Link to original article. (http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/22/news/la-pn-davis-death-perry-20110922)

"Something extraordinary occurred Wednesday night as death row inmate Troy Davis awaited word on whether his execution at the hands of the state of the Georgia would go forward.

The merits of Davis’ case, as well as capital punishment, were debated on Twitter around the world in real time as the U.S. Supreme Court took up Davis’ plea for a stay and the clock ticked. Some arguments were moral. Some were based on evidence. And some were based on theories of governing. (Is putting a man to death the ultimate in “big government?” Is it an example of states’ rights? Can you be in favor of abortion rights and oppose the death penalty? Vice versa?)

as, finally, word came that Davis had been executed, a few minutes after 11 pm EDT.

To those following along on Twitter, Davis was alive and fighting for his life one minute and the next he was gone, maintaining his innocence to the very end. Those who passionately argued against Davis’ execution were shocked, crestfallen and shattered. Many viewed it as a defining moment in America’s tortuous history with capital punishment.

Whether that’s true remains to be seen, but the question has relevance now that campaign season is in full swing. And the ultimate sanction’s popularity with a wide swath of the American electorate should not be underestimated. Earlier this month, at the Reagan Library debate in California, the audience cheered as moderator Brian Williams noted that Rick Perry had presided over 234 executions as Texas governor. Williams was taken aback.

Perry was asked whether he ever worried that the state had executed an innocent man. “I’ve never struggled with that at all. The state of Texas has a very thoughtful, a very clear process in place of which — when someone commits the most heinous of crimes against our citizens, they get a fair hearing, they go through an appellate process, they go up to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that’s required,” he said.

The crowd applauded. Williams asked Perry what he made of the crowd’s reaction.

“I think Americans understand justice,” he said. “I think Americans are clearly, in the vast majority of — of cases, supportive of capital punishment.”

The governor is right on that score. Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans support the death penalty, although the number has steadily declined. And while Perry has taken his hits on the issue, Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have also supported the sanction. (Obama, it should be noted, did not involve himself in the Davis case nor did the more liberal members of the court dissent from the decision to deny Davis’ petition. The vote was 9-0.) "

I wonder why they chose Davis to frame the death penalty and not the animal in Texas who killed James Byrd?

Wirelessly posted

I wonder why they chose Davis to frame the death penalty and not the animal in Texas who killed James Byrd?

Because there were real questions in the Davis case. 7 or 9 eyewitnesses, the only evidence as I understand it, recanted their testimony. That's why they choose to frame the debate around his case.
I am for the death penalty and I think justice was served in this case, but I can see why "they" got behind this one

Wirelessly posted



Because there were real questions in the Davis case. 7 or 9 eyewitnesses, the only evidence as I understand it, recanted their testimony. That's why they choose to frame the debate around his case.
I am for the death penalty and I think justice was served in this case, but I can see why "they" got behind this one

:bawl:
He stood over a wounded cop lying on the pavement at a crowded Burger King and shot him in front of 30+ witnesses.
He confessed to the crime.
Forensic evidence was disallowed because of a technicality.
The people who recanted wouldn't do so under oath in court.
His appeal went to the Supreme Court.

"They" got behind this one because turning a cold blooded cop killer loose on the streets will help destroy our society

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Because there were real questions in the Davis case. 7 or 9 eyewitnesses, the only evidence as I understand it, recanted their testimony. That's why they choose to frame the debate around his case.
I am for the death penalty and I think justice was served in this case, but I can see why "they" got behind this one

:bawl:
He stood over a wounded cop lying on the pavement at a crowded Burger King and shot him in front of 30+ witnesses.
He confessed to the crime.
Forensic evidence was disallowed because of a technicality.
The people who recanted wouldn't do so under oath in court.
His appeal went to the Supreme Court.

"They" got behind this one because turning a cold blooded cop killer loose on the streets will help destroy our society

I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand the other sides logic or the bigger issues that this case represents for people who are opposed to the death penalty. :bigwhoop:

Wirelessly posted



I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand the other sides logic or the bigger issues that this case represents for people who are opposed to the death penalty. :bigwhoop:

And those would be, what?

And those would be, what?

(1) If I can only get seven of 34 witnesses to change their minds, quote the headlines that 7 of 9 changed their testimony.
(2) When the recanting witnesses didn't really recant their identification of the killer 20 years ago, ignore that fact.
(3) When you're out of facts, lie.

Wirelessly posted



I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand the other sides logic or the bigger issues that this case represents for people who are opposed to the death penalty. :bigwhoop:

I know of one police officer who was opposed to the death penalty but Troy Davis passed sentence and carried out the penalty while he smiled at the appeals he heard.

...:drama: but I wouldn't expect you to understand

We put down mad dogs without a second thought, why do this cold bloded killer deserve to be treated differently?

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



I wouldn't expect you to be able to understand the other sides logic or the bigger issues that this case represents for people who are opposed to the death penalty. :bigwhoop:

I know of one police officer who was opposed to the death penalty but Troy Davis passed sentence and carried out the penalty while he smiled at the appeals he heard.

...:drama: but I wouldn't expect you to understand

We put down mad dogs without a second thought, why do this cold bloded killer deserve to be treated differently?

What part of " I am for the death penalty and think justice was served in this case" didn't you understand?

Understanding the other sides argument and their right to make it doesn't mean you agree with it.

I've 'morphed' over the years from being a staunch death-penalty supporter to "really don't care as long as they get life without parole".

With the cost of all the appeals and reviews..and the time all of that takes..heck, just let them be bubba's best friend for life and call it good. I really don't see any real "deterent" value left in the death penalty, frankly, so I no longer really care whether it stays or goes.

And that also means that the issue has no bearing on my view of any candidate. :coffee:

Wirelessly posted



Because there were real questions in the Davis case. 7 or 9 eyewitnesses, the only evidence as I understand it, recanted their testimony. That's why they choose to frame the debate around his case.
I am for the death penalty and I think justice was served in this case, but I can see why "they" got behind this one

No, there weren't. The only question in Davis's case was whether or not it was deserving of death in the first place; not his guilt. Not his trail. Not his conviction and not his appeals.

Because there were real questions in the Davis case. 7 or 9 eyewitnesses, the only evidence as I understand it, recanted their testimony. That's why they choose to frame the debate around his case.
I am for the death penalty and I think justice was served in this case, but I can see why "they" got behind this one

You sure like to play on both sides of the fence.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



Because there were real questions in the Davis case. 7 or 9 eyewitnesses, the only evidence as I understand it, recanted their testimony. That's why they choose to frame the debate around his case.
I am for the death penalty and I think justice was served in this case, but I can see why "they" got behind this one

No, there weren't. The only question in Davis's case was whether or not it was deserving of death in the first place; not his guilt. Not his trail. Not his conviction and not his appeals.

Just trying to say I understand their argument and why they chose this case to make a stink. This case has elements that represent what they feel is wrong with the death penalty, particularly as it is applied to this case.

I think justice was served. Fairly convicted, had all of his appeals, competent representation, etc. But I can still understand the logic from their point of view. I don't have to agree with it to see it and understand it.

Wirelessly posted



Just trying to say I understand their argument and why they chose this case to make a stink. This case has elements that represent what they feel is wrong with the death penalty, particularly as it is applied to this case.

I think justice was served. Fairly convicted, had all of his appeals, competent representation, etc. But I can still understand the logic from their point of view. I don't have to agree with it to see it and understand it.

OK but, you said there were 'real' questions and I was responding that no, there were not. Not in the slightest. The only 'real' question was whether or not the death penalty should apply in his case given that, in the realm of horrific murders, his was not all that special. However, that doesn't change that he did, in fact, murder a man in cold blood and there were numerous credible witness's that saw him do it.

Now, for me, I have ZERO problem with this being a death penalty case. To me, we have nothing more precious than life and, to me, to take that, wrongfully, willfully, maliciously, the ONLY way to account for that deep of a crime, that evil an act, is to take life from the offender. it would be nice if those opposed spent more time and effort seeing that justice is done properly than the goal of eliminating the only punishment that suits the crime. :shrug: