They are .pdfs.
No, it’s not.
If he is guilty, why does he need to be retried?
From the previous cite:
This makes no sense. If he is innocent, why should he spend the rest of his life in prison?
This is the kind of thing that indicates that talk about his guilt or innocence is a smoke screen. I get the strong feeling that you don’t really care that he is guilty - you just don’t want him to be executed, and are trying to pretend there is any reasonable doubt as a distraction.
I would have a bit more respect for DP opponents if they could say honestly ‘yes, he’s guilty as Cain. But don’t execute him.’
Regards,
Shodan
Your exception does not apply the circumstances of the case being discussed in this
thread, or to the question posed in reply #9, which I answered correctly.
Assuming competent representation and absent trial error, then the burden of proof
is transferred to the defendant, as I said.
I know they are pdf. I can open pp1-112 and that is it.
I believe it is.
This is incorrect. It means "100% of reasonable jurors would consider him below the “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold. It does not create a new “innocent beyond a reasonable doubt” threshold - merely having a reasonable doubt that he is guilty is sufficient.
IIRC, shell casings were found at the site of the shooting that matched a gun used in a shooting earlier that day which Davis had been convicted of. Additionally, the description of Davis’ clothing matched more closely to what Davis was wearing than did the clothing of the other man involved in the preliminary assault.
I don’t remember reading about the gun so I can’t comment.
No, 34 witnesses were presented, including people who knew Davis personally. 7 recanted their testimony, with the two most important dismissed because the defense would not allow them to testify as to their affidavits. One was even at the courthouse and ready to testify, but Davis’ own attorney would not allow it.
This is meaningless, as they may have been unduly swayed by the defense attorney, or by subsequent inaccurate media accounts of what transpired.
I’m at an utter loss to see what this has to do with the question of Davis’ guilt. Would execution be okay with you if a former president, a former FBI director and a current religious leader, none of whom were seated in the jury box, believed an accused should be executed?
No, she wrote a piece debunking media claims about doubt of Davis’ guilt and outlining numerous facts which showed that there was no doubt as to Davis’ guilt. I’ve read lots of criticism of Ann Coulter but none as to her factual honesty. If you have evidence to debunk her claims as to the facts I’d be happy to read them. But if you don’t - and I think it’s apparent from your post that you don’t give her account of the evidence much weight - then you obviously have no standing to be judging whether she’s right or not and you’re basing your opinion on politics and emotion only.
Depends on which “answer” you want. Do you want an answer that agrees with your politics or an answer based on the facts? I’ll leave it to you as to which answer equates to assholism.
No, you said he would have to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is incorrect. He could win a new trial if important new evidence were to be developed or if previous significantly important evidence were shown to be in error. Then a new trial would be held and a jury would once again weigh the evidence and make a determination as to his guilt or innocence.
Maybe so, I would like to be able to read the opinion.
But in the absence of various errors the burden still rests with the convict.
An American columnist with not only a political agenda, but more history of insanity than Sheen and Manson put together as well.
Look, I’m not particularly informed in this case, nor am I particularly interested in it. I have not been following the media reports. At the moment, it seems kind of like a “he said she said” story to me, probably because I’m not that well-informed. However, regardless of the state of my information, Starving Artist, you should know damn well better than to cite Anne Coulter. That’s like citing Michael Moore in response to a topic where there’s partisan anger on both sides and the results are unclear: as far as evaluating your source material goes, you might as well be citing The National Enquirer or Mad Magazine.
Its interesting. My only knowledge of this case is today seeing these types of threads on various message boards, and the titles all tend to be some varient of “Fuck you America you murderers etc etc”.
From my foreign perspective, there really does seem to be a perception out there that an innocent man has been executed. Yet, reading some of the facts of the case here it seems that it is not nearly as simple as that.
With this the information that is reaching me all the way over here, it seems there really is some sort of media bias towards this case. Only the biggest sound bytes trickle down and they all seem to be of the “Troy Davis is innocent” type. Strange.
Here is what I said, clause numbering added:[ol]
[li]After conviction burden of proof is transferred to the convict;[/li][li]he must prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt.[/li][/ol]1. is true, 2. may not be in this case
Ah, so you can spell “Tu quoque”? Congratulations. BTW, how does it feel to know that the USA belong to the same club as human rights bastions like China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen and Saudi Arabia? And congratulations on that, too
Link, in case you didn’t get my point
Nitpick: I’m pitting Georgia’s “justice system” generally and their Board of Pardons and Paroles specifically. Not America.
I don’t believe there’s any doubt as to the man’s guilt.
But I do think it makes us brutal and damages us, as a nation, to kill a person for reasons that amount to vengeance. The other classic justification for the death penalty is deterrence and I hope it’s acknowledged that enough studies concerning the lack of actual deterring effect exist that no one is going to ride that horse in here.
I don’t like to argue for the death penalty because it makes me sick to think that we use it - that a human being, whatever his crime, has his life deliberately snuffed out by order of the state.
But unfortunately this cause has now been taken up by the “I need some more facts so I’ll make shit up” crowd. Hamlet has accurately summarized the legal standard and punctured the false claims made by numerous posters above. I don’t believe any cause is helped by refusing to acknowledge facts and making shit up to help your side…
BobLibDem, 2square4u, monstro please take note.
Your (2) is never true. You’re correct on (1).
Ann Coulter is an attorney and officer of the court. Plus she is employed by and writes columns for corporations that bear a certain amount of civic responsibility. I have heard many complaints about her political views but no substantive accusations as the her honest when reciting facts. I looked over her Wiki page for the express purpose of trying to find out if she has a history of lying about the facts she presents, and while I didn’t read every single word I didn’t find anything to indicate a history of her having done so. If you or anyone else has proof that anything she said was inaccurate I will be happy to read it, but until someone comes up with something substantial to indicate she’s in error I think the weight of evidence with regard to factual honesty is in her favor.
In what sense are bullets and cartridge casings not physical evidence?
What other physical evidence would you expect in a shooting murder?
No, because Davis ran from the crime scene as fast as he could. We have the bullets recovered from the two men Davis shot that night and the associated casings, both matched to the same weapon, and both shootings occurred while Davis was present.
There were four men in company at the time of the shooting. All four of them, including Davis, admit that they were armed on the night in question. All four admit that they were not licenced to carry. So I don’t quite know what having the actual murder weapon would even add to this case.
Any argument that would distance Davis from the shell casings and bullets would equally distance him from any weapon.
Well, no.
Guilt was established by a combination of ballistics evidence, circumstantial evidence and eyewitness testimony.
Once again, I have to ask what other evidence you think there might be? Assuming that most shootings don’t take place under cameras, what other evidence could there possibly be?
And what do you mean “7 of the 9”? If you take the time to read the court transcript you will note that there are 28 witnesses, listed as A - BB. I won’t bother to list all their names, since they are quite clearly printed int he court record.
Where did this meme of “only 9 eyewitnesses” originate?
Jurors are only allowed to make a finding based on the facts presented at trial.And this is precisely the reason why jurors are forbidden from discussing the case during the trial and are sequestered during deliberations.
Are you seriously suggesting that it would be a good thing for jurors to be able to make findings based on hearsay information received outside of court? If not, then what is the point here?
A former president, a former FBI director, and the current leader of the world’s largest religious organization have appealed to make abortion illegal. Since you apparently believe that such people should be heeded on issues of law and morality, I assume that you are now you pro-life?
Arguments from popularity are worthless at the best of times. When the argument is that the case is popular amongst famous people, it becomes even more worthless.
Well played, sir.
Regards,
Shodan
Establishing hierarchy based on the relative frequency of events is essential
in evaluating political and social sytems, and doing so is not tu quoque argument.
The US has executed 1269 people since 1976. China probably executes more than
that many *every year. *If executing people is always bad (a premise I do not grant),
then China is undoubtedly much worse than the USA, and so are many other countries.
It is a fact that AI fails to devote a proportionate amount of attention to those who,
by its own definition, are the worst violators. It is a fact that that is bias.
I can’t open this link either, but no need to since no one worth reading would
mention the US in the same breath with the others you name.