11 votes

Calling Oathkeepers in GA: Do Not Execute Troy Davis

The US Constitution guarantees Due Process:

5th Amendment, Bill of Rights, US Constitution:

"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

Oathkeepers take seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution. The scheduled execution of Troy Davis on Wed. Sept. 21 has justifiably caused an international outcry. Seven out of nine witnesses recanted and said the police pressured them to lie. There is no physical evidence linking him to the crime.

Those who have taken up Troy Davis' cause, and attempt to stop his execution, include Amnesty International, Jimmy Carter, and former Republican congressman Bob Barr, a death penalty supporter.

Barr has said that although he is "a strong believer in the death penalty as an appropriate and just punishment," the proper level of fairness and accuracy required for the ultimate punishment has not been met in Davis' case. Carter says "Executing Troy Davis without a real examination of potentially exonerating evidence risks taking the life of an innocent man..."

Death penalty supporters former Texas Governor Mark White and former FBI Director William Sessions have studied the case and have gone on record supporting clemency due to grave doubts. At least three jurors from Davis’ trial have asked for his execution to be called off.

Breaking message from the NAACP:

Even though seven out of nine witnesses have recanted their statements, a judge labeled his own ruling as "not ironclad" and the original prosecutor has voiced reservations about Davis's guilt, the state of Georgia is set to execute Troy anyway.

Seven witnesses recanted. The US Supreme Court didn't care.

Amnesty International:
Troy Davis was sentenced to death in 1991 for the murder of police officer Mark Allen MacPhail in Savannah, Georgia in 1989. No physical evidence directly links Davis to the murder – no murder weapon was ever found. The case against Davis primarily rested on witness testimony. Since his trial, seven of nine key witnesses have recanted or changed their testimony, some alleging police coercion.

In 2009, the US Supreme Court ordered a federal evidentiary hearing to review Troy Davis’ innocence claim.

At the hearing in June 2010, US District Court Judge William Moore addressed not whether the state could demonstrate a watertight case against Troy Davis, but whether Davis could show “by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of the new evidence” that had emerged since his 1991 murder trial. Under this “extraordinarily high” standard, Judge Moore wrote, “Mr Davis is not innocent”. Elsewhere in his ruling, however, he acknowledged that the new evidence presented by Troy Davis cast “some additional, minimal” doubt on his conviction, and that the state’s case was not “ironclad”.

In a dissent from a decision to force Davis to prove his innocence before a single federal judge, rather than be granted a new trial, Antonin Scalia said:

This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.

The Southern Center for Human Rights is calling for a general strike or sick-out of all execution personnel — doctors, nurses, and guards should stay home tomorrow. If any law enforcement personnel present be an Oathkeeper, he must refuse to participate in Davis' execution. The Parole Board has denied a stay for Davis. Oathkeepers are his only chance now.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Another missed opportunity for Paul to reach out to non-whites

Just as non-whites start getting interested in Ron Paul's message, the government throws up movies like The Help and Red Tails or some racially charged real situation...and boom, the non-whites fall back into "Jeez, I guess the Democratic Party is the only place that protects me."

Yeah, I know Paul believes that it's not the Federal government role to interfere with state business. But Paul isn't the damn president, he's not the Federal government. He could have said something.

It's not okay to use force to interfere with state's affairs, but it is okay to state an opinion on state's affairs.

For example, Paul calling out Perry on Gardisal, on Romney on Romenycare, etc. Wow, Ron Paul CAN say something about a state's affairs...when it benefits him.

Jesus, just a little quip, "I am against capital punishment. Thus, I don't think Troy Davis should be executed."

Would that be so fucking hard? Of course not.

Paul has purposely NOT reached out to non-whites in a way that matters FOR YEARS! Having a couple non-whites in your damn commercials doesn't count for squat and everyone knows it.

How about saying how many non-white babies he has delivered? Wait...of the 4000 babies he has delivered, at least one was non-white...right?

The Innocence Project

is working on behalf of many wrongly convicted indiviiduals, including this man.

Now that it's seen

that this is the type of "justice" we can expect, is there anyone who would allow themselves to be taken into custody by so-called "authorities" now?

That's a fair question. This

That's a fair question. This case involved a request for a new trial, but your point is well taken since the assault on due process and the right to jury trial is pervasive.

So, my answer is that we can still win at trial, but the window is narrowing. I still advise people to go to trial, because there is still that chance of justice before a jury (especially if FIJA can inform them!) but there will come a time, in the not to distant future, when that will be pointless advice - when the prosecutors and judges attain their goal of making a jury a pointless rubber stamp for the state.

It is becoming harder, and harder to get a real, fair trial before a real, fully informed jury. Prosecutors and judges lie to the juries about their powers, and tell them that they must convict if they find the elements of the crime (as explained by the judge) have been met. The jury is intentionally kept ignorant of its power to nullify.

And the defendant is constrained and confined in what kind of a defense can be given. Just look at the case of Wayne Fincher, who was not allowed to present evidence that his manufacture of machine-guns for militia purposes was protected by the Second Amendment. And not only was he not allowed to argue the law, he was also not allowed to present fact evidence of the military utility of machine guns, under the Miller standard. So, even when it came to presenting fact evidence, he was gagged. A true Kangaroo court trial and a farce. your point turned out to be correct in his case, as well as with Olofson.

So, it depends on the case and on the charges.

As I said, the window is closing. Soon, your chance of a fair and meaningful trial will be about the same as it was in Stalinist Russia or in Nazi Germany - where political enemies of the regime got a show trial before being executed or sent to the Gulag or concentration camp.

When "they" remove a chance of fair trial, they will leave people no reason not to fight.


You Swore an Oath to the Constitution ... Not the Politicians.

Guardians of the Republic, Honor Your Oath. Join Us.


he is dead. 11:08. burn baby burn.


A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali

I wish we had heard about

I wish we had heard about this case sooner.

You Swore an Oath to the Constitution ... Not the Politicians.

Guardians of the Republic, Honor Your Oath. Join Us.



you serious right now with that comment?

O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond

Gut Feeling

I sense this is being pushed through to cover up some very sloppy and negligent prosecutorial and judicial work imo. :(

..I hope I am wrong.


I hope Ron Paul speaks out

I hope Ron Paul speaks out about this injustice. This is insane.

Liberty. Peace. Prosperity.

Supreme Court refused to grant a stay

Troy Davis will be put to death tonight. In fact he may already be dead as I write this.


UK Guardian:

Former FBI Director William Sessions (and death penalty supporter) SAYS TOO MUCH DOUBT in Troy Davis case. Asks for STAY OF EXECUTION: http://www.ajc.com/opinion/should-davis-be-executed-1181530....

A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali

"There is no physical evidence linking him to the crime."

Not true. Davis shot someone in the face at a pool party prior to the cop being shot... The same bullet casings were found at both scenes.

Its past 1900 EST

...has the 'deed' been done?


he's alive

I think.

The travesty is that these new facts and evidence are being

...tried in a forum like this, and it is very possible an innocent man is about to be murdered by the state. New evidence means new trial, period, especially in a death penalty case. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard, not "maybe." It is a high standard because if a mistake is made, there is no resurrection.

Here are passages of affidavits from witnesses recanting in Troy Davis case. If beyond reasonable doubt is the standard, this is not even a close call. This is a foul ball into the hotdog stands.

Affidavits Recanting Testimony or Statements Given in the Troy Davis Case
(From: Amnesty International, ‘Where is the justice for me?’: The case of Troy Davis, facing execution in Georgia , Feb. 1, 2007)

Kevin McQueen

“The truth is that Troy never confessed to me or talked to me about the shooting of the police officer. I made
up the confession from information I had heard on T.V. and from other inmates about the crimes. Troy did not tell me any of this… I have now realized what I did to Troy so I have decided to tell the truth… I need to
set the record straight.”

Monty Holmes

“I told them I didn’t know anything about who shot the officer, but they kept questioning me. I was real young
at that time and here they were questioning me about the murder of a police officer like I was in trouble or
something. I was scared… [I]t seemed like they wouldn’t stop questioning me until I told them what they
wanted to hear. So I did. I signed a statement saying that Troy told me that he shot the cop.”

Jeffrey Sapp

“I got tired of them harassing me, and they made it clear that the only way they would leave me alone is if I
told them what they wanted to hear. I told them that Troy told me he did it, but it wasn’t true. Troy never said
that or anything like it. When it came time for Troy’s trial, the police made it clear to me that I needed to stick
to my original statement; that is, what they wanted me to say. I didn’t want to have any more problems with
the cops, so I testified against Troy.”

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.”

Darrell "D.D." Collins

“After a couple of hours of the detectives yelling at me and threatening me, I finally broke down and told
them what they wanted to hear. They would tell me things that they said had happened and I would repeat
whatever they said. … It is time that I told the truth about what happened that night, and what is written here
is the truth. I am not proud for lying at Troy’s trial, but the police had me so messed up that I felt that’s all I
could do or else I would go to jail.”

Larry Young

“I couldn’t honestly remember what anyone looked like or what different people were wearing. Plus, I had
been drinking that day, so I just couldn’t tell who did what. The cops didn’t want to hear that and kept
pressing me to give them answers. They made it clear that we weren’t leaving until I told them what they
wanted to hear. They suggested answers and I would give them what they wanted. They put typed papers in
my face and told me to sign them. I did sign them without reading them.”

Antoine Williams

“They asked me to describe the shooter and what he looked like and what he was wearing. I kept telling
them that I didn’t know. It was dark, my windows were tinted, and I was scared. It all happened so fast. Even
today, I know that I could not honestly identify with any certainty who shot the officer that night. I couldn’t
then either. After the officers talked to me, they gave me a statement and told me to sign it. I signed it. I did
not read it because I cannot read.”

Robert Grizzard

“I have reviewed the transcript of my testimony from the trial of Troy Davis… During my testimony I said that
the person who shot the officer was wearing a light colored shirt. The truth is that I don’t recall now and I
didn’t recall then what the shooter was wearing, as I said in my initial statement …”

Michael Cooper

“I have had a chance to review a statement which I supposedly gave to police officers on June 25, 1991. I
remember that they asked a lot of questions and typed up a statement which they told me to sign. I did not
read the statement before I signed. In fact, I have not seen it before today. … What is written in that
statement is a lie.”

Benjamin Gordon

“I just kept telling them that I didn’t do anything, but they weren’t hearing that. After four or five hours, they
told me to sign some papers. I just wanted to get the hell out of there. I didn’t read what they told me to sign
and they didn’t ask me to.”

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."

Anthony Hargrove

“I know a guy named Red, from Savannah. His real name is Sylvester Coles. I’ve known Red for years and
we used to hang out together. Red once told me that he shot a police officer and that a guy named Davis
took the fall for it. He told me this about a year or so after the officer was killed…”

Gary Hargrove

“I am sure that Red was facing in the officer’s direction when I heard the shooting. … I was never talked to
by the police or any attorneys or investigators representing Troy Davis before his trial. I didn’t go up to talk to the police that night because I was on parole at the time and was out past my curfew so I didn’t want my
parole officer to find out about that.”

Shirley Riley

“People on the streets were talking about Sylvester Coles being involved with killing the police officer so one
day I asked him if he was involved… Sylvester told me he did shoot the officer …”

Darold Taylor

“I remember reading in the paper once about how a guy named Troy Davis got sentenced to the electric
chair… One day when I was in the parking lot of Yamacraw drinking beers with Red. I told him about how I’d
heard that he was the one who killed the officer. Red told me to stay out of his business. I asked him again if
he killed the officer and Red admitted to me that he was the one who killed the officer, but then Red told me
again to stay out of his business.”

April Hester Hutchinson

“Red turned to me and asked me if I would walk with him up to the Burger King so ‘they won’t think that I had
nothing to do with it’. That’s exactly what he said… I told [the police] that I saw Red talking to my cousin
Tonya and that Red was real nervous. I did not tell them about what Red had said to me because I was
scared he would hurt me. I was thinking that if he did that to a police officer, what would he do to me? I didn’t
want to die like that officer, so I kept my mouth shut.”

Anita Saddler

“When I saw Red and Terry, they were jumpy and couldn’t stand still. Their eyes were shifting around and
they were looking everywhere. They walked up to us and Red asked us to go up to Burger King and see
what happened. Like I said, they were real nervous and fidgety. Red had a gun which was stuck into his
shorts. I saw the outline of his gun through his white shirt. I had seen him with a gun many times before.”
Peggie Grant (mother of April Hester Hutchinson)
“A few hours later, April called me on the phone. She told me that she had had a conversation with Red
where he asked her to walk up with him to where the officer was shot so that the police would think that he
was with her and not think he did anything.”

A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali

Surprise surprise

most of these recants imply dirty cops. Can you imaging the guy who signed a statement that he could not even read. This is just disgusting.

And the Southern Poverty Law

And the Southern Poverty Law Center called oathkeepers a radical right wing racist group???

Cripes learn to read! It's the Southern Center for Human Rights

not the Southern Poverty Law Center. Entirely different organization.

A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life.
-- Muhammad Ali

No I was talking about the

No I was talking about the Southern Poverty Law Center who issued a statement last year about oathkeepers being a right wing hate groupl. I realize that the SPLC wasn't mentioned in the article.

I think you missed his point...

His point was that the SPLC (as you rightly pointed out is not mentioned in this article, but IS part of the point he was trying to make) DID in fact refer to the oath keepers in that manner. He was pointing out the irony between that condemnation by the SPLC and the fact that this request for the oath keepers to step in on this matter (usually intervention in death penalty cases are bastion of left leaning organizations, of which the SPLC is surely under the umbrella of "left leaning") flies in the face of that condemnation.


the fact that the dissent in

the fact that the dissent in the case of scalia....which meant proving himself before a single federal judge not to be murdered is evidence the feds are already involved. this is not normative with the fact that "this is just another reason to get the feds involved" or something along the lines. the feds are always involved period. this man is innocent, and is going to be killed tonight if someone in that state does not stop the execution from happening.

I'm kinda wondering

if this isn't set up to get the SCOTUS involved in a state issue. If we are speak against it then we're cold blooded racists, if we're for it we are hypocritical of government intervention.

I am embarrassed to live in GA today

It is absolutely disgusting that they are going through with this execution. If this was a white guy, the outcome would have been different.


I live right outside ATL.

Pure stupidty.

That's B.S.

And you are apparently a racist for that remark.


This is why Ron Paul has changed his position on the death penalty. He used to be for it until he saw how biased the justice system was against blacks, minorities and the poor.

I wasn't aware RP had changed

I wasn't aware RP had changed his position. Good for him.

A huge, red flag regarding the death penalty, is how it explicitly takes away any possibility to make restitution, should it later turn out the defendant was innocent; hence implicitly makes the assumption that there is no way whatsoever that the defendant has been wrongly found guilty.

Any other penalty, like lifetime in prison, or even outright pain infliction/torture, is better in that regard; since should facts later come out casting doubt on the original conviction, the victim can at least in principle be made whole.

In a poorer society, or one where the ability of the criminal justice system to keep a felon incarcerated for long periods of time is in greater dispute, the death penalty makes sense. But while that may have been an issue in the old West, or in today's Afghanistan, it is hardly one in America today. In fact, the way the death penalty is practiced in the US today, it generally costs more to put someone to death than to keep him locked up for life. Rendering the whole exercise little more than petty vindictiveness and pointless grandstanding.

Your full of it too.

Race is not the deciding factor in our judicial system, it is MONEY. And that money is mainly used to keep rich people out of jail not put innocent people in jail. So the best thing to do is not commit the crime no matter what color you are.

Race is a bigger factor than you think

You are right that money can buy you out of prison...to an extent (Vick, Madoff). And if you can buy your way out, (as unfair as it is) it would be wise to do so.

Yes, there are a lot of race card bull crap going on. And I don't just mean race pimps in the media, but normal blacks blaming whites for holding them down instead of taking responsibility for their lives.

However, there is actual racism going on, much of it stems from institutionalized racism against blacks.

And despite what the media says, racism isn't a Southern thing. However, since there are large groups of blacks in the South, there is more racism in those areas.

BTW: As non-whites grow in power, racism against non-blacks becomes more common...and more justified.

It's a big giant mess...and the government is at the root of it. I highly suspect the story of execution was designed to increase racial tension.

They cannot get away with so much corruption without us divided.