Texas Executed An Innocent Father

[The2ndAmendment]

[

For shits and giggles, I'm going to start every thread with "savage thug ghetto niggas" no matter what the topic concerns.

Whatever floats your boat.

I'd re-read the rules beforehand, though. If I was you.

You already told me that I'd be allowed to do that. Didn't you?

First sentence of OP:

backward inbred white trash

This thread does not violate any of the rules of this board.

Therefore I can start every thread in the first sentence with:

savage thug ghetto niggas

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Hack article. Dude was guilty.

The only thing that we should be discussing is the OP's opening statement "inbred white trash." USMB admins should enforce the rules on liberals OP's as they do on conservative OP's. We all know that none of us could start a thread with the phrase "savage thug ghetto niggas"

Report the thread.

This thread does not violate any of the rules of this board.

For shits and giggles, I'm going to start every thread with "savage thug ghetto niggas" no matter what the topic concerns.

Whatever floats your boat.

I'd re-read the rules beforehand, though. If I was you.

You already told me that I'd be allowed to do that. Didn't you?

First sentence of OP:

backward inbred white trash

This thread does not violate any of the rules of this board.

No, I did not.

I ruled on this thread, not on some future hypothetical thread of yours.

Every thread is judged on a case by case basis.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

The only thing that we should be discussing is the OP's opening statement "inbred white trash." USMB admins should enforce the rules on liberals OP's as they do on conservative OP's. We all know that none of us could start a thread with the phrase "savage thug ghetto niggas"

Report the thread.

This thread does not violate any of the rules of this board.

For shits and giggles, I'm going to start every thread with "savage thug ghetto niggas" no matter what the topic concerns.

Whatever floats your boat.

I'd re-read the rules beforehand, though. If I was you.

You already told me that I'd be allowed to do that. Didn't you?

First sentence of OP:

backward inbred white trash

This thread does not violate any of the rules of this board.

No, I did not.

I ruled on this thread, not on some future hypothetical thread of yours.

Every thread is judged on a case by case basis.

Are you seriously saying that in some cases racist terms are okay, and in some they are not? Does that depend on which racist terms are used?

 

[Pogo]

This thread does not violate any of the rules of this board.

For shits and giggles, I'm going to start every thread with "savage thug ghetto niggas" no matter what the topic concerns.

Whatever floats your boat.

I'd re-read the rules beforehand, though. If I was you.

You already told me that I'd be allowed to do that. Didn't you?

First sentence of OP:

backward inbred white trash

This thread does not violate any of the rules of this board.

No, I did not.

I ruled on this thread, not on some future hypothetical thread of yours.

Every thread is judged on a case by case basis.

Are you seriously saying that in some cases racist terms are okay, and in some they are not? Does that depend on which racist terms are used?

"backward inbred white trash" isn't racist. If anything it's classist.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This thread does not violate any of the rules of this board.

For shits and giggles, I'm going to start every thread with "savage thug ghetto niggas" no matter what the topic concerns.

Whatever floats your boat.

I'd re-read the rules beforehand, though. If I was you.

You already told me that I'd be allowed to do that. Didn't you?

First sentence of OP:

backward inbred white trash

This thread does not violate any of the rules of this board.

No, I did not.

I ruled on this thread, not on some future hypothetical thread of yours.

Every thread is judged on a case by case basis.

Are you seriously saying that in some cases racist terms are okay, and in some they are not? Does that depend on which racist terms are used?

Yes and no, respectively.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

For shits and giggles, I'm going to start every thread with "savage thug ghetto niggas" no matter what the topic concerns.

Whatever floats your boat.

I'd re-read the rules beforehand, though. If I was you.

You already told me that I'd be allowed to do that. Didn't you?

First sentence of OP:

backward inbred white trash

This thread does not violate any of the rules of this board.

No, I did not.

I ruled on this thread, not on some future hypothetical thread of yours.

Every thread is judged on a case by case basis.

Are you seriously saying that in some cases racist terms are okay, and in some they are not? Does that depend on which racist terms are used?

Yes and no, respectively.

What a joke

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Whatever floats your boat.

I'd re-read the rules beforehand, though. If I was you.

You already told me that I'd be allowed to do that. Didn't you?

First sentence of OP:

backward inbred white trash

This thread does not violate any of the rules of this board.

No, I did not.

I ruled on this thread, not on some future hypothetical thread of yours.

Every thread is judged on a case by case basis.

Are you seriously saying that in some cases racist terms are okay, and in some they are not? Does that depend on which racist terms are used?

Yes and no, respectively.

What a joke

What made you think there was some over-arching rule about "racist terms"?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Somebody quote the law. I think a prosecutor, but the Canon of Ethics and rule of law, must turn over any exculpatory evidence to the defense.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Let's compromise, I'll start every thread with:

"savage-thug-ghetto-niggas and backwards-inbred-white-trash and illegal-cartel-slum-spics and uptight-robotic-piss-skined-chinks"

Fair?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Somebody quote the law. I think a prosecutor, but the Canon of Ethics and rule of law, must turn over any exculpatory evidence to the defense.

Correct but an independent "expert" saying a DA's "expert" read the evidence wrong is NOT exculpatory evidence and is therefor not covered by the exculpatory evidence requirement.

Think about it for a moment. If a prosecutor had to turn over any expert that disagreed with their expert , no defense would ever have to pay for an expert witness, they could just find an expert who disagreed with the prosecutors reading of evidence and demand that the state pay to have that expert testify . It doesn't even make sense.

Exculpatory evidence covers things like DNA, eyewitnesses, things of that nature, not two experts disagreeing on the interpretation of evidence.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

We are not going to make a ruling based on a hypothetical. If you feel the need to start all of your threads that way, then go for it, and we will rule on them as they happen.

The rules are not secret, they are posted for all to read.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Exculpatory evidence covers things like DNA, eyewitnesses, things of that nature, not two experts disagreeing on the interpretation of evidence." If the DA is going to use one of them, he's got to turn the other over to the defense.

 

[Care4all]

Innocent people being executed should be an insurmountable bar to execution.

In the prosecutor's case, the DA's office is probably building a second degree murder or willful homicide case against Jackson. If it is built right, Jackson will ieave prison someday in a pine box.

If executions were barred (as they are already in some states) what is to be said for all the people that get killed because that execution did not occur ?

If Timothy McVeigh and John Allen Muhammad had not been executed, can we say everyone would have been safe from being killed by them ? We have a balance scale. On one side, all the people killed by killers who didn't get executed. On the other side, those executed wrongly. Does anyone in this thread have the complete numbers on that ?

Life, without parole....is the solution.....they will not kill again.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

"Exculpatory evidence covers things like DNA, eyewitnesses, things of that nature, not two experts disagreeing on the interpretation of evidence." If the DA is going to use one of them, he's got to turn the other over to the defense.

what? Jake, why don't you just for once in your fucking pathetic existence admit that you do NOT know what you are talking about.

Prosecutors are NOT required to tell the defense that another expert may disagree with their expert's opinion on things that require expert analysis. Or that they are aware that some already have.

Now, if their OWN expert comes up with exculpatory evidence, they have to turn that over, but they don't have to hire the defense's experts, or make sure the defense has experts.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Innocent people being executed should be an insurmountable bar to execution.

In the prosecutor's case, the DA's office is probably building a second degree murder or willful homicide case against Jackson. If it is built right, Jackson will ieave prison someday in a pine box.

If executions were barred (as they are already in some states) what is to be said for all the people that get killed because that execution did not occur ?

If Timothy McVeigh and John Allen Muhammad had not been executed, can we say everyone would have been safe from being killed by them ? We have a balance scale. On one side, all the people killed by killers who didn't get executed. On the other side, those executed wrongly. Does anyone in this thread have the complete numbers on that ?

Life, without parole....is the solution.....they will not kill again.

So people who serve life without parole don't ever kill in prison.

Some crimes are so heinous that death is deserved.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Those are your words, STTAB, not mine.

You might have been a cop but you don't know court and its law.

If a prosecutor has the finds of two experts, and if he intends to use one of them, he has to turn both over to the defense.

You are making some very silly statements with nothing to back them up. You are not an authority.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Those are your words, STTAB, not mine.

You might have been a cop but you don't know court and its law.

If a prosecutor has the finds of two experts, and if he intends to use one of them, he has to turn both over to the defense.

You are making some very silly statements with nothing to back them up. You are not an authority.

Yes, but we arent talking about the prosecutor had two expert witnesses who disagreed in this case. Read up on the case.

Here again from the OP

Forensic evidence from the arson investigators was later discredited by experts who claimed that the investigators had “misinterpreted” the evidence.

this means that AFTER the trial, but before the execution the Texas Forensic Science Commission said that the arson experts misinterpreted some of the forensic evidence.

Now, we don't know what they misinterpreted or even whether that would have led to a not guilty verdict but what we DO know is that the results were released AFTER the trial, which means the DA of course could NOT have turned it over DURING the trial. Making the claim that the DA hid evidence during the trial completely stupid.

It's called logic Jake, you should try it.

 

[Care4all]

Innocent people being executed should be an insurmountable bar to execution.

In the prosecutor's case, the DA's office is probably building a second degree murder or willful homicide case against Jackson. If it is built right, Jackson will ieave prison someday in a pine box.

If executions were barred (as they are already in some states) what is to be said for all the people that get killed because that execution did not occur ?

If Timothy McVeigh and John Allen Muhammad had not been executed, can we say everyone would have been safe from being killed by them ? We have a balance scale. On one side, all the people killed by killers who didn't get executed. On the other side, those executed wrongly. Does anyone in this thread have the complete numbers on that ?

Life, without parole....is the solution.....they will not kill again.

So people who serve life without parole don't ever kill in prison.

Some crimes are so heinous that death is deserved.

Hell on Earth is more of a punishment than mere death....and these criminals of heinous crimes should be given hell on Earth as their sentence...hard labor, isolation, captivity, no chance of freedom.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Innocent people being executed should be an insurmountable bar to execution.

In the prosecutor's case, the DA's office is probably building a second degree murder or willful homicide case against Jackson. If it is built right, Jackson will ieave prison someday in a pine box.

If executions were barred (as they are already in some states) what is to be said for all the people that get killed because that execution did not occur ?

If Timothy McVeigh and John Allen Muhammad had not been executed, can we say everyone would have been safe from being killed by them ? We have a balance scale. On one side, all the people killed by killers who didn't get executed. On the other side, those executed wrongly. Does anyone in this thread have the complete numbers on that ?

Life, without parole....is the solution.....they will not kill again.

So people who serve life without parole don't ever kill in prison.

Some crimes are so heinous that death is deserved.

Hell on Earth is more of a punishment than mere death....and these criminals of heinous crimes should be given hell on Earth as their sentence...hard labor, isolation, captivity, no chance of freedom.

Unfortunately that isn't the way our society works. I mean in federal super max prisons there are guys who are locked up 23 hours a day , but they have a nice comfy bunk a/c , 3 healthy meals etc etc.

But beneath that we have guys who actually PREFER being in prison. Pathetic.

And for the truly horrific I"m fine with skipping hell on Earth and sending the scum straight to actual hell.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I would ask if Jake is man enough to admit he was wrong, but I already know he isn't.