Meh, everybody knows those comments were left by Killgore and Ice.

///

Disgusting.

Andrew's going to be all a-Twitter now.

So many fantasies about a "race war" out there, brought to you by the Keyboard Kommandos.

It's unpleasant to realize I probably know people that think these things. One of the downsides of the internet is the opportunity it provides to evade societal shame.

re: #3 bratwurst

So many fantasies about a "race war" out there, brought to you by the Keyboard Kommandos Klan.

There ya go.

re: #4 erik_t

It's unpleasant to realize I probably know people that think these things. One of the downsides of the internet is the opportunity it provides to evade societal shame.

It's better out in the open. Yes. Better out in the open...Better..

Speaking of the President...i has pikturs.

From left to right:
1.Giant Salmon Trailer.
2.The entire building is within the "cordon," so occupants can get a little closer. :D
3. Forget the Partyvan, they brought the Party Semi for our protection.
4. That's how far the protesters are allowed to hold their signs etc. on that side.
5-6. Guests being let in, likely.

Breitbart is already ranting at me on Twitter.

Just think of what a low life basks in the admiration of the haters like this. It's gotta suck to be him. Angry all the time too.

re: #8 Charles

Does it involve magic and hairdos?

Paid guests are now lining up to go in. Armored SUVs already parked along the curbs.

Yep, they're conservative bigots.

If this wasn't such a serious subject it would be absolutely hilarious the way these people are convinced that "the black man is coming to getcha!"

re: #4 erik_t

It's unpleasant to realize I probably know people that think these things. One of the downsides of the internet is the opportunity it provides to evade societal shame.

It's going to get FAR worse in the coming year, too. What we've seen from these people on the internet is just childsplay. Offline, they are capable of some really heinous shyt.

I feel so fucking alive right now...I've mowed the lawn, pruned the roses, dead-headed the hydrangeas, polished the stainless in the kitchen, swept the floor for mopping to come, and I'm just getting started. Fuck it feels good to stay home on a weekend day (first time in about two months).

Oh, and Breitbart is a shitheel of a human being. I could give two fucks about him...Newt and Sarah. There are two fucks he can have.

re: #8 Charles

Breitbart is already ranting at me on Twitter.

It's what impotent people do. Mock him into a frothy mess.

The more the President 'loses his cool", the more his approval ratings will rebound. A lot of lefties are sick of watching the TPGOP get away with trash.

re: #16 darthstar

Speaking of frothy messes, my wife said the most disgusting thing I have ever heard her say in 12 years of marriage:

"i'd like to see Santorum drop out."

Then I realized she was talking about the ex senator from Pennsylvania.

re: #18 PT Barnum

You may now commence with the
"eeewwws!"

re: #18 PT Barnum

Speaking of frothy messes, my wife said the most disgusting thing I have ever heard her say in 12 years of marriage:

"i'd like to see Santorum drop out."

Then I realized she was talking about the ex senator from Pennsylvania.

At some point won't the scatology filters just start nulling 'santorum'?

re: #19 PT Barnum

You may now commence with the
"eeewwws!"

You have a good wife.

Hahaha, oh wow:

You are so desperate that you post comments from my unmoderated comments section? Good. Will go thru your comment archives. Fun. @Lizardoid

[Link: twitter.com...]

1. Funny, every comment on Breitbart's websites has a "Report" link next to it. The comment system is provided by IntenseDebate. They explain this feature on their website like this:

One of your Comment Settings is the option to activate a “Report” button giving your readers the option to report offensive comments and help you keep the comment section clean.

Apparently Breitbart does not give a shit about keeping his comment sections clean. QED.
2. Desperate attempt at tu quoque to deflect. I am pretty sure where he will end up looking for slander about Charles in order to divert attention from his own failures.

re: #21 darthstar

You have a good wife.

YES I DO!

re: #13 mr.fusion

If this wasn't such a serious subject it would be absolutely hilarious the way these people are convinced that "the black man is coming to getcha!"

Birth of A Nation lives.

re: #20 Decatur Deb

At some point won't the scatology filters just start nulling 'santorum'?

One would think so, which the more widespread it becomes, the better. Ending his political career would be a bonus

re: #3 bratwurst

So many fantasies about a "race war" out there, brought to you by the Keyboard Kommandos.

They are damn good at projection of their own wishes on to others..

re: #25 PT Barnum

One would think so, which the more widespread it becomes, the better. Ending his political career would be a bonus

In fifty years quiz show contestants will win for knowing the obscure origin of that term.

re: #17 Decatur Deb

The more the President 'loses his cool", the more his approval ratings will rebound. A lot of lefties are sick of watching the TPGOP get away with trash.

Yeah, he's just not the type to lose his cool. I wish more lefties would get that through their heads after 3 years of trying to get him to.

re: #25 PT Barnum

One would think so, which the more widespread it becomes, the better. Ending his political career would be a bonus

I do feel sorry for other people named Santorum though.

It's pouring outside now. Lots of protesters looking for cover, except for some guy on a megaphone I can hear.

Looks like they're trying to get all the guests in.

re: #25 PT Barnum

One would think so, which the more widespread it becomes, the better. Ending his political career would be a bonus

His staff acknowledges that he has 'a Google problem'.

Dan Savage is some kind of an evil genius.

re: #29 darthstar

I do feel sorry for other people named Santorum though.

"Santorini" is a nice name. Or "Santos".

re: #31 SanFranciscoZionist

His staff acknowledges that he has 'a Google problem'.

Dan Savage is some kind of an evil genius.

frothy mix is the first result on Yahoo and Bing too...'santorum' is now a word in its own right, so the search engines aren't his problem. This is a permanent thing for Santorum.

re: #22 000G

To say that in my opinion the Old LGF comment section was problematic is an understatement. It was one of the main reasons of my old negative opinion about LGF. What matters, though, is that Charles did reign it in. Actions matter. So whatever Breitbart finds won't excuse him in the slightest.

re: #15 darthstar

I feel so fucking alive right now...I've mowed the lawn, pruned the roses, dead-headed the hydrangeas, polished the stainless in the kitchen, swept the floor for mopping to come, and I'm just getting started. Fuck it feels good to stay home on a weekend day (first time in about two months).

Oh, and Breitbart is a shitheel of a human being. I could give two fucks about him...Newt and Sarah. There are two fucks he can have.

Damn that's more than I have done in a year around my house, it must be great to have some energy.

re: #32 SanFranciscoZionist

"Santorini" is a nice name. Or "Santos".

The other Santori...

re: #33 darthstar

frothy mix is the first result on Yahoo and Bing too...'santorum' is now a word in its own right, so the search engines aren't his problem. This is a permanent thing for Santorum.

An indelible stain, as it were...

re: #26 Tigger2

They are damn good at projection of their own wishes on to others..

That stupid "race war" talk is just vindication fantasies. They have been nursing them for generations.

re: #38 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Heh, which reminds me - a bunch of Cartmans is what they are.

re: #32 SanFranciscoZionist

"Santorini" is a nice name. Or "Santos".

WELL. ;)

re: #37 Decatur Deb

An indelible stain, as it were...

inedible, too.

re: #32 SanFranciscoZionist
It is a nice little Greek Island. [Link: www.thefreedictionary.com...]

re: #39 Sergey Romanov

Dumb confederates..

Stupid bigots will be stupid bigots.

re: #42 PhillyPretzel

It is a nice little Greek Island. [Link: www.thefreedictionary.com...]

You might think it nice, but the Minoans had other opinions:

[Link: www.sacred-destinations.com...]

re: #22 000G

He's welcome to look through our old comments -- he's going to have to go back years, though, before we had any tools for moderating or reporting anything, and it was impossible to keep up with everything. And then he's going to find a lot of deleted comments, because once I did have the proper tools to manage things, I went back and cleaned as much up as I could, including nuking all the comments of several of the worst morons who used to abuse our comments section.

Many of those morons now spend their days trying to smear me for what they posted at LGF.

re: #46 Charles

He's welcome to look through our old comments -- he's going to have to go back years, though, before we had any tools for moderating or reporting anything, and it was impossible to keep up with everything. And then he's going to find a lot of deleted comments, because once I did have the proper tools to manage things, I went back and cleaned as much up as I could, including nuking all the comments of several of the worst morons who used to abuse our comments section.

Many of those morons now spend their days trying to smear me for what they posted at LGF.

YOU'RE JUST HIDING THE TRUTH!

re: #34 Sergey Romanov

To say that in my opinion the Old LGF comment section was problematic is an understatement. It was one of the main reasons of my old negative opinion about LGF. What matters, though, is that Charles did reign it in. Actions matter. So whatever Breitbart finds won't excuse him in the slightest.

That pablum they routinely trot against Charles about the old LGF really reminds me of their "the democrats is the kkk" baloney...as if yesterday's dixiecrats are somehow today's Democratic Party 9_9

And true to the analogy, those types moved on, as the Dixiecrats did to the Republican party, to places like Breitbart. Only now, they just claim to be pro-gay (just so long as the token gays they support are as rabidly bigoted as they are.)

I wonder who they think they are kidding.

re: #46 Charles

Many of those morons now spend their days trying to smear me for what they posted at LGF.

The point of which would be lost on Breitbart. But I hope he makes an issue of it so he can be hoisted on his own petard.

re: #46 Charles

Many of those morons now spend their days trying to smear me for what they posted at LGF.

I've noticed that.

Hey!!

It's YOUR FAULT I posted what I did in your comments sections!! Why did you make me do that!!

re: #46 Charles

He's welcome to look through our old comments -- he's going to have to go back years, though, before we had any tools for moderating or reporting anything, and it was impossible to keep up with everything. And then he's going to find a lot of deleted comments, because once I did have the proper tools to manage things, I went back and cleaned as much up as I could, including nuking all the comments of several of the worst morons who used to abuse our comments section.

$5 that a) he will find some old comments, drag it out of context (years ago, long since denounced, etc.) and present it as relevant and b) will not do jack shit about the racist stuff going on right now at his own websites.

Many of those morons now spend their days trying to smear me for what they posted at LGF.

Yeah, that's their raison d'être: being the go-to guys for smears of you and LGF.

Andrew Breitbart is one of the most duplicitous and dishonest, continually denying that any racism exists in the conservative/Tea Party movement, and whipping out the tired old “reverse racism” talking points every chance he gets.

I just want to add that he, Drudge, Rush, and the whole right wing loud machine do everything the can to stoke this racism. This story (Drudge's main headline right now? OBAMA TO BLACKS: 'PUT ON YOUR MARCHING SHOES'), the white kid getting beat up on the bus (or as Rush put it, Obama's America), Shirley Sherrod, the New Black Panthers...they're all meant to make old white people scared that "the blacks" are on the verge of getting violent and that it's exactly what Obama wants.

I guess I don't need to go down the laundry list recounting things we already know...but my point is there's a lot of people making a lot of money scaring white folk that the blacks are going to come and get 'em

re: #40 laZardo

WELL. ;)

'Zat you?

Come on, you'd share your name with some refugees from Santorum, wouldn't you?

re: #50 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

I've noticed that.

Psychologically, it's fascinating to watch.

re: #40 laZardo

WELL. ;)

Nice graphics.

re: #48 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Only now, they just claim to be pro-gay (just so long as the token gays they support are as rabidly bigoted as they are.)

Or aren't serving in the military

It's hilarious how Breitbart's baby commentators cry oh Obama is the racist one and then they prove what people like Morgan Freeman have said by saying racist shit. Breitbart and his followers aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed of course.

re: #22 000G

Apparently Breitbart does not give a shit about keeping his comment sections clean.

It would probably cost him something to moderate his comment threads, and moderated comments would work against his main purpose, which is to keep people riled up about the Obama presidency.

re: #58 jaunte

And besides there's a problem of choice. How would they decide what to delete if there's really nothing objectionable (to them)?

re: #59 Sergey Romanov

And besides there's a problem of choice. How would they decide what to delete if there's really nothing objectionable (to them)?

These people are his audience...if he kicks them off his site for saying racist stuff, or moderates the comment sections (I'm sure they'd call it "censorship" and whine about the first amendment or something) he won't have anybody coming to his site anymore.

re: #59 Sergey Romanov

Somewhat related, from Ryan Lizza:

#peoplelikelytobebooedatnextGOPdebate.

@emmagkeller: Anyone who’s sick.
@shaunadamec That socialist Warren Buffett
@mvatlarge: Socialist puppies
@jonathanchait: Immigrant puppies with cancer
@nxthompson: People who’ve been vaccinated against HPV
@MattOrtega: A gay, undocumented 30-year old man without insurance
@DraneSpout: Gay, baby SEALs
@sayitaintsho: Charles Darwin
@m_bot: Nuns who teach evolution in Catholic schools
@juliaturner Meryl Streep
@DtepDC: Gabrielle Giffords
@Dmusee Pat Tillman
@Awberman: Bert and Ernie

And one of the truest:

@entroporium: Ronald Reagan, if his policies are touted without attribution

[Link: www.newyorker.com...]

re: #57 HappyWarrior

It's hilarious how Breitbart's baby commentators cry oh Obama is the racist one and then they prove what people like Morgan Freeman have said by saying racist shit. Breitbart and his followers aren't exactly the sharpest tools in the shed of course.

Oh yeah. And the Dead Lice (to those who know them) actually challenged Charles to explain, and I quote, "why Freeman is fucking his granddaughter?". With the link to the Enquirer, and all.

These creatures have no gray matter to speak of. (That they have no shame goes without speaking.)

People who cry racism are usually the ones who are racist

That's CircularDerp. One dimensional thinking, soundbyte thinking.

Last time I called somebody a bigot, it was their response. I asked them to explain this, still waiting on a response.

re: #62 Sergey Romanov
These creatures have no gray matter to speak of. You hit the nail on the head.

2 or 3 armored SUVs pulled upb behind the theater, probably too small a convoy...

re: #62 Sergey Romanov

Oh yeah. And the Dead Lice (to those who know them) actually challenged Charles to explain, and I quote, "why Freeman is fucking his granddaughter?". With the link to the Enquirer, and all.

These creatures have no gray matter to speak of. (That they have no shame goes without speaking.)

They're asses who are obsessed with seeing themselves as the victims of a mighty liberal conspiracy designed to put the good god fearing conservative down. The whole amuses me deeply given how many times I've heard conservatives say whether directly or indirectly that it's the liberals that like to whine about being victims. All I've seen since Obama's been elected by people who are of Breitbart's ideological background is whine and whine some more.

re: #62 Sergey Romanov

Oh yeah. And the Dead Lice (to those who know them) actually challenged Charles to explain, and I quote, "why Freeman is fucking his granddaughter?". With the link to the Enquirer, and all.

These creatures have no gray matter to speak of. (That they have no shame goes without speaking.)

I beg his fucking pardon?

I have apparently missed this slur.

re: #64 PhillyPretzel

These creatures have no gray matter to speak of. You hit the nail on the head.

Given the priorities they articulate, it's not looking like the Fight/Fuck/Flee/Feed parts of the brain are working too good either.

I'm not a neurologist, but I recognize the symptoms of whacked-out poo brain.

Anti-American liars and scum like Breitbart can not be abided long in a free nation. And don't make any claim he is not anti-American. He an his ilk stand for tearing down the pillars of our republic not the least of which being that all men are created equal.

I really wonder how much he is going to have to pay Sherry Sherrod?

Perhaps the son of a bitch already settled with her.

Someday soon this piece of shit Breitbart is going to have a multi million dollar comeuppance for his many lies.

I look forward to it.

Nevermind. I Googled it.

Funny advertisement. Very slightly NSFW.

re: #69 LudwigVanQuixote

Anti-American liars and scum like Breitbart can not be abided long in a free nation. And don't make any claim he is not anti-American. He an his ilk stand for tearing down the pillars of our republic not the least of which being that all men are created equal.

I really wonder how much he is going to have to pay Sherry Sherrod?

Perhaps the son of a bitch already settled with her.

Someday soon this piece of shit Breitbart is going to have a multi million dollar comeuppance for his many lies.

I look forward to it.

Me too. Patience.

Time wounds all heels. He will bury himself.

re: #68 The Ghost of a Flea

Given the priorities they articulate, it's not looking like the Fight/Fuck/Flee/Feed parts of the brain are working too good either.

I'm not a neurologist, but I recognize the symptoms of whacked-out poo brain.

The new DSM does not use 'whacked-out poo brain'. It's been subsumed into 'Scheisskopf's Syndrome'.

re: #72 Rightwingconspirator
He will bury himself. I hope so.

re: #71 Sergey Romanov

Never fuck with a babushka!

re: #46 Charles

Ahhh. Those are the days.. Remember all those fantasying about nuking all Muslims? How about that one cat that would post he had his weapon watching the tree line? I'm sure you remember that email from somebody here.. I'm not saying who that was so pissed off because they could not post what they wanted cause they donated money..
How about all the brave boys and girls that waited till 4am to post insulting shit and run away? I personally enjoyed the God fearing Jesus loving 'Christians' that prayed you'd burn in hell and be raped by Hitler.. Always a nice touch..
Going through all those comments must have been a complete joy

OT: I've been watching the lefty radical protest on Wall Street. All the Troy Davis signs inspired me to look into the story. He shot a cop for intervening with the beating of a homeless man. I can understand being against the death penalty but lefties pick some really strange heroes.

re: #73 Decatur Deb

The new DSM does not use 'whacked-out poo brain'. It's been subsumed into 'Scheisskopf's Syndrome'.

Axis 1 Scheisskopf's Syndrome
Axis 2 Hystrionic personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, anti-social personality disorder...oh hell, just put down 'all the personality disorders'.
Axis 3 None
Axis 4 His mama dresses him funny, and Charles Johnson laughs at him. Also, there is a black Democrat in the White House.
Axis 5 Well, I'm going to score him a 55 on the GAF. Moderate symptoms in addition to moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning. It would go lower if he weren't a pundit, but conflicts with co-workers, which is mentioned as an indicator is almost a requirement for his line of work.

re: #63 BigPapa

People who cry racism are usually the ones who are racist

...they said, crying racism.

/

re: #77 Killgore Trout

That's a strawman and you know it. Davis' defenders dispute that he shot anyone. Whether they're correct in this is a whole another issue.

re: #77 Killgore Trout

The technical point they hang their hat on issue seems to revolve around the lack of a physical connection between him and the spent cartridges that really got mixed in from two locations (dumb mistake) and Davis himself. I read the prosecutors public rebuttal for perspective. I think anyone interested should.

What I notice in these cases chosen for anti death penalty activism is an unstated elevation of the reasonable doubt standard. In the death penalty the unstated contention is essentially attempting to apply a no doubt standard. At least that is what it looks like to me.

re: #75 LudwigVanQuixote

Never fuck with a babushka!

Especially Vicious Babushkas!

/waves at Alouette

re: #80 Sergey Romanov

That's a strawman and you know it. Davis' defenders dispute that he shot anyone. Whether they're correct in this is a whole another issue.

Depending on the way the GA law is written, he might have been guilty enough just through his admitted participation in the beating that triggered the events. That's separate from the DP. I don't want it for him or for the Klannish POS who was Texecuted the same night.

re: #79 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Have you heard the Obama "stop complaining" address? After setting aside the commentary of the far RW noise machine, I thought it really interesting. Reminded me of the old saw about "now go out and make me" presidential advice to an advocate.

re: #72 Rightwingconspirator

Me too. Patience.

Time wounds all heels. He will bury himself.

I wonder how the Rove/Bush loyalist crowd feels about him. I believe they are embarrassed of him like they are the tea party in general, though that's just a hunch because I haven't looked into it much.

re: #84 Rightwingconspirator

Have you heard the Obama "stop complaining" address? After setting aside the commentary of the far RW noise machine, I thought it really interesting. Reminded me of the old saw about "now go out and make me" presidential advice to an advocate.

I think so, if we're talking about the same thing. I believe, out of that came this whole "we are the base, holding his feet to the fire!!!" over-repeated cliche e_e

I wish there was a [moonbat] tag on LGF lol

re: #83 Decatur Deb
"7 out of 9 recanted witnesses" is a prima facie *convincing* argument, and a lot of people believe in it. I don't mean to say it's a correct argument or a final argument. It may be hogwash in the final analysis. But just let's not present things as if "lefties" deliberately choose cop-killers as their heroes fully knowing that they were cop-killers. The reason they defended Davis is exactly because they don't believe that the evidence against him is credible.

re: #66 HappyWarrior

They're asses who are obsessed with seeing themselves as the victims of a mighty liberal conspiracy designed to put the good god fearing conservative down.

Addendum: they're also obsessed with the coming time when they get to "avenge" themselves after winning the imagined conflict.

re: #76 HoosierHoops

How about all the brave boys and girls that waited till 4am to post insulting shit and run away? I personally enjoyed the God fearing Jesus loving 'Christians' that prayed you'd burn in hell and be raped by Hitler.. Always a nice touch...

To my point above. To which I'll add: why is it that their triumph means their opponent will be hurt, degraded, damned, and sexually abused?

I know I'm being crude, but this crap is intellectual fapping directly preceding actual fapping. These people have their own little mental model of Castle Silling.

re: #84 Rightwingconspirator

I thought he was using surprisingly direct language with his audience. I would say it was one of his more, rare, African American exclusive addresses.
Of course that was his audience. But I think his shading was more "I am black, you know".

And not to leave it on a hanging note, here's one of the judgments in the David case, 174 pp. I intend to read.

[Link: multimedia.savannahnow.com...]

This one, as far as I gather, is one of the most detailed ones, including analysis of the defense arguments.

re: #83 Decatur Deb

Depending on the way the GA law is written, he might have been guilty enough just through his admitted participation in the beating that triggered the events. That's separate from the DP. I don't want it for him or for the Klannish POS who was Texecuted the same night.

I think that's important. My issue is more with the inconsistency of the whole thing. A black guy who shoots a cop while beating a homeless man is ok to support but a racially motivating killing by a white man is somehow out of the question.

re: #87 Sergey Romanov

"7 out of 9 recanted witnesses" is a prima facie *convincing* argument, and a lot of people believe in it. I don't mean to say it's a correct argument or a final argument. It may be hogwash in the final analysis. But just let's not present things as if "lefties" deliberately choose cop-killers as their heroes fully knowing that they were cop-killers. The reason they defended Davis is exactly because they don't believe that the evidence against him is credible.

Agreed, but I hate to see statements and signage proposing his 'innocence'. Innocence of the actual shooting, while admitting gang-pounding a homeless man, doesn't make you a proper lefty poster child. The DP should be argued independently of this particular case.

A black guy who shoots a cop while beating a homeless man is ok to support but a racially motivating killing by a white man is somehow out of the question.

*sigh*

re: #85 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

I wonder how the Rove/Bush loyalist crowd feels about him. I believe they are embarrassed of him like they are the tea party in general, though that's just a hunch because I haven't looked into it much.

What significance does "the Rove/Bush loyalist crowd" have in today's GOP anyhow? And who would that be?

re: #91 Killgore Trout

I think that's important. My issue is more with the inconsistency of the whole thing. A black guy who shoots a cop while beating a homeless man is ok to support but a racially motivating killing by a white man is somehow out of the question.

QFT

You can be against the death penalty or take issue with the Troy Davis case and not consider Davis a hero KT.

I recall the case of Stroman receiving lots of attention, but the appeals process is different.

re: #92 Decatur Deb

I certainly have a problem with any claims of innocence here. At most it can be argued that there is doubt.

re: #88 The Ghost of a Flea

To my point above. To which I'll add: why is it that their triumph means their opponent will be hurt, degraded, damned, and sexually abused?

I know I'm being crude, but this crap is intellectual fapping directly preceding actual fapping. These people have their own little mental model of Castle Silling.

I think some of it comes from a deep belief that they are at risk of being hurt, degraded, etc., and in some cases that they actually are. Now which comes first, I could not tell you, but I think the whole idea extends from a deep belief that the world is 'us' and 'them', and that it is, with no exceptions allowed, a world in which the losers get fucked up. You are either an abuser or the abused.

I think this is one reason some folks in this category are so hell-bent on legitimating torture. Now, they may just like the idea, but also, they have no morality that doesn't exist as part of their 'us and them'. They would torture us--so we MUST torture them, or we will be seen as weak, and the weak end up as the abused and degraded. There is no world in their mind in which you can derive strength from not doing some shit. They are convinced that 'they' are more powerful than 'we', and the only way 'we' can take that power from 'them' is to act like them, in as much detail as possible, with a few little tribal variations that make it clear we're NOT them.

And Castle Silling is exactly right. There's a distinctly sexual quality to all of this. But that's the world they figure they live in.

re: #97 Sergey Romanov

I certainly have a problem with any claims of innocence here. At most it can be argued that there is doubt.

But "innocent until proven guilty" means he's to be regarded as legally innocent if the proof of guilt is debunked.

re: #91 Killgore Trout

I think that's important. My issue is more with the inconsistency of the whole thing. A black guy who shoots a cop while beating a homeless man is ok to support but a racially motivating killing by a white man is somehow out of the question.

Well, if anti-death penalty people are using Davis and not Brewer as an icon, it could straight up be a marketing choice: a guy executed where there were not only questions about his guilt, but a very large legal push and public outcry...that's a good presentation image for the idea being "sold." Confessed and totally guilty guy who's not gotten a lot of basic media coverage, and his case touches a conceptual third rail like racism? Not such a good image, because then you have to explain who he is and why people should care. If you had time for a long sell, Brewer's case could work, given his statements, conduct, and repentance...but, again, in a marketing decision you assume a very limited time frame before people stop paying attention.

re: #99 000G

But "innocent until proven guilty" means he's to be regarded as legally innocent if the proof of guilt is debunked.

No, he can be regarded as legally innocent only if the court decides so. Since there was a conviction, he is legally guilty, regardless of his actual innocence.

re: #97 Sergey Romanov

I certainly have a problem with any claims of innocence here. At most it can be argued that there is doubt.

There seem to be problems with the Davis case. He may have been guilty of the crime but the case had lots of problems with it. The two are not exclusive.

I don't think there's quite a comparison between the Stroman and Davis case, or the support/non-support of either. Stroman's execution had it's cadre of anti-death penalty supporters holding vigil as well, but also there was no question of his guilt. Davis' case has lots of questions.

re: #98 SanFranciscoZionist

I think the whole idea extends from a deep belief that the world is 'us' and 'them', and that it is, with no exceptions allowed, a world in which the losers get fucked up. You are either an abuser or the abused.

Brilliantly concise description!

re: #97 Sergey Romanov

I certainly have a problem with any claims of innocence here. At most it can be argued that there is doubt.

I'm not up on GA law, but in many places being part of a felony that results in a death gets you a murder conviction. In an extreme case someone was convicted of murder because his accomplice came up dead in a robbery/shootout. I'll believe there is great doubt that TD pulled a trigger, but that might not be enough. I'm just pretty much against the DP. (Good thing--I've got jury duty the first week in Oct.)

re: #102 BigPapa

Again, if someone says that Davis is innocent, they must prove it. If the defense claims are taken at face value, they only make the case doubtful and unclear as to who the murderer was. The police might have coerced some witnesses AND Davis may be guilty at the same time. Undermining the prosecution's case doesn't make Davis actually innocent by itself.

re: #101 Sergey Romanov

No, he can be regarded as legally innocent only if the court decides so. Since there was a conviction, he is legally guilty, regardless of his actual innocence.

Well, if you only allow courts' opinions to matter then why look into the matter at all? The point I was making is that he's either innocent or guilty, depending on what can be proven, and if guilt cannot be proven then he is innocent (if only not by court judgement). There is no Alford plea here.

re: #105 Sergey Romanov

Again, if someone says that Davis is innocent, they must prove it.

I don't think so. Demonstrating reasonable doubt as regards the evidence for his guilt is enough. Or at least should be. But then, what is reasonable, eh?

/

re: #105 Sergey Romanov

Again, if someone says that Davis is innocent, they must prove it. If the defense claims are taken at face value, they only make the case doubtful and unclear as to who the murderer was. The police might have coerced some witnesses AND Davis may be guilty at the same time. Undermining the prosecution's case doesn't make Davis actually innocent by itself.

I don't disagree with any of this. To me the question has nothing to do with Davis' guilt but everything to do with the process and trial. It appeared that the evidence was in question, so the process was in question, at least to me.

The case may be bungled all to hell but Davis may still be guilty of murdering the cop. But I thought it was worth taking a new look, there seemed to be lots of problems with witnesses.

re: #106 000G

That's a strawman, sorry. I never implied that only courts' opinions should matter.

You used the words "legally innocent", not I. Legally he is guilty.

OJ, on the other hand, is legally innocent, though of course he was the murderer, so he is actually guilty.

As for there being only two states - so what? The question is what do *we* know about whether he is guilty or not. "Doubt in either version" is a viable option.

re: #107 000G

I don't think so. Demonstrating reasonable doubt as regards the evidence for his guilt is enough. Or at least should be. But then, what is reasonable, eh?

/

Demonstrating reasonable doubt only leaves us with doubt. Not with the fact of his innocence.

re: #93 Sergey Romanov

*sigh*

Limbaugh's pearl of wisdom regarding the two executions: Liberals did not care about the texecuted guy because he was white, and only cared about Davis because he was black.

re: #8 Charles

Breitbart is already ranting at me on Twitter.

I love how Breitbart pulled out the Bible quote from Matthew about not judging others when responding to someone else.

ROFL

re: #109 Sergey Romanov

You used the words "legally innocent", not I. Legally he is guilty.

Again: Only if only courts matter. Courts can be legally wrong. Natural law and such. Oh well, not going there...

As for there being only two state - so what? The question is what do *we* know about whether he is guilty or not. "Doubt in either version" is a viable option.

Excited to read your "verdict". :-)

re: #105 Sergey Romanov

Again, if someone says that Davis is innocent, they must prove it. If the defense claims are taken at face value, they only make the case doubtful and unclear as to who the murderer was. The police might have coerced some witnesses AND Davis may be guilty at the same time. Undermining the prosecution's case doesn't make Davis actually innocent by itself.

Thats why someone can be found "Not guilty" but not innocent. The presumption of innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the cornerstone of US criminal law.

re: #111 000G

Limbaugh's pearl of wisdom regarding the two executions: Liberals did not care about the texecuted guy because he was white, and only cared about Davis because he was black.

And Limbaugh is still batting .000. I would have been as likely to protest the Texas case as the GA.

re: #110 Sergey Romanov

Demonstrating reasonable doubt only leaves us with doubt. Not with the fact of his innocence.

Under the American legal system, that's the standard. Criminal guilt, especially in a death penalty case, is predicated on that person being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there's doubt, you shouldn't execute them.

re: #113 000G

When we're talking about legal guilt and innocence, only the courts matter. We, however, were talking about the opinions and arguments of Davis' supporters. If they make such a case that it becomes clear to most people that there is doubt, it won't make him "legally innocent" by itself. And the principle "innocent until proven guilty" is only applicable in court.

re: #110 Sergey Romanov

Demonstrating reasonable doubt only leaves us with doubt. Not with the fact of his innocence.

For legal purposes, it establishes innocence because only guilt needs to be proven. But we are arguing in circles...

re: #116 Lidane

Doubt can exist outside the courtroom, but not in the judge&jury's minds. That's what I'm getting at.

The other evening, the night after the two executions, Alabama executed a murderer for a relatively non-atrocious killing. There was very little national visibility.

re: #117 Sergey Romanov

When we're talking about legal guilt and innocence, only the courts matter.

I happen to disagree. I am not a big fan of the theory of natural law, but not that big of a fan of positive law, either.

We, however, were talking about the opinions and arguments of Davis' supporters. If they make such a case that it becomes clear to most people that there is doubt, it won't make him "legally innocent" by itself.

It would not affect the legal ruling of the courts, no. I didn't dispute that.

And the principle "innocent until proven guilty" is only applicable in court.

I disagree.

re: #118 000G

For legal purposes, it establishes innocence because only guilt needs to be proven. But we are arguing in circles...

It doesn't establish innocence until it's in the official court verdict. I'm not arguing in circles, I think you're just confused between two separate fields - actual guilt/innocence and legal guilt/innocence.

re: #116 Lidane

Under the American legal system, that's the standard. Criminal guilt, especially in a death penalty case, is predicated on that person being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there's doubt, you shouldn't execute them.

It's a lot simpler if you just decide not to execute them, doubt or not.

Okay Adobe Premiere must be the most demanding software on a PC ever. Between renders of multiple video layers and encoding for media the processors spend a lot of time maxed out and overclocked.

I'm no gamer, are the biggest games that tough on the computer?

re: #122 Sergey Romanov

It doesn't establish innocence until it's in the official court verdict.

Positively it does not, no. But that wasn't my point anyway.

I think you're just confused between two separate fields - actual guilt/innocence and legal guilt/innocence.

I'm really not. I know that you just mean something very different with "actual" and "legal" than I do. That's okay, though. We won't agree and don't have to.

re: #121 000G

I happen to disagree. I am not a big fan of the theory of natural law, but not that big of a fan of positive law, either.

You may disagree until the second coming, that's the law. Case in point - whether there was any doubt in Davis' guilt or not, he was executed. Legally. Whatever doubt created outside the courtroom failed to make Davis legally innocent.

I disagree.

Then you should explain why you disagree. Because the case where there are enough reasonable suspicions about a person's guilt so he cannot be called innocent, but not enough evidence of his guilt to call him guilty is obvious.

re: #124 Rightwingconspirator

Okay Adobe Premiere must be the most demanding software on a PC ever. Between renders of multiple video layers and encoding for media the processors spend a lot of time maxed out and overclocked.

I'm no gamer, are the biggest games that tough on the computer?

Well, video games also get special purpose hardware (the graphics card). So there's that too. Although thats being made into more of a general purpose thing with Cuda and OpenCL, not sure if adobe takes advantage of that yet.

re: #116 Lidane

Under the American legal system, that's the standard. Criminal guilt, especially in a death penalty case, is predicated on that person being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there's doubt, you shouldn't execute them.

In my opinion, there is no doubt whatsoever in the Troy "Rough as hell" Davis-case. Guilty.

re: #123 Decatur Deb

It's a lot simpler if you just decide not to execute them, doubt or not.

That's what I've been saying for ages.

If we don't trust the state to deliver our mail on time or fill potholes, or set economic policy without fucking people over, how can we suddenly expect them to execute people without making mistakes and in any sort of equitable manner?

I understand the emotion behind the death penalty. I get it. If I was in the position of losing a loved one in a violent crime, I don't know that I'd be all that forgiving or accepting of life in prison. HOWEVER, it's the same government that people rant and bitch about being incompetent in so many other areas of our lives. How is that same government given an automatic pass to execute people?

re: #125 000G

Positively it does not, no. That wasn't my point anyhow.

The point is that not just any demonstration of reasonable doubt makes a person legally innocent.

You can write a book destroying the Davis case brick by brick, and have it approved by every expert and professional out there, and you will actually demonstrate doubt in the case. Except until you run all this through the court, legally it means nothing.

re: #126 Sergey Romanov

You may disagree until the second coming, that's the law.

The positive law, yes.

Case in point - whether there was any doubt in Davis' guilt or not, he was executed. Legally. Whatever doubt created outside the courtroom failed to make Davis legally innocent.

Again: positively.

Then you should explain why you disagree.

I think I did. I happen to have a slightly wider concept of "legal" than the pure positivistic process (not that I'm some sovereign-citizen nutjob, either, JFTR) because otherwise I think you always run into the problems of having to resort to moralizing when confronted with courts in error where there is no option for appeal.

re: #128 Winny Spencer

I wasn't on the jury and didn't see the evidence they did. I'm also not the judges who interpreted the law over the various appeals.

I'm in no position to form an opinion on that case.

re: #127 McSpiff

True, but that might only matter when I play back the media. I'm neck deep in an experiment blending stills of moving clouds and simultaneous HD video. It's tricky to get the twilight zone foreboding feeling I'm after. But I can see why multiple computers are set up to parallel process when budget allows.

re: #130 Sergey Romanov

The point is that not just any demonstration of reasonable doubt makes a person legally innocent.

The point is that you are innocent until proven guilty.

You can write a book destroying the Davis case brick by brick, and have it approved by every expert and professional out there, and you will actually demonstrate doubt in the case. Except until you run all this through the court, legally it means nothing.

Again, I happen to disagree. Things like the Radbruch formula would be nonsensical otherwise.

re: #128 Winny Spencer

In my opinion, there is no doubt whatsoever in the Troy "Rough as hell" Davis-case. Guilty.

I guess you heard something that the rest of us didn't, having relied only on TV and news reports.

However, having said that I understand he was present and beating up a homeless man when the officer was shot, perhaps by the other guy. In some regards that makes him just as guilty by being a participant in the crime, but then there should have been two executions; not one.

For the record, I am opposed to the death penalty.

re: #131 000G

Real law, as it applied here and now, on Earth (well, in many places, heh). The rest is abstraction.

re: #136 Sergey Romanov

Real law, as it applied here and now, on Earth (well, in many places, heh). The rest is abstraction.

Law is always abstraction, "real" or not. Naturalism (reductive or non-reductive) in regards to law is nonsensical.

re: #91 Killgore Trout

I think that's important. My issue is more with the inconsistency of the whole thing. A black guy who shoots a cop while beating a homeless man is ok to support but a racially motivating killing by a white man is somehow out of the question.

It's incredibly disingenuous to maintain that the support is simply for a black cop killer when what's being supported is the fact that mounds of reasonable doubt exist that he actually is a cop killer. No such doubt exists in the Texas case.

re: #135 Naso Tang

Every single witness at the scene identified Davis, not Coles as the man who "pistol-whipped" the homeless man. It's all there in their statements.

re: #139 Winny Spencer

Again -- without being in the jury box during the trial or on the bench interpreting the law, there's no way for anyone to be in a position to form any kind of firm opinion on that case.

When all you've got is news reports and media to go on, you're always going to miss the details.

re: #134 000G

The point is that you are innocent until proven guilty.

Only in legal setting, as a rule for the state for dealing with persons. Outside of the legal setting there's innocent, guilty, and not proven either way (when there is reasonable suspicion).

Again, I happen to disagree. Things like the Radbruch formula would be nonsensical otherwise.

This has nothing to do with the example in question.

re: #137 000G

Law is always abstraction, "real" or not.

Troy Davis learned that this is not so. ;)

re: #139 Winny Spencer

Every single witness at the scene identified Davis, not Coles as the man who "pistol-whipped" the homeless man. It's all there in their statements.

We are talking 10-odd witnesses, some of whom testified at trial and some who just gave statements to the police. Not a single one identified Coles as the shooter.

re: #141 Sergey Romanov

Only in legal setting, as a rule for the state for dealing with persons. Outside of the legal setting there's innocent, guilty, and not proven either way (when there is reasonable suspicion).

I am pretty sure that the principle of the presumption of innocence is held in high enough regards to assert that it does in fact frame the debate even outside of courts, especially in common-law cultures.

This has nothing to do with the example in question.

Yes, it does, by virtue of you narrowing "legal" to positive law only for the example.

Watch out around the 50 second mark...

re: #142 Sergey Romanov

Troy Davis learned that this is not so. ;)

Sorry, I find that distasteful.

And I never said that law was only abstraction.

re: #144 000G

I am pretty sure that the principle of the presumption of innocence is held in high enough regards to assert that it does in fact frame the debate even outside of courts, especially in common-law cultures.

It certainly influences debates, and I never said otherwise. It is, however, perfectly legitimate to cast doubt on someone's innocence by raising reasonable suspicion. It just may not cause any real-life repercussions for such a person, especially if they're dead.

For example, we have no idea if John Demjanjuk ever directly killed anyone with his weapons while he was a Wachmann at Sobibor. It would be strange to argue that he is innocent of this tho. He was in a setting where this was very possible. So the verdict is not innocent, it's we don't know.

re: #139 Winny Spencer

Every single witness at the scene identified Davis, not Coles as the man who "pistol-whipped" the homeless man. It's all there in their statements.

And seven of the 9 changed their minds after; the police ID process would have had the case thrown out if done today and the bullet casing forensics was found invalid, after the trial.

Where have you been?

re: #146 000G

Sorry, I find that distasteful.

And I never said that law was only abstraction.

Ah. But the real law is what matters, not whatever philosophical-legal principles we might have in mind. He might have been legally innocent according to whatever schemes you accept. Didn't matter a whit.

OT: On the lighter side of the news, Mark Hamill is 60 years old. Luke, you are almost as old as Yoda. [Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Racism?
In the Republican Party?
Only at official College Republican functions.
Controversy erupts over Campus Republicans bake sale plans

But it's not your everyday collegiate fundraiser they've got in mind. They've developed a sliding scale where the price of the cookie or brownie depends on your gender and the color of your skin.

During the sale, scheduled for Tuesday, baked goods will be sold to white men for $2.00, Asian men for $1.50, Latino men for $1.00, black men for $0.75 and Native American men for $0.25. All women will get $0.25 off those prices.

"The pricing structure is there to bring attention, to cause people to get a little upset," Campus Republican President Shawn Lewis, who planned the event, told CNN-affiliate KGO. "But it's really there to cause people to think more critically about what this kind of policy would do in university admissions."

Yeah, they're blowing this dogwhistle again.

re: #149 Sergey Romanov

Ah. But the real law is what matters, not whatever philosophical-legal principles we might have in mind. He might have been legally innocent according to whatever schemes you accept. Didn't matter a whit.

Yeah, that's great. See my comment with Radbruch. I could go Godwin here, but won't. We won't agree on "what matters". That's fine.

re: #129 Lidane

That's what I've been saying for ages.

If we don't trust the state to deliver our mail on time or fill potholes, or set economic policy without fucking people over, how can we suddenly expect them to execute people without making mistakes and in any sort of equitable manner?

I understand the emotion behind the death penalty. I get it. If I was in the position of losing a loved one in a violent crime, I don't know that I'd be all that forgiving or accepting of life in prison. HOWEVER, it's the same government that people rant and bitch about being incompetent in so many other areas of our lives. How is that same government given an automatic pass to execute people?

This is what I don't get at all but my guess through either ignorance or cognitive dissodience, they ignore that. And fuck Limbaugh for saying liberals only cared about the Davis care because he was black and ignored hte guy in Texas because he was white. Rush as usual ignores the fact that there were doubts about Davis' guilt and none about the guy in Texas. Now for the record I am opposed to the DP and would have been fine if neither man had been executed but seems like the oxytontin king is up to his usual crap.

He should start a page called "Big Bigot".

re: #151 RadicalModerate

Racism?
In the Republican Party?
Only at official College Republican functions.
Controversy erupts over Campus Republicans bake sale plans

Yeah, they're blowing this dogwhistle again.

College Republicans have done this before Affirmative Action bake sales they call it. Idiots.

re: #152 000G

Well, I never said that legal guilt or innocence are what matter most to me. What matters most to me is evidence. I don't believe, for example, that al-Megrahi's guilt was proven, the verdict is very weak. Neither I believe he is innocent. I don't know. (And legally he is guilty.)

re: #148 Naso Tang

And seven of the 9 changed their minds after; the police ID process would have had the case thrown out if done today and the bullet casing forensics was found invalid, after the trial.

Where have you been?

They really didn't. Only the jail house snitch has fully recanted.

I have been reading Judge Moore's ruling.

re: #147 Sergey Romanov

It certainly influences debates, and I never said otherwise. It is, however, perfectly legitimate to cast doubt on someone's innocence by raising reasonable suspicion.

I don't know if it's really so "perfect" in a legal culture that holds the presumption of innocence in such high regards. But whatever. I know you disagree on principle and find arguing in such ways "strange". I can respect that. But I won't concede the point, either.

re: #151 RadicalModerate

Racism?
In the Republican Party?
Only at official College Republican functions.
Controversy erupts over Campus Republicans bake sale plans

Yeah, they're blowing this dogwhistle again.

I'm so, so glad I'm no longer in college.

re: #158 000G

I don't know what you mean by legal culture. I'm talking about writing articles, books, heck, even blowing off steam on the net. In all these spheres it is perfectly OK to raise issues based on evidence. It doesn't differ from any other intellectual endeavor, say, writing of history.

re: #159 SanFranciscoZionist
Same here.

re: #139 Winny Spencer

Every single witness at the scene identified Davis, not Coles as the man who "pistol-whipped" the homeless man. It's all there in their statements.

Affidavits Recanting Testimony or Statements Given in the Troy Davis Case

Dorothy Ferrell
“From the way the officer was talking, he gave me the impression that I should say that Troy Davis was the one who shot the officer like the other witness [sic] had... I felt like I was just following the rest of the witnesses. I also felt like I had to cooperate with the officer because of my being on parole...I told the detective that Troy Davis was the shooter, even though the truth was that I didn’t see who shot the officer.”

...

Affidavits Containing Evidence Implicating Another Suspect in the Troy Davis Case

Joseph Washington
“I saw Sylvester Coles – I know him by the name Red – shoot the police officer. I am positive that it was Red who shot the police officer...”

Tonya Johnson
Red then took both guns next door to an empty house and put them inside the screen door and shut the door ... he threatened me after this happened. He told me that he wanted to make sure that I did not tell the police about the guns he hid in the screen door that morning. This is why I did not testify about the guns at Troy’s trial because I was afraid of what Red would do to me if I did. I have not told anyone about this until now because I was still scared... But I have decided that I must tell the truth."

re: #159 SanFranciscoZionist

I'm so, so glad I'm no longer in college.

That's between this, and having had dinner recently with Berkeley Israel activists, who filled me in on some of the shit they have been going through.

re: #151 RadicalModerate

Again with the bake sales...

That one seems to be an evergreen with the smartass brand of rwnjs:

re: #157 Winny Spencer

They really didn't. Only the jail house snitch has fully recanted.

I have been reading Judge Moore's ruling.

That is one item of the three I listed, and from the fact he would not, could not, have been sentenced to death today on the same evidence, as presented and obtained.

The judge of course said kill him. There are other opinions.

It's worth noting that I believe a former FBI director has expressed doubts on the Davis case. Again none of us were part of the jury so we didn't hear or see everything. I don't know whether Davis was guilty or not and honestly that's not my concern. I was opposed to the DP before I had even heard of this man and his story. The problem the Davis case to me illustrates is the potential of executing an innocent man. And this is something that has happened and annoys me to no end that DP proponents ignore it. And Lidane brought up a good point too that DP opponents are often the first people who complain about government involvement in the environment, education, business but have no qualms about using it to take another life. Yes, the person is a convicted murderer but that's still a life is it not? The legal system isn't perfect and IMO we shouldn't be taking away lives in such a system. I understand the emotions that go with the DP. I am not naive but we need to be damn sure people are guilty rather than executing than realizing our errors later.

re: #160 Sergey Romanov

IOW, it's OK to say "I suspect that such and such may be guilty of this and that based on that and this."

re: #138 goddamnedfrank

It's incredibly disingenuous to maintain that the support is simply for a black cop killer when what's being supported is the fact that mounds of reasonable doubt exist that he actually is a cop killer. No such doubt exists in the Texas case.

I find it kind of odd that so many people see serious flaws in one case. The appeals judge actually called the defense "smoke and mirrors" without merit but the lefties see serious factual errors.

re: #155 HappyWarrior

College Republicans have done this before Affirmative Action bake sales they call it. Idiots.

Yeah, it's an old gimmick.

re: #149 Sergey Romanov

Governments can draft soldiers and send them off to lethal combat. Not always wisely. It's the cost of existence. A justice system will inevitably err. Does that fact alone set aside the death penalty? Or not, as there is a larger question. A society must have justice even knowing some are jailed wrongly. Perhaps executed wrongly.

Just addressing the big picture here.

re: #160 Sergey Romanov

I don't know what you mean by legal culture.

I think it matters quite a lot whether you debate legal matters from an (anglo-saxon) common law perspective or from an (europan) civil law perspective (or even a germanic law perspective, heh), for instance.

re: #168 Killgore Trout

Well, there are people who don't necessarily take judges' words at face value.

re: #170 Rightwingconspirator

Governments can draft soldiers and send them off to lethal combat. Not always wisely. It's the cost of existence. A justice system will inevitably err. Does that fact alone set aside the death penalty? Or not, as there is a larger question. A society must have justice even knowing some are jailed wrongly. Perhaps executed wrongly.

Just addressing the big picture here.

There's no equivalence between being wrongly imprisoned and wrongly executed. The latter leaves no recourse whatsoever.

re: #168 Killgore Trout

I find it kind of odd that so many people see serious flaws in one case. The appeals judge actually called the defense "smoke and mirrors" without merit but the lefties see serious factual errors.

Any time all you have is witness testimony you have a doubtful case. Nobody should ever be killed on testimony alone.

It's weird to me that you're simply ignoring the flaws in the case. All there is is testimony, and some of those who have testified have alleged that they were coerced or led into doing so.

The 'lefties' aren't saying he should go free and get they keys to the city. They-- I-- am saying that killing someone who may not have been the murderer is asinine.

re: #168 Killgore Trout

I find it kind of odd that so many people see serious flaws in one case. The appeals judge actually called the defense "smoke and mirrors" without merit but the lefties see serious factual errors.

There have been many cases where the "system" fights tooth and nail on technicalities to prevent any additional evidence from being looked at after the fact. The "system" cannot be wrong./

re: #172 Sergey Romanov

Well, there are people who don't necessarily take judges' words at face value.

Especially when there's a complete lack of physical evidence and the death penalty is on the table.

re: #164 000G

Again with the bake sales...

That one seems to be an evergreen with the smartass brand of rwnjs:

[Video][Link: mediamatters.org...]

Also, their implication that Asians would be at some advantage over white students if they go back to race-based admissions at Berkeley is a fairly clear indicator that they have no idea what the history of this has been, and just want to whiiine about being persecuted for being white.

re: #168 Killgore Trout

I'm a 'lefty', I guess, and to me the guy's a jackass criminal. However, there isn't firm proof he's a murderer. I didn't want him to go free. I just didn't want us to execute yet another guy who may or may not have been the right guy.

For fuck's sake, if we're going to have the death penalty, can we at least treat it seriously?

re: #174 Obdicut

They-- I-- am saying that killing someone who may not have been the murderer is asinine.

Masterful understatement there, it's abominable.

re: #178 Obdicut

BTW, Obdi, see my #90. The verdict is actually well-written. I won't judge it until I read it in full, but it may as well be the case that the sentence is pretty tight.

re: #178 Obdicut

Today I think one can get the death penalty if involved in a murder whether or not one pulls the actual trigger. On that basis he should have been executed (whether I agree on principle or not) along with the other guy.

Had this been so I doubt there would have been any major objection in this case beyond the usual opposition on principle.

Speaking of Demjanjuk, his case is the one which shows how bad witnesses can be at identification, especially if the procedure was poor. There were what, a dozen Treblinka survivors who testified against him? And yet he turned out to be the wrong guy. And yet he was sentenced to death. He was only saved by chance - USSR crumbled and new documents came to light.

re: #177 SanFranciscoZionist

Also, their implication that Asians would be at some advantage over white students if they go back to race-based admissions at Berkeley is a fairly clear indicator that they have no idea what the history of this has been, and just want to whiiine about being persecuted for being white.

Hasn't there been even some history of Ashkenazi Jews having been classified as Asian so they could be barred from certain legal privileges in some US areas? I remember vaguely some bizarre history pertaining to that.

re: #174 Obdicut

Saw this image posted in a recent Fark thread about the Davis case. Really can't state it more eloquently.

Troy Davis vs Samuel Crowe cases

I don't have a problem with killing per se; as, for example, preemptively shooting someone who is trying to kill you so he can make an ashtray out of your skull.
I have a big problem with a mob of drunks, yahoos, and callous opportunists being entrusted with the death penalty. That is pretty much what we have in Texas, and a good many other states besides. Enough is enough. This is an ethical disaster, a fact confirmed with each new exoneration.

re: #180 Sergey Romanov

The case may be tight, but witness testimony alone should never lead to the death penalty. It is the most unreliable form of evidence, for a wide panoply of reasons.

Conviction to jail on testimony alone is shaky enough, let alone execution.

re: #173 Sergey Romanov

The equivalence I refer to might be a draft and off to lethal combat and the chance of wrongly executing a person. Or maybe wrongly giving them life without parole.

re: #181 Naso Tang

I'm not arguing that the law as it stands wasn't followed, at all, or any misconduct of anyone involved, from the police to the judges or the jury.

re: #184 RadicalModerate

Saw this image posted in a recent Fark thread about the Davis case. Really can't state it more eloquently.

Troy Davis vs Samuel Crowe cases

Magic words: "Police Officer".

re: #183 000G

Hasn't there been even some history of Ashkenazi Jews having been classified as Asian so they could be barred from certain legal privileges in some US areas? I remember vaguely some bizarre history pertaining to that.

Well, Jews were quota-ed in many schools for a long time just as Jews. I don't know about classifying us as Asians, although as late as the '20s, you do find British sources referring to Ashkenazim as 'Orientals'.

It's entirely possible, it just doesn't spring to mind.

re: #186 Obdicut

I can't agree here. I mean, I think no evidence should lead to DP. But don't knock testimony. It should really be decided on a case by case basis. Lots of the Nazi trials depended mostly, if not solely on testimonies. We know about many details, like Aktion Reinhard gas chambers, from the testimonies. So testimony cannot be dismissed in general.

re: #188 Obdicut

I'm not arguing that the law as it stands wasn't followed, at all, or any misconduct of anyone involved, from the police to the judges or the jury.

Did I give you that impression?

Well, they are a contingent of the party, though I 'm not sure of their current significance, nor do I much care. It was just a casual musing.

But I think it incluces people like Kathleen Parker, Frum to a degree, those anti-Palin anti-Perry types.

re: #94 000G

What significance does "the Rove/Bush loyalist crowd" have in today's GOP anyhow? And who would that be?

re: #187 Rightwingconspirator

The equivalence I refer to might be a draft and off to lethal combat and the chance of wrongly executing a person. Or maybe wrongly giving them life without parole.

I don't see the analogy, sorry.

re: #186 Obdicut

I know California has extra levels of appeal for death penalty cases. But apart from that, but where is it enshrined in law that an escalating "reasonable doubt" standard be tied to escalating sentences?

I had thought the reasonable standard was a kind of level playing field apart from extra appeals perhaps.

re: #162 goddamnedfrank

But you didn't bother to read Judge Moore's ruling in which he completely vaporizes the value of those affidavits?

re: #195 Rightwingconspirator

I personally think the escalating system doesn't make sense. It's either proven and you go to prison, or you walk free.

re: #190 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, Jews were quota-ed in many schools for a long time just as Jews. I don't know about classifying us as Asians, although as late as the '20s, you do find British sources referring to Ashkenazim as 'Orientals'.

It's entirely possible, it just doesn't spring to mind.

There was even some specific U.S. Code section applicable here. Dammit, I can't find the source right now. I'll get back to you on that.

re: #190 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, Jews were quota-ed in many schools for a long time just as Jews. I don't know about classifying us as Asians, although as late as the '20s, you do find British sources referring to Ashkenazim as 'Orientals'.

It's entirely possible, it just doesn't spring to mind.

"Orient Express" to Istanbul. To some British, everything east of Dover was 'orient'.

re: #190 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, Jews were quota-ed in many schools for a long time just as Jews. I don't know about classifying us as Asians, although as late as the '20s, you do find British sources referring to Ashkenazim as 'Orientals'.

It's entirely possible, it just doesn't spring to mind.

And in trying to look that up, I found myself at the 'White American' page of Wikipedia. Here is, I swear to God, the people they have up in a photo montage as examples of white Americans:

Marilyn Monroe · Ronald Reagan · Mariska Hargitay · Edgar Allan Poe · Mother Seton . Ben Franklin · Amelia Earhart · John F. Kennedy · Elizabeth Kortright Monroe · Samuel Alito . Evelyn Nesbit · Norman Rockwell · Susanna Hoffs · Cotton Mather · Danica Patrick . Robert E. Lee · Greta Garbo · Eddie Vedder · Rima Fakih · Andy García . Maria Mitchell · José Francisco Chaves · Mary Higgins Clark · Dan Marino · Susan B Anthony

For all you white lizards, please look at this. Is this this list YOU would come up with in explaining what it means to be a White American?

My own response is sort of 'Hmmm.' And then "Why Mary Higgins Clark?"

Apparently Saleh agreed to go away.

And there were physical evidence. Unfortunately, it was obtained without a warrant...

re: #202 Winny Spencer

And there were physical evidence. Unfortunately, it was obtained without a warrant...

Stupid cops.

re: #197 Sergey Romanov

I would agree. But the advocacy against some death penalty verdicts seems to be calling for exactly that. A higher standard, or perhaps that is just dogwhistling for the end of the DP.

re: #193 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Well, they are a contingent of the party, though I 'm not sure of their current significance, nor do I much care. It was just a casual musing.

But I think it incluces people like Kathleen Parker, Frum to a degree, those anti-Palin anti-Perry types.

As weird as that is: Those are fringe now.

re: #191 Sergey Romanov

I can't agree here. I mean, I think no evidence should lead to DP. But don't knock testimony. It should really be decided on a case by case basis. Lots of the Nazi trials depended mostly, if not solely on testimonies. We know about many details, like Aktion Reinhard gas chambers, from the testimonies. So testimony cannot be dismissed in general.

That's a post hoc argument, though. That a lot of important trials depended on it is not a reason to grant it more credence. I'm not dismissing testimony. I'm pointing out that actual, scientific research in the area has shown it to have severe deficits as fully accurate evidence. Testimony is important and when it's all there is, as in this case-- no murder weapon was ever found-- it's still sufficient to bring a penalty. But it should not extend to death.

[Link: www.innocenceproject.org...]

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

re: #204 Rightwingconspirator

I think DP should be ended exactly because the alternative is this nonsensical escalating system, where you sit in prison if your case is doubtful, but are executed if it's more clear. This kinda perverts the goal of justice. If your case is doubtful, WTF you're doing in the prison.

re: #206 Obdicut

No evidence should extend to death. But if there's DP, I don't see why testimony should not extend to death too. Either proven or not.

re: #200 SanFranciscoZionist

And in trying to look that up, I found myself at the 'White American' page of Wikipedia. Here is, I swear to God, the people they have up in a photo montage as examples of white Americans:

Marilyn Monroe · Ronald Reagan · Mariska Hargitay · Edgar Allan Poe · Mother Seton . Ben Franklin · Amelia Earhart · John F. Kennedy · Elizabeth Kortright Monroe · Samuel Alito . Evelyn Nesbit · Norman Rockwell · Susanna Hoffs · Cotton Mather · Danica Patrick . Robert E. Lee · Greta Garbo · Eddie Vedder · Rima Fakih · Andy García . Maria Mitchell · José Francisco Chaves · Mary Higgins Clark · Dan Marino · Susan B Anthony

Dan Marino? What a weird list!!
For all you white lizards, please look at this. Is this this list YOU would come up with in explaining what it means to be a White American?

My own response is sort of 'Hmmm.' And then "Why Mary Higgins Clark?"

Welp, it looks like the President's arrived. Probably through the back entrance, I spotted the press entourage white vans at the side.

re: #208 Sergey Romanov

No evidence should extend to death. But if there's DP, I don't see why testimony should not extend to death too. Either proven or not.

Well, I agree that there shouldn't be a death penalty. And I'm not a lawyer or in any way connected to the law; this is much more your area than mine. But to me, it makes sense that if you're giving a penalty of a qualitatively different nature-- say locking someone up rather than making them do community service, or killing them rather than locking them up-- a different standard can apply. To me, that makes pragmatic sense.

The second link that I showed you says that one of the main ways that this can be addressed is police departments getting better, more scientific, at doing the identifications. Having one of the officers involved in the case there can alter the results, demonstrably, just as it can in a large number of other situations.

If we improved the way that we collected testimony, I'd feel more comfortable about it.

re: #210 laZardo

Welp, it looks like the President's arrived. Probably through the back entrance, I spotted the press entourage white vans at the side.

What's he there to talk to you about?

re: #209 Stanley Sea

Lost my comment. I was like Dan Marino??

re: #212 Obdicut

What's he there to talk to you about?

Fundraising.

re: #206 Obdicut

That's a post hoc argument, though. That a lot of important trials depended on it is not a reason to grant it more credence. I'm not dismissing testimony. I'm pointing out that actual, scientific research in the area has shown it to have severe deficits as fully accurate evidence. Testimony is important and when it's all there is, as in this case-- no murder weapon was ever found-- it's still sufficient to bring a penalty. But it should not extend to death.

[Link: www.innocenceproject.org...]

[Link: www.cbsnews.com...]

I'm hard pressed to put witness testimony into a singular category. Sure, untrained witnesses at night or in a rush, or under the influence of adrenaline as a result of gunfire or flight is not going to be clear. But well trained people like first responders in good viewing conditions? Another story. Far more credible.

re: #213 Stanley Sea

Lost my comment. I was like Dan Marino??

It's an interesting list, no?

re: #216 SanFranciscoZionist

It's an interesting list, no?

At least three didn't have nirth certificates.

Oh, and I should mention that one of my perspectives on this case is being from San Francisco, where the department has struggled not so much with corruption as incompetence for decades now.

A co-worker of mine was found stabbed several times inside his apartment. In the stomach. Viscious stabs. There was blood outside his apartment. Neighbors said that they heard someone running down the steps. There was no knife with any blood on it in the apartment. The guy who was killed was a fun guy, happy and positive, with no negatives in his life that anyone knew about.

The police ruled it a suicide. They said he stabbed himself several times, went out into the hall, came back inside, and then washed the knife of all blood and put it back in the rack before dying.

Seriously.

re: #215 Rightwingconspirator

I'm hard pressed to put witness testimony into a singular category. Sure, untrained witnesses at night or in a rush, or under the influence of adrenaline as a result of gunfire or flight is not going to be clear. But well trained people like first responders in good viewing conditions? Another story. Far more credible.

Maybe. If scientific evidence shows they are more credible, I'll be happy to accept that. I just want to approach the subject with science, rigor, and not with seat of the pants or common-sense attitudes.

I'm not saying that we should discount anyone's testimony. I'm saying we should gather it in a way that minimizes the potential errors and confabulations that can occur.

re: #211 Obdicut

The system as it stands is intolerable indeed. What should be heightened are the standards of proof overall. Simplistic and flawed identification should go away, there should be a minimum number of witnesses (if 10 people of different backgrounds who went through a proper(!) identification procedure testify against such and such, it's obviously stronger than, say, 2 people testifying against such and such; and by proper id procedure I don't mean one 40-50 years after the fact, or we will get new Demjanjuk fiascos). Don't ask me, I can't describe in detail how to improve it. But, as you acknowledge, there are cases where guilt can be established from testimony.

re: #218 Obdicut

OMG. His family etc didn't have the power/funds to fight for justice, right?

re: #190 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, Jews were quota-ed in many schools for a long time just as Jews. I don't know about classifying us as Asians, although as late as the '20s, you do find British sources referring to Ashkenazim as 'Orientals'.

It's entirely possible, it just doesn't spring to mind.

I am pretty sure I found the law: 42 U.S.C. 1981. Must have been the original post-Civil War version, though. Hard time finding that one.

And, BTW, forensic evidence is not some kind of magic, it can be flawed as hell, so it shouldn't lead to DP either.

re: #221 Stanley Sea

OMG. His family etc didn't have the power/funds to fight for justice, right?

We agitated, the French government got involved (since he was a French citizen) and the struggle continues. But the cops in SF have a terrible solve rate for homicides, so unfortunately it does appear one of their tactics to lower that was to rule things that were clearly homicides, as suicides. This case brought up some similar cases involving homeless men that had rather clearly been homicides, ruled as suicides.

However, since there is no clue as to his assailant, there's little chance of justice at this point anyway. There might have been a chance in the first few days following the assault. This long after? I doubt it.

re: #221 Stanley Sea

OMG. His family etc didn't have the power/funds to fight for justice, right?

If this is the case I recall, they were in Europe, which simply makes the whole thing much, much harder to handle thanks to distance and unfamiliar procedure.

Good article on the forensic/CSI myth:

[Link: www.popularmechanics.com...]

re: #225 SanFranciscoZionist

Yep. They put up a hundred thousand dollar reward, but enough time had passed that it was unlikely to produce results.

They seriously just couldn't believe anyone would have treated it as a suicide, and frankly, neither can I. I do think it was an attempt to interpret the events in such a way to mean that they didn't have yet another unsolved homicide on their sheets.

re: #226 Sergey Romanov

Also from San Francisco:

[Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]

[Link: mrs-o.com...]

I know to the rwnj's the President speaking to the Congressional Black Caucus blew their minds, but way more important, check out Michelle's dress !!!

re: #228 Obdicut

Besides, forensics only really comes to the court via experts, who are fallible people too, with fallible interpretations of evidence.

re: #230 Sergey Romanov

Besides, forensics only really comes to the court via experts, who are fallible people too, with fallible interpretations of evidence.

Yes. I'm really not saying that witness testimony sucks, forensics rules, but that the current way we collect witness testimony is hugely flawed. Obviously, the way we collect-- and present-- forensics can also be hugely flawed.

Turns out getting things right is hard. But we should try our damndest.

re: #219 Obdicut

One powerful lesson I learned when taking defensive handgun training classes was the effects of adrenaline on memory. Basically if you get into a gunfight and prevail, refuse to make any statements as your memory will not really be there for you. It will more likely make you a liar. ("I shot three times" and there are really ten brass casings on the ground) Anything that makes a huge physiological fight/flight response screws your memory. It's not a deliberate lie but a prosecutor might just call it that.

Some speculate that is due to all mental focus being caught in fight or flight tasks, memory only matters if you live.

Now we all know how careful study hep us remember. We "testify" when we take exams. If you get an A you are good. So perhaps this tells us conditions are what really matters in eye witness accounts.

re: #222 000G

I am pretty sure I found the law: 42 U.S.C. 1981. Must have been the original post-Civil War version, though. Hard time finding that one.

Here: (Scroll well down)

[Link: oll.libertyfund.org...]

re: #232 Rightwingconspirator

One powerful lesson I learned when taking defensive handgun training classes was the effects of adrenaline on memory. Basically if you get into a gunfight and prevail, refuse to make any statements as your memory will not really be there for you. It will more likely make you a liar. ("I shot three times" and there are really ten brass casings on the ground) Anything that makes a huge physiological fight/flight response screws your memory. It's not a deliberate lie but a prosecutor might just call it that.

Some speculate that is due to all mental focus being caught in fight or flight tasks, memory only matters if you live.

Now we all know how careful study hep us remember. We "testify" when we take exams. If you get an A you are good. So perhaps this tells us conditions are what really matters in eye witness accounts.

the Earp Effect...he shot up a bunch of people but never recalled any off it...heh

re: #1 Sergey Romanov

Meh, everybody knows those comments were left by Killgore and Ice.

///

Disgusting.

Apropos:

how do we know you aren't the culprit of all these anonymous comments which we are deleting? @Lizardoid

[Link: twitter.com...]

re: #232 Rightwingconspirator

Very good point. An interesting corollary: my friend Ben, who was a sniper and forward observer, said that the techniques you use to combat the andrenaline so that you can actually wait to take the shot you need to, and not just pop off, have the effect of messing with your perception of time. When he was asked to observe a target and wait for confirmation to take a shot, he would sometimes check back in, convinced that it had been ten minutes since he'd heard from the decision-makers, when it had actually been about twenty seconds.

He also talked about the risk of being hypnotized, almost, by things in your field of view. He watched a house once looking for a high-value target but there was a little piece of paper fluttering on a string, and he suddenly realized he'd been staring at that paper rather than keeping his perspective wide, and didn't know how long he'd been doing it.

Biologically, we're not built for perfect recall, or lengthy observation. We're not stalking hunters. We're meant more to make snap decisions about danger or safety and respond to them. It's very hard to combat that and force ourselves to do otherwise.

re: #235 000G

Apropos:

[Link: twitter.com...]

Of course.

re: #235 000G

Good thing only idiots would swallow that.

re: #10 000G

Does it involve magic and hairdos?

Sure enough:

I am excited to announce we will be doing @Lizardoid retrospective at Big Journalism. A greatest hits as it were. Comments, posts et al.

[Link: twitter.com...]

@AndrewBreitbart Oh good! Be sure to get your info from that blog run by Serbian genocide deniers you like to quote.

[Link: twitter.com...]

I like living in your head. I get to use your jazzy ponytail as a rope climb to come out periodically for a Jambalaya juice run. @Lizardoid

[Link: twitter.com...]

@AndrewBreitbart BTW, if you're going to start deleting comments you have a LOT of work ahead of you.

[Link: twitter.com...]

re: #235 000G

Well, if it's his website, they can see the panoply of IPs that the comments are coming from. That'd be one way of telling.

Another would be that you can find odious comments like that at Brietbart's all the time.

Another is that Breitbart himself is about that unhinged, what with his civil war fantasies.

Etc.

re: #236 Obdicut

That why shiny things seem to catch my attention?

re: #241 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

We're all just apes looking for our shiny.

re: #218 Obdicut

Oh, and I should mention that one of my perspectives on this case is being from San Francisco, where the department has struggled not so much with corruption as incompetence for decades now.

A co-worker of mine was found stabbed several times inside his apartment. In the stomach. Viscious stabs. There was blood outside his apartment. Neighbors said that they heard someone running down the steps. There was no knife with any blood on it in the apartment. The guy who was killed was a fun guy, happy and positive, with no negatives in his life that anyone knew about.

The police ruled it a suicide. They said he stabbed himself several times, went out into the hall, came back inside, and then washed the knife of all blood and put it back in the rack before dying.

Seriously.

That's seriously fucked up, all of it...

re: #242 Obdicut

We're all just apes looking for our shiny.

I don't need any shiny, gimme my preciousss!

re: #239 000G

Breitbart's ponytail obsession is incredibly lame.

re: #245 jaunte

Breitbart's ponytail obsession is incredibly lame.

Dr. Freud would have a field day with him./

re: #218 Obdicut

Oh, and I should mention that one of my perspectives on this case is being from San Francisco, where the department has struggled not so much with corruption as incompetence for decades now.

A co-worker of mine was found stabbed several times inside his apartment. In the stomach. Viscious stabs. There was blood outside his apartment. Neighbors said that they heard someone running down the steps. There was no knife with any blood on it in the apartment. The guy who was killed was a fun guy, happy and positive, with no negatives in his life that anyone knew about.

The police ruled it a suicide. They said he stabbed himself several times, went out into the hall, came back inside, and then washed the knife of all blood and put it back in the rack before dying.

Seriously.

It's pretty apparent Hugues was stabbed outside and he went inside his apartment where he expired after locking his door then stumbling around as his blood loss led to lightheadedness.

I'm really sorry about your friend Obdi, seems like a good guy. I'd be freaking furious.

re: #245 jaunte

Breitbart's ponytail obsession is incredibly lame.

Brietbart must be jealous that Charles rocks the ponytail, because he knows while if he were to attempt a ponytail, he'd wind up looking stupid.

re: #246 Sergey Romanov

Dr. Freud would have a field day with him./

and childish...those days are long gone...in ABQ you see bank managers in suits with very long grey ponytails...we are very non judgmental down here, which for me, makes AB remarks so friggin petty...he's a dope

re: #247 BigPapa

I didn't know him that well. He was just a friendly, happy face around the office. But there were a lot of people that did, and were just stunned.

And then when the cops started asking questions that clearly meant they were treating it as a suicide-- asking no questions about a possible homicide motive-- people did indeed get furious.

re: #235 000G

Apropos:

[Link: twitter.com...]

Yeah, I knew he'd say the comments were planted by me. He doesn't even believe that himself, it's just red meat for his flying monkeys.

re: #251 Charles

Yeah, I knew he'd say the comments were planted by me. He doesn't even believe that himself, it's just red meat for his flying monkeys.

Seems like the typical TPGOP MO nowadays...divert, deflect and bullshit the party faithful because the party stands for nothing positive, only negatives.

I was watching this kawaii-vid

and the comments suggesting the one of the women had Family Guy Herbert the Pervert's voice sent me LOLing. It's a match, indeed.