No, “foolish” is confusing evidence with proof.
Proof is information which shows beyond a certain probability the truth of something.
evidence is simply any piece of information which helps determine the probility of something being true or not.
When you say there is “no evidence that there is a gun”, that is too weak a claim based on the evidence. I could say right now that there is no evidence you have a gun, simply because I don’t know anything about you so I don’t have any idea if you own a gun.
But if I knew who you were, and did a background check and found you had never purchased a gun, that would actually be EVIDENCE that you didn’t have a gun. It wouldn’t PROVE it, because you could have gotten a gun some other way, but it’s actual EVIDENCE, not a “lack of evidence”. And if I searched your house and didn’t find a gun or ammunition, that would be more evidence you didn’t have a gun.
In the case of Davila, he was observed by the agents, and their testimony was that at no time prior to their claiming to see something shiny had they seen a gun. They looked at his hands and they were empty. There was no gun in the van, no bullets in the van. They looked at his waist and didn’t see a gun or anything that looked like a gun.
That does not prove he didn’t have a gun, but it is actual evidence, eyewitness testimony.
It’s ok, a lot of people confuse evidence with proof, at least around here.
So in your own tortured logic, Ramos and Compean's eyewitness testimony that they thought they saw a gun "is actual evidence, eyewitness testimony" that there was a gun. Thank You!
I stand by what I stated: One could say there was no evidence that there was a gun, but that is different than saying that the lack of evidence (is evidence or) proves the gun did not exist.