Ummm, you kinda aimed that comment at me, and it looks like you wanted to point it elsewhere…
You are taking a miscommunication or a difference of opinon and turning it into a personal feud. Your whole “you wouldn’t want to be a liar?” schtick is way out of bounds.
I have no idea whether that was a misunderstanding or deliberate–or even if it is true. At this point, you don’t either, so turning it into a personal attack (and continuing with your “jerk” comment, here), is out of line.
You should have gone with your first instinct. Instead, you chose to make an insulting personal attack.
[ /Moderating ]
EVERYONE: this thread is about to be closed if you cannot keep the discussion focused on the topic of the OP instead of other posters.
[ /Moderating ]
I was not familiar with this case at all. I looked it up on the nets and found sites both pro and con. It is not absolutely sure he killed the cop. Sorry,there are some interesting defenses offered. I do not know the truth.
I have to wonder how some posters are saying they know he is guilty. They can not. That is why death penalty is wrong. Its never so cut and dried as the pros like to think.
Pure factual certainty is an impossibility in this world, and if that’s your standard, then it would make any judicial punishment, not just the death penalty, wrong. Fortunately, though, that’s not the standard we use to convict or acquit, but instead a “reasonable doubt” standard, and it looks like the case against him seems to have been proved past a reasonable doubt.
I’m opposed to the death penalty as well, but from what I read about this in the past, the case against Mumia seemed pretty rock solid. I still wouldn’t execute him, for multiple reasons, though, but I didn’t get the feeling there was much if any reasonable doubt as to guilt.
I will say that much as the pro-Mumia people annoyed me, many of the fry-him-now brigade in Philly were equally, if not more, obnoxious. For many of them, they knew nothing about the case, but had convicted Mumia by reading his name or seeing a picture of him (just as it seems many of his supporters were unwilling to believe a black man could be guilty of shooting a white cop). No evidence to back this up of course - just personal experience here.
yawn
Do not trust what you read here. Look it up. There are some good countering opinions.
The death penalty cases should have the highest standard of proving guilt. It is not just another trial.
He had an incompetent atty. and very little money for a defense. His lawyer admitted as much.
When he tried to use the incompetent attorney excuse, the courts did not find enough evidence to support the claim.
The dude is guilty. The witnesses who tried to argue otherwise were never able to credibly deny it. Mumia himself doesn’t even deny it. He was ruled to have competent defense at least TWICE. His argument for the inadequacy of his lawyers was that he wanted to organize his legal defense HIMSELF, which is laughable on its face.
There really is no credible evidence to show a reasonable doubt here.
It is just another trial, and there’s one standard of guilt. There pretty much has to be, if you think about it. Otherwise, what are you going to say to all those people convicted of non-capital crimes?
“You’re sentenced to life in prison. If this were a capital crime, you would have been acquitted, but since it’s not, there’s no problem convicting you and locking you up for the rest of your life”
As I said, based on what I read “in the past” not here. I have looked it up, and read a lot, and the countering opinions did not convince me at the time.
Having an attorney who says he is incompetent is not grounds to overturn a verdict.
I oppose the death penalty. But I have seen nothing to convince me that Mumia was not guilty of murder of a law enforcement officer, and I read a fair amount about it in times past. If there is new evidence, then I would be open to it. But it doesn’t seem that the evidence being discussed now is any different to that 5-10 years ago.
And you have highlighted my main problem with the death penalty - how it distorts the legal system. By suggesting a higher standard for capital cases, you tacitly accept a lower standard for sending someone to prison without the possibility of parole, to live in a tiny cell in brutal conditions. I’m not sure I am willing to accept a downgrading of the degree of proof the state must provide for that, or say that doing that to an individual is lesser punishment than execution.
His attorney never said as much. In fact his attorney won 2/3ds of his capital cases. Which is not a bad record at all.
Unless, of course, you are referring to when Mumia acted as his own attorney, in which case, yes, he was incompetent.
As for the money, its misnomer. Public attys get their funds reembursed, they don’t get advance fees.
The problem was that the case was ironclad and Mumia made a hash of what was left by trying to play the ‘disrupt the courtroom’ card at every turn.
http://www.terrybisson.com/mumia.html This article says the lawyer was a reluctant participant who later said he gave a bad trial. It also says he was disbarred.
As usual the truth is always a bit more difficult to ferret out. I do not know the truth. Does anyone on this board.?
http://www.terrybisson.com/mumia.html This article says the lawyer was a reluctant participant who later said he gave a bad trial. It also says he was disbarred.
As usual the truth is always a bit more difficult to ferret out. I do not know the truth. Does anyone on this board.?
And since then, he has had more lawyers than you can shake a fucking stick at, and his guilt has been proven over and over again.
False.
False.
Obviously.
Regards,
Shodan
Once again, the Daniel Faulkner website has transcripts and more info.
Short version: reluctant, because Mumia interfered. ‘Incompetent’, not from lack of skill but from Mumia’s interference. It would seem he did the best he could given the circumstances.
I had not heard of Jackson being disbarred. I’d like to see evidence of this. I think his winning 14 of 20 capital cases is enough.
Depends on the cases.
Strange ,the argument is that all the dissenting sources are completely and totally wrong. That would be rare. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Anyone who says they know for a fact he did it, I dismiss as biased. No one on this board knows with certainty.
No one in the world ever knows anything with certainty, but “knowing with certainty” isn’t the standard of guilt in a criminal case. At this point, he’s been convicted, so his factual guilt or innocence is irrelevant, and the appeals court has upheld his conviction.
So, the only question now has to do with what his sentencing should be.
A certainty? Nope.
Beyond reasonable doubt? Yep. I have read enough on this case through the years that I am quite comfortable with the jury’s decision, and I believe that if the same information (plus all new information that has been made public) were presented to me on a jury - I would vote to convict.
You must learn to say I disagree .not false.
You are swayed . I am not. The jury pool was a set up. Judge Sabo was the hanging judge. He said I am going to fry that nigger. That was heard by the court stenographer who immediately reported it. Witnesses have claimed to be coerced or bribed with lesser sentences in non related crimes.
His lawyer was suspended for misuse of a clients funds.
I came in knowing nothing. II have been reading both sides. I do not know if he did it. Neither do you.
Hell there is a confession by a guy who says he was a hit man paid to kill the officer because he was threatening a payoff scheme.