I just want to say a couple of things here. As I have mentioned before, I have no idea if he is guilty or not. But doubt should never EVER be there when you are taking someone's life. That said:
No, Troy was not a model citizen, but when we say that he shot someone in the face, the devil, for me is in the details. Not that any of this makes it okay, but I think that it should be noted that he didn't just walk up and shoot the man in the face. He shot out the back of a car window and the bullet bounced around and lodged in the person's jaw. Again, not okay, but not a heinous and it sounds when it is said that he shot someone in the face at a party. Not clear on why he shot at the car.
The "bloody shorts" were pulled out of his mother's dryer and there was no way to tell whose blood was on them or how long it had been there.
The time line is not certain and it is possible that Troy was no where near the Burger King, because there may not have been enough time for the first shooting to happen and him to get to the BK to shoot the officer.
Of the 9 people who testified against him, 7 have recanted, 1 that didn't recant was the original suspect who pointed the finger at Troy and 10 people have come forward stating that it was the other guy, Redd whatever. (I'm in a hurry because I have to get my kids off the bus and I have a bunch of assignments due tonight.)
And finally, according to documents presented to the courts by the defense team, the ballistic report is not necessarily on the up and up. A person from the GBI (Georgia Bureau of Investigation) claims in the docs that there are none of the similar characteristics of the bullet removed from the guy who was shot in the face and the officer. The only similarity from what I can tell is the size of the bullet and both men were carrying the same type of gun that night. This is certainly a big issue when there could have been police misconduct. It would not be out of the realm of possibility that the ballistics testimony was flawed due to misconduct as well, by officers helping their own.
When there are any doubts, I see no reason why a life sentence isn't appropriate. He has been removed from society and cannot harm anyone else. How does killing him help anything now?
ETA: According to this article, Redd Coles admitted to starting the fight with the homeless man:
"Later on that day, Sylvester "Red" Coles turned up at the police station with his attorney. As it turned out, he claimed, he was part of the altercation that took place before the MacPhail shooting, and he wanted the chance to tell his story. He was there, he said, but he wasn't the shooter. He had a .38 caliber revolver, this was true, but he had given it away earlier that evening. Yes, he had been involved in the altercation with Larry Young- as a matter of fact, he was the one who started it. Yes, it was true he had walked up to Larry Young and told him not to turn around, “cause you don’t know me, I’ll shoot you,” But, he insisted, he was not the man who attacked Larry Young with a pistol. And he was not the man who shot Officer MacPhail. That man was Troy Davis."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/19/1018124/--TooMuchDoubt-The-Story-of-Troy-Anthony-Davis
Why would he tell the man he would shoot him in the same statement that he had "given his gun away" that night? Huh? Too many questions. I do not agree with the death penalty, but I do not fight with it because it is the law when I believe a person is guilty. If I have a single shred of doubt, that is a different story. I would not put my name on any petition or speak in public, even in a forum if I don't have doubts, because I do work an innocence case in my state (where my doubts are strong enough that I would bet my own life on it), and my credibility needs to remain impeccable. In this case, I have too many doubts to be quiet when a person's life is on the line.