| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
Whistler, That's a pretty heavy burden. Not one to be taken lightly. I have no doubt that every person on the jury felt the burden of what they were being asked. It's easy to second guess these things when your not involved in hearing first hand the details of the crime. Thanks for doing the right thing. It seems the right thing was done in the Davis case too. | ||
| Drkside79 |
I guess my question would be how does someone chasing a suspect get shot through the armhole of the vest? It would seem that the shooter would have to be to the side of him. | ||
| Sifo |
I'm not up to speed on the vest thing. Was this the cop that was shot? The cop shot by Davis wasn't chasing from what I read. What was hit? There's plenty to hit at the arm hole from any angle. Davis then walked over and shot the cop again to kill him. I'm honestly not clear as to why it's a question. Details? Link? Quote? | ||
| Blake |
Fahren, >>> You have to get over Ann Coulter. She is a conservative wack-job with an agenda behind her; sloppy, misleading and incorrect, even deceitful in her written and spoken work. Right, you want me to trust what a few left winger blogs say over Ann Coulter. Too funny. As Sifo points out, show where her reporting is inaccurate on this issue. Coulter is never shy about confronting her detractors in person. I've yet to see any of them show that she is not a credible reporter of facts. Not once. Every single time they raise some far left winger claim that she has is soundly refuted. You may not like her, she can be offensive in her commentary against liberals, but from what I've seen, her journalistic integrity in the way of reporting facts is among the best around. Period. I dare you to show where her reporting on this issue is inaccurate. Seems to me you should be applauding that she is exposing the incredibly misleading reporting of the liberal media. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Sifo i read it in your link Officer McPhail, who was working as a security guard at the restaurant, walked rapidly from behind the bus station, with his nightstick in his hand and ordered the three men to halt. Mr. Collins and Davis fled, and Officer McPhail ran past Sylvester Coles in pursuit of Davis. Davis looked over his shoulder, and when the officer was five to six feet away, shot him. Officer McPhail fell to the ground, and Davis walked towards him and shot him again while he was on the ground. One eyewitness testified that Davis was smiling at the time. Then further down An autopsy revealed that Officer McPhail was shot twice. One bullet entered the corner of his cheekbone on the left side and exited the back of his neck; the bullet blew away bits of his teeth, and his lip was impaled on his teeth. The second bullet passed through the armhole of McPhail’s bullet-proof vest, and entered his chest on the left side. This bullet pierced the lung and the aorta, and lodged in the opposite side between the third and fourth vertebrae, at the back of the chest cavity near the spinal column. The cause of the victim’s death was a loss of blood from a gunshot wound to the left side of his chest. Hence my point if running twords someone you are square to them. Seems unlikely that a chest wound can happen as described with a vest on. I'm not saying the guy is innocent I'm just saying things don't add up for me yet. | ||
| Fast1075 |
I don't think cold blooded murderers should be incarcerated and killed by the state. They should be handed over to the victim's family for whatever punishment they end up getting. (or exoneration, if the family feels that way). | ||
| Sifo |
Hence my point if running twords someone you are square to them. Seems unlikely that a chest wound can happen as described with a vest on. What would your natural reaction be to a criminal (the officer just saw him committing a crime) at a distance of about 6 feet raising a gun at you. You might just turn in a defensive manner exposing the arm hole. Are the autopsy results really in question here? Does this have any bearing on the guilt of Davis? My guess is No and No. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Hence my point if running towards someone you are square to them. That is false. Try making a sprint and keep your chest square to your direction of travel. Also, you have made assumptions. "Officer McPhail ran past Sylvester Coles " What happens to torso orientation when you run past an obstacle and need to avoid running into it? It's just this kind of nonsense that hand-wringers love to eat up, despite the fact that an overwhelming amount of evidence and eyewitness testimony has repeatedly convicted the murderer. How many appeals? How much time has passed? He should get more?????? Matt, you need to read the facts amigo. The man already was afforded multiple appeals and decades of time to contest. The only thing wrong with our justice system that I see is that we don't have the "loser pays" rule for civil cases like Britain does. I sure wish we did. | ||
| Dannyd |
Matt, Have you ever put a standard bullet proof vest on? If you had you would realize that the arm holes are very large on the sides and leave ample room for a bullet to strike from about a 45 degree angle. Because he was shot though the arm hole does not mean he was sideways to the shooter. As Blake said you are really reaching for something if you are using where he was shot as a reason for your thinking. In fact your way of thinking IMO only shows that the officer was shot in cold blood. | ||
| Whistler |
Drkside - Speculation on my part but consider this. Article says the vest arm hole shot was the second shot. Also states officer was on the ground for the second shot. Could have been laying on his right side with his left arm raised upward or crossed over his chest exposing the left lower left arm hole of the vest. Or not. | ||
| Sifo |
But Blake, he must have been innocent. They've got protesters and everything. | ||
| Drkside79 |
You are now making the assumption that he had to avoid close contact with Sylvester Coles. I want the crime screen sketch. Anyway doesn't matter. He's dead God will Judge. | ||
| Sifo |
I'm sure the jury and everyone else involved in the appeals process got to see a crime scene sketch of some sort. If it has any bearing on his guilt or innocence and none was available, then shame on the defense lawyer. You seem focused on something that I just don't see it making any difference at all. There were many witnesses as well as physical evidence that show Davis to be the shooter. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Whistler thanks i retract my comments on the shooting as i didn't read well enough. I did make the assumption that the chest shot was first as it is more likely. Danny, I am not saying that the officer/security guard was not killed in cold blood. I hope whoever killed him pay dearly. If it was Davis then justice is served. As to your point on angle of shot. I am not using it to determine the cold bloodeness of the crime. However ballistic trajectory does help when ascertaining guilt. which is what i meant. Oh and who is Matt? | ||
| D_adams |
Where did the guy get shot first? Face or body? If he's laying there on the ground, possibly on his side after being shot in the face, then going through the arm hole of the vest isn't such a stretch, especially if the shooter was specifically aiming for it from 3 feet away at a guy that isn't moving much. That would give you a pretty clean line from the armpit, through the chest cavity (striking the lung/aorta) and lodging in the opposite side rib cage. | ||
| Pammy |
I imagine that the officer was square to the accused as the pursuit began....armed with a nightstick, I can picture the victim trying to make himself very small at the first sight of the gun. He might have even turned to get out of the way when the perp rounded on him with a firearm. Could have thrown his hands over his head in a self preservation type reflex...not far fetched at all to me that he could have been shot as was reported. | ||
| Pammy |
Man, I type way too slow. | ||
| Fahren |
I am not in the business of research, Blake. All reporters, Coulter, and all others, should check their facts and get their sources right, since that is their business. I applaud those who make it their business to check into the truth of what these commentators, reporters and pundits claim publicly. I'm not disputing that media commentators have biases - they all do. I don't have a problem if you want to listen to a right-wing commentator, I just thought you might want to look into the fact-checking done by others, not always by partisan "others," on Coulter. I'd be fine with you citing some refutation or critique of a left-wing commentator I might cite, such as Matt Taibbi. I would look at it with an open mind and see if maybe my head is stuck in a sunless place when it comes to listening to that person. I don't see that openness on your part, only an assumption that my citations are coming from radical left-wing nut jobs. And this is not the case. I don't see any willingness on your part to do that with Coulter, even though I offered two critiques of her "work:" one from a left-wing partisan source, one, from Spinsanity, that is non-partisan, and whose mission was to root out the BS in all political commentating and discourse.
and for more of their reasons for doing what they did: http://www.spinsanity.org/about/background.html They do/did a good job of exposing spin doctors on the left and right. Seems they did a pretty good job of showing Coulter up as a shoddy reporter with bad fact-checking and a penchant for spinning the truth her way. Care to look more carefully at their work, and take a look at your reactionary response to my post? Your reaction only exposes how deeply cemented your own biases are, and how closed your mind is. That's not evidence of a very interesting person with whom one might want to have a debate. | ||
| Blake |
>>> I want the crime screen sketch. Yeah, whatever. Get over yourself. The jury and his mom have spoken. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Blake, Yeah, whatever. Get over yourself. glass houses, Please notice that nothing I wrote came close to a comment on your or anyone elses character | ||
| Sifo |
Fahren, I just took a quick look at the link on Ann Coulter from SpinSanity (They've stopped doing their thing BTW). I couldn't manage to read the whole thing, but it seemed to all pretty much revolve around the "inflammatory" use of the word "treason" in a book. I'll agree that treason is not an accurate description of what she was writing about, but I think the point she was making was valid. She is just over the top in the way she says things. Are you really comparing this to major news companies such as See BS news writing about a convicted cop killer claiming that there was "no physical evidence" when it took me exactly one internet search to find extremely credible information that shows this to be a flat out lie. Just a simple Google search on "Georgia vs Troy Davis". One is an exaggeration by a non-journalist. The other is complete fabrication by one of our biggest news agencies. Ann Coulter comes out looking pretty damn good in this and I'm not talking about her legs. | ||
| Drkside79 |
I also retracted my point when proven wrong. | ||
| Sifo |
The problem with these anit-death penalty groups is that they are dishonest. I leaned that long ago by looking into their claims. That's why all the news about this one didn't even make me pay any attention at all. So it gets discussed here on BadWeb and that gets me to look into it for 2 minutes. They are still dishonest. The only question is how many will verify their claims. The good news is that's easier than ever these days. | ||
| Sifo |
I think the title of this thread deserves to be changed to something a bit more honest. How about lies from anti-death penalty groups? | ||
| Drkside79 |
Sifo Fair enough. As i said in my opening I am pro death penalty. I was pissed when our cowardly governor finished Ryans work and let the man who raped and murder my friend off with life. As for the title it was made to spark debate. If it's changed so be it. I phrased it as a question not a statement. I wanted to know more. I now do. I still think that in a death case if witnesses recant there should be a stay to figure it out. | ||
| Cowboy |
I want to know what became of man being assulted? | ||
| Blake |
Andy, I've tried to get over myself, but I can't find a ladder high enough. I figured you might have better luck.  >>> I still think that in a death case if witnesses recant there should be a stay to figure it out. When only two recant anything pertinent, and then the defense refuses to call them in an appeals hearing, well... ??? | ||
| Sifo |
Just stirring the pot a bit with that comment. I don't really care if the title gets changed. I still think that in a death case if witnesses recant there should be a stay to figure it out. How many years have they been figuring this out? Death penalty cases go through automatic appeals, even when the convict doesn't want the appeal. What more should be done? You can't re-try him, that would be double jeopardy. If you in anyway negate the finding of the jury, it just becomes a way to game the justice system. Get a buddy/family member to testify against you and then recant. How long before defense attorneys learn that trick? My guess would be less than a second. | ||
| Blake |
What I'm saying is that despite the doubts sown by a corrupt dishonest news media, in this case, it was ALL very well "figured out." | ||
| Fahren |
Should there be a death penalty? or is it a case of "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind?" I'm pretty sure both sides can and do pull up stat's showing the DP does/does not reduce the occurrence of violent crimes. I'm also pretty sure that no matter what harsh punishments are out there, some are going to commit bad crimes. |
