So what’s the answer?
Do fish fart or not?
BTW, I’ll include this comment from the previous thread in GD, since the subject of eyewitness accounts was mentioned. The sections in italics are taken verbatim from the Amnesty International report.
Based on a comparison of their statements given to the police immediately after the shooting, their testimony during pretrial hearings and their testimony at the trial, the key witnesses did substantively alter their descriptions of what they saw, in ways that supported the prosecution’s version of events. Several of the prosecution witnesses seem to have received preferential treatment from police after the trial. One was a prostitute who was arrested twice after the shooting but not prosecuted; another was a cab driver who was driving with a suspended license at the time, but not charged for it, and whose description differed from Mumia Abu-Jamal’s description on several points. The third witness, in one of his original statements, stated several times that he did not know whether Abu-Jamal or his brother shot Faulkner. A witness for the defence testified in court that a police officer tried to coerce her into testifying against Abu-Jamal (her testimony was disallowed by the judge and never heard by the jury.)
I trust Cecil.
Given that, and the additional fact that I havent’ read anywhere that the brother had a gun, which means there’s prettymuch nobody left who could have killed the cop (reasonably), I’m down with Mumia being guilty, but not deserving the death penalty.
stoid
Well…
I still don’t know if fish fart, but check the temperature in hell because Stoidela and I agree.
Was Mumia’s brother the real shooter? Well, I guess he could have taken Mumia’s gun out of Mumia’s holster and then placed it right next to Mumia right after the cop shot Mumia (and not the real shooter). Based on the eyewitnesses,several of whom positively id’d Mumia, and the fact that Mumia was reaching for his gun in a rage to kill more cops when arrested while his brother’s only statement was “I didn’t have anything to do with this”, I think they got the right guy.
By no stretch of the imagination can Amnesty International be considered an objective source regarding this. They have an anti-death penalty agenda (which I support) that makes Mumia a wonderful poster boy. I thought that their information on him on those links was absurd and as bad as the worst pro-Mumia sites. For instance, what’s all this crap about the prosecution focusing on Mumia’s political beliefs when it was Mumia that flaunted his association with the MOVE by insisting that the so-called John Africa defend him and by filling the courthouse with his Move friends?
Something that I never see mentioned is the fact that Mumia’s death penalty appeal is probably the best funded death penalty appeal in US history, with all of his book royalties and celebrity supporters. All of that and they have never produced anything remotely resembling evidence of his innocence or that he got an unfair trial…now how can that be?
I get so tired of hearing smokescreens and meaningless or distorted factoids like the AI site is full of, to defend this guy. The multi-racial jury, repeated appeals courts, and every credible journalist that has ever examined this case (for instance, I still think you can find the Vanity Fair article from the Daniel Faulkner site) agrees that there is no chance this guy is innocent. Can’t the Mumia fans move on to another hero?
Oh, and yes, I did get my name from the Sopranos charecter, well, that and the Dylan song.
I first started looking for unbiased info on Mumia
a few years ago. There is none. Even the official court
records may have been altered by biased officials. The only
thing to do is sift through the propaganda of both sides.
I’ve come to several conclusions:
1 the trial had many problems-from bribed witnesses to
faked evidence
2 Mumia is guiulty. He deserves a new trial, but any
fair trial would still find him guilty. He will never be executed because of his ingenious manipulation of the media and his supporters.
3 The farther people are from Philly, the more likely they are to believe the political-prisoner crap.
Which leads me to ask a question: How many other posters on this thread live in Philadelphia?My server kicked me offline in the middle of posting. This post showed up on the topic review but not the actual thread. Sorry if it somehow shows up twice.
I first started looking for unbiased info on Mumia
a few years ago. There is none. Even the official court
records may have been altered by biased officials. The only
thing to do is sift through the propaganda of both sides.
I’ve come to several conclusions:
1 the trial had many problems-from bribed witnesses to
faked evidence
2 Mumia is guiulty. He deserves a new trial, but any
fair trial would still find him guilty. He will never be executed because of his ingenious manipulation of the media and his supporters.
3 The farther people are from Philly, the more likely they are to believe the political-prisoner crap.
Which leads me to ask a question: How many other posters on this thread live in Philadelphia?
I’m from suburban Philly. I think Mumia is guilty, but regardless of whether or not he gets executed, he’s already been martyred – and I think that sucks.
BTW, I went to see Rage Against The Machine last year at the Spectrum (like the music, hate the politics) and when they brought out one of the Africa’s in support of Mumia, the crowd booed rather unmercifully. Then those same 18 yr old upper middle class white boys cheered at the chants of “F#@! the police!” Ahh, the formative years . . .
I feel like I’m setting myself up for yet another flogging (which I hate), but here goes.
The only people I trust on this ridiculously volatile subject are “Unca” Cecil and Tom Tomorrow (the creator of This Modern World). This is because they’re the only people I know who’ve shown even a modicum of objectivity on subjects like Abu-Jamal. Both agree that he did kill Dan Faulkner and the evidence was strong enough to convict him. Both also are opposed to giving him the death penalty, Cecil because he doesn’t believe it was first degree murder, Dan because he’s against the death penalty in general. Fine with me.
Abu-Jamal absolutely deserves a new, fair trial. The fact that he’s a contemptible character and misguided collegians have put blind faith in him does not justify throwing justice out the window. Using his political beliefs against him (which Cecil mentioned both times) alone was inexcusable. If he’s executed, it is a political lynching. Far from it from me to sympathize with rabid pro-Mumia supporters, but they do have this one right.
If Abu-Jamal reacted to being shot in the chest, the murder was not premeditated. The number of times and the locations where he shot Faulkner are irrelevant. No premeditation, no first degree, and (in general) no execution.
So, in summary:
- Abu-Jamal almost certainly did kill Faulkner, well beyond reasonable doubt.
- It almost certainly wasn’t premeditated.
- There are a lot of angry people who could cause serious problems, to put it mildly, if he’s executed.
- He’s on Death Row only because he did not receive a fair trial.
So I say hold a new trial, convict him of second degree murder, and give him a nice, long prison term. No political lynching, but he doesn’t get off easy either. In other words, both sides go home reasonably happy and justice is served because the correct verdict is rendered. What could be better?
No flogging from me, though I am from Philly and grow weary from some of this stuff. A question though: if you believe the evidence was strong enough for a conviction, what purpose does a new trial serve exactly? Am I missing something, or are you contradicting yourself?
I’m opposed to the death penalty too (and believe Mumia is guilty). My opposition to this form of punishment does not lead me to ask for a “do over” for every conviction in the hope the sentence will turn out differently. Why for Mumia in particular?
As one who supports the cause, I have always held that the anti-death penalty crowd has selected a piss-poor poster boy in this instance. A remorseless cop killer is probably not going to convert too many of the “fry 'em all” gang.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by DKW *
**
The only people I trust on this ridiculously volatile subject are “Unca” Cecil and Tom Tomorrow (the creator of This Modern World). This is because they’re the only people I know who’ve shown even a modicum of objectivity on subjects like Abu-Jamal.*
Without commenting on Mumia’s Search for Justice, I have to say that going to Tom Tomorrow for an objective look at how to punish a cop-killer, is sort of like seeking out Tom DeLay for an objective opinion on how to reverse global warming.
I don’t agree that just because he was reacting to being shot in the chest, that Mumia wasn’t commiting first degree murder when he shot the incapacitated Officer Faulkner in the face and killed him. Mumia initated the gunfight between himself and Faulkner, and by doing so, he must have realized that he or the officer would likely be shot. Just because Jamal was shot by an officer who was defending himself doesn’t mean that then Jamal could seek revenge on the officer by killing him even after the threat to Jamal was eliminated.
Bob - He deserves a retrial because he did not receive a fair trial, which is a very basic right (not to mentioned guaranteed by the Constitution, IIRC). Furthermore, if he did get a fair trial, there’s the chance that he would not be executed, so if he is executed it’s miscarriage of justice. The fact that he’s dangerous does not give anyone the right to railroad him. There is absolutely nothing about this which contradicts any of my views. I say hold a fair, impartial trial, throw all any irrelevant information (like Abu-Jamal’s political beliefs), and give the proper sentence. Simple as that.
Blunt - Maybe I should have been more specific. My point was, although there may have been enough evidence to give Abu-Jamal the ultimate punishment, there were probably also mitigating factors (coming to his brother’s aid, may have been shot first). Unless the crime was extremely heinous and the mitigating circumstances totally negligible, the death penalty is unwarranted. IMHO. It may work differently in Pennsylvania. Again, I do not warrant setting him free in the slightest, but, all things considered (and I only know what the man on the street knows, so I could be wrong), a long prison term is more appropriate in this case than execution.
Jackmannii - Eh. From reading almost his entire works, I’ve become convinced that, politically, he’s one of the extremely few voices of reason out there (Ted Rall is another :)). For the record, I do believe that the death penalty is warranted, but only in the most extreme cases.