When it comes to explaining why someone acted one way, the explanations I gave weren’t mean to be a complete list. I just picked 3 things off the top of my head as an alternative explanation of events. It isn’t like the explanations I gave are shifting, since I’m not proposing one as the definitive recount of what happened. But rather I’m saying to prove the shock claim, all other reasonable explanations have to be ruled out.
And there are many, including ones which reflect poorly on Hasan without proving he shocked the dog. For example he could have not shocked his dog AND been dishonest about knowing the collar’s shocking capability. The key idea is that there isn’t enough verified evidence to pick the shock-collar theory over the many other explanations including ones I’m not even aware of.
Sure. So what is the innocent explanation for what happened (in particular the fresh tape over the back of the unit) that doesn’t contradict any kind of visible evidence, and doesn’t require some kind of moon-logic like Hasan being unaware that his shock collar has prongs and the remote has buttons on it that shock the dog? What would be the reason for him having her wear the collar regularly without wanting to shock her with it, and then lying about what kind of collar it is?
I mean you’ve had a chance to see Hasan’s explanation. You don’t have to speculate wildly about what might have happened or claim that it might be some totally new and different explanation you’re totally unaware of (or… you kind of do actually, if you want to try to defend him, since his attempt to explain very notably didn’t clarify key information like what model of collar he’s claiming it was or what features the remote has…)
I don’t have one innocent explanation nor can I come up with all possible explanations. The explanations I gave so far were just illustrations of potential explanations, some of them innocent, some not.
The point I’m trying to make is speculation about why someone did something isn’t proof of guilt. Evidence is proof, and until there is evidence everything else is just interpretation.
Okay, good to know you can’t come up with even one potential innocent explanation. You have offered two which are clearly garbage, and then retreated into this landscape where anything’s possible and nothing matters, just because in a vague sense lots of explanations might be possible.
Probably a good decision tactically. You may have a feeling that if you attempt to offer another innocent explanation it may be shown to contradict some kind of other clear evidence, and you may be right.
(Also, again, it’s relevant that Hasan is already on camera abusing other dogs, and that his attempt at an innocent explanation is one of those explanations that can’t possibly be true. It is legitimately confusing to me why those things are not important to you. Parasocial relationships are a hell of a drug, I guess.)
Anyway I am done now. I was just curious if you had anything better to offer.
It’s not tactical, it’s just how guilt is generally determined. Speculative testimony (like “I think he did it for this reason”) is generally inadmissible in court. Speculation about motives isn’t evidence. Offering my own speculation about motives wouldn’t count as proof either, so it doesn’t make sense for me to do that.
When it comes to explaining why someone acted one way, the explanations I gave weren’t mean to be a complete list. I just picked 3 things off the top of my head as an alternative explanation of events. It isn’t like the explanations I gave are shifting, since I’m not proposing one as the definitive recount of what happened. But rather I’m saying to prove the shock claim, all other reasonable explanations have to be ruled out.
And there are many, including ones which reflect poorly on Hasan without proving he shocked the dog. For example he could have not shocked his dog AND been dishonest about knowing the collar’s shocking capability. The key idea is that there isn’t enough verified evidence to pick the shock-collar theory over the many other explanations including ones I’m not even aware of.
Sure. So what is the innocent explanation for what happened (in particular the fresh tape over the back of the unit) that doesn’t contradict any kind of visible evidence, and doesn’t require some kind of moon-logic like Hasan being unaware that his shock collar has prongs and the remote has buttons on it that shock the dog? What would be the reason for him having her wear the collar regularly without wanting to shock her with it, and then lying about what kind of collar it is?
I mean you’ve had a chance to see Hasan’s explanation. You don’t have to speculate wildly about what might have happened or claim that it might be some totally new and different explanation you’re totally unaware of (or… you kind of do actually, if you want to try to defend him, since his attempt to explain very notably didn’t clarify key information like what model of collar he’s claiming it was or what features the remote has…)
I don’t have one innocent explanation nor can I come up with all possible explanations. The explanations I gave so far were just illustrations of potential explanations, some of them innocent, some not.
The point I’m trying to make is speculation about why someone did something isn’t proof of guilt. Evidence is proof, and until there is evidence everything else is just interpretation.
Okay, good to know you can’t come up with even one potential innocent explanation. You have offered two which are clearly garbage, and then retreated into this landscape where anything’s possible and nothing matters, just because in a vague sense lots of explanations might be possible.
Probably a good decision tactically. You may have a feeling that if you attempt to offer another innocent explanation it may be shown to contradict some kind of other clear evidence, and you may be right.
(Also, again, it’s relevant that Hasan is already on camera abusing other dogs, and that his attempt at an innocent explanation is one of those explanations that can’t possibly be true. It is legitimately confusing to me why those things are not important to you. Parasocial relationships are a hell of a drug, I guess.)
Anyway I am done now. I was just curious if you had anything better to offer.
It’s not tactical, it’s just how guilt is generally determined. Speculative testimony (like “I think he did it for this reason”) is generally inadmissible in court. Speculation about motives isn’t evidence. Offering my own speculation about motives wouldn’t count as proof either, so it doesn’t make sense for me to do that.
Absolutely correct. If I see anyone doing that, I’ll be sure to yell at them for you.