Troy Davis

[Noir]

Modreatly surprised i have seen no topics about him on here, what be DPs thoughts on the Troy Davis case?

[SassyLady]

Who?!?

Did I miss something?

[Noir]

Who?!?

Did I miss something?

I only heard about him a few days ago when a friend of mine was wearing an 'I am Troy Davis' tshirt. Long story short he was convicted 20 odd years ago of shoting an off duty policeman dead, and sentenced to death row. Despite no gun being found, no physical evidence and him claiming his innocence. Since that conviction 7 of the 9 witnesses changed their story/ said they were not sure if he did do it. And up until his last breath he plead innocent, as the state of Georgia killed him this week.

Obviously there will be allot to the story that (for nothing other than the length of time i've known of it) i won't know, but i assume at least the Georgia members will have more of an idea of the whole story and if indeed and injustice has been done. Executing someone on no physical evidence and very shaky witness evidence doesn't sit right with me at all.

[DragonStryk72]

I only heard about him a few days ago when a friend of mine was wearing an 'I am Troy Davis' tshirt. Long story short he was convicted 20 odd years ago of shoting an off duty policeman dead, and sentenced to death row. Despite no gun being found, no physical evidence and him claiming his innocence. Since that conviction 7 of the 9 witnesses changed their story/ said they were not sure if he did do it. And up until his last breath he plead innocent, as the state of Georgia killed him this week.

Obviously there will be allot to the story that (for nothing other than the length of time i've known of it) i won't know, but i assume at least the Georgia members will have more of an idea of the whole story and if indeed and injustice has been done. Executing someone on no physical evidence and very shaky witness evidence doesn't sit right with me at all.

Okay, this is actually a really good point against the death penalty, which in general, I support. Even if less than 1% of the people who are put on death row are actually innocent, how many innocent people does it take before it's wrong? There are ironclad cases out there, where they have the murder weapons, prints/dna, and other corroborating evidence, but this appears to be one of those cases where the evidence was lacking.

[Noir]

The more I read about this the more rediculous it gets...


19 August 1989 – Mark MacPhail, a police officer in Savannah working at night as a private security guard, intervenes to help a homeless man who is being beaten by a man in a car park. MacPhail is shot twice and killed by the attacker of the homeless man.

23 August 1989 – Troy Davis is arrested and charged with the murder of MacPhail, based largely on the word of another man present at the shooting, Sylvester ‘Redd’ Coles.

August 1991 – Davis goes on trial. The jury is shown no physical evidence and the murder weapon is never found. But nine witnesses, including Coles, say they saw Davis shoot MacPhail. Davis pleads not guilty, saying he had seen Coles hit the homeless man, but had then left the scene before the shooting took place. The jury sides with the prosecution and Davis is found guilty.

30 August 1991 – Jury recommends death penalty, and Davis is put on death row.

September 2003 – The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper begins to publish stories in which key witnesses at Davis’s trial recant their testimony. In all, seven of the nine witnesses who said they saw Davis shoot MacPhail later changed their stories, several saying they had implicated Davis having been pressured by police. Other witnesses come forward to point the finger at Coles, saying that he had boasted that he was the real killer.

16 July 2007 – The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles grants 90-day stay of execution, just one day before Davis is scheduled to be executed.

23 September 2008 – At his second execution date, the Georgia supreme court and Board of Pardons and Parole both decline to get involved. The US supreme court in Washington steps in, delaying the execution pending its decision on whether or not to hear the case. Davis is spared just two hours before he is scheduled to die.

27 October 2008 – Davis’s third execution date. The date is set after the US supreme court decides not to hear the case. Three days earlier, the Georgia court of appeals puts a hold on the execution to allow a new petition to be made.

7 September 2011 – After several more appeals fail, Georgia sets a fourth execution date for 21 September.

15 September – A petition with 663,000 signatures is delivered to the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles calling for clemency.

16 September – Jimmy Carter joins other public figures and celebrities in calling for a stay on the execution. “When there’s doubtful evidence about whether someone’s guilty, they certainly shouldn’t be executed,” he says.

17 September – Crowds march through the streets of Atlanta calling for a stay of execution.

19 September – The five-member Board of Pardons and Paroles hear pleas for clemency.

21 September – Davis is set to die on his fourth execution date.

21 September, 11.08pm ET: Troy Davis is executed four hours after the appointed time when the US supreme court refuses to grant a stay, dashing his hopes of a reprieve.
(timeline from the guardian newspaper)

[Noir]

I'm not sure who this Judge is or his political stance etc. But he makes some bold remarks, and i can't see how he can be wrong. 7 of 9 witnesses recanted, get again and again Davis was denied a re-trail.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ogBdP6INHlE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[LuvRPgrl]

talk about falling for entertainment, that guy is a TV judge, and he added NOTHING NEW to the topic. Same ol, same ol, boring....
I'm not sure who this Judge is or his political stance etc. But he makes some bold remarks, and i can't see how he can be wrong. 7 of 9 witnesses recanted, get again and again Davis was denied a re-trail.

<IFRAME src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ogBdP6INHlE" frameBorder=0 width=420 height=315 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>

[logroller]

Noir, that's Judge Greg Mathis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mathis). He was a miscreant youth and righted himself; eventually becoming a lawyer, then a judge in Michigan and is an active proponent of minority rights and responsibilities, both from the bench and in the community. He is currently the star of a syndicated legal reality show.

As to the OP, certainly no one wishes to see an innocent person convicted, let alone executed. There are documented cases of overzealous prosecutions who make a case where evidence is lacking, but cases such as this are truly the exception.

I often ask people a question when they are disenfranchised with the justice system (either extreme)-- What is worse, to have one innocent person convicted, or 99 who are guilty walk free? Would 1 vs 999 be more acceptable; or 1 innocent vs a million guilty?

No system is perfect; despite our best attempts, there will be failures. All of which will be seen by the public as tantamount to a failing system of justice. His pleas for appeal were heard by appellate courts and the pardon and parole board, requiring several stays of his execution over a period of many years. I think people just like to think the system is broken, that public scrutiny will expunge injustice--ignoring the fact a diligent system of checks are place, were fulfilled in this case, and deemed his conviction merited the sentence be carried out.

[Noir]

talk about falling for entertainment, that guy is a TV judge, and he added NOTHING NEW to the topic. Same ol, same ol, boring....

Whoops, my bad, i was just looking up videos and i saw that with the Judge title, i didn't realise he was a personality as such.

[DragonStryk72]

Noir, that's Judge Greg Mathis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Mathis). He was a miscreant youth and righted himself; eventually becoming a lawyer, then a judge in Michigan and is an active proponent of minority rights and responsibilities, both from the bench and in the community. He is currently the star of a syndicated legal reality show.

As to the OP, certainly no one wishes to see an innocent person convicted, let alone executed. There are documented cases of overzealous prosecutions who make a case where evidence is lacking, but cases such as this are truly the exception.

I often ask people a question when they are disenfranchised with the justice system (either extreme)-- What is worse, to have one innocent person convicted, or 99 who are guilty walk free? Would 1 vs 999 be more acceptable; or 1 innocent vs a million guilty?

No system is perfect; despite our best attempts, there will be failures. All of which will be seen by the public as tantamount to a failing system of justice. His pleas for appeal were heard by appellate courts and the pardon and parole board, requiring several stays of his execution over a period of many years. I think people just like to think the system is broken, that public scrutiny will expunge injustice--ignoring the fact a diligent system of checks are place, were fulfilled in this case, and deemed his conviction merited the sentence be carried out.

In retort I say: "How many innocent people die before it's wrong? What's the ratio? When does the value of innocent lives get exceeded by the lives of the guilty?"

The problem here is that the evidence was so shoddy. I mean, no physical evidence, no murder weapon. just eyewitnesses, most of whom recanted their testimonies later. I'm sorry, but that's pretty clear grounds for not using the death penalty, and setting up a re-trial. I mean, i know what happened, the jury and judge saw "dead cop", and saw blood in their eyes, but that's not an excuse for fucking up a case this bad.

[fj1200]

I mean, i know what happened, the jury and judge saw "dead cop", and saw blood in their eyes, but that's not an excuse for fucking up a case this bad.

Even a majority black jury? 7-5.

[LuvRPgrl]

Whoops, my bad, i was just looking up videos and i saw that with the Judge title, i didn't realise he was a personality as such.

Is cool, he may be smarter than some of our real judges. In fact, I think he was a real judge at one time.

[LuvRPgrl]

In retort I say: "How many innocent people die before it's wrong? What's the ratio? When does the value of innocent lives get exceeded by the lives of the guilty?"

The problem here is that the evidence was so shoddy. I mean, no physical evidence, no murder weapon. just eyewitnesses, most of whom recanted their testimonies later. I'm sorry, but that's pretty clear grounds for not using the death penalty, and setting up a re-trial. I mean, i know what happened, the jury and judge saw "dead cop", and saw blood in their eyes, but that's not an excuse for fucking up a case this bad.

so what, who cares? Its only one dude, and its a black guy who murdered a white cop, even if he didnt pull the trigger, he was there and thats good enough. Law and Order prevails, screw justice, the law is supreme, Con hog and I agree on this one at least.
Besides, even if 7 say they didnt really see him do it, that still leaves 2 eyewitnesses, enough to convict anybody.

[DragonStryk72]

Even a majority black jury? 7-5.

Yes, even black people like cops in general, fj. Even if you don't feel bad for the cop, a "cop killer" is frightening to people, because if you're willing to kill cops, where would you stop?

[Noir]

Being convicted the first time is questionable, but there where 9 witnesses all saying they saw him do it. when you have that many people saying the same thing i don;t think its unreasonable that he was found guilty, even with a lack of physical evidence.

However, the fact that he was not allowed a retrial when 7 of the 9 recanted their stories is a disgrace, and i simply don't understand why he would be denied it.

[fj1200]

Yes, even black people like cops in general, fj. Even if you don't feel bad for the cop, a "cop killer" is frightening to people, because if you're willing to kill cops, where would you stop?

It does, however, take away at least some of the "white juries in the South" charge.

McPhail was off-duty, I wonder if that means he was out of uniform and the shooter didn't know he was a cop.

[LuvRPgrl]

Yes, even black people like cops in general, fj. Even if you don't feel bad for the cop, a "cop killer" is frightening to people, because if you're willing to kill cops, where would you stop?

It is terrifying when those who are suppose to protect you are going down at the hands of the enemy. It actually turns my stomach when I see it, even as much as I have come to hate cops in general.

I can understand how people felt centuries ago, when , lets say, the Vikings started attacking and you saw your countries best warriors going down like flies, nothing can be scarier

[DragonStryk72]

It does, however, take away at least some of the "white juries in the South" charge.

McPhail was off-duty, I wonder if that means he was out of uniform and the shooter didn't know he was a cop.

likely not, I mean, when was the last time you checked for a badge on a guy

[logroller]

In retort I say: "How many innocent people die before it's wrong? What's the ratio? When does the value of innocent lives get exceeded by the lives of the guilty?"

To answer your question, I would say only zero or infinity. No ratio exists; everybody, innocent or guilty will die; some at the hands of another, even the State-- but a far greater number behave accordingly thanks to our system of justice, despite any errors it may impart.

My question is meant to invite speculation as to what is truly a reasonable expectation of a system of justice created and carried out by men. Answers vary as to the extent of the alleged crime, and its sentence. But what your question ignores, is the premise some innocent people will be killed by another, even at the hands of the state, in a just society. I would wish there to be no innocents who die; but that is not possible. Neither those free, or wrongfully-convicted innocent people will be completely free from death at the hands of another. To protect the innocent, justice must carried out-- that is accomplished through a system of trial and appellate courts, administrative boards, and executives too-- who have the authority to exonerate, convict, impart, carry out and set aside sentences, grant stays, even full pardons where merited. My argument was that there are checks in place, and they upheld the sentence. The burden was met by the State, diligently so. Appeals which took place years later, likely enough time to have assuaged the "blood in their eyes", allowed for the presentation of evidence, or lack thereof, and whatever was presented failed to merit overturning the ruling. And lest we forget, compelled by public sentiment alone, the Governor of GA could have granted a pardon too-- but didn't. If your contention is the system failed, please provide evidence to the fact, not fervent doubt in opposition to the established rule of law.


The problem here is that the evidence was so shoddy. I mean, no physical evidence, no murder weapon. just eyewitnesses, most of whom recanted their testimonies later. I'm sorry, but that's pretty clear grounds for not using the death penalty, and setting up a re-trial. I mean, i know what happened, the jury and judge saw "dead cop", and saw blood in their eyes, but that's not an excuse for fucking up a case this bad.

That's pretty clear grounds to who, the general public? Obviously not to an appeals board, or pardons board, or the governor of GA, or the SCOTUS or POTUS. To what extent do you believe the system has failed, in totality? Perhaps it has, but what is the alternative? Would a public decree granting a stay of execution or pardon, even outright exoneration of this man have meant no innocent persons would have died that day? Of course it doesn't; it would mean that, possibly, just one less would have? That, to me, is not worthy of denouncing our entire system of justice.

[DragonStryk72]

It is terrifying when those who are suppose to protect you are going down at the hands of the enemy. It actually turns my stomach when I see it, even as much as I have come to hate cops in general.

I can understand how people felt centuries ago, when , lets say, the Vikings started attacking and you saw your countries best warriors going down like flies, nothing can be scarier

The problem is, that's when you need to be removed from it even more, to be sure you identify the correct enemy. This is where EMTs and ER doctors are sort of scary, because they are so rigorously taught to put away emotion to focus on diagnosis and treatment. If you really watch one of them when they're in a moment of crisis, they sort of "shut off" mentally, they just start taking it by the numbers.

[Little-Acorn]

However, the fact that he was not allowed a retrial when 7 of the 9 recanted their stories is a disgrace, and i simply don't understand why he would be denied it.

Have you checked the details of those "recantings"?

I didn't think so.

I suggest you do so.

[logroller]

The problem is, that's when you need to be removed from it even more, to be sure you identify the correct enemy. This is where EMTs and ER doctors are sort of scary, because they are so rigorously taught to put away emotion to focus on diagnosis and treatment. If you really watch one of them when they're in a moment of crisis, they sort of "shut off" mentally, they just start taking it by the numbers.

Did you mean emotionally?

I was once posed a question by a firefighter-- say you are in a burning building, and are asked to go down and get an ax by another firefighter. On the way down you hear pleas for help from a person trapped under a fallen beam. Do you attempt to free the person, or continue on in pursuit of the ax?

[Noir]

Have you checked the details of those "recantings"?

I didn't think so.

I suggest you do so.

Nope. I've heard some of them said re police had pressured them into making their statements, and others that the Key Witness (I think his name is Cole?) coerced them into it. And that Cole has since been reported by some to of boasted that he shot the copper.

If you have anything to add to that please do, the point of me starting this thread was to get details I assumed some on here would be familiar with that im not.

[logroller]

Nope. I've heard some of them said re police had pressured them into making their statements, and others that the Key Witness (I think his name is Cole?) coerced them into it. And that Cole has since been reported by some to of boasted that he shot the copper.

If you have anything to add to that please do, the point of me starting this thread was to get details I assumed some on here would be familiar with that im not.

I've heard, you've heard, it's been reported and alleged....hearsay doesn't result in a conviction, much less overturn one.

[chloe]

It is sad if he is innocent. I was thinking how we have innocent casualities in war situations and innocent babies killed too without any legal representation to fight for there life in court. It would seem that innocent people do get killed because the laws can't protect the innocent 100%.

I really hate the idea of this man being executed if he was innocent. I suppose that is why people argue we should not have a death penalty, but then I wonder if people are imprisoned for LIFE and they die in prison innocent, it's like a slow death penalty with torture.

For the most part I really don't like the death penalty in general, except I got to admit I wouldn't shed one tear if a serial killer or child molestor or child murderer was killed. I know it's probably a wrong attitude to have but I would feel glad if those types of people were erased from the planet.

Should he have been executed? probably not, he should have been given another trial.

[LuvRPgrl]

Did you mean emotionally?

I was once posed a question by a firefighter-- say you are in a burning building, and are asked to go down and get an ax by another firefighter. On the way down you hear pleas for help from a person trapped under a fallen beam. Do you attempt to free the person, or continue on in pursuit of the ax?Oh hell, thats a no brainer. I RUN downstairs and just keep on runnnnning.....

[revelarts]

Based on the very little I've heard and read here. I'd say the murder conviction is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" to say the least. That the assumption of INNOCENCE should be applied and the case retried. Acron hasn't linked any details on the wittiness retractions so I'm not so sure why I should assume the worse. Until then 7 recantations with accusations of pressure from cops puts the other 2 witnesses in question it seems to me. Even though 2 witlessness are plenty for a conviction, at this point the whole thing is questionable and the ASSUMPTION of INNOCENCE for the Accused that stood to lose his life should have been upheld and Not the Assumption of Innocence of the Courts, parole boards, police etc etc that stand to lose little but face.

Log, the "system" is not threatened by death if this one case was overturned. To say the system is flawed is stating the obvious. To follow thru on Killing a man to give cover to a "system" makes no sense. Especially when the system was set up to ASSUME INNOCENCE. A retrial would have been one step at setting the system back on course.

[LuvRPgrl]

Da black dude was granted, by the supreme court, a hearing of facts, or some such thing. The judge, after hearing everything didnt think anything substanially new was brought to light. Also, they refused to let davis testify, and some of those who recanted wouldnt go on the stand, even though some were in the courthouse.

Why should the guy ever admit it, even if he did.?

We also know that he musta committed alotta other crimes, so, I say good riddence, guilty r not.
Law and Order baby, top priority, screw the rights of dem blackies.

[logroller]

Based on the very little I've heard and read here. I'd say the murder conviction is not "beyond a reasonable doubt" to say the least. That the assumption of INNOCENCE should be applied and the case retried. Acron hasn't linked any details on the wittiness retractions so I'm not so sure why I should assume the worse. Until then 7 recantations with accusations of pressure from cops puts the other 2 witnesses in question it seems to me. Even though 2 witlessness are plenty for a conviction, at this point the whole thing is questionable and the ASSUMPTION of INNOCENCE for the Accused that stood to lose his life should have been upheld and Not the Assumption of Innocence of the Courts, parole boards, police etc etc that stand to lose little but face.

Log, the "system" is not threatened by death if this one case was overturned. To say the system is flawed is stating the obvious. To follow thru on Killing a man to give cover to a "system" makes no sense. Especially when the system was set up to ASSUME INNOCENCE. A retrial would have been one step at setting the system back on course.

Are you implying that the State of Georgia, in considering a capital murder case, doesn't require its juries to find beyond a reasonable doubt?

It's 'innocent until proven guilty'. He was presumed innocent, then found guilty; ergo, he is no longer presumed innocent. The burden is then upon those who wish to overturn the verdict.


'Why should [you] assume the worse?'; Reason dictates, and most would agree-- those convicted of murderer have committed murder. Not always, but that is the assumption.

[Little-Acorn]

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-09-21.html

COP-KILLER IS MEDIA'S LATEST BABY SEAL

by Ann Coulter
September 21, 2011

For decades, liberals tried persuading Americans to abolish the death penalty, using their usual argument: hysterical sobbing.

Only when the media began lying about innocent people being executed did support for the death penalty begin to waver, falling from 80 percent to about 60 percent in a little more than a decade. (Silver lining: That's still more Americans than believe in man-made global warming.)

Fifty-nine percent of Americans now believe that an innocent man has been executed in the last five years. There is more credible evidence that space aliens have walked among us than that an innocent person has been executed in this country in the past 60 years, much less the past five years.

But unless members of the public are going to personally review trial transcripts in every death penalty case, they have no way of knowing the truth. The media certainly won't tell them.

It's nearly impossible to receive a death sentence these days -- unless you do something completely crazy like shoot a cop in full view of dozens of witnesses in a Burger King parking lot, only a few hours after shooting at a passing car while exiting a party.

That's what Troy Davis did in August 1989. Davis is the media's current baby seal of death row.

After a two-week trial with 34 witnesses for the state and six witnesses for the defense, the jury of seven blacks and five whites took less than two hours to convict Davis of Officer Mark MacPhail's murder, as well as various other crimes. Two days later, the jury sentenced Davis to death.

Now, a brisk 22 years after Davis murdered Officer MacPhail, his sentence will finally be administered this week -- barring any more of the legal shenanigans that have kept taxpayers on the hook for Davis' room and board for the past two decades.

(The average time on death row is 14 years. Then liberals turn around and triumphantly claim the death penalty doesn't have any noticeable deterrent effect. As the kids say: Duh.)

It has been claimed -- in The New York Times and Time magazine, for example -- that there was no "physical evidence" connecting Davis to the crimes that night.

Davis pulled out a gun and shot two strangers in public. What "physical evidence" were they expecting? No houses were broken into, no cars stolen, no rapes or fistfights accompanied the shootings. Where exactly would you look for DNA? And to prove what?

I suppose it would be nice if the shell casings from both shootings that night matched. Oh wait -- they did. That's "physical evidence."

It's true that the bulk of the evidence against Davis was eyewitness testimony. That tends to happen when you shoot someone in a busy Burger King parking lot.

Eyewitness testimony, like all evidence tending to show guilt, has gotten a bad name recently, but the "eyewitness" testimony in this case did not consist simply of strangers trying to distinguish one tall black man from another. For one thing, several of the eyewitnesses knew Davis personally.

The bulk of the eyewitness testimony established the following:

Two tall, young black men were harassing a vagrant in the Burger King parking lot, one in a yellow shirt and the other in a white Batman shirt. The one in the white shirt used a brown revolver to pistol-whip the vagrant. When a cop yelled at them to stop, the man in the white shirt ran, then wheeled around and shot the cop, walked over to his body and shot him again, smiling.

Some eyewitnesses described the shooter as wearing a white shirt, some said it was a white shirt with writing, and some identified it specifically as a white Batman shirt. Not one witness said the man in the yellow shirt pistol-whipped the vagrant or shot the cop.

Several of Davis' friends testified -- without recantation -- that he was the one in a white shirt. Several eyewitnesses, both acquaintances and strangers, specifically identified Davis as the one who shot Officer MacPhail.

Now the media claim that seven of the nine witnesses against Davis at trial have recanted.

First of all, the state presented 34 witnesses against Davis -- not nine -- which should give you some idea of how punctilious the media are about their facts in death penalty cases.

Among the witnesses who did not recant a word of their testimony against Davis were three members of the Air Force, who saw the shooting from their van in the Burger King drive-in lane. The airman who saw events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter explained on cross-examination, "You don't forget someone that stands over and shoots someone."

Recanted testimony is the least believable evidence since it proves only that defense lawyers managed to pressure some witnesses to alter their testimony, conveniently after the trial has ended. Even criminal lobbyist Justice William Brennan ridiculed post-trial recantations.

Three recantations were from friends of Davis, making minor or completely unbelievable modifications to their trial testimony. For example, one said he was no longer sure he saw Davis shoot the cop, even though he was five feet away at the time. His remaining testimony still implicated Davis.

One alleged recantation, from the vagrant's girlfriend (since deceased), wasn't a recantation at all, but rather reiterated all relevant parts of her trial testimony, which included a direct identification of Davis as the shooter.

Only two of the seven alleged "recantations" (out of 34 witnesses) actually recanted anything of value -- and those two affidavits were discounted by the court because Davis refused to allow the affiants to testify at the post-trial evidentiary hearing, even though one was seated right outside the courtroom, waiting to appear.

The court specifically warned Davis that his refusal to call his only two genuinely recanting witnesses would make their affidavits worthless. But Davis still refused to call them -- suggesting, as the court said, that their lawyer-drafted affidavits would not have held up under cross-examination.

With death penalty opponents so fixated on Davis' race -- he's black -- it ought to be noted that all the above witnesses are themselves African-American. The first man Davis shot in the car that night was African-American.

I notice that the people so anxious to return this sociopathic cop-killer to the street don't live in his neighborhood.

There's a reason more than a dozen courts have looked at Davis' case and refused to overturn his death sentence. He is as innocent as every other executed man since at least 1950, which is to say, guilty as hell.

[jimnyc]

It's funny that many would go nuts because the "system" let Caylee Anthony go when she was found not guilty, but want this guys "guilty" verdict tossed. There was not enough evidence to convict Caylee, and there was sufficient evidence to convict Davis. Case closed and another cop killer is off the planet. He had ample time to have his attorneys submit a million motions since he was found guilty, and the courts haven't found jack shit to overturn the original trial.

[DragonStryk72]

To answer your question, I would say only zero or infinity. No ratio exists; everybody, innocent or guilty will die; some at the hands of another, even the State-- but a far greater number behave accordingly thanks to our system of justice, despite any errors it may impart.

Really? Which member of your immediate family would be an acceptable loss to catch some criminals on other crimes in no way related to them, or their execution? Remember that this family member died so that the actual perp could walk free, since cops stop investigating once they have a conviction.

My question is meant to invite speculation as to what is truly a reasonable expectation of a system of justice created and carried out by men. Answers vary as to the extent of the alleged crime, and its sentence. But what your question ignores, is the premise some innocent people will be killed by another, even at the hands of the state, in a just society.

So no reforms even? No mitigating the point that the only evidence was witnesses who later recanted? That doesn't strike you as a hole that needs to be fixed? Look, we can free an incarcerated man, but how do we make this man's death right?

I would wish there to be no innocents who die; but that is not possible. Neither those free, or wrongfully-convicted innocent people will be completely free from death at the hands of another. To protect the innocent, justice must carried out-- that is accomplished through a system of trial and appellate courts, administrative boards, and executives too-- who have the authority to exonerate, convict, impart, carry out and set aside sentences, grant stays, even full pardons where merited. My argument was that there are checks in place, and they upheld the sentence.

Right, because no judge would ever be pig-headed, and the system would never refuse a re-trial in order to protect the state. Simply having some other random people point at a person and say "Yup, he did it" isn't beyond reasonable doubt.

The burden was met by the State, diligently so. Appeals which took place years later, likely enough time to have assuaged the "blood in their eyes", allowed for the presentation of evidence, or lack thereof, and whatever was presented failed to merit overturning the ruling. And lest we forget, compelled by public sentiment alone, the Governor of GA could have granted a pardon too-- but didn't. If your contention is the system failed, please provide evidence to the fact, not fervent doubt in opposition to the established rule of law.

But not stubborness. Judges are human, period. They can fuck up, and then refuse to back down out of pride, and higher courts can let it slip through the cracks as well. Simply allowing a re-trial was called for in this instance.

That's pretty clear grounds to who, the general public? Obviously not to an appeals board, or pardons board, or the governor of GA, or the SCOTUS or POTUS. To what extent do you believe the system has failed, in totality? Perhaps it has, but what is the alternative? Would a public decree granting a stay of execution or pardon, even outright exoneration of this man have meant no innocent persons would have died that day? Of course it doesn't; it would mean that, possibly, just one less would have? That, to me, is not worthy of denouncing our entire system of justice.

When did I denounce our entire system of justice? I denounce using the same system for conviction that was used in the Salem witch trials. Almost all the witnesses recanted their testimonies, that sort of says "Something ain't right here".

Let me be straight, I am, in general, in favor of the death penalty. I am NOT in favor of killing a man over just a bunch of people going, "yup he did it." DNA, fingerprints, and other objective forms of evidence should have been presented in order to prove that this man was a) guilty, and b) deserving of the death penalty. It's "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", and almost all witness recanting their testimonies and complaining of pressure from the police seems like there might be some reasonable reason to doubt his guilt, or at least simply put him in jail. Even a life sentence is something we can take back should it prove out that he was actually innocent, unlike executing him on shoddy evidence.

[DragonStryk72]

It's funny that many would go nuts because the "system" let Caylee Anthony go when she was found not guilty, but want this guys "guilty" verdict tossed. There was not enough evidence to convict Caylee, and there was sufficient evidence to convict Davis. Case closed and another cop killer is off the planet. He had ample time to have his attorneys submit a million motions since he was found guilty, and the courts haven't found jack shit to overturn the original trial.

Yup, that fucked that one to shit and gone as well, but one doesn't excuse the other. The "evidence" they used for the conviction was 9 people saying he did it, 7 of whom recanted. The judge threw it back out of hand, and why the death penalty on such loose evidence?

[jimnyc]

Yup, that fucked that one to shit and gone as well, but one doesn't excuse the other. The "evidence" they used for the conviction was 9 people saying he did it, 7 of whom recanted. The judge threw it back out of hand, and why the death penalty on such loose evidence?

And yet not a single judge in all these years has found the witnesses to be credible. Were ALL of these courts somehow incompetent? And while you may think the evidence is loose at this point, direct witnesses who ID a shooter was pretty solid evidence when he was on trial.

[Gaffer]

Yup, that fucked that one to shit and gone as well, but one doesn't excuse the other. The "evidence" they used for the conviction was 9 people saying he did it, 7 of whom recanted. The judge threw it back out of hand, and why the death penalty on such loose evidence?

There were 32 witnesses. 7 "friends" recanted. Read Little Acorns post about it.

[logroller]

the State of Georgia executed a cold-blooded murderer. :clap:

[Noir]

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-09-21.html

COP-KILLER IS MEDIA'S LATEST BABY SEAL...

Fairplay, excellent find. Will be passing this on to some folks i know.

[LuvRPgrl]

And yet not a single judge in all these years has found the witnesses to be credible. Were ALL of these courts somehow incompetent? And while you may think the evidence is loose at this point, direct witnesses who ID a shooter was pretty solid evidence when he was on trial.

Im surprised and pissed it took so long, they shulda jus killed the cop killa niga long time go.

[fj1200]

Fairplay, excellent find. Will be passing this on to some folks i know.

I've seen two signs around town re: Troy Davis, one says "I am Troy Davis" and the other is "Not in My Name." The latter being a completely different argument than the former IMO.

[Little-Acorn]

The "evidence" they used for the conviction was 9 people saying he did it, 7 of whom recanted.

From earlier post:

Two tall, young black men were harassing a vagrant in the Burger King parking lot, one in a yellow shirt and the other in a white Batman shirt. The one in the white shirt used a brown revolver to pistol-whip the vagrant. When a cop yelled at them to stop, the man in the white shirt ran, then wheeled around and shot the cop, walked over to his body and shot him again, smiling.

Some eyewitnesses described the shooter as wearing a white shirt, some said it was a white shirt with writing, and some identified it specifically as a white Batman shirt. Not one witness said the man in the yellow shirt pistol-whipped the vagrant or shot the cop.

Several of Davis' friends testified -- without recantation -- that he was the one in a white shirt. Several eyewitnesses, both acquaintances and strangers, specifically identified Davis as the one who shot Officer MacPhail.

Now the media claim that seven of the nine witnesses against Davis at trial have recanted.

First of all, the state presented 34 witnesses against Davis -- not nine -- which should give you some idea of how punctilious the media are about their facts in death penalty cases.

Among the witnesses who did not recant a word of their testimony against Davis were three members of the Air Force, who saw the shooting from their van in the Burger King drive-in lane. The airman who saw events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter explained on cross-examination, "You don't forget someone that stands over and shoots someone."

Recanted testimony is the least believable evidence since it proves only that defense lawyers managed to pressure some witnesses to alter their testimony, conveniently after the trial has ended. Even criminal lobbyist Justice William Brennan ridiculed post-trial recantations.

Three recantations were from friends of Davis, making minor or completely unbelievable modifications to their trial testimony. For example, one said he was no longer sure he saw Davis shoot the cop, even though he was five feet away at the time. His remaining testimony still implicated Davis.

One alleged recantation, from the vagrant's girlfriend (since deceased), wasn't a recantation at all, but rather reiterated all relevant parts of her trial testimony, which included a direct identification of Davis as the shooter.

Only two of the seven alleged "recantations" (out of 34 witnesses) actually recanted anything of value -- and those two affidavits were discounted by the court because Davis refused to allow the affiants to testify at the post-trial evidentiary hearing, even though one was seated right outside the courtroom, waiting to appear.

[logroller]

Im surprised and pissed it took so long, they shulda jus killed the cop killa niga long time go.

Due process is a desirable feature of our justice system.

[LuvRPgrl]

Due process is a desirable feature of our justice system.

I hate to differ which ya, but we dont have a justice system, anymore than we are governed by the constitution, what we have is a legal system.

[logroller]

I hate to differ which ya, but we dont have a justice system, anymore than we are governed by the constitution, what we have is a legal system.

Explain the differences, as it applies to Davis case.

[DragonStryk72]

From earlier post:

Two tall, young black men were harassing a vagrant in the Burger King parking lot, one in a yellow shirt and the other in a white Batman shirt. The one in the white shirt used a brown revolver to pistol-whip the vagrant. When a cop yelled at them to stop, the man in the white shirt ran, then wheeled around and shot the cop, walked over to his body and shot him again, smiling.

Some eyewitnesses described the shooter as wearing a white shirt, some said it was a white shirt with writing, and some identified it specifically as a white Batman shirt. Not one witness said the man in the yellow shirt pistol-whipped the vagrant or shot the cop.

Several of Davis' friends testified -- without recantation -- that he was the one in a white shirt. Several eyewitnesses, both acquaintances and strangers, specifically identified Davis as the one who shot Officer MacPhail.

Now the media claim that seven of the nine witnesses against Davis at trial have recanted.

First of all, the state presented 34 witnesses against Davis -- not nine -- which should give you some idea of how punctilious the media are about their facts in death penalty cases.

Among the witnesses who did not recant a word of their testimony against Davis were three members of the Air Force, who saw the shooting from their van in the Burger King drive-in lane. The airman who saw events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter explained on cross-examination, "You don't forget someone that stands over and shoots someone."

Recanted testimony is the least believable evidence since it proves only that defense lawyers managed to pressure some witnesses to alter their testimony, conveniently after the trial has ended. Even criminal lobbyist Justice William Brennan ridiculed post-trial recantations.

Three recantations were from friends of Davis, making minor or completely unbelievable modifications to their trial testimony. For example, one said he was no longer sure he saw Davis shoot the cop, even though he was five feet away at the time. His remaining testimony still implicated Davis.

One alleged recantation, from the vagrant's girlfriend (since deceased), wasn't a recantation at all, but rather reiterated all relevant parts of her trial testimony, which included a direct identification of Davis as the shooter.

Only two of the seven alleged "recantations" (out of 34 witnesses) actually recanted anything of value -- and those two affidavits were discounted by the court because Davis refused to allow the affiants to testify at the post-trial evidentiary hearing, even though one was seated right outside the courtroom, waiting to appear.

Should I come back with a Michael Moor article? It would be just as reliable a source. Coulter and Moore both ignore truth left and right to sell their run at being pundits.

[logroller]

Should I come back with a Michael Moor article? It would be just as reliable a source. Coulter and Moore both ignore truth left and right to sell their run at being pundits.

Challenging the source is a valid response DS; because hearsay doesn't count! Likewise, those recantations are little more than hearsay. Its not as though the new admissions said "somebody else did it" or "it couldn't have been him"; nope, they said "well I'm not so sure". Despite numerous, unchanged testimonies still indicate he murdered someone in cold-blood. I don't understand why people find it hard to believe that Troy Davis was a cold-blooded murderer and was brought to justice for his crime.

[logroller]

From 1996 onwards, seven of the nine principal prosecution eyewitnesses changed all or part of their trial testimony-wiki

Who were these people who changed their stories-- mostly criminals and co-conspirators in other crimes, conveniently recanted after the statute of limitations expired---and people wonder why the appeals courts were unpersuaded.

[LuvRPgrl]

Explain the differences, as it applies to Davis case.
Yea, if Justice and The law butt heads, the people in our legal system will let the law prevail.
In other words, if a person is convicted of something, and the trial was completely legal, and new irrefutable evidence surfaces that proves his innocence, and there is no legal way to get that evidence submitted to the case file, MOST of those in the legal system would just allow the wrong conviction to stand, because they consider the law to be a priority over justice.

But hey, blacks get away with "murder" all the tiime, pun intended. And they dont get punished for it, so if an innocent man gets convicted, so what?

I mean, in all liklihood the guy got away with lots of stuff already, and most assuredly other blacks have, including murder.

But then again, who cares, they mostly kill other blacks.