Support NeoGAF

[TheRedSnifit]

.

You guys have the correlation mixed up.

The guy's suggesting that the attorney knew he had zero chance of winning, and deliberately introduced a ton of ethically dubious (to say the least) testimony to try and get his client off the hook that way. Not that he deliberately threw the guy under the bus.

And it's obviously working. The article completely ignores the actual crime, despite the prosecution apparently not doing anything sketchy in the least. I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually the case.

 

[bengraven]

Oh the racists on my Facebook are going to share this as proof.

Keep your kids away from the blacks, fellow whites!

 

[Mr. Smiley]

what the fuck is going on with my state

 

[commedieu]

what the fuck is going on with my state

Independence...?

 

[aquavelva]

America is a country built on white supremacy so this isn't shocking.

 

[Gnome Scat]

What the fuck?

 

[coleco]

If I was a lawyer and were faced with a client who was caught red handed after he shot his ex in front of her children and said he's glad he killed the bitch I'd just try to make the trial as big a clusterfuck as possible to have that eclipse the murders. And it's worked pretty well, nowhere in that article is the crime mentioned or the victims.



http://www.chron.com/opinion/outloo...e-is-served-in-case-of-Duane-Buck-4663725.php

I guess there's a bit more to his death penalty conviction than a psychologist being a useless idiot.

 

[Malyse]

Yeah, how about we don't post criminal justice articles from ThinkProgress?

Threadshitting is still bannable, correct?

 

[TheRedSnifit]

Threadshitting is still bannable, correct?

I'm not sure, but I know backseat moderating is.

 

[Gamer @ Heart]

This article and OP are a pitch perfect example of reacting after only reading a headline.

 

[Kin5290]

Threadshitting is still bannable, correct?

ThinkProgress has been known to take a very myopic stance on criminal justice that ignores such minor details as "What did the accused do?" And "Is he or she guilty?"

And considering that we have somebody on the first page calling for the President to commute the guy's sentence (despite knowing nothing of the evidence used to support a guilty verdict, as well ignoring the fact that the guy wasn't convicted of a federal crime), you could argue that this article which doesn't contain much actual information is written to elicit a certain reaction.

By the way, the legal question here doesn't seem to be about whether Buck brutally murdered two people and injured his own sister (he did) but about whether he should be sentenced to death.

ETA: Just going off of Wikipedia, because it's late, apparently the other 5 defendants the racist asshole's testimony was used for were re-sentenced to death, because apparently the prosecution had enough supporting evidence besides the asshole's testimony to secure that sentence. You could argue that this is Texas, which is sadly fairly liberal with its use of the death penalty, but you have to leave open the possibility that (if true) prosecutors still had enough to back up a death penalty besides some racist hack. (The footnote leads to a dead Huffpost link, so I can't confirm.)