Mumia Abu Jamal

Great Debates
41

Even if it was a corrupt policeman and you were acting in self defense?

And how could you have appealed if the execution had been carried out in a few short months after the crime, as was your desire above?

You wished for him to be railroaded and executed 20 years ago tho, all that mattered for my application of the golden rule.

Really if you can’t follow a basic train of logic, I’m not going to waste time debating you.

Right it “makes no difference” to you whether the judge said he was going to help the prosecution. :rolleyes:

Something which, by inspection of Cecil’s column, is completely false.

What I find interesting is how you keep regurgitating the same sound and fury of talking about evidence against mumia being this and that when I and Cecil and Michael Moore and pretty much everyone reasonable (i.e. not a black panther or beret wearer) assumes he’s probably guilty. THE POINT IS NOT SERIOUSLY UNDER CONTENTION. A couple nit picks were made on this evidence, THAT IS ALL.

What I also find interesting is that if it is so open and shut and such a slam dunk… then why not grant him a new and obviously fair trial and/or penalty phase. Bend over backward to make sure everything is as fair as can be.

If the state had done that 15 years ago there would be NO mumia-mania in france, he’d be on death row or serving a life w.o parole sentence. Instead you prefer the fantasy land delusions that the racist judge is “perfect”. Why is that?

42

You are contradicting yourself (again).

If you object to my talking about the evidence, why are you nitpicking about the evidence?

First you allege (without a scrap of proof) that the policeman Mumia murdered was corrupt. Then you follow that up by posting that “everyone reasonable” thinks he is guilty, and are just nitpicking. Are you saying that Mumia acted in self-defense when he shot the policeman in the back, then walked up to him and shot him again in the face from about a foot away? Or are you saying that you are not a reasonable person?

I have a little more trouble believing the one than the other.

No, it made no difference to Mumia’s trial. Judge Sabo bent over backwards to be entirely fair to this disruptive clown. Such were the findings of the appeals court, when Mumia’s lawyers tried it on in 1998. It failed, based on the record. They tried again in 2001. It failed again.

No, something which, by inspection of the trial record in 1998, is completely true.

Please produce any evidence that Judge Sabo was unfair to Mumia at any time during their trial. If you cannot, I will assume you are simply pounding on the table.

Again, you are making no sense. He is obviously guilty, and the appeals court found that he was guilty, and that his trial was completely fair.

So we should do it again? He has already been convicted beyond any reasonable doubt, which verdict has been upheld on appeal. How many bites at the apple do you think this murderer deserves?

The state did do that. He was convicted. The appeals courts all found that his trial was fair and his guilt apparent. And he is on death row, or serving life without parole.

Because that was the finding of the appeals court, not the hysterical fantasies of the far-left who cream their jeans over every black murderer who talks a good political rap.

Sonny, that train left the station years ago. You never even got your ticket punched.

Better luck next time.

Regards,
Shodan

43

Just a few comments since I got into this late:

Not all Greens are happy with the stance on Mumia. My favorite on the subject is this one: Awww. screw Mumia

There is no indication that Mumia’s rights were denied during the trial or the sentencing.

Like it or not, all the evidence points to Mumia’s guilt.

Only recently, at the eleventh hour, has Mumia even denied he was guilty and told what happened that night. His tale was a pathetic joke, and one his previous lawyer sang his praises for rejecting earlier.

Mumia supporters often claim that the prosecution acted improperly during the sentencing and Sabo allowed them to do it. The claim most often specificaly mentions the prosecution bringing up Mumia’s past writings. This was not innapropriate in the least, as Mumia had gone up to talk about what a nice guy he was.

danielfaulkner.com is definately on the side of the “Mumia guilty” argument. But to dismiss it as a “Fry Mumia” site is a banal arguement. It actualy has more useful information that 99% of the sites out there. In fact, I have yet to see a “Free Mumia/New Trial for Mumia” site that has the entire transcript of the case.

Daniel Faulkner was in no way corrupt as Crook’d seems to imply. Mumia’s move buddies have been fond of accusing him of a being a child pimp a their rallies, however. What’s more corrupt is that most folks who wear a “Free Mumia” T-shirt don’t even know who Daniel Faulkner was.

I’m not entirely convinced that this entire thing was not premediated. The fact that Mumia’s brother (who will not testify on his brother’s behalf, BTW) was pulled over for the traffic violation of driving the wrong way on Locust street. Having lived in Philly I can see no logical way this happens by accident. I hvae no proof, however.

The idea that Mumia was framed is laughable. Why him? He was a loser nobody at that point and when he was a reporter he said nothing about the police. Certainly nothing worth framing him over.

Remember that the PA supreme court voted unanimously against his appeal. This is a cantankerous bunch who don’t agree on anything. But that is an indication of how bad the case for Mumia was. All the myths Mumia’s lawyers built up in the media were exposed for the lies they were.

Mumia shot a cop, got shot back, then fired bullets into Daniel Faulkner face. He’s guilty, and he got the death penalty. If you don’t like the death penalty, fine, but don’t make Mumia your poster child.

Try someone who is innocent, there’s plenty of them on death row I’m sure. How did this guy become such a hero to the Calvin Klein Communist set?

44

Mr. Miskatonic -

I don’t think it is a question of DP opponents treating the innocent one way, and the guilty another. It’s the same rap for all. Racist Amerikka down on the oppressed brothuh.

People don’t oppose killing convicts because they think they are innocent. They think they are innocent because they are on death row.

Regards,
Shodan

45

This is the part I’m interested in. What it is about Mumia that inspires such fanaticism? What would make someone carry a “Free Mumia!” sign to an anti-war protest? What is the logic behind this?

Frankly, the whole Free Mumia thing is incredibly damaging to the far left. Whenever they try to make a serious, valid point on something, some yahoo from their side of the fence starts caterwauling about Mumia Abu Jamal. If you go to sites like the home page for International A.N.S.W.E.R, ‘Free Mumia!’ blurbs are all over it like a rash. Do they think this helps their cause?

Just what is it about this guy that inspires such a fanatical following? Aside from being a Panther, is he some hero of the radical left? Did he save some socialist leader from a burning building or something? I truly don’t get it.

46

Thats what I’d like to know.
being a former Green, myself.

Heck I like the panthers as much as the next guy, but the facts are the facts.

47

That summary left out a lot of information. Faulkner’s widow has a website that went through the transcripts of the trial. You don’t need a lot of narration to understand it.

I’m not a huge fan of the death penalty because I feel there has to be an incredible amount of indisputable evidence to pull the switch. I would have fried his ass the day of the verdict. His only possible defense was insanity.

We had a local college (Antioch) whose students chose Jamal as their graduation speaker. Despite weeks of letters in the local paper asking the students to research their choice, they went ahead with a taped speech by Jamal. It was quit telling that the President of the college co-opted a letter-to-the-editor which was forwarded to him from another college. He was too lazy to do 1 hour of research. It was also interesting to witness the behavior of both sides of the issue. On Jamal’s side, there were masked “children” running up and down the divider yelling obscenities along with a bunch of anarchist bullshit. There was also trash surrounding the graduation area. On the other side of the fence there were a bunch of polite adults, peacefully holding up protest signs. When they left, there wasn’t a single piece of trash on the ground. It was easy to see which crowd had respect for themselves as well as others who differ in their opinion.

48

I honestly don’t understand it either. It gets ludicrous and a lot of cognitive dissonance starts to fill in the gaps. There are some bands who I could otherwise like, but every time I hear their music I cannot escape the fact that they support a murderer (Rage against the Machine and Chumbawumba come to mind).

THings is, Mumia’s lawyers had a good bit of propaganda going to the point where they’d generated all this hype. Now those lawyers are out of the picture and are badmouthed by Mumia. I had hoped these actions, as well as his fianlly inventing a ludicrous story about what happened that night, might cool some of that ardor. But at this point its too big.

I understand the Leonard Peltier had a similar hype pre-internet. I think that has cooled somewhat since he admitted to shooting at the FBI agents and his “Free Leonard” movement came down to it being unfair that he was convicted and his fellow shooters got off.

What also bugs me is the wishy-washy Mumiacs. The ones who think he is guilty, but without any decent support or eviedence claim he didn’t get a fair trial. The often made comment is “No big deal, just give him another trial”. What they fail to realise is that we do not hand out retrials on the basis of T-shirts and demonstrations. Our justice system does have an appeals process, and it is not based on hysteria. It may not be perfect but the alternative is a horror show. Mumia didn’t take his first trial seriously and hoped to get off on some circus show. Despite Sabo’s accomidations to Mumia, he still held the reins of control properly. Mumia and his followers are like children crying on the playground that they deserve a ‘do-over’.

That said, Mumia’s lawyer did the best he could in the face of overwhelming evidence. It disgusts me that the Mumiacs have labelled this very efective defense lawyer as “incompetant”.

If my college had Mumia as a graduation speaker, I would wizz on the tape recorder.

49

It just astonishes me that the Mumia defenders don’t bother to research and figure out what actually happened. Really, you read the transcript, and there’s just nowhere else to go. It’s not like the guy even left the scene and was apprehended elsehwhere; he was still there when the police arrived. Why this case?

It’s very interesting, some of the black and white politics of the anti-DP movement. I don’t think the discussion is helped by this either/or mindset. Mumia has got to be totally innocent to be their poster child; not just that, but he’s got to be good-looking charismatic and so on. In picking him, not only are the leftists ignoring all the innocent people on Death Row, they’re missing an opportunity to treat the general public as if they’re intelligent enough to appreciate shades of gray.

I’m in favor of the DP, and I recognize that there are people on death row who are innocent. Where are their publicists and so on? The black and white debate can’t cope with the concept of the ‘gray’ defendant, the guy who might have a minor criminal record, who’s not so much a victim as he is merely ineffective, who’s not good-looking, articulate, or published. And this is the movement that’s supposedly on their side!

50

Mr Cook took on an affected bullshit name after his cop-killing days, no?

He’s a “revolutionary” wannabe who should have been expunged from the gene pool a long time ago. His inclusion discredits any organization that cares to include him as well. What are they thinking?

51

Im sorry im kind of lazy to look it up, but did Mumia plead innovent at his trial?

52

innocent, i mean

53

I’m lazy, too. I am guessing that he did, since if he plead ‘guilty’, there wouldn’t have been a trial. He could have please ‘Nolo Nontendere’, but I am guessing that he just please not guilty.

54

Errr, nolo contendre. Nolo Notendere is some opera singer, I bet…

55

Sam:

Well, Mr. Stone, I guess it had to happen sooner or later: I agree. The left’s support of Jamal gives fodder to the right and provides many right-wingers with at least one clear-cut, convenient excuse for their otherwise irrational hatred of those on the opposite side of the aisle. Having said that, you can tell that not everyone on the left supports Jamal’s case just from reading this thread.

I can’t really answer for Americans, but many of the Swedes I’ve spoken with here are woefully uninformed about the factual specifics of the case. He’s become a kind of rallying point among younger protesters, who are often driven more by passion than cold intellect.

I may not be able to explain this very clearly, but here goes: the rational and the irrational often feed into each other. I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately, but haven’t quite got a handle on it yet. But what I mean, approximately, is that if you have a lot of rational, objective reasons for being critical of US politics/economics/culture, etc., then you will probably be more willing to assume an “anti-American” stance in any given instance. You sort of start with the premise that the US is wrong, so to speak, and then work your way to the truth from there. One often tends to think in terms of black-and-white categories; the US is “bad,” so of course Jamal is a victim of political oppression! That’s not to say that anti-American sentiments in Europe are primarily based on an objective appraisal of US politics and policies, except for the special case of Jamal; what I mean is that rational criticism and irrational hatred tend to feed into each other. For example, because Bush has been so “objectively” bad for the reputation of the US abroad, he’s also triggered a great deal of irrational dislike as well. Speaking for myself, I now automatically assume that anything that comes out of the White House is a lie, until shown otherwise (although, as far as I can tell, that’s become a rational, rather than irrational, response).

Anyway, when Swedes hear me say that Jamal is guilty, they usually stop dead in their tracks. They respond by repeating a lot of the smoke-screen defenses that Jamal and his lawyers tried to use during the trial and subsequent appeals – like the bullets didn’t match Jamal’s weapon, and so on. So I patiently explain to them that all of those objections have been debunked, and they respond by giving me the hairy eye-ball and moving away from me on the bench, till I say, “Well, I was arrested once for disturbing the peace too, you know.”

:slight_smile:

Jamal and his supporters have done a good job of spreading lies and propaganda to a group of people who are already prepared to think the worst of America. It’s shameful – scandalous, really – that they support him, and don’t seem to give a fuck about Faulkner and his family. In the words of Mr. Anonymous:

My sentiments exactly.

56

IIRC, he took on the Mumia name after the 1978 MOVE incident, but before he made himself a brave hero of the revolution by shooting someone in the back and face.

57

Was he involved with MOVE?

58

Not directly. He became what could be termed a “MOVE sympathiser” after that incident. How much communication there actually was between him and MOVE is a matter of debate. To hear Ramona Africa tell it, she was best buds with many members of MOVE. To hear his lawyers tell it (when their trying to paint him as a sweet non-violent, non-confrontational guy) he only sympathised with them in regards to the aftermath of that incident.

During his trial, he made repeated demands that John Africa, who was in prison and not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, represent him. This indicates to me that he was not taking the trial seriously and hoped to win a mistrial by turning the whole trial into a circus. It failed.

59

Mumia is clearly guilty. I admit that I agree with Cece in that the murder does not seem to have been “pre-meditated” and was an act of anger. Thus, perhaps the Death Penalty wasn’t the right way to go. But then again, that Penalty was put on by 12 men & women that know more about the case than we do, and was upheld -what 5 times- by various Appeals courts- all of whom also know more than we do.

60

Well, you’d think. The 9th Circuit Court of Constitutional Amendments makes me wonder sometimes. And I’ve never had a lot of confidence in the 12 jurist system because anyone who is registered as a voter can preside over the most serious of cases. I’d like to think that the person deciding the fate of a murderer can operate a punch ballot.

The trial in question was a total circus. I can’t imagine a jury who did not throw the book at him along with the table the book was sitting on.

I would prefer a jury of 12 judges but then you would lose jury nullification.