EFFORTPOST Would you convict these three men?

I've always found it weird that we regard courtrooms as the final arbiters of truth. We cannot call someone a killer until they've been convicted, or you're committing libel. I've always had a different view, believing that courtrooms regularly get things wrong.

Today, I'd like to look at three cases where the courts may have gotten things horribly wrong. It will be up to you to decide whether these three men got their just desserts, or if they've been screwed over. The three people we will be discussing are:

a) Daniel Holtzclaw

b) Tex McIver

c) Michael Dunn

Daniel Holtzclaw

I have 0 love for cops. I had an extremely horrible experience with police as a youth when I was apprehended with marijuana on my person. Since then, my hate for cops has been strong. Nevertheless, I always question whether Holtzclaw has become a victim of the system he sought to uphold.

Holtzclaw was born in 1986. He's a big guy, played football, and like his father, he joined the police force in Oklahoma. In 2014, he was accused of sexually assaulting African American women while on the job. The allegations claim that he would drive around in poor areas and stop random women. It was obvious that most of these women had prior convictions, so they were eager to comply with the cop to not get into trouble. He would then take advantage of this by ordering them to give him fellatio, or by vaginally raping them.

His interrogation is pretty interesting. You see the cops attempting to build a rapport with him by making lewd jokes about s*x and masturbation. He seems like a regular guy, and he isn't too stressed out by the questioning.

He was tried in 2015 where a jury of eight men and four women found him guilty. There was a lot of evidence against him, including DNA samples. He was served 263 years in prison, leading to the now infamous video of him crying as he declares that he didn't do it.

Since his arrest, he has continued to assert his innocence, and he has the support of many friends and family. Many have argued that the DNA was a consequence of transfer DNA. In other words, he touched a surface that a female suspect then touched as well. Furthermore, many of the convictions were upheld through testimonies of women claiming to be victims. It has since arose that not all these women may have been telling the truth. A site has been created to defend Holtzclaw, and it claims the following:

>The public has been told of the 13 Daniel Holtzclaw accusers that resulted in criminal charges. They are even often referred to as the "OKC 13." What the public hasn't been told is that there were actually 21 accusers in total and that 62% of all accusers were found to be not credible. That's right, 8 of the 21 total accusers were eliminated almost immediately because they claimed to have been assaulted after Daniel had already been placed on administrative leave and had been relieved of his badge, gun and patrol car. Most of whom later admitted to police they lied. Of the 13 remaining accusers, 5 were not believed by the jury and resulted in acquittals. Eight plus 5 equals 13 women who either eventually outright admitted they lied or were dismissed by the jury. Thirteen of 21 is 62%.

https://www.holtzclawtrial.com/untold-story

At 4:25 of this video, you see what seems like a story being stitched up by a witness.

So where do you stand? Is Holtzclaw a villain that deserves all the years in prison and more? Or is this a man locked up by an overzealous prosecuting team? You be the judge.

Tex McIver

This is an interesting case, and I still don't know where I stand on it. The ultimate problem is that we weren't there. Consequently, it's impossible for us to know the full truth of what happened. Even if we were there, we'd need access to McIver's mind to truly know what he was thinking.

Tex McIver was a highly successful attorney living in Georgia. Additionally, he was a partner in the Atlanta office of Fisher Phillips LLP specializing in labor and employment law, and he was a vice president of the Georgia State Election Board. Most men would be happy with his list of achievements, but he wasn't because he always lived in his wife's shadow. Diane McIver was a successful businesswoman who earned far more than her already wealthy husband. Nevertheless, the two got on well by the looks of things.

One night, the couple, along with a friend of Diane's named Dani Jo Carte, were driving home from an event. It was late at night, so Tex decided to fall asleep in the backseat. However, he kept his gun - a 38-caliber revolver - in his lap because he was afraid that they might run into trouble, as they were driving through the hood on their way home. During the drive the gun went off, killing Diane. According to Tex, it was an accident, and he pulled the trigger while sleeping.

The prosecutors had other ideas. According to them, Tex planned this event, and he wanted to kill his wife whom he was jealous of and owed money to. As further evidence, the prosecutors pointed out that he drove to a further hospital when a nearer one was available. In 2016, Tex was served with a life sentence. This conviction was eventually overturned, and he was found guilty of manslaughter instead.

https://www.gpb.org/news/2022/07/01/murder-conviction-overturned-for-man-who-shot-wife-in-suv

Do you think he did it on purpose?

Michael Dunn

The final case for today involves a gun, Black teens, and rap.

In 2012, Dunn and his wife were returning from a wedding when they stopped at a gas station. Here, Rhonda entered a convenience store while Dunn remained in the vehicle. He soon became annoyed by a group of teens blaring loud music. He told them to turn it down, they told him to frick off. Dunn responded by firing his gun at them. The teens drove away, but 17yo Jordan Davis was struck and died.

Dun and his wife fled, but they were found pretty quickly. Although his wife had heard the shots, she did not know that anyone had been hit. In court, Dunn claimed that he saw the boys produce something that looked like a stick or the barrel of a gun. Prosecutors pointed out that these black boys had no criminal records or history of getting into trouble. None of them had any reason to have a gun, and they were not known for getting into criminal activities. They were literally just driving around blaring loud music. They may have been rude to Dunn, but that is not an excuse to kill someone in polite society.

He was found guilty of murder and was served a life sentence. It seems like a cut-and-dry case, but you should remember that this is the song that was being played:

Does this change your mind regarding Dunn's actions? His daughter stated the following in an interview:

>he's a good man. He's not a racist. He's very loving. He has a family who loves him, and I feel like people need to remember with this verdict his family is over here suffering, just like Jordan's family is suffering so no one wins in this

https://archive.ph/20140222005745/http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/news/local/2014/02/16/michael-dunn-daughter-interview/5544083#selection-4387.106-4387.345

Want more information on the case? Listen to Davis' parents speak. It's evident that Davis was a regular kid who genuinely didn't do anything:

You can also listen to one of the jurors discuss how they came to the conclusion.

Conclusion

I have never understood the mindset that makes someone believe they're fit to be a judge. Nobody has the right to condemn anyone else to life in a cage. Thanks for reading. I hope you enjoyed today's post. Spider-Man 2 review coming on Monday can't wait!