• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oklahoma will execute innocent man

notquiteright said:
That isn't court testimony but a different opinion. I thought you had some of the actual court testimony.
Click to expand...

What are ANY of us looking at?? It represents supposed factual information pulled together just as reliable as anything else any of us has seen on here. Do you have court testimony?
 
MaggieD said:
What are ANY of us looking at?? It represents supposed factual information pulled together just as reliable as anything else any of us has seen on here. Do you have court testimony?
Click to expand...

Well news reports rather than opinion pieces would be a start, like I said earlier this happened in my state, and we don't have all that many murders for hire here- like the dad who hired a hitman to go out of state to murder his SiL. Or the Aussie baseball player gunned down on a lark in Duncan. We tend to pay attention. This trial was a typical, ya get what you pay for deal.

Like I said, using a state supplied lawyer just means ya have representation, doesn't mean you get a good defense.
 
A defendant's best shot is at their original trial. Appellate courts are notoriously rubber stamps, and depending on the Governor ain't happening as the mere question is a political time bomb. Anyone who holds up these "safeguards" as proof (or even evidence) that the defendant got a fair shake is either naive or outright dishonest.

Generic comment, not necessarily specific to this case.
 
MaggieD said:
There was plenty. There was the fact that he lied to the police. That later, he finally told the cops the guy TOLD him he'd killed him. There was the fact that the guy embezzled money from the victim and was about to get his comeuppance. There was the fact that the guy tried to hide the body from staff until....until when?

This site is GREAT for expressing opinions. But expressing an opinion that a jury's decision, after nine days of testimony, was wrong because a few paragraph news article says it is? Priceless.
Click to expand...
I do not condone lying to police, but considering that police are legally allowed to lie to suspects during investigations I have a hard time mustering outrage over this.
 
notquiteright said:
Well news reports rather than opinion pieces would be a start, like I said earlier this happened in my state, and we don't have all that many murders for hire here- like the dad who hired a hitman to go out of state to murder his SiL. Or the Aussie baseball player gunned down on a lark in Duncan. We tend to pay attention. This trial was a typical, ya get what you pay for deal.

Like I said, using a state supplied lawyer just means ya have representation, doesn't mean you get a good defense.
Click to expand...

The proof will soon be in the pudding, at any rate. Did you remember this guy had two jury trials? And that he's even SINCE appealed all the way to the Supreme Court? At any rate, there should be more "news reports" over the next two weeks.

Many jurists would disagree about your low opinion of court-appointed lawyers.
 
radcen said:
I do not condone lying to police, but considering that police are legally allowed to lie to suspects during investigations I have a hard time mustering outrage over this.
Click to expand...

I don't have outrage over it at ALL. But when one lies, it is usually because the truth is detrimental to one's interests.
 
We are all innocent until we get caught.
 
ocean515 said:
I guess the moral of the story is, if you have someone killed in a conservative state, and you are caught, you may be held accountable. Do it in a liberal state where they may call you "innocent" and set you free.
Click to expand...

Way to defend southern corruption.

Mary Fallin has always been a corrupt zealot sellout. She's a disgrace from a state of disgraceful government.

Again ... perfect proof of why the south shouldn't be allowed to self-govern.
 
TheIceman said:
Way to defend southern corruption.

Mary Fallin has always been a corrupt zealot sellout. She's a disgrace from a state of disgraceful government.

Again ... perfect proof of why the south shouldn't be allowed to self-govern.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be allowed to self-govern? Way to demolish the Constitution. Interesting how disagreement turns into a call for fascist authoritarian control.
 
ocean515 said:
Shouldn't be allowed to self-govern? Way to demolish the Constitution. Interesting how disagreement turns into a call for fascist authoritarian control.
Click to expand...

Nobody said anything about facism. Merely a governement which is required to seek federal approval for anything more difficult than issuing a library card.
 
you're comparing innocent babies to murderers apparently
 
ocean515 said:
I guess the moral of the story is, if you have someone killed in a conservative state, and you are caught, you may be held accountable. Do it in a liberal state where they may call you "innocent" and set you free.
Click to expand...

They may well decide you're guilty and turn you loose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom