Thursday, September 22, 2011

Liberals Protest Justice..Again

"There's a reason more than a dozen courts have looked at Davis' case and refused to overturn his death sentence. He is as innocent as every other executed man since at least 1950, which is to say, guilty as hell." ~ Ann Coulter

Troy Davis was executed by lethal injection yesterday amid protests from the typical bleeding heart Liberal sob sisters who deny eyewitness testimony. Thirty four eyewitnesses saw Troy Davis ruthlessly and callously gun down Savannah Police officer Mark McPhail, and yet, they insist there were only 9 witnesses and that 7 of them recanted their testimony.

As usual, Liberals utilize half truths, obfuscation, and outright lies to present their case.

Here are the facts: On the night of August 18, 1989, occupants of a passing car shouted obscenities at Davis and a friend as they left a party. Davis shot at the car, and a bullet struck one of the passengers in the face.

Later, Davis showed up at a local Burger King and involved himself in an argument between another man and a homeless man over a beer. Davis began pistol whipping the homeless man when Officer McPhail, moonlighting as a Restaurant Security guard, intervened. Davis ran, then wheeled around and shot the cop, walked over to his body and shot him again...

...smiling
.

Davis was apparently afraid the police would connect him with the earlier shooting and thought that murdering a police officer would somehow get him off the hook.

These are the facts of the case, affirmed by the testimonies of 34 separate eyewitnesses, and supported by real physical evidence.

Thirty-four people in the busy Burger King parking lot witnessed this horrific event. One of them, an Air Force Airman, saw the events clearly enough to positively identify Davis as the shooter. He explained on cross-examination, "You don't forget someone that stands over and shoots someone."

His was not one of the testimonies that was supposedly recanted.

Only two of the seven alleged "recantations" 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.

This would seem to indicate that the recantations could easily be destroyed upon cross-examination, and Davis knew it.

One of the other 5 "recantations", from the vagrant's girlfriend, 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.

But, you won't hear these facts from the media. They have already concluded, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, that Davis was an innocent man.

On what do the media base their assumptions of his innocence?

Troy Davis' word.

That is all the media and their Liberal lapdogs require to sanctimoniously proclaim Davis' innocence.

The word of a morally bankrupt man who was, at the time, desperately grasping at straws to prevent his just punishment.

Facts be damned.

This time, reason and logic won out over unreasonable emotion, but what about the next time? And the next? And the next?

Every time the media comes down on the wrong side of the moral fence, one more little piece of our collective common sense gets chipped away, demonstrating, once again, that the pen is indeed mightier than the sword.

34 comments:

Mark said...

I might add here that the moral code of Justice first established by God only requires two eyewitnesses to establish guilt.

Do Liberals really believe they know better than God?

Ducky's here said...

Do Liberals really believe they know better than God?

------------

No, they believe they know more than the tribal texts of a bunch of goat herders.

Jim said...

"He is as innocent as every other executed man since at least 1950, which is to say, guilty as hell."

Read this and then tell us if you agree with Coulter.

Trader Rick said...

DAFFY said:

"No, they believe they know more than the tribal texts of a bunch of goat herders."

That's a new low for you, Daffy. You're an offensive moron.

Trader Rick said...

This guy got an extra twenty years he didn't deserve. That's long enough. He's dead. Get over it.

Ducky's here said...

Interesting that Mark and Ranger Rick seem to believe in Leviticus as a structure for our legal and moral culture.

That's why we call these reactionary fools The American Taliban. And like Muslim extremists this crowd must be contained or destroyed.

Right now feminists and gays are kicking their teeth in and we can expect this to continue as the likes of Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry highlight what fools these people are.

Always On Watch said...

Somehow, the topic of Davis's execution came up in a comments thread at my blog. Let's see....How did that come up? Oh, that's right. Duck went off on a tangent.

I made the following statement at my blog in that comments thread:

I personally don't have a problem with capital punishment. But I've never cheered when a criminal was executed. Not even when Bundy was executed -- or the man who raped a family member AND killed three women (that the authorities knew of - final count undetermined).

In my view, we taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for the room and board of certain egregious criminals. Charles Manson springs to mind as one of those.

Execution can be reserved for the most egregious criminals. That's fine. But Davis deserved the death penalty, IMO. And, clearly, there were plenty of eyewitnesses.

Duck mentioned Leviticus. Actually, capital punishment dates back to Genesis 9:6:Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

To my knowledge, no person executed by the state has ever been proven innocent. I can't say the same about those who have life terms or long sentences.

There have been CLAIMS of innocence for some executed, of course. I did note in that list a few individuals who were pardoned after their executions, but those pardons were given many years ago -- well before forensic evidence had developed to the point we have now.

Jim said...

"Thirty four eyewitnesses saw Troy Davis ruthlessly and callously gun down Savannah Police officer Mark McPhail..."

Uh, this is false. Where in the world are you getting your "information"?

The prosecution called 34 witnesses in total. Only seven were "eyewitnesses" and all of them recanted their testimony. Two other witnesses testified that Davis had confessed to them. The other witnesses were not there to provide eyewitness testimony.

Z said...

Ducky, that's so true; about the only people liberals do know more than are goat herders...thanks.

I'm always curious about the left; Do they think someone had a quota to fill for death sentences and it was just a joy ride for the courts to have hearings and a real joy ride for some poor judge who has to uphold the death sentence? REALLY?

It's a curiosity to me that people make it sound as someone enjoyed killing Troy Davis..>EVERY SINGLE PERSON INVOLVED is a death penalty nut eager to get him killed? Unreal. how idiotic. Just MAYBE the experts know more about the case than WE DO?

Also, let me just say that the procedure of having people watch an execution is disgusting to me and I'd imagine it's HORRIFYING to the man being put to death. It's ungodly, it's unkind and hideous. If the law demands witnesses, let them watch it from a camera somewhere else; Troy Davis was not lying flat and he had bright lights in his face and that's not right, no matter WHAT he did; facing one's death BY ANYONE should be a dignified and private affair.

Mark said...

Jim, "The prosecution called 34 witnesses in total. Only seven were "eyewitnesses" and all of them recanted their testimony. Two other witnesses testified that Davis had confessed to them. The other witnesses were not there to provide eyewitness testimony."

Uh, this is false. Where in the world are you getting your "information"?

Jim said...

Here is where I got mine. It's Wikipedia so it is not necessarily 100% accurate. However, I've never heard anyone but you assert that there were 34 "eyewitnesses". Seems kind of odd that there would be 34 eyewitnesses in the parking lot of a Burger King.

Jim said...

"It's a curiosity to me that people make it sound as someone enjoyed killing Troy Davis..>EVERY SINGLE PERSON INVOLVED is a death penalty nut eager to get him killed?"

It's not a matter of enjoying. It's a matter of being a stakeholder. The cop, the detective, the prosecutor, the judge. They all have a stake in a guilty verdict, with the exception of the judge whose stake is not being found in error in the trial.

Abolish the death penalty. Lock them away.

Ducky's here said...

If the south didn't enjoy it, the barbaric death penalty would be eliminated,z.
One positive that will come out of the Davis case is just that. More impetus to eliminate it in crap holes like Georgia, Virginia and Texas, although Texas will probably remain side by side with Iran and Saudi Arabia as a fundamentalist state.

Ducky's here said...

Mark, maybe you're just figuring out that there was no forensic evidence against Davis. Maybe, I doubt it.

You probably know that eye witness testimony is notoriously untrustworthy but really don't care about using it to take a man's life, quite possibly an innocent man.

Trader Rick said...

I wonder what horror happened to Daffy to fill his heart with such ignorant and vile hatred?

It really comes thru in his posts.

You really can't help but feel sorry for someone so messed up no matter how loathsome they appear to be...

I wonder if people like him are a hopeless lost cause or whether society can provide him with some sort of mental health relief short of lobotomy.

Politics aside, it's really pretty sad.

There but for the Grace of the Chief Goatherder go I.

Always On Watch said...

Duck quacked: If the south didn't enjoy it, the barbaric death penalty would be eliminated,z.

There he goes again. Duck truly does hate the South.

Jim said...

"There but for the Grace of the Chief Goatherder go I."

I thought He was a carpenter.

Mark said...

Jim, Wikipedia is contributed to by it's readers. That means, anything posted on there isn't necessarily accurate. Be that as it may, I myself use Wikipedia often, so it's not all bad, but you have to take the information found therein with a grain of salt.

Whoever wrote the Wikipedia article probably got his information mainly from the mainstream news media, which really is the point of my post. The media doesn't report all the facts, just enough to direct their consumers to whatever conclusion they would like them to draw. In other words, they tend to spin the facts to fir their ideological agenda.

My source is Ann Coulter, who is herself a Lawyer, and who has access to court and police records.

Since everything she writes about is dissected and examined with mathematical precision by those who would love to see her make mistakes, and happily point those mistakes out, one would think she would make absolutely 100% sure of her facts before even publishing her articles. Otherwise she would have no credibility. Obviously she has credibility because she continues to be one of the best selling authors of at least this century. And, her detractors have yet to disprove any of her statements.

You may not like her. many Conservatives don't even like her, but that doesn't change the fact that she is accurate.
But I will give you due props.

I said there were 34 eyewitnesses. I mis-wrote. There were 34 witnesses called in court. Not necessarily eye witnesses.

There were only 6 witnesses in all for the defendant's case.

There were only two witnesses who's testimony was recanted that had any credibility at all, and Davis refused to let them testify. That surely looks suspicious. Did Davis know their recantation wouldn't hold up to cross examination? Possibly not, but the Court made that supposition.

Jim said...

"Otherwise she would have no credibility."

You're kidding of course. Coulter hasn't got one ounce of credibility. She is a bomb-throwing clown who writes crap to sell books.

"Since everything she writes about is dissected and examined with mathematical precision by those who would love to see her make mistakes, and happily point those mistakes out, one would think she would make absolutely 100% sure of her facts before even publishing her articles."

Nobody bothers. She's a bomb-throwing clown writing to get YOUR attention.

"My source is Ann Coulter, who is herself a Lawyer, and who has access to court and police records."

As does anybody else who would contribute to Wikipedia.

"There were only two witnesses who's testimony was recanted that had any credibility at all, and Davis refused to let them testify."

A bit of confusion here. How could Davis refuse to let someone testify who testified?

And on what basis were these two the only credible witnesses? And if they were the only credible witnesses, why does anybody mention that there were 7 eyewitnesses when as you've claimed, only two were credible?

Ducky's here said...

Well, AOW, hate is an extreme description. I know people who have said that the American south should be fenced off and quarantined. I'm not that extreme.

The south is a source of extraordinary denial and hypocrisy from the attempt to deny slavery as a cause of the civil war to the vile evangelical idea of exceptionism.
It's a region which has trouble understanding anything but bomb them into the stone age as a foreign policy.
There is no reason to hate the south but there is good reason to reject their phony "family values" hypocrisy and their anti intellectualism.
If there is a good reason to embrace the damage the south will do to our political process, I don't see it.

Ducky's here said...

Ranger Rick, I know that when anyone speaks of something of value to you you want to invoke political correctness but I'm sorry, at times we need to state the truth and when Mark feels the primitive texts are a justification for possibly taking an innocent mans life then it is time to ask you to move out of the third century B.C.

Ducky's here said...

My source is Ann Coulter

-------------

Yeah, Ann Coulter, there's an objective source.

You seem incapable of shame.

Marshall Art said...

Ann Coulter is merely reporting what she says she's investigated. Rather than kill the messenger, Jim and Ducky should review her story and find a way to prove her false. I would agree that Coulter is a bomb-thrower. But if the bomb is truth, facts and accurate reporting, then I would encourage her to hurl away.

What Jim and Ducky throw is something else. Accuse Coulter if you like. But if you can't provide proof she's wrong in what she says, it would be best that you keep your hatred of her to yourselves.

Marshall Art said...

Oh. I did mean to say that Jim at least has this much going for him. He presented a link to a story that suggests an innocent man was put to death. If the story is true, then Coulter's claim that no innocent person has been executed is a false claim. However, two things must be kept in mind:

1. Hyperbole by a columnist does not necessarily indicate falsehood. I would suggest (with no facts to support me) that the percentage of innocents executed is tiny. One innocent dying is a tragedy. But, as the story Jim presented can bear out, something was learned that should prevent a recurrence.

2. The story Jim presented suggests the conviction was wrong. Strongly, for sure, but it is harder to make such a case after the fact. Based on how the story was presented, I would have to agree. But, the Davis story shows that not all the facts are presented to us, the average readers. Coulter's investigation indicated the media didn't report things in a totally unbiased manner. The story to which Jim linked could be the same situation. In each case, it's a moot question. A better question would be how do we get to a place where such things aren't given the serious focus they deserve?

Mark said...

See now, you're just being unreasonable. Denying the facts of a case just because you don't like the person presenting them is foolish.

I'm not particularly fond of Jim, but when he makes a valid point, I don't just deny it's true.

We would have a poor system of justice indeed if we just threw out the facts of a case because your opinion of the prosecuting or defense attorney is that he is a despicable person.

Perhaps the jury (consisting of 7 blacks and 5 whites}, and denied all the facts of the case in reaching their verdict of guilty just because they hated the Prosecuting attorney.

Of course that wouldn't explain why it took them a whole 2 hours to reach that verdict. If that was the reason they decided to execute an innocent man, they never would have bothered to leave the courtroom and meet in the jury room.

No, the system works, like it or not.

Why don't you use your brains instead of your heart to decide whom you will believe?

That's the main difference between Liberals and Conservatives:

Liberals feel. Conservatives think.

Jim said...

"I'm not particularly fond of Jim"

Gee, and I thought we were buds. :-)

Jim said...

"But if you can't provide proof she's wrong in what she says, it would be best that you keep your hatred of her to yourselves."

You would trust the integrity of someone who's work includes this?

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

Do you mean, do I trust the integrity of someone Media Matters rebuts? Yes. Until Coulter responds to MM, and specifies which points they have correctly rebutted, I will trust her over them every day of the week. Media Matters is not infallible and as a liberal source, I would not trust them to tell the truth. Sorry. Just the way it is. I'd prefer a more unbiased bunch than Media Matters.

But by your choice of Media Matters, you show that you swallow whatever they say. I don't swallow whatever Coulter says, though I have little reason to suspect she makes crap up. She might not nail every little detail perfectly, and I wouldn't suspect she does, but her overall position is not incorrect.

Ducky's here said...

"There's a reason more than a dozen courts have looked at Davis' case and refused to overturn his death sentence. He is as innocent as every other executed man since at least 1950, which is to say, guilty as hell." ~ Ann Coulter

----------

I assume anorexic Annie hasn't heard of the innocence project.

Now, since DNA testing has proven that there have been many innocent men convicted it is pretty safe to assume that there were innocent men convicted and executed before DNA testing became available.

Remember, Marshall, the left is here to free you from superstition and lead you to reason.

Ducky's here said...

Mark, he was convicted solely on eye witness testimony which is notoriously unreliable.

In the end the primary witness was another cop. Hardly a model of objectivity hen a fellow cop was the victim.

Just wasn't enough to take a man's life but as I say, a fringe right winger will kill anything but a fetus.

Marshall Art said...

Like Jim, Ducky focuses on one statement of Coulter's and thinks it destroys her entire argument. That's called "desperation".

And I'm sure she, like the rest of us, are well aware that advanced in technology have led to more accurate results in determining guilt. As this continues, the argument against putting to death those for whom the punishment is just loses credibility.

What's more, I doubt Coulter would attempt to try to prove that hyperbolic statement.

Marshall Art said...

Duck,

"Remember, Marshall, the left is here to free you from superstition and lead you to reason."

You don't know the difference between the two. As in:

"In the end the primary witness was another cop. Hardly a model of objectivity hen a fellow cop was the victim."

Apparently you believe a superstition that states cops can't be trusted in being objective when a fellow cop has been killed.

I would also suggest that if twenty people stood there watching and one was a cop, the cop will most always be regarded as the primary witness. I don't know this for certain, but considering his job, that would be a good guess.

But as reported, of the people that recanted, some knew Davis personally, and if they change their stories, that drops them from "primary" status, even though in reality, they remain close to the top of the list. The question is simply why the recantation and is it credible? The second part of the question has been deemed "no".

"Just wasn't enough to take a man's life but as I say, a fringe right winger will kill anything but a fetus."

Stupidity. One primary witness along with the "less than primary" witnesses ARE enough to warrant a death penalty sentence for a guilty man, as it was here.

According to YOU, a "fringe" right winger has more class for NOT killing a fetus, which is a stage of human development and shows that he is not so callous as to harm a most innocent and vulnerable human being. The "average" lefty has no problem with doing so. I'll stick with the "fringe" right winger every time, whatever the hell that is.

Mark said...

Jim, using your logic, I don't like Media Matters, therefore they are not credible.

Seriously though... You said, in response to my point that the left dissects everything she says to find mistakes, that "Nobody bothers. She's a bomb-throwing clown writing to get YOUR attention." And then you proceed to link to Media Matters website.

Apparently Media Matters bothers.

And, as Coulter's publisher says, the points MM brings to the argument are trivial, meritless, and irresponsible. The fact is, those errors and/or false attributions don't alter the overall premise of Coulter's book at all. They are merely distractions from the bigger point, that is, that Liberals are Godless.

Want another example of a Godless Liberal?

Look no further than Ducky, who calls God, the Creator of the universe, a goatherder.

And then, Ducky unbelievably says "Mark, he was convicted solely on eye witness testimony which is notoriously unreliable."

Really? What Law textbook did you get that out of? Up until the science of DNA was discovered, eyewitness testimony has been the most reliable evidence of all, which is the very reason the head "goatherder" decreed that two eyewitnesses must be produced before finding a verdict of guilty.

Of course, we don't expect an atheist to agree. So, from now on, I will simply ignore all of your stupid comments. Anyone who denies the existence of God and even insults Him, has no credibility.

Jim said...

Well ya got me on the nobody bothers thing, I'll admit. But...

"those errors and/or false attributions don't alter the overall premise of Coulter's book at all."

If the premise is as you state that liberals are Godless, then that premise is false and unfounded. Atheists are Godless. Most Liberals are not atheists; they are Christians.

Coulter can premise anything she wants. There are books out there where the premise is that 9/11 was an inside job. Doesn't make them valid.

You can believe Media Matters or not. But they did provide point by point analysis of Ann's end notes. I doubt Ann is going to counter.

"Look no further than Ducky, who calls God, the Creator of the universe, a goatherder. "

Actually I don't believe he did, in fact it was Trader Rick who said, "There but for the Grace of the Chief Goatherder go I."