How many of the executed were innocent???

i'm not in to digital forensics, but i'm sure that those that are can determine if a video has been altered. I've seen a few incidents where such is the case.

Right, and the forensic experts get their paychecks from where? The same place as the judge, the DA and the police as far as I know.
 
Right, and the forensic experts get their paychecks from where? The same place as the judge, the DA and the police as far as I know.

the defense is also allowed to hire it's own expert witnesses, right? don't get me wrong, i hardly trust law enforcement with video. I've seen way too many instances of outright lying and video manipulation to trust them, but i know i'm intelligent enough to determine whether I can believe the testimony of either party.
 
How many of the executed were innocent??? My guess is NONE.....when will you reveal the answer and how you found it ?

Poor Blabo.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-scheck/innocent-but-executed_b_272327.html


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1121-05.htm


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0412090169dec09,0,1173806.story


http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm


It's a good thing for Blabo that being stupid doesn't carry the death penalty.


Now, will he respond by displaying his "I'm ignoring you" message?
 
the defense is also allowed to hire it's own expert witnesses, right? don't get me wrong, i hardly trust law enforcement with video. I've seen way too many instances of outright lying and video manipulation to trust them, but i know i'm intelligent enough to determine whether I can believe the testimony of either party.



300px-Psychic-neon-sign.jpg
 
WTF are you talking about? Passing an IQ test is a joke, and only someone who failed his wouldn't get it.
Again, there is no perfect proof. Someone could readily have details of a crime without having commited the crime. Stop being a retard.

nice try dunetroll, you screwed up thinking people pass iq tests

my lord you are fucking retarded. someone "could"....that is a big WHAT IF. fact is, that rarely ever happens. FACT is that true murderers often confess this way. you're being fucking stupid here. you're acting as if no one would ever confess that way. FACT is they do. and when the details could ONLY be known the killer, then you have 100% proof.

if a hundred people say you were at a wedding, hence alibi, are you actually saying that is not 100% proof? they are all lying? a what if scenario does not mean 100% proof doesn't exist.
 
nice try dunetroll, you screwed up thinking people pass iq tests

my lord you are fucking retarded. someone "could"....that is a big WHAT IF. fact is, that rarely ever happens. FACT is that true murderers often confess this way. you're being fucking stupid here. you're acting as if no one would ever confess that way. FACT is they do. and when the details could ONLY be known the killer, then you have 100% proof.

if a hundred people say you were at a wedding, hence alibi, are you actually saying that is not 100% proof? they are all lying? a what if scenario does not mean 100% proof doesn't exist.

He says/ she says.

The killer can have told someone any detail. There is no detail the killer only could know, if they told someone else enough details.

Everything you say is fact is just your opinion.

Reasonable doubt is all about "someone could". Stop being so concrete.

The topic is about murder, not weddings retard. Try to stay on topic.
 
the defense is also allowed to hire it's own expert witnesses, right? don't get me wrong, i hardly trust law enforcement with video. I've seen way too many instances of outright lying and video manipulation to trust them, but i know i'm intelligent enough to determine whether I can believe the testimony of either party.

I am sure the jury's of all the innocent people ever sent to prison or the chair were just as sure of their abilities as you are.
 
I am sure the jury's of all the innocent people ever sent to prison or the chair were just as sure of their abilities as you are.

SmarterThanFew only questions judges and juries when his fellow survivalists are convicted, or when the agents that busted them are exonerated.
 
He says/ she says.

The killer can have told someone any detail. There is no detail the killer only could know, if they told someone else enough details.

Everything you say is fact is just your opinion.

Reasonable doubt is all about "someone could". Stop being so concrete.

The topic is about murder, not weddings retard. Try to stay on topic.

wow. just wow. the wedding was about the topic idiot. it was an alibi to murder. google alibi and get back to me. according to you, all 100 witnesses are liars.

you're stuck on stupid. the killer could have? no, not in every case. you're absolutely being stupid to think that in every single case a killer would talk to someone. that rarely happens and the what if is so far fetched that only a crazy person would continue this line of reasoning.

someone using your username made the above post. your post is 100% proof of my statement. :pke:
 
wow. just wow. the wedding was about the topic idiot. it was an alibi to murder. google alibi and get back to me. according to you, all 100 witnesses are liars.

you're stuck on stupid. the killer could have? no, not in every case. you're absolutely being stupid to think that in every single case a killer would talk to someone. that rarely happens and the what if is so far fetched that only a crazy person would continue this line of reasoning.

someone using your username made the above post. your post is 100% proof of my statement. :pke:

Look, didpshit, try to follow me; I am not claiming that in every single case anything happens. I never said anything like that. If it happened one out of 100 or 1 out of 1000 times, and an innocent person is executed by the state, that is too much. Look at Illinois; http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/irr_hr_fall97_deathpen.html
 
Didpshit. I like that. It describes the Yurtroll rather well.
 
Look, didpshit, try to follow me; I am not claiming that in every single case anything happens. I never said anything like that. If it happened one out of 100 or 1 out of 1000 times, and an innocent person is executed by the state, that is too much. Look at Illinois; http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/irr_hr_fall97_deathpen.html

running away from your stance i see. when cornered, run away dune. we are talking about your retarded claim that there can never be 100% proof.

in your deluded world if someone takes out a gun and kills someone at a wedding, with 3 video cameras, dozens of photo cameras, a hundred witnesses all stating or showing him the very act, that is not 100% proof.

:palm:
 
running away from your stance i see. when cornered, run away dune. we are talking about your retarded claim that there can never be 100% proof.

in your deluded world if someone takes out a gun and kills someone at a wedding, with 3 video cameras, dozens of photo cameras, a hundred witnesses all stating or showing him the very act, that is not 100% proof.

:palm:

That's right, even your scenario is not foolproof enough for me to support the death penalty, you see, people always bring up these bizare situations, as you described above, as proof of why the death penalty should continue, yet how many cases are ever that cut and dry?

Really, how many capitol cases are that cut and dry?

My answer is very few, not enough to encourage maintaining the death penalty.

Far too often long term incarcerated are exhonerated. It happens all the time and you know it, therefore, you would knowingly prescribe that a certain percentage of innocent people will be deprived of the ultimate civil right, by the very organisation most dedicated to preserving them. Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me.

Unless, and until we can have perfect proof of guilt, no one should be executed, and since we are but imperfect humans and can produce nothing perfect, that day will never come.
 
running away from your stance i see. when cornered, run away dune. we are talking about your retarded claim that there can never be 100% proof.

in your deluded world if someone takes out a gun and kills someone at a wedding, with 3 video cameras, dozens of photo cameras, a hundred witnesses all stating or showing him the very act, that is not 100% proof.

:palm:

That's right, even your scenario is not foolproof enough for me to support the death penalty, you see, people always bring up these bizare situations, as you described above, as proof of why the death penalty should continue, yet how many cases are ever that cut and dry?

Really, how many capitol cases are that cut and dry?

My answer is very few, not enough to encourage maintaining the death penalty.

Far too often long term incarcerated are exhonerated. It happens all the time and you know it, therefore, you would knowingly prescribe that a certain percentage of innocent people will be deprived of the ultimate civil right, by the very organisation most dedicated to preserving them. Sorry, but that doesn't fly with me.

Unless, and until we can have perfect proof of guilt, no one should be executed, and since we are but imperfect humans and can produce nothing perfect, that day will never come.


Well, that about proves beyond a reasonable doubt that pinheads are complete and utter idiots....

Nice job Yurt....thats 2 notches in your belt....Dune and Onecell...
 
I am sure the jury's of all the innocent people ever sent to prison or the chair were just as sure of their abilities as you are.

very doubtful, as you managed to put it in another post, that most juries are full of dumbed down sheeple who felt obligated to follow the bullshit directions of the judge instead of exercising their own intellect.
 
Back
Top