Because the white guy bragged about dragging a black man through town, scattering his body parts everywhere. The majority of the "eye witnesses" in the black man's hearing who said he killed a white cop rescinded their statements (I might guess they were forced into them by some anger police investigators and PA's). There was no gun, no hard proof, not enough to execute a man, regardless of his color or the color of who he killed.

Do not speak about things with such strong language you don't know anything about.

Hey -- cool! Talking points from the Innocence Project! You go, girl. Keep recycling that received wisdom!

These vigil numbskulls don't give a damn about any principle. It's just domestic politics and burnishing one's bona fides with the right political groups. If the right person is being executed, they completely ignore it. That selectivity is why I don't take their moral posturing seriously on this issue. The nazi in Texas obviously served no subsidiary political purpose for the anti-death penalty types, so they completely ignored it. Ironically, in that instance, the left inadvertently lapsed into moral rectitude. But only through its naivete and negligence. The convict in Georgia, on the other hand, was an exact fit for the old, tired, leftist checklist that has been applied to these cases since, what? the Rosenbergs? Sacco and Vanzetti, perhaps?