Troy Davis still on death row

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Juries do convictions.....not the world.WhiteKnight77

The judge gets the sentence recommendation from the jury, at least in death penalty cases. In some jurisdictions juries do impose the sentence in accordance with local laws and instructions from the judge.

Yes, witnesses who were all brought to the location of the shooting and ask by police to descibe in front of each other what they saw...an action that you would never see today.

Either way, like I said, the very fact that so much debate has been generated, the fact that you could even suggest there was some sort of failure no matter which side it was on, just goes to show you that there was just too much doubt surrounding this case to justify executing someone, an act that isn't reversible.

SaintLeonidas

Being that you were there to see who was brought to the location, why did you not say something to the defense attorneys so they could call you as a witness to what happened?

The prosecution had no doubt nor did the jury. Recantations of previous testimony is suspect at best and could lead to perjury charges to those making such statements. If there was new evidence, why didn't the defense attorneys present it? It is more likely that such evidence was manufactured and did not exist. If there was evidence, why were not the defense attorneys all over the TV with it? The only reason is that it was fictitious and wouldn't hold up in court.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

Yes, witnesses who were all brought to the location of the shooting and ask by police to descibe in front of each other what they saw...an action that you would never see today.

Either way, like I said, the very fact that so much debate has been generated, the fact that you could even suggest there was some sort of failure no matter which side it was on, just goes to show you that there was just too much doubt surrounding this case to justify executing someone, an act that isn't reversible.

WhiteKnight77

Being that you were there to see who was brought to the location, why did you not say something to the defense attorneys so they could call you as a witness to what happened?

The prosecution had no doubt nor did the jury. Recantations of previous testimony is suspect at best and could lead to perjury charges to those making such statements. If there was new evidence, why didn't the defense attorneys present it? It is more likely that such evidence was manufactured and did not exist. If there was evidence, why were not the defense attorneys all over the TV with it? The only reason is that it was fictitious and wouldn't hold up in court.

:? Huh? You didn't need to be there to know, from the statements of witnesses and investigators and numerous individuals on countless TV programs, talking about the way in which the original investigation went down, including taking them all to the scene of the crime together ot get their statements in front of the entire group.

Suspect at best? Even if you doubt their recantations, I don't see how you could still completely ignore such a thing and just say "just kill the man". There was new evidence, a quick goggle search and you can see this to be true. The did present it, hence the reason they even went to the Supreme Court to ask for an appeal, but they rejected their plea for an appeal and so the execution went as planned instead of actually taking another look at the case and the new evidence, primarily the ballistic evidence.

Recantations of previous testimony is suspect at best...WhiteKnight77

That would depend on each case of recantation of previous testimony. Recantations aren't always suspect "at best".

...and could lead to perjury charges to those making such statements.WhiteKnight77

And this risk to the witness doing the recanting is what makes such recantations particularly noteworthy.

Nice strawman bro. It's more: "This costs the system more money, has a chance to kill innocent people, isn't effective at preventing crime and is no more effective than locking them away for life" vs "He killed someone, he is a threat, he needs to be eliminated" One is purely based on statistics and facts while the second operates on fear.Ace6301

I'd rather see guilty men escape from prison than an innocent person be killed by the state.Ace6301

"Oh, no!!! Innocent people could be killed for murder!!! We should set them all free!!!"

Thanks for the laugh... I needed it. :lol:

[QUOTE="Ace6301"] Nice strawman bro. It's more: "This costs the system more money, has a chance to kill innocent people, isn't effective at preventing crime and is no more effective than locking them away for life" vs "He killed someone, he is a threat, he needs to be eliminated" One is purely based on statistics and facts while the second operates on fear.OrkHammer007

I'd rather see guilty men escape from prison than an innocent person be killed by the state.Ace6301

"Oh, no!!! Innocent people could be killed for murder!!! We should set them all free!!!"

Thanks for the laugh... I needed it. :lol:

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] "I never said I thought one can not be convicted if there exists a shred of doubt"

Actually, you did say just that:

"I thought when there was even a shred of doubt as to whether someone commited a murder you couldn't find them guilty?"

thegerg

:lol: which was followed by"Isn't that what everyone was talking about with Casey Anthony?"...again, next time make sure you actually read what was posted.

:lol: really, please just stop :lol: it wasn't a statement, there was a little thing we like to call a 'question mark' at the end...in case you missed it the first time (which you obviously did), my original post was "I thought when there was even a shred of doubt as to whether someone commited a murder you couldn't find them guilty? Isn't that what everyone was talking about with Casey Anthony?"...again, for like the third time, make sure you actually read what I say first before responding.

don't know alot about the case but i hope the guy is guilty since they are gonna execute him

squitsquat

There was no evidence and the """"star witnesses"""" all recanted their statements stating that the cops pressured all of them to sign statements through bullying tactics. Thus leaving no evidence or witnesses to this ""supposed"" crime. He was innocent in the eyes of the law, but hey, it's a cops word against yours no matter what and no matter who is guilty. If they profile you, then it's your a**.

I would of expected a 5-4 decision upholding the conviction had it gone that far.DroidPhysX

Based on what? Just to back a state who's system is flawed? That's good work from the greatest court in the land we know as America.

[QUOTE="squitsquat"]

don't know alot about the case but i hope the guy is guilty since they are gonna execute him

Sunfyre7896

There was no evidence and the """"star witnesses"""" all recanted their statements stating that the cops pressured all of them to sign statements through bullying tactics. Thus leaving no evidence or witnesses to this ""supposed"" crime. He was innocent in the eyes of the law, but hey, it's a cops word against yours no matter what and no matter who is guilty. .

[QUOTE="Sunfyre7896"]

[QUOTE="squitsquat"]

don't know alot about the case but i hope the guy is guilty since they are gonna execute him

LJS9502_basic

There was no evidence and the """"star witnesses"""" all recanted their statements stating that the cops pressured all of them to sign statements through bullying tactics. Thus leaving no evidence or witnesses to this ""supposed"" crime. He was innocent in the eyes of the law, but hey, it's a cops word against yours no matter what and no matter who is guilty. .

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Sunfyre7896"]

There was no evidence and the """"star witnesses"""" all recanted their statements stating that the cops pressured all of them to sign statements through bullying tactics. Thus leaving no evidence or witnesses to this ""supposed"" crime. He was innocent in the eyes of the law, but hey, it's a cops word against yours no matter what and no matter who is guilty. .

the_plan_man

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]I thought when there was even a shred of doubt as to whether someone commited a murder you couldn't find them guilty? thegerg

What do you think "beyond a reasonable doubt" means? . . . It means that if there is any doubt that they did the crime that they were alleged to do, then they're innocent. You have to proove 100% that that person is guilty. That is the shred.

That's actually not true..... In fact in the eyes of the law he was guilty and convicted.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]I thought when there was even a shred of doubt as to whether someone commited a murder you couldn't find them guilty? Sunfyre7896

What do you think "beyond a reasonable doubt" means? . . . It means that if there is any doubt that they did the crime that they were alleged to do, then they're innocent. You have to proove 100% that that person is guilty. That is the shred.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="the_plan_man"]That was two decades ago, dude.:| By today's standards, he wouldn't have been proven guilty.

the_plan_man

[QUOTE="the_plan_man"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You can't know that......LJS9502_basic

The court was so espoused for a family in mourning that logic & reasoning has been completely overlooked because the family said he was guilty and wanted justice.

The only good thing that could come from this unjust execution is that the public can review the procedures that lead to such a tragic event, because there is no doubt that Davis was not and will not be the only innocent person to be subjected to capital punishment.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="the_plan_man"] On NBC Nightly News tonight, one woman coorespondant said that, if the trial was given today, he probably wouldn't have pleaded guilty. Today's cases sentence far fewer people to death, because we use more scientific, modern methods of collecting evidence than two decades ago, according to NBC.the_plan_man

The court was so espoused for a family in mourning that logic & reasoning has been completely overlooked because the family said he was guilty and wanted justice.

The only good thing that could come from this unjust execution is that the public can review the procedures that lead to such a tragic event, because there is no doubt that Davis was not and will not be the only innocent person to be subjected to capital punishment.

_R34LiTY_

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Being that you were there to see who was brought to the location, why did you not say something to the defense attorneys so they could call you as a witness to what happened?

The prosecution had no doubt nor did the jury. Recantations of previous testimony is suspect at best and could lead to perjury charges to those making such statements. If there was new evidence, why didn't the defense attorneys present it? It is more likely that such evidence was manufactured and did not exist. If there was evidence, why were not the defense attorneys all over the TV with it? The only reason is that it was fictitious and wouldn't hold up in court.

SaintLeonidas

:? Huh? You didn't need to be there to know, from the statements of witnesses and investigators and numerous individuals on countless TV programs, talking about the way in which the original investigation went down, including taking them all to the scene of the crime together ot get their statements in front of the entire group.

Suspect at best? Even if you doubt their recantations, I don't see how you could still completely ignore such a thing and just say "just kill the man". There was new evidence, a quick goggle search and you can see this to be true. The did present it, hence the reason they even went to the Supreme Court to ask for an appeal, but they rejected their plea for an appeal and so the execution went as planned instead of actually taking another look at the case and the new evidence, primarily the ballistic evidence.

Here is where you didn't read a previously linked article so I will post it for you.

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.Ann Coulter column

If Davis was innocent, why did he not want his recanting witnesses to testify? His friend who recanted part of his testimony still implicated him with the rest of it. Again, there was physical evidence that people are discounting. Shell casings do not just magically show up at a murder scene. Getting shot does not leave any DNA evidence as the killer does not touch or anything else to the murder victim.

CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and all the other media outlets are not telling you the whole story. They only want you to hear what will play on your emotions and you fell for it. Ann Coulter on the other hand went to law school and was a lawyer so she understands what went on with the Davis case.

I have said it before and I will say it again, neither you, nor I, nor any one else was at the scene of the crime nor were we present when depositions were take or were we at the trial to hear testimony from any of the eyewitnesses or were we there to hear witnesses recant their previous testimony. We do not have all the facts in the case. No one on here can know for certain if he did or didn't do it. The jury convicted him with a preponderance of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. When eyewitnesses recanted their testimony, Davis himself, did not allow those witnesses to be heard as he knew there would be problems.

[QUOTE="the_plan_man"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Less death sentences does not mean he wouldn't have been convicted.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="Sunfyre7896"]

[QUOTE="thegerg"] then you thought wrong. The legal standard of evidence for a criminal conviction is simply proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not proof beyond a shred of doubt.LJS9502_basic

What do you think "beyond a reasonable doubt" means? . . . It means that if there is any doubt that they did the crime that they were alleged to do, then they're innocent. You have to proove 100% that that person is guilty. That is the shred.

You must not watch sports. In all of the sports with replay, they always say that the video evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" has to be there to overturn what the refs called on the field. That means that there cannot be any doubt. Humans err and that's what replay in sports is about just as that is what a jury case is about. Semantically, I suppose now you have to determine what the REASONABLE in reasonable doubt really means. That's really what's the issue then. So back then when the process seemed to be more corrupt and about lack of evidence in that area, then reasonable must mean, hearsay and circumstantial evidence. Although you can argue that that's all if really takes not as well. Gone are the days when you used to require a body, a murder weapon, and a motive with some sort of other physical evidence at the least, if not with witnesses as well if there was doubt. Now cirucumstance and opinion kills. Jury trials are a farce many times. Not most, but at times. This was one of those.

[QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Being that you were there to see who was brought to the location, why did you not say something to the defense attorneys so they could call you as a witness to what happened?

The prosecution had no doubt nor did the jury. Recantations of previous testimony is suspect at best and could lead to perjury charges to those making such statements. If there was new evidence, why didn't the defense attorneys present it? It is more likely that such evidence was manufactured and did not exist. If there was evidence, why were not the defense attorneys all over the TV with it? The only reason is that it was fictitious and wouldn't hold up in court.

WhiteKnight77

:? Huh? You didn't need to be there to know, from the statements of witnesses and investigators and numerous individuals on countless TV programs, talking about the way in which the original investigation went down, including taking them all to the scene of the crime together ot get their statements in front of the entire group.

Suspect at best? Even if you doubt their recantations, I don't see how you could still completely ignore such a thing and just say "just kill the man". There was new evidence, a quick goggle search and you can see this to be true. The did present it, hence the reason they even went to the Supreme Court to ask for an appeal, but they rejected their plea for an appeal and so the execution went as planned instead of actually taking another look at the case and the new evidence, primarily the ballistic evidence.

Here is where you didn't read a previously linked article so I will post it for you.

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.Ann Coulter column

If Davis was innocent, why did he not want his recanting witnesses to testify? His friend who recanted part of his testimony still implicated him with the rest of it. Again, there was physical evidence that people are discounting. Shell casings do not just magically show up at a murder scene. Getting shot does not leave any DNA evidence as the killer does not touch or anything else to the murder victim.

CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC and all the other media outlets are not telling you the whole story. They only want you to hear what will play on your emotions and you fell for it. Ann Coulter on the other hand went to law school and was a lawyer so she understands what went on with the Davis case.

I have said it before and I will say it again, neither you, nor I, nor any one else was at the scene of the crime nor were we present when depositions were take or were we at the trial to hear testimony from any of the eyewitnesses or were we there to hear witnesses recant their previous testimony. We do not have all the facts in the case. No one on here can know for certain if he did or didn't do it. The jury convicted him with a preponderance of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. When eyewitnesses recanted their testimony, Davis himself, did not allow those witnesses to be heard as he knew there would be problems.

That is just too much :lol:

That is just too much :lol:

SaintLeonidas

Yeah, trying to link to something at Gifbin just doesn't work apparently.:twisted:

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Sunfyre7896"]

What do you think "beyond a reasonable doubt" means? . . . It means that if there is any doubt that they did the crime that they were alleged to do, then they're innocent. You have to proove 100% that that person is guilty. That is the shred.

Sunfyre7896

You must not watch sports. In all of the sports with replay, they always say that the video evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt" has to be there to overturn what the refs called on the field. That means that there cannot be any doubt. Humans err and that's what replay in sports is about just as that is what a jury case is about. Semantically, I suppose now you have to determine what the REASONABLE in reasonable doubt really means. That's really what's the issue then. So back then when the process seemed to be more corrupt and about lack of evidence in that area, then reasonable must mean, hearsay and circumstantial evidence. Although you can argue that that's all if really takes not as well. Gone are the days when you used to require a body, a murder weapon, and a motive with some sort of other physical evidence at the least, if not with witnesses as well if there was doubt. Now cirucumstance and opinion kills. Jury trials are a farce many times. Not most, but at times. This was one of those.

Beyond a reasonable doubt in the criminal court system....quote

This means that the proposition being presented by the prosecution must be proven to the extent that there could be no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a "reasonable person" that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty.

/quote

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

The court was so espoused for a family in mourning that logic & reasoning has been completely overlooked because the family said he was guilty and wanted justice.

The only good thing that could come from this unjust execution is that the public can review the procedures that lead to such a tragic event, because there is no doubt that Davis was not and will not be the only innocent person to be subjected to capital punishment.

SF_KiLLaMaN

Since you obviously want some attention, here's a cookie for telling me you find my post humorous.

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

The court was so espoused for a family in mourning that logic & reasoning has been completely overlooked because the family said he was guilty and wanted justice.

The only good thing that could come from this unjust execution is that the public can review the procedures that lead to such a tragic event, because there is no doubt that Davis was not and will not be the only innocent person to be subjected to capital punishment.

SF_KiLLaMaN

The main point of why most people are disturbed with this is that they executed someone without any physical evidence of the crime they were charged with.

Isn't one supposed to beproven guilty, rather than having to prove innocence?

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"][QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

The court was so espoused for a family in mourning that logic & reasoning has been completely overlooked because the family said he was guilty and wanted justice.

The only good thing that could come from this unjust execution is that the public can review the procedures that lead to such a tragic event, because there is no doubt that Davis was not and will not be the only innocent person to be subjected to capital punishment.

shoot-first

The main point of why most people are disturbed with this is that they executed someone without any physical evidence of the crime they were charged with.

Isn't one supposed to beproven guilty, rather than having to prove innocence?

The main point of why most people are disturbed with this is that they executed someone without any physical evidence of the crime they were charged with.

Isn't one supposed to beproven guilty, rather than having to prove innocence?

shoot-first

What would you call the shell casings found at the scene? Trash?

[QUOTE="shoot-first"]

The main point of why most people are disturbed with this is that they executed someone without any physical evidence of the crime they were charged with.

Isn't one supposed to beproven guilty, rather than having to prove innocence?

WhiteKnight77

What would you call the shell casings found at the scene? Trash?

Shell casings doesn't prove he did it. How are they linked to him?

[QUOTE="shoot-first"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] I find it funny that you're saying he is innocent when you do not know that. I also find it funny you blame the conviction on the court feeling sorry for the family, which you also do not know. LJS9502_basic

The main point of why most people are disturbed with this is that they executed someone without any physical evidence of the crime they were charged with.

Isn't one supposed to beproven guilty, rather than having to prove innocence?

Right. "Proven" without any real evidence.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="shoot-first"]

The main point of why most people are disturbed with this is that they executed someone without any physical evidence of the crime they were charged with.

Isn't one supposed to beproven guilty, rather than having to prove innocence?

shoot-first

What would you call the shell casings found at the scene? Trash?

Shell casings doesn't prove he did it. How are they linked to him?

That you have to ask means you haven't been following any of the case. The shell casings were from a gun that he used at an earlier crime that same day and matched those found at that scene, a crime in which he was also convicted of.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="shoot-first"]

The main point of why most people are disturbed with this is that they executed someone without any physical evidence of the crime they were charged with.

Isn't one supposed to beproven guilty, rather than having to prove innocence?

shoot-first

Right. "Proven" without any real evidence.

[QUOTE="shoot-first"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

What would you call the shell casings found at the scene? Trash?

WhiteKnight77

Shell casings doesn't prove he did it. How are they linked to him?

That you have to ask means you haven't been following any of the case. The shell casings were from a gun that he used at an earlier crime that same day and matched those found at that scene, a crime in which he was also convicted of.

You must be talking about the person who was pistol whipped. He didn't even fire any rounds at that person. There are more than 1 gun in the world, you know.

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] I find it funny that you're saying he is innocent when you do not know that. I also find it funny you blame the conviction on the court feeling sorry for the family, which you also do not know. SF_KiLLaMaN

Since you obviously want some attention, here's a cookie for telling me you find my post humorous.

Am I the one quoting people only to say that I find his/her post humorous? Is this how you normally try to get people to engage in a debate with you, by saying you find such & such to be humorous?

[QUOTE="shoot-first"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Uh...he was proven guilty. He did have a trial after all....LJS9502_basic

Right. "Proven" without any real evidence.

Did they recover a weapon being tied to him? As far as I know, they only recovered shell casings.

[QUOTE="shoot-first"]

[QUOTE="SF_KiLLaMaN"] I find it funny that you're saying he is innocent when you do not know that. I also find it funny you blame the conviction on the court feeling sorry for the family, which you also do not know. LJS9502_basic

The main point of why most people are disturbed with this is that they executed someone without any physical evidence of the crime they were charged with.

Isn't one supposed to beproven guilty, rather than having to prove innocence?

Right, and 7 of the 9 eyewitnesses came forward after Davis' conviction and recanted their testimony because of allegations that the local enforcement agency had coerced them into testifying against Davis since they "couldn't go empty handed on this one"(as one of the witnesses put it).

If that doesn't raise any doubt, then what does?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="shoot-first"]

Right. "Proven" without any real evidence.

shoot-first

Did they recover a weapon being tied to him? As far as I know, they only recovered shell casings.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="shoot-first"]

The main point of why most people are disturbed with this is that they executed someone without any physical evidence of the crime they were charged with.

Isn't one supposed to beproven guilty, rather than having to prove innocence?

_R34LiTY_

Right, and 7 of the 9 eyewitnesses came forward after Davis' conviction and recanted their testimony because of allegations that the local enforcement agency had coerced them into testifying against Davis since they "couldn't go empty handed on this one"(as one of the witnesses put it).

If that doesn't raise any doubt, then what does?

I'm inclined to side with the courts on this one. The media only cares about ratings meaning they're going to report whatever the hell it takes to get people worked up enough to follow the case through their news reports and give them money. Ann Coulter and other such people are just busy pushing their own agenda. The side with the least bias is the courts so I'll go ahead and trust their judgement.

edit: Not saying that I support the death penalty but I do believe that 12 regular people(the jurors) were certain beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. How easy would it be for you to sit there and tell the world you think that person should be executed unless you are absolutely certain that they committed the crime? That and I still have faith the we have a competent supreme court.

[QUOTE="shoot-first"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Eyewitnesses that stand by their testimony and a gun tied to him are not evidence?LJS9502_basic

Did they recover a weapon being tied to him? As far as I know, they only recovered shell casings.

I still think it was pure b.s. and he should have been grantedclemency. That does not seem like enough solid evidence to carry out an execution.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="shoot-first"]

Did they recover a weapon being tied to him? As far as I know, they only recovered shell casings.

shoot-first

I still think it was pure b.s. and he should have been grantedclemency. That does not seem like enough solid evidence to carry out an execution.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

That you have to ask means you haven't been following any of the case. The shell casings were from a gun that he used at an earlier crime that same day and matched those found at that scene, a crime in which he was also convicted of.

shoot-first

You must be talking about the person who was pistol whipped. He didn't even fire any rounds at that person. There are more than 1 gun in the world, you know.

The pistol whipping incident is the one where the cop was shot. The earlier incident is where Davis shot into a car load of people and hit one passenger in the face.

This petition for Troy Davis in the United States District Court shows that the US Supreme Court decreed that it should be heard there states:

BACKGROUND
This case involves the shooting of Savannah Police
Department ("SPD") Officer Mark Allen MacPhail. In the early
hours of August 19, 1989, Officer MacPhail was working a parttime
security job when he came to the assistance of a homeless
man, whom had been assaulted in the parking lot of a Burger King
restaurant. As Officer MacPhajl neared the commotion, one of
the three men responsible for the assault gunned him down.
An earlier shooting at a party in the Cloverdale
neighborhood of Savannah also plays a role in this case. Here,
an individual shot at a car as it was leaving the party,
striking one of its occupants in the face. Because this case
centers on eyewitness testimony, the Court presents the facts in
the manner in which they were provided by those who witnessed
these events.
I. THE INVESTIGATIONS
At 11:29 p.m. on August 18, 1989, the SPD received a 911
call from a resident in the Cloverdale neighborhood informing
them that several shots had been fired. (Resp. Ex. 30, Disk 1
at 00:14.) The police received several more reports of gunfire,
and an officer was dispatched to investigate. At 12:17 a.m. on
August 19, 1989, an officer was informed that a local hospital
had admitted Mr. Michael Cooper to treat a gunshot wound he
received in the Cloverdale neighborhood. (Id. at 03:37, 09:12.)
The police visited Mr. Cooper in the hospital and obtained a
description of the shooter: a young, tall, African-American male
wearing a white batman shirt, a black hat, and shorts. (Id. at
11:01.)
At 1:09 a.m. on August 19, 2010, the SPD received a 911
call from an employee at the Thunderbird Inn, located across the
Street from the Burger King on Oglethorpe Avenue. 3 (Id. at
22:56.) The caller informed the police that an individual had
been shot in the Burger King parking lot and that she saw two
African-American males running from the scene in the direction
of the Trust Company Bank building. One minute later, the SPD
received another 911 call informing the police that the shooting
victim was a police officer. (Id. at 24:13.) At 1:16 a.m., the
SPD received a second call from the Thunderbird employee,
informing them that she saw two men run from the Burger King
parking lot towards the Trust Company Bank building, that both
were wearing shorts, and that one was wearing a tank top tshirt.
(Id. at 30:38.) The caller did not identify the color
of the shorts or the tank top. The limited description was
quickly relayed to the responding officers, who immediately
began searching for similarly dressed individuals. (Id. at
38:03.) Meanwhile, the officers at the scene secured the area
and began interviewing potential witnesses.
Troy Davis petition

This document also includes witness statements from both the Burger King shootings and the Cloverdale shootings.

[QUOTE="_R34LiTY_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Uh...he was proven guilty. He did have a trial after all....LJS9502_basic

Right, and 7 of the 9 eyewitnesses came forward after Davis' conviction and recanted their testimony because of allegations that the local enforcement agency had coerced them into testifying against Davis since they "couldn't go empty handed on this one"(as one of the witnesses put it).

If that doesn't raise any doubt, then what does?

Then all that does is lend more credence to the claim that the justice system needs to be reformed if nothing can be done or if no one is willing to do anything about corced testimony.