Originally Posted By barboy2 ///I can't remember a case of a sitting President inserting himself into a questionable execution (and this is hardly the only one in my lifetime)./// Ya, very true. But executive precedent can be set at any time. Just because there were cowards before him doesn't mean he has to be one, no? He is no better than that worthless NBA Yoa Ming.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "DDMAN and SinglePark, both of you think that one employed in law enforcement has more value as a human than say a mop pusher at an adult video arcade?" I have no idea why you would ask that. Lay off the hash. "......still waiting for two(or more) on here to tell me why a cop is worth more as a human being than say a toothless 'jizz mopper' at an arcade or a retired United Airlines pilot." And the peyote. No more peyote. "Ya, very true. But executive precedent can be set at any time. Just because there were cowards before him doesn't mean he has to be one, no? He is no better than that worthless NBA Yoa Ming." Screw it, you're fried. Do what you want.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Ya, very true. But executive precedent can be set at any time. > It's not going to happen, and I can't imagine it would happen no matter who was in the oval office. It's just not the kind of thing sitting presidents do.
Originally Posted By mele <,He can raise awareness>> Yes, with all that free time he has. Not a care in the world.
Originally Posted By barboy2 Mele, is there anything more important than life itself here on this earthly plane? Protection of humanity should trump tax policy and/or politcal speeches, no? There is more at stake than just this likely victim. Agreed Dabob--- it will not happen no matter which party affiliate sits as Chief.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 If the president, who can only stay executions in Federal sentences, tried to get involved in state cases every governor in the country would start screaming about state rights and there would be a huge battle over it; a battle which I doubt any President would want to involve himself in when they can't legally do anything to help the situation. I don't think it is cowardly for the President to focus on all of the things he has on his plate instead of starting an all-consuming battle over something he has no control over.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <<Okay, I feel a touch bad about this, but is anyone else feeling a bit amused that DDMAN is upset that his words are being twisted? I chalk it up to karma after all the torture thread>> Please explain how that has anything to do with this topic.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Not to mention I've come around somewhat on that particular topic. And I have apologized for my past behavior, but hey if you want to keep holding a grudge against me go right ahead, but I'll come out the better person.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>If the president, who can only stay executions in Federal sentences, tried to get involved in state cases every Gopper in the country would start screaming<< Fixed.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 Thanks for the fix Mawnk Yes the GOPers would all be screaming, but they are always screaming about something the President did or didn't do. Even a lot of Democratic governors would start screaming if President Obama started getting involved in their court cases though.
Originally Posted By andyll I'm not a fan of the death penalty however... The idea that almost all the witnesses have recanted and that there was no physical evidence is a media/celeberty bandwagon jumping. There was physical evidence but much was not allowed at trial because it was deemed as a result of an illegal search. Here is a list of the 'recanted' testomony: <a href="http://legalcases.info/troydavis/davistable.html" target="_blank">http://legalcases.info/troydav...ble.html</a> or <a href="http://legalcases.info/troydavis/" target="_blank">http://legalcases.info/troydavis/</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I read that and it troubled me. Most of it was witnesses recanting, often saying "I said it because the police coerced me" and then this judge saying "I don't believe that..,next!" This just raised my eyebrows more and made me wonder about this judge. You've got people like Bob Barr and GA wardens saying "too much doubt."
Originally Posted By ecdc Another man who was almost certainly innocent was executed. This country's need for revenge and blood lust is...disturbing. Our love of violence...troubling.
Originally Posted By andyll <<"I said it because the police coerced me" and then this judge saying "I don't believe that..,next!">> Perhaps because most of them went to the police with their information? Perhaps because out of the 5 that were direct eyewitnesses to the murder: 3 never recanted 1 picked Davis out of a photo line up hours after the shooting, at trial said he was 60% sure... and then said he wasn't sure. 1 recanted that he saw Davis shoot but maintained the shooter wore a white shirt which still meant Davis was the shooter. Coles also was an eyewitness that didn't recant but since he was later accused I didn't include him. There were 3-4 that claimed Davis confessed to them. Their testimony was suspect at the time and their recants are just as suspect. There were over 38 prosecution witnesses. There was some physical evidence at the trial. There was more physical evidence that was not allowed. <<Another man who was almost certainly innocent was executed.>> Not even close.
Originally Posted By barboy2 If your case is built around eye witness testimony then you have lost an enormous amount of credibility. Eye witness accounts have been known to be greatly flawed-----especially when you have a black being singled out. Don't you know that like those Chinamen all Blacks look alike.....SHEESH---- I can't believe that I have to explain this to you.
Originally Posted By barboy2 If your case is built around eye witness testimony then you have lost an enormous amount of credibility. Eye witness accounts have been known to be greatly flawed-----especially when you have a black being singled out. Don't you know that like those Chinamen all Blacks look alike.....SHEESH---- I can't believe that I have to explain this to you.
Originally Posted By andyll <<Eye witness accounts have been known to be greatly flawed----->> yes... when you have 1 eyewitness. but when you have 6...
Originally Posted By barboy2 Look, there were 3 ROCK SOLID eye witnesses in "MY Cousin Vinny" who knew 100% sure that Ralph Macchio's character was guilty........ only to find out that one practically blind lady relied on a very outdated lens prescription, another had his timeline all fouled up as proven by how long it takes to properly prepare grits and the third had mud on his window which greatly obstructed his view of the perp. They almost sentenced poor little Ralph to the chair. All 3 positively identified Ralph Macchio's character as the murderer and they were wrong. See, this proves that even multiple eye witness accounts can be greatly flawed.
