implied in my previous post

Is it true or not true that whether or not any witness testimony is useful depends on whether or not the jury finds them credible?

This has absolutely nothing to do with how credible or the odds of finding them credible. Basically you offered a throwaway line - only if the jury finds them credible. This is assumed to always be the case.

[DMC]

Two cops shot already.

They deserved it

[spurraider21]

Is it true or not true that whether or not any witness testimony is useful depends on whether or not the jury finds them credible?

This has absolutely nothing to do with how credible or the odds of finding them credible. Basically you offered a throwaway line - only if the jury finds them credible. This is assumed to always be the case.

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

[Trainwreck2100]

You are clueless about burden of proof.

Yeah that makes no sense how you came to that conclusion, my scenario is just as plausible as yours

[spurraider21]

Two cops shot already.

no good