Wouldn't this be considered insufficient counterproof for the insanity argument, considering lawyer-guy's not overreacting in a way that could trigger an instinctive self-defense action from the werewolf-guy?

Darkagma said:

Wouldn't this be considered insufficient counterproof for the insanity argument, considering lawyer-guy's not overreacting in a way that could trigger an instinctive self-defense action from the werewolf-guy?

He did not refute the overreacting causing the action, he prove that the werewolf is relatively sane AFTER fransform as the evidence: he was at least have some control.

The conclusive evidence is the bite mark that show she was bitten by a completely transformed werewolf, not a half tranformed one. Since the victim was bitten after he completely transform, he is lying.

Now the judge can continue to ask the werewolf to tell her his side of the story again, the truth this time and the lawer on the werewolf side can help as well.

dailang said:

He did not refute the overreacting causing the action, he prove that the werewolf is relatively sane AFTER fransform as the evidence: he was at least have some control.

The conclusive evidence is the bite mark that show she was bitten by a completely transformed werewolf, not a half tranformed one. Since the victim was bitten after he completely transform, he is lying.

Now the judge can continue to ask the werewolf to tell her his side of the story again, the truth this time and the lawer on the werewolf side can help as well.

The werewolf-guy said that he was attacked first (which is a lie), then bit her. This ("attack after being soundly provoked") and what lawyer-guy is doing (make him "attack just by standing in front of him") for the sake of his argumentation are completely different circumstances.

Would someone punch someone else after being punched? Would someone punch someone else who's just standing in front of them though?

It seems to me lawyer-guy just built a straw man argument.

[deleted]

Darkagma said:

Wouldn't this be considered insufficient counterproof for the insanity argument, considering lawyer-guy's not overreacting in a way that could trigger an instinctive self-defense action from the werewolf-guy?

Insanity's actually pretty hard to claim as a defense in the legal system, as it places the burden of proof of insanity on the one claiming it, which [the burden of proof] is usually supposed to be the prosecution's job, not the defense's. Leo's not matching the proposed situation quite properly (though I suspect that's because committing assault in a courtroom would also be incredibly frowned upon, even just for a demonstration), but he's still correct about the bite marks so based on that alone Red's still committing perjury on the timing.

Filosera said:

Insanity's actually pretty hard to claim as a defense in the legal system, as it places the burden of proof of insanity on the one claiming it, which [the burden of proof] is usually supposed to be the prosecution's job, not the defense's. Leo's not matching the proposed situation quite properly (though I suspect that's because committing assault in a courtroom would also be incredibly frowned upon, even just for a demonstration), but he's still correct about the bite marks so based on that alone Red's still committing perjury on the timing.

Indeed. The bite marks should be sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the guy was fully transformed when he bit the woman. It also refutes the guy's statement that he was in the middle of the transformation.

But it does not refute his self-defense statement. He claims that he bit her after being attacked. Whether he is fully transformed or not is irrelevant because the guy could have unintentionally bitten her in self-defense regardless if he's fully transformed.

Lawyer guy states that the defendant bit the victim intentionally and tried to prove it by baiting the defendant to attack when fully transformed. This is a straw man argument because he only proved that in a controlled environment and without any physical harm, the defendant did not attack him. If one assumes that the defendant version of the facts is true and he got physically attacked by the woman, this demonstration beats around the bush and does not address the actual premise that the guy reacted in self-defense after being attacked.

Thus, from my perspective, the proof that the lawyer has advanced is insufficient to back his conclusions. He would have made a much stronger point if he had physically attacked the defendant (and taking responsibility for the consequences it would produce).