All of it is evidence that he didn’t have a gun. If any of them were false, it would be evidence that he had a gun.
In only one sense are you correct, in the sense that without actually doing a strip search you can’t possible be absolutely sure that any person isn’t packing a gun or a small nuclear device.
But the absense of any evidence for a gun is evidence that there was not a gun. If there was a gun, there is a probability that one of those items would be false. The fact that they are all true is logical evidence lowering the probability that he had a gun.
In the trial, the defense needed to plant a reasonable suspicion that the defendant had a gun and was holding it in his hand which threatened them. 12 members of the jury were unconvinced of that, and therefore found they were not shooting in self-defense.
That is how evidence works in a criminal trial. While you must prove beyond a REASONABLE doubt that the defendant committed the crime, you are not required on each point to prove beyond any doubt that the defendant’s story isn’t correct. You merely have to present reasonable evidence.
In this case, the prosecution presented the evidence listed below, along with the fact that the defendant was right-handed while the “object” was reported to have been seen in his left hand.
If you want to insist that you are correct about evidence, I want to warn you now — if you shoot an unarmed man, and then tell him to run away so the police can’t search him, you won’t win your trial by noting that nobody can prove the guy didn’t have a gun. You’ll have to present some evidence he had a gun, and if you can’t, that will be considered evidence he did NOT have a gun.
You may not think it is evidence, but you will be convicted on it nonetheless, much to your shock and chagrin.
How foolish.
One could say there was no evidence that there was a gun, but that is different than saying that the lack of evidence proves the gun did not exist.
Ya mean Bears don't sh*t in the woods? Thanks for solving that mystery!