Dean Cummings went full-bore crazy

[Danno]

the jury felt the killing was justified under the law, making it legal.

And you know this how? Is that what a not guilty verdict means?

There is really only three defenses to murder (or any form of assault). One is, I didn't do it, someone else did (OJ's defense). Two is, I did it, but it was an accident (Alec Baldwin defense). And three is, I did it, but I did it in self defense. Dean was arguing self defense. He testified he blew that guy's brains away, and he did so intentionally. So the only possible way a jury can come back not guilty is to find that the prosecutor failed to prove that Dean did not act in self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt. That's how I know this.

Oh, I understand. But the way you describe it, you're treating it as if the defense has proven that DC acted in self-defense and that the jury found as much. Which is not how it works. The burden of proof is still on the prosecution, so to the extent he was acquitted, it is because the jury found that the prosecution had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't act in self-defense. Which is not nearly the same thing as "the jury felt the killing was justified".

That's not splitting hairs, that is a super important distinction with a completely different meaning, and it is very misleading to say the jury found that he was justified in his actions.

[teleee]

Oh thank god Altasnob came mansplain to us poor little morons the law, I for one now feel fulfilled.
Danno thanks for being a voice of reason and yes that is a HUGE distinction in how the jury arrived at their verdict.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[altasnob]

Well, all we have from the jury is "not guilty." We don't have any other info from them, and we never will. So Danno and all the Dean haters will go around saying, ya, he got a not guilty. But that doesn't mean what he did was ok. And all the Dean fans will say, how Dean acted was 100% permitted under the law. And neither side can say they are right, and the other is wrong.

In my book, when the jury finds the prosecutor failed to prove that Dean did not act in self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt, I give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and say what he did was ok. Y'all sound like a bunch of prosecutors saying even though he got a not guilty he was still in the wrong.

[Danno]

Well, all we have from the jury is "not guilty." We don't have any other info from them, and we never will. So Danno and all the Dean haters will go around saying, ya, he got a not guilty. But that doesn't mean what he did was ok. And all the Dean fans will say, how Dean acted was 100% permitted under the law. And neither side can say they are right, and the other is wrong.

In my book, when the jury finds the prosecutor failed to prove that Dean did not act in self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt, I give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and say what he did was ok. Y'all sound like a bunch of prosecutors saying even though he got a not guilty he was still in the wrong.

You read way way way too much into things to fit your neat little narrative. I'm not a Dean hater, don't know the man, don't have any feelings for him one way or the other. I know that he was not convicted. But I also know what that means and doesn't mean. I have no idea whether he acted in self defense or not. I know that the prosecution didn't prove that he didn't, which is all any of us knows. I can't say anything more than that, I wasn't there. I am not left feeling like I have any clue what really happened, which is surely a large part of why he was acquitted, because only Dean knows, nobody else (alive) was there, and the jury wasn't given enough (any?) evidence that his story was false. I have not once said he was in the wrong (how could I, as I have just explained), I have merely pointed out -- correctly -- that a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean "innocent" here, because again, how could it, but that doesn't fit your narrative so instead you make up shit.

And when I point out that what you said went far beyond the law and what the law has said, your usual pedantic self can't admit that; instead, for this little segment of your TGR world you suddenly drop the "I'm the lawyer that knows more than everyone and will tell you what you don't know about the law" act and start adding value judgments, benefits of the doubt, and the like. Whatever.

[altasnob]

I have no idea whether he acted in self defense or not. I know that the prosecution didn't prove that he didn't, which is all any of us knows.

My first comment on this case, the "the jury felt the killing was justified under the law, making it legal" comment that you take exception to, was intentionally dumbed down for the TGR audience. Then, when you pressed, I elaborated that the exact, correct, legal way to phrase it is "the prosecutor failed to prove that Dean did not act in self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt."

But lets get real here. What the fuck does "the prosecutor failed to prove that Dean did not act in self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt" mean? What the fuck does "beyond a reasonable doubt" mean? Jurors are just regular joes. And when you speak to them after a verdict they will say "I think he did it" or "I think he didn't do it" or "I think he acted in self defense." They won't say "the prosecutor failed to prove the defendant did not act in self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt." That's how lawyers think and speak, not regular Joes.

You're making it sound like if I am in a room with a guy and blow his brains out and then say I did so in self defense I walk because the guy aint around to question what I say. It's not that easy to walk on a self defense claim. First off, to even get a self defense jury instruction you have to convince the judge that you did act in self defense, beyond a preponderance of the evidence. The judge doesn't have to give a self defense instruction if the judge doesn't think the facts warrant it.

[teleee]

My first comment on this case, the "the jury felt the killing was justified under the law, making it legal" comment that you take exception to, was intentionally dumbed down for the TGR audience. Then, when you pressed, I elaborated that the exact, correct, legal way to phrase it is "the prosecutor failed to prove that Dean did not act in self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt."

But lets get real here. What the fuck does "the prosecutor failed to prove that Dean did not act in self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt" mean? What the fuck does "beyond a reasonable doubt" mean? Jurors are just regular joes. And when you speak to them after a verdict they will say "I think he did it" or "I think he didn't do it" or "I think he acted in self defense." They won't say "the prosecutor failed to prove the defendant did not act in self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt."

You're making it sound like if I am in a room with a guy and blow his brains out and then say I did so in self defense I walk because the guy aint around to question what I say. It's not that easy to walk on a self defense claim. First off, to even get a self defense jury instruction you have to convince the judge that you did act in self defense, beyond a preponderance of the evidence. The judge doesn't have to give a self defense instruction if the judge doesn't think the facts warrant it.

So what poor fucker is on the hook for the $1,000 of billings you are going to hit them with to pay for you “dumbing down” a bunch of your hot takes to us unenlightened peasants?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Danno]

I didn't make it sound like anything. I made a legally correct statement. But of course, you act all lawyery and pedantic here but when your opinion doesn't comport with the lawyery pedantic view, you leave it aside. We get it. You keep being you. You're well loved here, performing a valuable service keeping us peons honest and educated, graced with your superiority. Got it.

[Bunion 2020]

What do you expect from a self labeled Atty who can't state the difference between misinformation and lying.

was intentionally dumbed down for the TGR audience.

Gee thanks.

[TahoeJ]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but Danno is 100% correct. OJ wasn't proven innocent, he just wasn't proven absolutely guilty.

[subtle plague]

I like dumb who gets down.

[Conundrum]

Lawyer ski off!

[Buster Highmen]

I like dumb who gets down.

That would be me!

Aside from that, I can't believe you clowns are so bored or dim so as to assign any credibility to altasnob at all.

[lowsparkco]

I agree with altasnob that we did not hear all the evidence like the jury.

I did listen to Dean’s testimony. He seemed to take some responsibility for making some poor choices. He confronted Guillermo at a time when he already seemed agitated. He pushed him accusing him of being a scam artist.

There were clearly signs of a struggle and the evidence seemed to point to a struggle over the firearm. I think it was going to be very hard to get a conviction in NM considering.

I’m not judging Dean and will never know if the shooting was warranted, but I think we can all agree that if you find yourself scrapping over an AR with a man in a trailer in the desert of New Mexico you would have to question some of your life choices.

Let’s hope he can contribute to his family and find peace in being given this second chance.

[telefreewasatch]

Let’s hope he can contribute to his family and find peace in being given this second chance.

Amen.

[raisingarizona13]

https://www.powder.com/region-colora...-dean-cummings

[Core Shot]

Wow.
Hope he rebounds.

[byates1]

Seems fairly grounded sounding. Best wishes moving forward.

[~mikey b]

the fkn ads on the Powder site fkn suck

[telefreewasatch]

https://www.powder.com/region-colora...-dean-cummings

Wow.
Looking a lot better than the deep throat scenes from the parking garage.
Didn't make it through the first one it was so sad to hear.
An outta the box thinker as I remember him in his earlier years.
Good luck and stay the course, Dean...

[raisingarizona13]

Wow.
Looking a lot better than the deep throat scenes from the parking garage.
Didn't make it through the first one it was so sad to hear.
An outta the box thinker as I remember him in his earlier years.
Good luck and stay the course, Dean...

I'm guessing he's seeing a professional and has some sort of medication. Maybe that's a bit judge-y but I couldn't watch much of those videos either, it was mega cringe and sad. Mental illnesses can be brutal. Hopefully things continue to work out for him.

[Toadman]

I'm guessing he's seeing a professional and has some sort of medication. Maybe that's a bit judge-y but I couldn't watch much of those videos either, it was mega cringe and sad. Mental illnesses can be brutal. Hopefully things continue to work out for him.

I would think therapy and meds, and laying off the other illicit meds and or alcohol probably helped.

[Eastern Sierra Skier]

In reality, there are many more innocent people who end up with "guilty" than guilty people who end up "not guilty."

That statement should tell everyone here how misinformed you are and that no one should pay any attention to of your so called "legal opinions." I've read some stupid shit posted on TGR, but that one might take ther prize.

As Joshua K. Marquis a former district attorney and politician from Astoria, OR was quoted "“[t]he justice system is far from perfect and has made many mistakes, mostly in favor of the accused."

[mcski]

A DA would definitely have an unbiased opinion. Lmao

[whipski]

Lawyer ski off!

Now that's funny! I nominate MT to set the course!

[romeo tango]

i'm baffled by forum members
that engage with obvious trolls and idiots
YMMV

good luck Dean