Troy Davis execution delayed

bravo said:
Its like killing rats.....does it have to be a particular one ?:):fu:
Click to expand...

WOW, you just revealed how much of a scumbag you really are. When someone equates a group of people to rats, and innocence or guilt is irrelevant, it can only be based on racism, bigotry, bias and gross ignorance.

fascism1.jpg
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I believe that if you are going to execute someone then there has to be a much higher level of certainty regarding guilt, beyond reasonable doubt is just not good enough. There has been far too many examples, down the years, of people being executed who were later found to be innocent.

http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/2010/05/8-people-who-were-executed-and-later-found-innocent/
Click to expand...

So we should entertain "unreasonable" doubt when determining guilt or innocence? This could get problematic, as virtually any case could be unreasonably doubted. If that's where you're going to set the bar, no one could be prosecuted, because if there were ANY doubt, reasonable or not, they couldn't be convicted. I hearken back to my brilliant analogy with Jay Leno shooting Alec Baldwin in the face... (any analogy involving Baldwin getting shot in the face is worth repeating). How could you convict Leno? He claims it wasn't him, but an alien who had assumed his form, while he was captive on the mothership.... oh, it's way out there... but it presents a doubt. Or better yet... a doctor of psychology could make the case for virtually ANY person who kills another person, that this is not a normal attribute of human behavior, and the person was obviously mentally insane at the moment they did the deed. Well, we can't execute someone who was sick in the head, can we? But then, when you make the choice to take another human's life, are you well in the head at that moment?
 
Dixie said:
So we should entertain "unreasonable" doubt when determining guilt or innocence? This could get problematic, as virtually any case could be unreasonably doubted. If that's where you're going to set the bar, no one could be prosecuted, because if there were ANY doubt, reasonable or not, they couldn't be convicted. I hearken back to my brilliant analogy with Jay Leno shooting Alec Baldwin in the face... (any analogy involving Baldwin getting shot in the face is worth repeating). How could you convict Leno? He claims it wasn't him, but an alien who had assumed his form, while he was captive on the mothership.... oh, it's way out there... but it presents a doubt. Or better yet... a doctor of psychology could make the case for virtually ANY person who kills another person, that this is not a normal attribute of human behavior, and the person was obviously mentally insane at the moment they did the deed. Well, we can't execute someone who was sick in the head, can we? But then, when you make the choice to take another human's life, are you well in the head at that moment?
Click to expand...

Pinhead logic.

We are talking about ending a human life. So there MUST be a higher standard. A person can be framed or wrongly convicted, but if the person is in prison, those type of injustices can be reversed. An execution cannot be reversed.

And we DO execute mentally disabled people. Your man crush Bush executed more than person who was mentally disabled.
 
Bf00n said:
Pinhead logic.

We are talking about ending a human life. So there MUST be a higher standard. A person can be framed or wrongly convicted, but if the person is in prison, those type of injustices can be reversed. An execution cannot be reversed.

And we DO execute mentally disabled people. Your man crush Bush executed more than person who was mentally disabled.
Click to expand...

What do you mean a higher standard beyond a reasonable doubt? That's a pretty high standard, I think... if there is no reasonable way to doubt someone is guilty, and the evidence suggests they are, it seems to me that is a pretty fair way to determine guilt or innocence. If there is a reasonable way to doubt someone committed the crime, that has to be addressed, and that is what the trial is for. If the evidence is presented and a jury satisfies their reasonable doubts, determines the verdict. I wasn't in the jury, you weren't in the jury, so we don't really know what all they heard and what evidence was presented, we only have reports. But this man was convicted by a jury of 12 people, 7 black and 5 white, and in order to convict, it required a unanimous verdict, and they knew it was a death penalty case. They found the man guilty. He appealed, and again, the verdict was upheld... and so on. The prosecution presented a case, it was decided by a jury, it was defended on appeal several times, and the man was executed. 'Nuff said.

YOUR mentally disabled, do you think that gives you the right to go out whacking people? My god, I hope not! You might be another Jared Loughner waiting to snap.
 
Dixie said:
So we should entertain "unreasonable" doubt when determining guilt or innocence? This could get problematic, as virtually any case could be unreasonably doubted. If that's where you're going to set the bar, no one could be prosecuted, because if there were ANY doubt, reasonable or not, they couldn't be convicted. I hearken back to my brilliant analogy with Jay Leno shooting Alec Baldwin in the face... (any analogy involving Baldwin getting shot in the face is worth repeating). How could you convict Leno? He claims it wasn't him, but an alien who had assumed his form, while he was captive on the mothership.... oh, it's way out there... but it presents a doubt. Or better yet... a doctor of psychology could make the case for virtually ANY person who kills another person, that this is not a normal attribute of human behavior, and the person was obviously mentally insane at the moment they did the deed. Well, we can't execute someone who was sick in the head, can we? But then, when you make the choice to take another human's life, are you well in the head at that moment?
Click to expand...

I was talking specifically about prisoners who are sentenced to death, not about all crimes committed. In my opinion, the evidence should be beyond all doubt else the punishment has to be life imprisonment. Unless of course your real motivation is just about saving money.

It's interesting to note that you've studiously avoided any mention of William Session's opinion on this case, I'm not surprised though.

Without DNA or other forms of physical or scientific evidence that can be objectively measured and tested, it is possible that doubts about guilt in this case will never be resolved. However, when it comes to the sentence of death, there should be no room for doubt.
Click to expand...

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/new...es-georgia-commute-troy-daviss-death-sentence
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
What do you mean a higher standard beyond a reasonable doubt? That's a pretty high standard, I think... if there is no reasonable way to doubt someone is guilty, and the evidence suggests they are, it seems to me that is a pretty fair way to determine guilt or innocence. If there is a reasonable way to doubt someone committed the crime, that has to be addressed, and that is what the trial is for. If the evidence is presented and a jury satisfies their reasonable doubts, determines the verdict. I wasn't in the jury, you weren't in the jury, so we don't really know what all they heard and what evidence was presented, we only have reports. But this man was convicted by a jury of 12 people, 7 black and 5 white, and in order to convict, it required a unanimous verdict, and they knew it was a death penalty case. They found the man guilty. He appealed, and again, the verdict was upheld... and so on. The prosecution presented a case, it was decided by a jury, it was defended on appeal several times, and the man was executed. 'Nuff said.

YOUR mentally disabled, do you think that gives you the right to go out whacking people? My god, I hope not! You might be another Jared Loughner waiting to snap.
Click to expand...

To end someone's life, there can be NO doubt whatsoever. That should be 'reasonable', necessary and demanded by anyone who 'claims' to love freedom and justice. But YOU are even willing to MAKE UP in your tiny little pinhead reasons why all but 2 of the eye witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony. YOU CREATED the fairy tale that there was 'cajoling from the black community to reconsider what they saw'.

But your fairy tale doesn't hold water pinhead. Many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis.

THAT created VERY reasonable doubt. Davis should have received a new trial. But statist pinheads like you believe government can not possibly be wrong, and agents of your beloved government never lie.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I was talking specifically about prisoners who are sentenced to death, not about all crimes committed. In my opinion, the evidence should be beyond all doubt else the punishment has to be life imprisonment. Unless of course your real motivation is just about saving money.

It's interesting to note that you've studiously avoided any mention of William Session's opinion on this case, I'm not surprised though.



http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/new...es-georgia-commute-troy-daviss-death-sentence
Click to expand...

Like I said, if the criteria were "beyond any possible (unreasonable) doubt" there would never be a person sentenced to death.

Sessions opinion doesn't matter, unless he was on the jury which heard the case. We don't find people guilty or not guilty based on what a person of influence might think, is that the standard you wish to set for justice? What about when Sessions believes someone was guilty who was found not guilty, should we punish them anyway, because of what William Sessions believes?
 
Bfgrn said:
To end someone's life, there can be NO doubt whatsoever. That should be 'reasonable', necessary and demanded by anyone who 'claims' to love freedom and justice. But YOU are even willing to MAKE UP in your tiny little pinhead reasons why all but 2 of the eye witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony. YOU CREATED the fairy tale that there was 'cajoling from the black community to reconsider what they saw'.

But your fairy tale doesn't hold water pinhead. Many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis.

THAT created VERY reasonable doubt. Davis should have received a new trial. But statist pinheads like you believe government can not possibly be wrong, and agents of your beloved government never lie.
Click to expand...

I don't care to hear about how many people recanted after the race charlatans moved in. The trial was the place for sworn testimonies to be heard, and they were. If the witnesses were not honest and forthright, the blood of an innocent man is on their hands, not the jury. I find it curious that these people all told the same story, until after the conviction, when the guy was on death row, and Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the ACLU and Amnesty International rolled into town... suddenly, they all start having second thoughts... just doesn't smell right to me. There are suddenly all these "claims" of police harassment and intimidation.. coercion and strong-arming.... yet, to date, not a single individual has been named, indicted, or charged. How is this explained? Were the policemen wearing white sheets over their heads at the time, or what?
 
Dixie said:
Like I said, if the criteria were "beyond any possible (unreasonable) doubt" there would never be a person sentenced to death.

Sessions opinion doesn't matter, unless he was on the jury which heard the case. We don't find people guilty or not guilty based on what a person of influence might think, is that the standard you wish to set for justice? What about when Sessions believes someone was guilty who was found not guilty, should we punish them anyway, because of what William Sessions believes?
Click to expand...

I would suggest that his opinion carries more weight than yours, leastways to most sentient adults anyway. As for the death penalty, I didn't realise that there was a quota system that had to be adhered to, if there isn't enough proof then so what?
 
Dixie said:
I don't care to hear about how many people recanted after the race charlatans moved in. The trial was the place for sworn testimonies to be heard, and they were. If the witnesses were not honest and forthright, the blood of an innocent man is on their hands, not the jury. I find it curious that these people all told the same story, until after the conviction, when the guy was on death row, and Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the ACLU and Amnesty International rolled into town... suddenly, they all start having second thoughts... just doesn't smell right to me. There are suddenly all these "claims" of police harassment and intimidation.. coercion and strong-arming.... yet, to date, not a single individual has been named, indicted, or charged. How is this explained? Were the policemen wearing white sheets over their heads at the time, or what?
Click to expand...

I see you have decided to double down on your fairy tale. How pinhead like of you. Do you have any PROOF of your accusations, or is that just how you FEEL pinhead? Because witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis.
 
Bfgrn said:
I see you have decided to double down on your fairy tale. How pinhead like of you. Do you have any PROOF of your accusations, or is that just how you FEEL pinhead? Because witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis.
Click to expand...

Huh....Weren't these the same witnesses that stated in sworn affidavits that they were telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth the first time ?
 
bravo said:
Huh....Weren't these the same witnesses that stated in sworn affidavits that they were telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth the first time ?
Click to expand...

The first time 'they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis.'

Are you THAT naive to believe police never engage in intimidation and coercion?
 
TommyBoy said:
I would suggest that his opinion carries more weight than yours, leastways to most sentient adults anyway. As for the death penalty, I didn't realise that there was a quota system that had to be adhered to, if there isn't enough proof then so what?
Click to expand...

I would suggest you are wrong, the ONLY opinion that matters in ANY case, is the Jury and Judge.... Sessions was neither. His opinion carries no more weight than yours or mine. Again, I'll ask you... if Troy Davis had been found not guilty, and Sessions opinion was, he was guilty.... could we sentence Davis to death because Sessions thought him guilty? So why is it you can understand how ridiculous that would be, and not see how ridiculous it is to think it matters the other way around? Sessions' opinion does not matter here!

Bf00n said:
I see you have decided to double down on your fairy tale. How pinhead like of you. Do you have any PROOF of your accusations, or is that just how you FEEL pinhead? Because witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis.
Click to expand...

As bravo pointed out, they also stated in sworn affidavits that Troy Davis shot the man. And as I pointed out, and you never responded... Where are the indictments and what are the names of the police who coerced and pressured? We need to know! If some officer of the law is out there twisting arms coercing witnesses, that's a serious matter, our justice system is compromised, and we need to deal with this immediately... so where are the names of the accused, and where are the indictments? ...It's been 22 years!
 
Bfgrn said:
The first time 'they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis.'

Are you THAT naive to believe police never engage in intimidation and coercion?
Click to expand...


Really ?....Don't you know that "sworn statements and depositions" signed by witnesses all declare as a rule, that the said affidavit was given freely and without coercion...
 
Dixie said:
I would suggest you are wrong, the ONLY opinion that matters in ANY case, is the Jury and Judge.... Sessions was neither. His opinion carries no more weight than yours or mine. Again, I'll ask you... if Troy Davis had been found not guilty, and Sessions opinion was, he was guilty.... could we sentence Davis to death because Sessions thought him guilty? So why is it you can understand how ridiculous that would be, and not see how ridiculous it is to think it matters the other way around? Sessions' opinion does not matter here!



As bravo pointed out, they also stated in sworn affidavits that Troy Davis shot the man. And as I pointed out, and you never responded... Where are the indictments and what are the names of the police who coerced and pressured? We need to know! If some officer of the law is out there twisting arms coercing witnesses, that's a serious matter, our justice system is compromised, and we need to deal with this immediately... so where are the names of the accused, and where are the indictments? ...It's been 22 years!
Click to expand...

The sad truth is those things rarely get prosecuted.

It is so funny talking to you right wing pinheads who 'CLAIM' to be against an over intrusive government. Yet when it HAPPENS, you defend government over the individual to the hilt. The same government that cannot walk and chew gum at the same time is suddenly perfectly efficient and flawless.

I am sure the witnesses who recanted their testimony did so with a great deal of fear and trepidation that it would bring harassment and abuse upon themselves and their families. A whole 'posse' of angry police who had already abused their power would be looming at every stop light.

You are an ignorant barbarian Dixie. You have NO clue what this nation was founded on, or any clue what justice REALLY entails.

Bravo also pointed out: "Its like killing rats.....does it have to be a particular one?"

Maybe you should thank that sick post too...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top