SomaliNet Forums

yungnfresh wrote: You might compose whatever u compose composed, but what you write is anything but rational...unless you're irrational, which would make it seem rational

In this thread, I merely said that the law should be upheld as it is written, not how people personally believe it should have been written. The jurors, Judges, and Justices who have been assigned to the case have found this man guilty of the crimes which he has been accused of. He has exhausted all means of legal appeal and has been executed as consequence for his crimes. There is nothing irrational about supporting law and order.

So you're telling me you're convinced his conviction was and still is to the exclusion of ANY reasonable doubt?

yungnfresh wrote:So you're telling me you're convinced his conviction was and still is to the exclusion of ANY reasonable doubt?

That is the conclusion the jury of his peers reached after reviewing all the evidence. A tribunal of appeals court judges upheld the conviction handed down by the inferior court. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and once again upheld its legality without a single dissent. I think it’s a bit irrational to believe that there was a large-scale racial conspiracy to execute this single man that extended all the way from the Georgia court room in which he was convicted all the way to the highest court in the land.

If you’re asking me personally, I cannot say. I was not privy to all the evidence, and I acknowledge the possibility of his innocence. However I place great faith in the Supreme Court, and if they have deemed his execution permissible I do not oppose it.

- Questionable, at best, ballistics evidence

- No forensic evidence

- Murder weapon was never recovered

- 7/9 eyewitnesses later recanted their testimony, some citing police coercion

- A different individual confessed to the crime


If those facts are to be accepted as presented, would u say there's an iota of reasonable doubt there?

I would have to see all the evidence and the arguments of the prosecuting attorney before making any such determination. Many of the single sided pro defense arguments you posted do not always make a jury unable to render a verdict with unreasonable doubt. For example, many murder cases can be tried without the weapon and witnesses do sometimes change their stories. The celebrity and media attention surrounding this case may have perhaps encouraged some fame seekers to undermine the execution of justice (excuse the pun) in order to get their 15 minutes of fame, such as the last gentlemen who claimed to have been the actual murderer. But like I said, I am not privy to all the information and as such cannot make any such determination. I have faith in the law and those tasked with upholding it.

lol I specifically asked "if those facts are to be accepted as presented" so that you wouldn't say you don't know the details and can't make an informed decision.

Put it this way, anything the crown can present can only strengthen their case to secure a conviction, but it can't detract from the legitimacy of the points I mentioned in the last post since those are established facts (none of which the crown contested, by the way)...aren't those, on their own, enough to cast reasonable doubt upon his guilt since the burden of proof is on the prosecution and the defense is not even required to mount a case whatsoever?

The Justice system is broken. yungnfresh pretty much cited all the evidence needed.



International solidarity with Mr. Davis.

yungnfresh wrote:lol I specifically asked "if those facts are to be accepted as presented" so that you wouldn't say you don't know the details and can't make an informed decision.

Put it this way, anything the crown can present can only strengthen their case to secure a conviction, but it can't detract from the legitimacy of the points I mentioned in the last post since those are established facts (none of which the crown contested, by the way)...aren't those, on their own, enough to create reasonable doubt surrounding his guilt since the burden of proof is upon the prosecution and the defense is not even required to mount a case whatsoever?

Many of the single sided pro defense arguments you posted do not always make a jury unable to render a verdict with unreasonable doubt. For example, many murder cases can be tried without the weapon and witnesses do sometimes change their stories. The celebrity and media attention surrounding this case may have perhaps encouraged some fame seekers to undermine the execution of justice (excuse the pun) in order to get their 15 minutes of fame, such as the last gentlemen who claimed to have been the actual murderer.

Also I must inform you that all the evidence you posted was considered by the court. For example, the Supreme Court ordered a review of the case because some of witnesses changed their story and claimed coercion, but time and time again many different courts including the highest in the land upheld the governments’ sound case against Davis. The government won the case legally and through the evidence even after countless appeal, but the case has been lost in the public realm largely due to misinformation and people ignorant of the evidence rendering their judgements which are based on emotion rather than evidence. But in this country, cases aren’t decided on t.v shows nor on social networking sites, but in courts of law.

No, appellate courts and matters before the Supreme Court shift the burden of proof onto the defense and require the defendant to prove their innocence beyond any reasonable doubt that ANY juror can possibly convict them on...basically, it sets them up to fail because the most inconsequential circumstantial evidence can cast doubt upon their innocence and end up causing their bid to be discarded. The Supreme Court and other appeal courts aren't necessarily at fault for that since they have to abide by the letter of the law, not spirit of the law, and return their verdict based on the legal mandate they were given no matter how fundamentally flawed it is.

I'm surprised you can't acknowledge there is room for doubt based on the evidence the defense presented...I'm not asking you whether the defense proved he's definitely not guilty or the prosecution proved he definitely is, I'm asking if the defense proved that there is room for doubt surrounding his guilt. You still don't think there's any?

Republican barbarism

The barbarians will cheer the death of this innocent man like they cheered hundreds of others.

They must be stopped.

yungnfresh wrote:No, appellate courts and matters before the Supreme Court shift the burden of proof onto the defense and require the defendant to prove their innocence beyond any reasonable doubt that ANY juror can possibly convict them on...basically, it sets them up to fail because the most inconsequential circumstantial evidence can cast doubt upon their innocence and end up causing their bid to be discarded. The Supreme Court and other appeal courts aren't necessarily at fault for that since they have to abide by the letter of the law, not spirit of the law, and return their verdict based on the legal mandate they were given no matter how fundamentally flawed it is.

I'm surprised you can't acknowledge there is room for doubt based on the evidence the defense presented...I'm not asking you whether the defense proved he's definitely not guilty or the prosecution proved he definitely is, I'm asking if the defense proved that there is room for doubt surrounding his guilt. You still don't think there's any?

This man is hardly being convicted on the “smallest circumstantial evidence”. The case against him is damn strong, strong enough that a majority black jury convicted him in the first place. I think the prosecution did prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Davis killed the police officer, and their case withstood the rigors of appeal and review. Sure the defense had arguments to maintain his innocence, but they were not compelling enough to sway the jury and they aren’t compelling enough to sway me.

James Dahl wrote:Republican barbarism

The barbarians will cheer the death of this innocent man like they cheered hundreds of others.

They must be stopped.

Mind your own business, bacon boy.

street cats and dogs have more rights than a black man !!!

union wrote:No dissent among the Supreme Court justices means that he was executed legally. Justice has been carried out. America is a nation of laws, and hysterics outside court complexes isn't going to change that. It isn't like Somalia where you can simply gather a mob and storm the prison to free your friends/relatives.

Would you say that same thing if the Sharia was carried out on this man? you would said they are barbaric or violent, if this was in Kismayo, Saudi Arabia etc.
but since this happen in America's white christian, you believe its right and good. the hypocrosy

yungnfresh wrote:So you realize you're black?

I know if it was a white man accused of that crime, you'd be at the trial itself screaming "he's innocent, look how white he is!" while being restrained by the bailiff.

Free Mumia Abu Jamal