Quote:
|
Yes, he is an opponent. And so am I. But not before becoming educated on the subject. I used to be pro-death penalty before I started becoming aware of these types of cases. This does not mean that he approaches the case without a sense of fairness. Neither of us knows for sure what happens in someone's head, but I do not accuse someone of biased reporting until I know for sure, and that includes reporters who provide evidence even if I disagree with their conclusions. The opinion of their innocence by those who investigated the case is not in dispute, unless you would like to provide contradictory evidence.
|
I'm quite familiar with Herbert's work, he is as biased as they come. However, that is not what I based my comment on. It is based on the fact that he clearly went into this with a prior opinion and that was based on the fact that he provided only one side of the story just like he has on every article he's ever written on the subject. I've already provided on several threads that I believe their innocence is very much in doubt and have provided links and evidence on such position.
Quote:
|
They did not provide evidence they were guilty, they just provided evidence. Guilt is determined by the DA. The DA looks at evidence and determines guilt, and this often happens not in pursuit of justice but to get convictions.
|
They provided evidence they were suspects. Police do not present evidence and the DA just picks a name out of the pile that looks most appealing. I'll also add that having worked with a dozen people under three different DA's that their first concern is getting the right person. Convictions play a part in that they do not want to pursue a case unless there is a strong case for conviction. But in four years I never once presented evidence and had it ignored by a DA and I have never heard of even one instance among the agency where I worked where a case was presented and the DA went another direction in terms of prosecution. The DA relies heavily, if not exclusivey, on the opinions of police.
Quote:
|
Obtaining a sample did not cause the patrol man's death, neither did making contacts to make a deal in the future. A drug deal happens when there is an exchange, this is why the police wait to bust up a deal until after the exchange occurs so that they can bust the buyer and not just the seller. If the patrol men were shot by the dealer, they could all be implicated as murderers, dealer or buyer. This is what your definition is talking about. Otherwise, why would Tefaro's wife be set free before serving her life term if she were a murderer?
|
Apparently she wasn't as involved in the deal as he was. According to her testimony he did all of the work on it. Typically you are correct, that is when an arrest occurs. However, it is still a felony by definition. The evidence would have been her direct testimony.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Additionally, they stole the patrolman's car (not exactly the act of an innocent man), stole another car, and were all caught together after trying to run a police roadblock.
|
Sorry, this did not cause the patrol man's death though it was a felony. This happened after they were dead.
|
No, but it is evidence as to his participation and guilt. People who are not involved in murders do not typically steal the car of the person who was just killed and then try and run a police roadblock after stealing a second car. Those are not the actions of an innocent person.
Quote:
|
So what if he handled the weapon? Tefaro's son had the same results, should he be implicated?
|
Again, it is further evidence that he was a willing participant. The reasons as to his son's positive test were never explored nor explained by he or the mother. And if he's a child then the likelihood of his involvement is low. He also didn't just test positive he had it in his possession. If someone is murdered innocent people don't have a habit of playing with the murder weapon or keeping it as a souvenir or future use. Knowing that if the police found it on him it would show up as the murder weapon used on a police officer.
Quote:
|
And we know how reliable those sort of witnesses are don't we? And there were also witnesses at the scene of the crime that claim it was Rhodes who pulled the trigger.
|
They're police officers. It doesn't mean they never lie, but I'll take their word over anyone if we're going to rank reliability.
Quote:
|
The kidnapping occurred after the fact. We do not put people to death in this country because we do not like their behavior and wish to bid them good riddance. You are put to death when you commit murder, which clearly Rhodes did.
|
The article I read didn't say that. I didn't see why he was charged, just that kidnapping was part of the extenuating circumstances used by the judge in giving the death penalty. You are right in regards to the use of the death penalty, however in this case I feel he was guilty even if he didn't pull the trigger. At the least he tried to assist the actual murderer after the fact. He was a criminal who had hurt people in the past, done it at the time of his arrest, and would have done it again in the future. So my sympathies for him do not exist except for the fact that he was given the electric chair and that he was tortured during it.