While we argue over whether the President is liberal enough, an innocent man is about to be executed

[Empowerer]

This is not theoretical, hypothetical or philosophical. This is not about law and order. This is not about whether Tea Party supporters are bloodthirsty or whether liberals are more compassionate. Those are all interesting points of discussion - for another time. Right now, we're dealing with a life-and-death matter that is is flat out about justice and morality: An innocent man is less than three days away from being executed for a crime he likely did not commit.

And please, don't start arguing that President Obama needs to say or do something about this. This is not something he has any control over - and, in fact, if he WERE to say something, he would politicize it to such a degree that justice can never be done.

"Troy Davis was convicted of murdering a Georgia police officer in 1991. Nearly two decades later, Davis remains on death row — even though the case against him has fallen apart.

The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony which contained inconsistencies even at the time of the trial. Since then, all but two of the state's non-police witnesses from the trial have recanted or contradicted their testimony.

"Many of these witnesses have stated in sworn affidavits that they were pressured or coerced by police into testifying or signing statements against Troy Davis.

"One of the two witnesses who has not recanted his testimony is Sylvester "Red" Coles — the principle alternative suspect, according to the defense, against whom there is new evidence implicating him as the gunman. Nine individuals have signed affidavits implicating Sylvester Coles." http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/cases/usa-troy-davis

Please sign the Amnesty International petition:

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=6oJCLQPAJiJUG&b=6645049&aid=516510&msource=WPSGTL2970

[vaberella]

1. I'd need to look at the issue in full. But if innocent he should be granted a stay. n/t

[tblue]

2. Thank you! It's tearing me up! nt

[I Have A Dream]

3. It truly is heartbreaking.

The case against this man has completely fallen apart, yet the heartless in power and who control the destiny of this man couldn't care less.

:(

[Gregorian]

4. He may be innocent.

His guilt is in doubt.

Therefore, he should be given a trial. If not, this isn't a country of laws. And worse.

[cali]

5. Is he innocent? Perhaps. That's not the point. The point is there is considerable

and reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

Troy Davis should NOT be executed.

[AtomicKitten]

6. It appears the prosecution doesn't want to admit they might be wrong.

Martha Coakley slow-walked Kenneth Waters release for two years after DNA evidence proved his innocence. The failures of the U.S. justice system are distilled down to the simple maxim that people don't like to admit they are wrong.

In this case, the court is being petitioned for a stay of execution to revisit the so-called eyewitness testimony that convicted Davis, testimony that has since been recanted and without which the case falls apart. Good lord that doesn't seem too much to ask.

"... with liberty and justice for all"

[Tom Ripley]

7. Their folly and stupid pride will lead then to murdering this man

[cigsandcoffee]

8. I looked in to the case a little, and am troubled by the bloody shorts.

Apparently a pair of bloody shorts was found in the house of Mr. Davis's mother, but the court found that police overstepped their bounds in searching that house. And while these shorts weren't used in the trial, they were used in various appeals since then.

I'm against the death penalty as a principle, so I don't believe this man should be executed. But I'm a little more skeptical of his innocence after learning of the bloody shorts - a bad search doesn't mean they don't exist - the only thing I can't find is whose blood they were soaked with.

If someone can find something that explains these things away, I'd like very much to hear it.

[Empowerer]

9. A bad search may not mean someone is innocent, but if the evidence uncovered in it is excluded

and the other evidence is not sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty.

But the bloody shorts are not as incriminating as some may claim. Among other things, they were tested for DNA and could not be linked to the crime. Moreover, they belonged to Davis' mother, not to him and he was seen wearing different shorts that night. But the bottom line is, as you noted, the shorts were not in evidence so they are irrelevant to his conviction.

Putting someone to death requires more than "I think he may have done it" or "I'm skeptical of his innocence" or "a piece of excluded evidence seems suspicious.