Oh, Ed, that's too funny. Let's send him soap on a rope.
You are right, ED. That was, indeed, tacky.....LMAO!!
He is a horrible person that changed the lives of dozens of people by taking the life of an innocent man. Too bad our taxes have to pay for him to rot in jail but that is better than him getting out and killing other people. His history indicated he was a career criminal before he ever killed Mr. Duncan.
Originally Posted by SittinPurdy:
quote:Originally posted by DixieChik:
SEveral years ago the talk was all about "truth in sentencing" and holding criminals accountable for their crimes. THere is no such thing in America anymore and the criminals know it. I think we should go with let the punishment fit the crime ... you kill, you get killed (with or without appeals is optional to me)...you steal you get your hand cut off...you rape, you get your pecker cut off and if you are a woman who rapes we'll figure out something...I'm so sick of criminals getting out and doing it over and over and over and when they get tired of trying to make ends meet they commit an offense to get sent back...it is ludicrus...
That sounds good on paper, until it is an innocent person getting their hand cut off for a simple crime they didn't commit, or a man getting his pecker cut off because some woman lies about a rape that never occurred.
You have got to have appeals. Do you realize the number of innocent people on death row? Have you seen the statistics of the number of people DNA evidence has cleared after having spent years in prison?
I think a bigger problem is with the police and prosecutors who latch onto a theory just in order to punish someone -- anyone, even if the evidence is weak. This happens quite often.
------------------------------------
You know most cops are honest. But is this one that just pulled you over one of the honest ones, or a cop that is no better than the crooks he arrests, and worse than the people he frames. We like to think police and prosecutors are upstanding, honest public servants. Your faith will be shattered in such, however, should you be on the receiving end of "justice" such as is recounted below.
Utica Police Officers Caught on Tape on 02-11-2011
Planting drugs; watch the officer pull a bag out of his back pocket, then exit the door as if drugs have been “discovered” inside the vehicle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7oenshcwPk
Cops Plant Drugs On Suspect video
Pulls bag out of his right shirt pocket and “discovers” on the suspect.
Well now that we know what the hand signal for planting false evidence is, EVERYONE who examines these video's should be looking for additional hand signals as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAhHd6M2Sjg&feature=related
Even if you have a bogus charge with planted evidence by corrupt cops, that “evidence” is supposed to be reviewed by the district attorney, if not before the preliminary hearing, certainly before trial. However, many D.A.s are as corrupt as the cops.
EDITORIAL
Justice and Prosecutorial Misconduct
December 28, 2011
Michael Morton was exonerated by DNA evidence this month after being wrongfully convicted of murdering his wife and serving nearly 25 years in prison in Texas. In seeking to prove Mr. Morton’s innocence, his lawyers found in recently unsealed court records evidence that the prosecutor in the original trial, Ken Anderson, had withheld critical evidence that may have helped Mr. Morton.
Prosecutors have enormous power in determining who is subjected to criminal punishment because they have broad discretion in deciding criminal charges. The Brady rule, established by the Supreme Court in 1963, is supposed to be an important check on that power. It requires prosecutors to disclose evidence favorable to the defendant. But their failure to comply is rarely discovered, and, even then, prosecutors are almost never punished.
The Supreme Court, in an outrageous decision earlier this year, further weakened the ability of wronged defendants to make prosecutors’ offices liable by giving them nearly absolute immunity against civil suits. Justice Clarence Thomas justified the ruling, noting that an “attorney who violates his or her ethical obligations is subject to professional discipline, including sanctions, suspension, and disbarment.” But bar associations hardly ever punish this behavior; judges seldom discipline prosecutors for such violations; and criminal sanctions are rarely imposed against prosecutors.
This is why the Morton inquiry is crucial. The Innocence Project report found that Mr. Anderson willfully failed to disclose police notes that another man committed the murder, concealed from the trial judge that he did not provide the full police report and advised his successor as prosecutor “to oppose all of Mr. Morton’s postconviction motions for DNA testing.” If a court confirms these findings, it must hold Mr. Anderson accountable — or it will send a message to prosecutors in Texas and elsewhere that the criminal justice system is incapable of deterring or punishing this conduct.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12...rial-misconduct.html
Congress Must Act to End Prosecutorial Misconduct
04/11/2012
When federal prosecutors charged the late Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) with failing to report more than $250,000 in illegal gifts and home renovations, they knew the stakes were sky high. Stevens, after all, was only the 11th senator in history to be indicted while in office. In 2008, the prosecutions succeeded in convincing a Washington, DC jury to convict Stevens. A month later, Stevens, the longest serving Republican senator in history, was defeated in his bid for re-election by fewer than 4,000 votes; most observers think the conviction helped to sway the election. Stevens died two years later in a plane crash.
Thanks to a two-and-a-half year independent investigation ordered by the judge in the case, Emmet Sullivan, and finally released several weeks ago, we now know how prosecutors won Stevens' conviction: they cheated. They violated his constitutional rights by intentionally concealing evidence that they knew would have supported Stevens' claim that he intended to pay for all work performed on his house. They hid documents and they allowed a cooperating witness to testify falsely to the jury. The investigators' 514-page report is a chilling reminder that not even the most powerful leaders in the nation are safe when federal prosecutors ignore their duty to seek justice, and instead pursue victory at any cost.
Sadly, the Ted Stevens case was not an isolated incident. Although the failure to disclose evidence is a constitutional violation that by its very nature often goes undiscovered (anything that the government chooses not to disclose to the defense generally remains unknown), we still know it occurs with disturbing frequency. For example, a 2010 USA Today investigation documented 86 cases since 1997 in which judges found that federal prosecutors had failed to turn over evidence that they were legally required to disclose. A number of organizations have reached similar conclusions about the frequency of these violations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...-end-_b_1415695.html
Congress reacts to prosecutorial misconduct findings
http://www.adn.com/2012/03/15/...o-prosecutorial.html
As to rape, I prefer a reversible surgery called tucking. Ensures no action, but can be reversed.
I know that all of these replies were from many many years ago, and that you all are over it by now, or atleast you should be. And I doubt anyone will read this who commented above this. Frankie Buttram was not a bad man. Yes, he did get into drugs and he has had a criminal record in the past but tell me, honestly do any of you who judged him know him? Have you ever met him? No, I'm sure you haven't. I'm sure you never saw the side of him that wasn't on drugs, or wasn't doing anything wrong. He has a family that is so sweet, and so special.. Meet any of them, and you wouldn't dare to think for a second that he did what he was accused of. Yes he did kill a man, but who shot first? Duncan did. Frankie was defending his own self. Before you think anything wrong, ask yourself if a man started shooting at you what could you do? let yourself get killed? The report written about what happend is no where close to what really happend. And Duncas attorney was his own friend, who knew people in the law business and worked his way into getting justice for the man. I agree, Frankie did deserve some time in prison because he did kill a man but he deserves himself Justice. And he knows what he did, that's why he took the plea.. Also for his family, because he was unselfish enough to think about them. I'm sure he will think about what he has done. And wishing he could've been put to death is so wrong on anybody who thought that's part. What if it was Duncan in his place? if it was switched around? I'm sure nobody would be so cruel enough to say anything about him as they did Frankie. You all think he's such a bad person, while if you had met him your opinions would be so different. He made mistakes, and he's putting in the time for them so don't write something so low as to say he deserves more; because he doesn't. He deserves to live his life, with the people he loves and have a second chance. He was at the wrong place, at the wrong time.. Hopefully he will get out soon, and I promise you he won't be back in there again because he will learn. Frankie was and still is a good man.
zippadeedoodah posted:Just like with OJ, right, SittinPurdy?
As far as the statistics on the people DNA evidence has cleared after having spent years in prison, have YOU seen them? I kinda doubt it, or you'd realize it's not very many. And usually those cases are not the result of overzealous police; rather, someone lied or the defendant convicted himself with his mouth.
_____
Not very many DNA cases? You certainly need to reconsider that conclusion. I got your STATISTICS right here. Check out all the DNA-associated exonerations on this lengthy list (link below) of persons exonerated for various reasons in the U.S., prepared by the University of Michigan Law School. It will resolve any doubts you have.
As to defendants lying, you should understand that often such "lies" are false confessions ("FC" on the chart provided) extorted from indigent and innocent defendants who are told that if they confess to a lesser crime, they can be plea-bargained to a shorter sentence, but otherwise would face stiffer penalties, in some cases a death sentence. Another active practice in our criminal injustice system!.
It is also interesting to note just how many exonerations were in cases that involved OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT or FALSE or MISLEADING FORENSIC EVIDENCE. Check out list I have provided. Often false convictions are the result of over-zealous prosecutors working hard, but not ethically, to keep their box scores on convictions looking good so that in the next election they can brag about how many convictions they have achieved.
This list might be a big surprise to some folks, but it is a reality that we live with, like it or not and we ought to be very uncomfortable with it:
justsomeone posted:I know that all of these replies were from many many years ago, and that you all are over it by now, or atleast you should be. And I doubt anyone will read this who commented above this. Frankie Buttram was not a bad man. Yes, he did get into drugs and he has had a criminal record in the past but tell me, honestly do any of you who judged him know him? Have you ever met him? No, I'm sure you haven't. I'm sure you never saw the side of him that wasn't on drugs, or wasn't doing anything wrong. He has a family that is so sweet, and so special.. Meet any of them, and you wouldn't dare to think for a second that he did what he was accused of. Yes he did kill a man, but who shot first? Duncan did. Frankie was defending his own self. Before you think anything wrong, ask yourself if a man started shooting at you what could you do? let yourself get killed? The report written about what happend is no where close to what really happend. And Duncas attorney was his own friend, who knew people in the law business and worked his way into getting justice for the man. I agree, Frankie did deserve some time in prison because he did kill a man but he deserves himself Justice. And he knows what he did, that's why he took the plea.. Also for his family, because he was unselfish enough to think about them. I'm sure he will think about what he has done. And wishing he could've been put to death is so wrong on anybody who thought that's part. What if it was Duncan in his place? if it was switched around? I'm sure nobody would be so cruel enough to say anything about him as they did Frankie. You all think he's such a bad person, while if you had met him your opinions would be so different. He made mistakes, and he's putting in the time for them so don't write something so low as to say he deserves more; because he doesn't. He deserves to live his life, with the people he loves and have a second chance. He was at the wrong place, at the wrong time.. Hopefully he will get out soon, and I promise you he won't be back in there again because he will learn. Frankie was and still is a good man.
This post by justsomeone has to be a joke. A good man?
==================================
The Shoals man accused of gunning down an elderly man near Florence has now officially been charged with capital murder.
27-year-old Frankie Buttram was notified of his new charges late Monday.
Police say he shot and killed 74-year-old John Duncan Sunday morning.
Investigators say Buttram's stolen vehicle ran out of gas, leaving him stranded near Duncan's home on Robbins Beach Road along Shoal Creek.
Buttram told investigators he was looking for a gasoline can inside the victim's boathouse and decided to take several boxes of ammunition.
"Mr. Buttram went inside the boathouse and initially only took a cup-full of gas but it wasn't enough to start his car. He went back and got some more and also collected several items and was taking them with him when Mr. Duncan confronted him," says Lauderdale County Detective Richard Richey.
Duncan and Buttram then exchanged gunfire.
Duncan died near his front door.
As of Tuesday night, Buttram is still being held without bond
Duncan fired the gun first. Buttram was shot in his ear. He took cover for as long as he could before he had to defend himself with a bird gun, he took one shot and the bullet spread and killed Duncan. Not an intended kill.
It doesn't matter if it was an intended kill or not. It still counts as murder. Nor can it be mitigated to self-defense. For one to be able to legally claim self-defense, one must not have been doing anything illegal oneself, at the time, at all. He had illegally entered that man's address in the first place, and armed, I should add. Just like if a bank robbery occurs. If a robber accidentally shoots and kills an innocent bystander, and/or if, say, a cop or security guard fired at a robber and missed and accidentally killed a bystander, the robber would be guilty of that person's murder. And I'm sure he does have good people in his family. But having good, likable people in one's family does not mean that one himself/herself is a good person. Many evil people come from good families. This in no way excuses or justifies one's own behavior. The fact that he was illegally broken into that man's address, and armed completely destroys any attempt to claim self-defense, regardless of whether he actually meant to kill him or not.
What is this mess?