France honors convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal

[Recliner Pilot 61]

WTF?

 

 

Cop Killer's Caucus

The House yesterday passed a resolution "condemning the decision of St. Denis, France, to name a street in honor of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murder [sic] of Philadelphia Police Office Danny Faulkner." The vote was 368-31, with 8 members voting "present." Here's a list of what one might call the Cop-Killer's Caucus, the congressmen who voted against the resolution, all Democrats:

 

Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii)

Carolyn Kilpatrick (Mich.)

Robert Scott (Va.)

William Clay (Mo.)

Barbara Lee (Calif.)

Jose Serrano (N.Y.)

Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.)

Cynthia McKinney (Ga.)

Fortney Hillman Stark Jr. (Calif.)

John Conyers (Mich.)

Gregory Meeks (N.Y.)

Edolphus Towns (N.Y.)

Jim Cooper (Tenn.)

Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.)

Tom Udall (N.M.)

Danny Davis (Ill.)

James Oberstar (Minn.)

Nydia Velazquez (N.Y.)

Raul Grijalva (Ariz.)

Major Owens (N.Y.)

Maxine Waters (Calif.)

Maurice Hinchey (N.Y.)

Ed Pastor (Ariz.)

Anthony Weiner (N.Y.)

Mike Honda (Calif.)

Donald Payne (N.J.)

Lynn Woolsey (Calif.)

Jesse Jackson Jr. (Ill.)

Charles Rangel (N.Y.)

Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas)

Bobby Rush (Ill.)

 

 

The "present" votes came from Sam Farr (Calif.), Al Green (Texas), Luis Gutierrez (Ill.), Sheila Jackson-Lee (Texas), John Lewis (Ga.), George Miller (Calif.), Janice Schakowsky (Ill.) and Melvin Watt (N.C.). Tellingly, every member of the Pennsylvania delegation who was present voted "yes."

 

The most disturbing name on the "no" list is that of John Conyers. Granted, this is only a symbolic vote, but is it really a good idea to entrust the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee to a man who casts a symbolic vote for a cop-killer and against his victim?

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009353

[pinfish_mauler 0]

Not surprised at all see Cynthia "I've worn out my welcome" McKinney on the list.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I see none of the resident Dems have any explanation as to why so many of their brethren support a cop killer.

[SUXBNME 1,352]

I see none of the resident Dems have any explanation as to why so many of their brethren support a cop killer.

Ice T is happy with these Dems

[art schlichter's bookie 0]

Good for them.

There is compelling evidence that Mumia Abu Jamal didn't kill that cop and it's obvious he didn't get a fair trial.

He is the closest thing we have to a political prisoner on Death Row in America.

I applaud every single one of those who voted with their conscience.

[yojimbo81 0]

Good for them.

There is compelling evidence that Mumia Abu Jamal didn't kill that cop and it's obvious he didn't get a fair trial.

He is the closest thing we have to a political prisoner on Death Row in America.

I applaud every single one of those who voted with their conscience.

 

That may be up for debate. I saw a show on A&E, I think, about the case. The popular concensus seemed to be that the evidence pointed towards his guilt yet he still didn't get a fair trial.

 

The congressional vote should come of no suprise. Many names on the list represent the radical fringe. John Conyers hates this country and he helps keep the criminal Kilpatrick family in power in Detroit.

[porkbutt 866]

Good for them.

There is compelling evidence that Mumia Abu Jamal didn't kill that cop and it's obvious he didn't get a fair trial.

He is the closest thing we have to a political prisoner on Death Row in America.

I applaud every single one of those who voted with their conscience.

i'll chalk you up as a lil poosay. you gotta be focking kidding me? do some research. he's a peice of sh;t.

 

this whole thing is a disgrace. even if there was some glimmer of hope this guy is innocent (which there isn't...he's guilty as sin) why name a focking street after him? it's just another reason the french are the big fat liberal poosays they are.

[yojimbo81 0]

i'll chalk you up as a lil poosay. you gotta be focking kidding me? do some research. he's a peice of sh;t.

 

this whole thing is a disgrace. even if there was some glimmer of hope this guy is innocent (which there isn't...he's guilty as sin) why name a focking street after him? it's just another reason the french are the big fat liberal poosays they are.

 

The French are using this to push their own agenda. They likely don't believe him to be innocent but they are opposed to the death penalty. Ira Einhorn, a convicted murderer, was allowed to walk the streets of France for years because he was sentenced to death and France does not believe in the death penalty. French authorities knew a savage killer was walking their streets but they didn't care because of the death penalty. Mumia Street isn't a shocking thing to see in France.

[art schlichter's bookie 0]

I'll chalk you up as someone who doesn' t care about the Bill of Rights.

 

I think everyone in the United States deserves a fair trial.

 

Here's wikipedia entry for you guys too lazy to read up on it:

 

 

1982 trial and conviction

 

Abu-Jamal was charged with first degree murder. He initially retained the services of criminal defense attorney Anthony Jackson. In May 1982 Abu-Jamal announced that he would represent himself with Jackson continuing to act as his legal advisor. Although the judge initially allowed Abu-Jamal to represent himself, the judge eventually reversed his own decision due to Abu-Jamal's disruptive behavior in the court [1], and it was ordered that Anthony Jackson resume his role as Abu-Jamal’s attorney.

 

The case went to trial in June 1982. The prosecution presented both eyewitness and physical evidence against Abu-Jamal.

 

There were four eyewitnesses to the shooting: Robert Chobert, a cab driver (who later claimed that the police coerced him into making his false testimony[citation needed]); Michael Scanlan, a businessman who had been visiting from out of town on the night of the killing; Cynthia White, a prostitute who was later revealed to be a police informant[4]; and Albert Magilton, a passerby. All four of these witnesses were on the scene at the time of the shooting, and all of them identified Abu-Jamal as the person who shot Officer Faulkner.

 

Finally, three additional witnesses, including hospital security guard Priscilla Durham and two members of the Philadelphia Police Department, testified that while Abu-Jamal was being treated for his own gunshot wound, he said that he had shot Daniel Faulkner, and hoped that the officer would die, specifically saying, "I shot the motherfucker, and I hope he dies."

 

Yet, there exists some evidence which apparently runs contradictory to the argument that Mumia admitted his own guilt in the hospital.

 

 

 

One of these pieces of evidence is the original police report by Officer Gary Wakshul, who was with Mumia the entire time through his arrest and medical treatment. In Wakshul's official report he stated of the time he spent with Mumia Abu-Jamal, "during this time the Negro male made no comment." Yet Gary Wakshul stated later that he heard Mumia confess that night. Gary Wakshul didn't remember this confession until almost three months after Mumia's arrest when prosecutor McGill met with police asking for a confession. Officer Wakshul stated that he didn't think the confession was important at the time he wrote his original report.[2]

 

Judge Albert Sabo did not allow the jury to hear Gary Wakshul's original report.

 

In court hospital security guard Priscilla Durham testified that she heard Mumia Abu-Jamal yell out as he lay bleeding in the hospital.

 

Yet on April 24, 2003 the half- brother of Priscilla Durham, Kenneth Pate, submitted a declaration through Mumia’s lawyers in the U.S. Court of Appeals and in the Third Circuit Court stating, “I read a newspaper article about the Mumia Abu-Jamal case. It said Priscilla Durham had testified at Mumia's trial that when she was working as a security guard at the hospital she heard Mumia say that he had killed the police officer. When I read this I realized it was a different story from what she had told me.” Instead Kenneth Pate asked her, ‘"Did you hear him say that?”" Priscilla answered, "All I heard him say was: 'Get off me, get off me, they're trying to kill me." Pate reported that this conversation occurred nearly 20 years before the affidavit was filed ("Sometime around the end of 1983 or the beginning of 1984"), while Pate was in the same prison as Abu-Jamal. The affidavit was released during another period in which Pate and Abu-Jamal were housed in the same prison, by which time Durham had died (cf. Trial of Mumia Abu-Jamal).

 

The physical evidence was also damaging for Abu-Jamal. A .38 handgun Abu-Jamal had purchased to defend himself as a cab driver in 1979 was found at the scene, next to Abu-Jamal, containing 5 spent shell casings. [5] Ballistics experts never did any tests to see if the weapon had been recently fired [source: HBO Special, A Case For Reasonable Doubt]. The coroner who performed the autopsy on Faulkner, Dr. Paul Hoyer, stated in his notes that the bullet he extracted from Faulkner was a .44 caliber, not a .38. However, he later testified that he was just making a rough guess based on his own observations, as he was not a firearms expert and had no ballistics training. He also testified that his statement about the bullet's caliber was only written in his personal notes and never meant to be used as an official report. Official ballistics tests done on the fatal bullet verify that Officer Faulkner was killed by a .38 caliber bullet. The fatal .38 slug was a Federal brand Special +P bullet with a hollow base (the hollow base in a +P bullet was distinctive to Federal ammunition at that time), the exact type (+P with a hollow base), brand (Federal), and caliber (.38) of bullet found in Jamal's gun. These experts also testified that the bullet taken from Abu-Jamal had been fired from Officer Faulkner's service weapon. The defense' ballistics expert, George Fassnacht, did not dispute the prosecution's findings.[3]

 

Amnesty International was not impressed by the physical evidence and included it in their list of trial irregularities stating there was a "lack of adequate ballistic tests to determine whether Abu-Jamal's gun had recently been fired. It was not determined, for instance, whether there was residue on his hands from firing a gun."[6] In a 1995 PCRA hearing, the ballistics expert for the defense testified that due to Jamal's struggle with the police during his arrest, such a test would have been difficult to accomplish and, due to the gunpowder residue possibly being shaken or rubbed off, would not have been scientifically reliable. [7]

 

William Cook, who might have been expected to testify on his brother's behalf, and who was present at the scene at the beginning, did not testify, but has stated in a signed affidavit that he is willing to testify and that Mumia Abu-Jamal did not kill Officer Faulkner.[8] Mumia Abu-Jamal also did not testify in his own defense. Mumia Abu-Jamal’s explanation for this can be found in a May 3, 2001 signed affidavit where he states, "At my trial I was denied the right to defend myself I had no confidence in my court-appointed attorney, who never even asked me what happened the night I was shot and the police officer was killed; and I was excluded from at least half the trial. Since I was denied all my rights at my trial I did not testify. I would not be used to make it look like I had a fair trial."[9]

 

The jury deliberated for two days before finding Abu-Jamal guilty, and he was subsequently sentenced to death.

 

It has been contended that there were many irregularities surrounding the trial and conviction of Abu-Jamal, leading many to argue that his conviction was invalid. Many writers such as the National Journal's Stuart Taylor have referred to Mumia as "Guilty but Framed," and take the position that his guilt was apparent but that he had not received a fair trial.

 

The Philadelphia Office of the District Attorney, Daniel Faulkner's family, the Fraternal Order of Police, and several other law enforcement organizations support Jamal's conviction and subsequent death sentence, believing that Abu-Jamal murdered Faulkner while the officer was making a lawful arrest in the line of duty and his trial was indeed fair. Faulkner's wife, Maureen, has been a particularly vehement advocate for upholding the results of the original trial.[10].

[yojimbo81 0]

Why didn't you post the link? The beginning clearly states that it's neutrality has been challenged and that no documentation was provided to back the "facts".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia

[porkbutt 866]

you can post all the crap you want disputing it...i grew up in philly during this time...it's focking common knowledge he killed him.

 

i could post all the stuff to contrary you want...regardless, no reason to name a focking street after him either way....

 

 

Before, during, and after the moment he fired the fatal shot on December 9, 1981, Mumia Abu-Jamal's actions have been consistent with his guilt, and have been consistent with nothing else but his guilt. He has done nothing that an innocent person would do if accused and convicted of murder. All the evidence points to Jamal as the killer. You be the judge.

 

FACT

 

As a young man, Jamal had a long history of hatred against the law enforcement officers. While he was a Black Panther, Mumia Abu-Jamal wrote, "I for one feel like putting down the pen....LET'S WRITE EPITAPHS FOR PIGS." Jamal has stated that he used his position in the Black Panthers to call for a "black revolution in America" and that "political power grows from the barrel of a gun."

 

FACT

 

A total of five eyewitnesses have testified that they saw Mumia Abu-Jamal run from a parking lot and shoot Officer Faulkner to death as the officer attempted to arrest Jamal's brother. None of these eyewitnesses knew each other. Each gave their accounts within minutes of the shooting, and the accounts agreed with each other in every significant detail. Several of these individuals stated that -- in some cases from less than 30 feet away -- they watched as Jamal repeatedly fired at the fallen and unarmed officer from point blank range. One even stated that Jamal took the time to bend down and fire the final shot into the wounded officer's face from less than a foot away and that the officer's "whole body jerked" when the shot hit his face. Was each and every one of these eyewitnesses - including a man called by Jamal's own lawyers in 1995, Robert Harkins - "confused" about what they saw, as Jamal and his attorneys allege?

 

FACT

 

Within a few minutes of the shooting, three of the eyewitnesses personally identified Mumia Abu-Jamal to police at the scene as the man who had shot Officer Faulkner. Again, none of these individuals knew each other. They had no time to find what other witnesses were going to say. Nor was there time for police to "coerce" or "intimidate" them prior to making their identifications. The police had no way of knowing what story to "coerce" witnesses to tell even if they had wanted to. Each witness watched from a different vantage point, and several stated that they never lost sight of Jamal from the moment the shooting stopped, until the police apprehended him and placed him in the van. Were these eyewitnesses all "mistaken" about what they saw, as Jamal and his attorneys now argue?

 

FACT

 

Jamal was apprehended only 10 feet away from Officer Faulkner's body. In his chest, Jamal had a bullet fired from Officer Faulkner's gun. If the officer was shot by a "phantom killer," as Jamal's lawyers contend, he would have shot the gunman, not Jamal. The eyewitnesses all said that Jamal shot the officer in the back before the officer even knew Jamal was there.

 

FACT

 

The gun found next to Jamal was owned by Jamal and registered in his name. Does an "innocent man" run to the scene of an arrest with his gun in his hand if he doesn't intend to use it?

 

FACT

 

Jamal's gun contained five spent casings from unique high velocity special +P ammunition. These casings were the exact brand (Federal), caliber (.38) and type (high velocity +P with a hollow base) of ammunition retrieved from Officer Faulkner's brain. Is it reasonable to believe that an "innocent man" just happened to load his gun with exact same ammunition that the "real killer" used in his gun?

 

FACT

 

The rifling characteristics of the bullet removed from Officer Faulkner's brain showed that it was fired from a barrel with 8 lands and grooves and a right hand direction of twist. This is identical to the rifling characteristics of the barrel of Jamal's gun. Is it a coincidence that an "innocent man" just happened to load his gun with the same unique ammunition as the "real killer" AND have the same riffling pattern in the barrel of his gun as the "real killer"?

 

FACT

 

Jamal's brother, William Cook, saw the murder unfold. When police arrived at the scene -- less than one minute after the shooting -- they found Cook against a wall a few feet away from the dead officer's body. Cook's only comment was, "I ain't got nothin to do with this." Would not the brother of an "innocent man" say something like, "The guy who shot the cop ran away." or "My brother didn't do it"? In fact, to this day, Cook is the only known eyewitness (other than Jamal himself) who has never testified to what he saw. He has never so much as suggested that his brother might be innocent.

 

FACT

 

The jury knew that William Cook was the closest person to the murder. Yet the jury never heard Cook testify on his brother's behalf. It does not require a degree in rocket science to understand the significance of the fact that Cook would allow his brother to be sentenced to death rather than testify to his supposed innocence. Is it believable that an "innocent" Mumia Abu-Jamal would simply accept his brother's silence and not demand to have him testify to his innocence in order to save him from conviction?

 

FACT

 

On June 21, 1982 , Officer Faulkner's blood stained shirt was displayed in the courtroom. Jamal deliberately turned around and grinned at Officer Faulkner's widow as her husband's shirt was displayed. Several witnesses saw this. Such a calculated act of evil is not characteristic of an innocent man.

 

FACT

 

Throughout the trial and at the sentencing hearing the jury saw Mumia Abu-Jamal explode with loud violent outbursts, obscenities, verbal threats and diatribes against the judge, the prosecutor, his own attorney, and even the jurors themselves. Were these the acts of an "innocent man"?

 

FACT

 

Jamal insulted and refused to speak with the lawyer he himself had selected prior to trial. He then refused to be represented by any lawyer at all. Instead, he demanded to have John Africa, the leader of a radical cult called MOVE, act as his lawyer. Would an "innocent man" concerned with keeping his freedom, as opposed to making his trial a political forum, make such absurd demands? Or would an "innocent man" work to provide his highly qualified and experienced attorney -- an attorney he hand picked -- with every bit of information and evidence he could muster that supported his innocence?

 

FACT

 

Though given two chances (the trial in 1982 and the PCRA hearing in 1996) to take the stand and explain his alleged "innocence," Mumia Abu-Jamal has refused to do so. In fact, he has refused to tell anyone what really happened on the morning Officer Faulkner was murdered; including the legion of reporters from around the world who line up to interview him. Would an "innocent man" keep the facts that prove his supposed innocence a secret?

 

FACT

 

At his sentencing hearing, Mumia Abu Jamal threatened Judge Albert Sabo in front of the entire courtroom when he said, "I'm going to tell you one thing: You have sentenced yourself, just like Judge Malmed, just like Malcolm, just like Merna Marshal, and every other Judge who dares to sit up there and act like you got some justice. You are wrong. You have just been sentenced to death. You have just been convicted!" (N.T. 5/25/83, 165)

 

you know what...on second thought...this guy does deserve something for making all the idiots in the world stand up for him and believe his bullshit. the french deserve him.

[art schlichter's bookie 0]

I'm not saying they should name a street after him.

I am saying he didn't get a fair trial.

[teejay booker 0]

you can post all the crap you want disputing it...i grew up in philly during this time...it's focking common knowledge he killed him.

 

i could post all the stuff to contrary you want...regardless, no reason to name a focking street after him either way....

Before, during, and after the moment he fired the fatal shot on December 9, 1981, Mumia Abu-Jamal's actions have been consistent with his guilt, and have been consistent with nothing else but his guilt. He has done nothing that an innocent person would do if accused and convicted of murder. All the evidence points to Jamal as the killer. You be the judge.

 

FACT

 

As a young man, Jamal had a long history of hatred against the law enforcement officers. While he was a Black Panther, Mumia Abu-Jamal wrote, "I for one feel like putting down the pen....LET'S WRITE EPITAPHS FOR PIGS." Jamal has stated that he used his position in the Black Panthers to call for a "black revolution in America" and that "political power grows from the barrel of a gun."

 

FACT

 

A total of five eyewitnesses have testified that they saw Mumia Abu-Jamal run from a parking lot and shoot Officer Faulkner to death as the officer attempted to arrest Jamal's brother. None of these eyewitnesses knew each other. Each gave their accounts within minutes of the shooting, and the accounts agreed with each other in every significant detail. Several of these individuals stated that -- in some cases from less than 30 feet away -- they watched as Jamal repeatedly fired at the fallen and unarmed officer from point blank range. One even stated that Jamal took the time to bend down and fire the final shot into the wounded officer's face from less than a foot away and that the officer's "whole body jerked" when the shot hit his face. Was each and every one of these eyewitnesses - including a man called by Jamal's own lawyers in 1995, Robert Harkins - "confused" about what they saw, as Jamal and his attorneys allege?

 

FACT

 

Within a few minutes of the shooting, three of the eyewitnesses personally identified Mumia Abu-Jamal to police at the scene as the man who had shot Officer Faulkner. Again, none of these individuals knew each other. They had no time to find what other witnesses were going to say. Nor was there time for police to "coerce" or "intimidate" them prior to making their identifications. The police had no way of knowing what story to "coerce" witnesses to tell even if they had wanted to. Each witness watched from a different vantage point, and several stated that they never lost sight of Jamal from the moment the shooting stopped, until the police apprehended him and placed him in the van. Were these eyewitnesses all "mistaken" about what they saw, as Jamal and his attorneys now argue?

 

FACT

 

Jamal was apprehended only 10 feet away from Officer Faulkner's body. In his chest, Jamal had a bullet fired from Officer Faulkner's gun. If the officer was shot by a "phantom killer," as Jamal's lawyers contend, he would have shot the gunman, not Jamal. The eyewitnesses all said that Jamal shot the officer in the back before the officer even knew Jamal was there.

 

FACT

 

The gun found next to Jamal was owned by Jamal and registered in his name. Does an "innocent man" run to the scene of an arrest with his gun in his hand if he doesn't intend to use it?

 

FACT

 

Jamal's gun contained five spent casings from unique high velocity special +P ammunition. These casings were the exact brand (Federal), caliber (.38) and type (high velocity +P with a hollow base) of ammunition retrieved from Officer Faulkner's brain. Is it reasonable to believe that an "innocent man" just happened to load his gun with exact same ammunition that the "real killer" used in his gun?

 

FACT

 

The rifling characteristics of the bullet removed from Officer Faulkner's brain showed that it was fired from a barrel with 8 lands and grooves and a right hand direction of twist. This is identical to the rifling characteristics of the barrel of Jamal's gun. Is it a coincidence that an "innocent man" just happened to load his gun with the same unique ammunition as the "real killer" AND have the same riffling pattern in the barrel of his gun as the "real killer"?

 

FACT

 

Jamal's brother, William Cook, saw the murder unfold. When police arrived at the scene -- less than one minute after the shooting -- they found Cook against a wall a few feet away from the dead officer's body. Cook's only comment was, "I ain't got nothin to do with this." Would not the brother of an "innocent man" say something like, "The guy who shot the cop ran away." or "My brother didn't do it"? In fact, to this day, Cook is the only known eyewitness (other than Jamal himself) who has never testified to what he saw. He has never so much as suggested that his brother might be innocent.

 

FACT

 

The jury knew that William Cook was the closest person to the murder. Yet the jury never heard Cook testify on his brother's behalf. It does not require a degree in rocket science to understand the significance of the fact that Cook would allow his brother to be sentenced to death rather than testify to his supposed innocence. Is it believable that an "innocent" Mumia Abu-Jamal would simply accept his brother's silence and not demand to have him testify to his innocence in order to save him from conviction?

 

FACT

 

On June 21, 1982 , Officer Faulkner's blood stained shirt was displayed in the courtroom. Jamal deliberately turned around and grinned at Officer Faulkner's widow as her husband's shirt was displayed. Several witnesses saw this. Such a calculated act of evil is not characteristic of an innocent man.

 

FACT

 

Throughout the trial and at the sentencing hearing the jury saw Mumia Abu-Jamal explode with loud violent outbursts, obscenities, verbal threats and diatribes against the judge, the prosecutor, his own attorney, and even the jurors themselves. Were these the acts of an "innocent man"?

 

FACT

 

Jamal insulted and refused to speak with the lawyer he himself had selected prior to trial. He then refused to be represented by any lawyer at all. Instead, he demanded to have John Africa, the leader of a radical cult called MOVE, act as his lawyer. Would an "innocent man" concerned with keeping his freedom, as opposed to making his trial a political forum, make such absurd demands? Or would an "innocent man" work to provide his highly qualified and experienced attorney -- an attorney he hand picked -- with every bit of information and evidence he could muster that supported his innocence?

 

FACT

 

Though given two chances (the trial in 1982 and the PCRA hearing in 1996) to take the stand and explain his alleged "innocence," Mumia Abu-Jamal has refused to do so. In fact, he has refused to tell anyone what really happened on the morning Officer Faulkner was murdered; including the legion of reporters from around the world who line up to interview him. Would an "innocent man" keep the facts that prove his supposed innocence a secret?

 

FACT

 

At his sentencing hearing, Mumia Abu Jamal threatened Judge Albert Sabo in front of the entire courtroom when he said, "I'm going to tell you one thing: You have sentenced yourself, just like Judge Malmed, just like Malcolm, just like Merna Marshal, and every other Judge who dares to sit up there and act like you got some justice. You are wrong. You have just been sentenced to death. You have just been convicted!" (N.T. 5/25/83, 165)

 

you know what...on second thought...this guy does deserve something for making all the idiots in the world stand up for him and believe his bullshit. the french deserve him.

 

Damn now that's some evidence. How could this guy possibly be innocent? to frying, lethally injecting, or gassing this fvcker. He is an unrepentant, racist, cold-blooded killer. I would normally say people like this deserve to rot in prison their entire lives, but I'm so tired of hearing people in the Black community trying to defend him. Go away Mumia.

[Boz/BoFan 0]

I'm not saying they should name a street after him.

I am saying he didn't get a fair trial.

 

There is nothing more satisfying than to a see another bleeding heart, when provided facts (the ones they are too lazy and intellectually dishonest to look up), backpedalling and changing their argument.

[itsbigmoni 1]

From what i've read about the case i think he's guilty and all that, but porkbutt made me laugh. He puts fact in front of everything then ends it with would would woudl would. When you start throwing questions out there its no longer fact. As for the brother thing, jamal made it clear his lawyer was not doing his best, so maybe the lawyer never asked.

 

But in the end we both agree he did it so the ticky tacky stuff doesn't matter. I think thats the argumentative side of me.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm not saying they should name a street after him.

I am saying he didn't get a fair trial.

 

 

Crawfish much?

[porkbutt 866]

I'm not saying they should name a street after him.

I am saying he didn't get a fair trial.

you said you applaud all those in favor of naming a street after him?

 

fair trial, yeah.... the funny thing is...i see people marching in philly for this guy...they want him free....all the signs say 'free mumia'...WTF?...not a retrial?...they just want the focker freed...focking morons don't even know why.

 

From what i've read about the case i think he's guilty and all that, but porkbutt made me laugh. He puts fact in front of everything then ends it with would would woudl would.

where?

[MDC 5,947]

Many writers such as the National Journal's Stuart Taylor have referred to Mumia as "Guilty but Framed," and take the position that his guilt was apparent but that he had not received a fair trial.

 

[pingpong 0]

Where do you draw the line between unfair trial according to the judicial system and unfair trial because the guy conducted himself like a total idiot in court and refused to participate in the proceedings?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

No shiat. Showing zero respect for the judicial system does not constitute a Get Outta Jail Free Card later.

[MDC 5,947]

No shiat. Showing zero respect for the judicial system does not constitute a Get Outta Jail Free Card later.

 

This is IMO the big difference between many people who are anti death penalty vs. pro death penalty. A lot of anti death penalty people, like myself, think the rule of law is more important than punishing criminals who've committed particularly heinous crimes with death, even if their guilt is apparent. A lot of pro death penalty people are satisfied with a criminal's obvious guilt, even if that person didn't get a fair trial. Just another example of the Bush wing of the GOP's disdain for the Constitution, the rule of law, and basically everything America stands for. It's amazing that they profess such hatred for Islamofascists, since they tend to agree on basically a police state that does whatever the hell it wants to their own citizens. Amazing too how these people profess a great love of liberty and America and do everything they can to subvert our ideas. Sad, too.

[UncleHulka 0]

He was pretty good on the Cosby Show.

[Rude Rick 0]

Anyone who criticizes these brave lawmakers...ain't nothin' but a sheep.

[Big Blue 06 195]

These people in France want to name a street after this guy that looks almost certainly guilty of murder; the real question is...why?

 

Even if he didn't get a fair trial (I contend he did), what has he done to be honored in any way? The guy is a racist, a violent man, and a convicted killer.

 

Fock France, they can have him.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

A lot of pro death penalty people are satisfied with a criminal's obvious guilt, even if that person didn't get a fair trial. Just another example of the Bush wing of the GOP's disdain for the Constitution, the rule of law, and basically everything America stands for.

 

Do you have anything that shows he didn't get a fair trial?

 

Now we are anti-American cuz we don't buy into this scumbag's "I'm black so I can't get a fair trial" bullsqueeze. Crassic MDC.

[RLLD 3,539]

Not surprised at all see Cynthia "I've worn out my welcome" McKinney on the list.

 

She is the female version of Al Sharpton; Highly intelligent, but completely insane

[phillybear 365]

Everyone knows that Mumia is extremely guilty. And France is doing this purposely to rile up Americans. Apparently, it's working. For fock's sake, the French are taunting you, and winning.

[RLLD 3,539]

Everyone knows that Mumia is extremely guilty. And France is doing this purposely to rile up Americans. Apparently, it's working. For fock's sake, the French are taunting you, and winning.

 

 

They will taunt and taunt, and when we turn and walk toward them, they will run like hell....

[davebg 0]

This is IMO the big difference between many people who are anti death penalty vs. pro death penalty. A lot of anti death penalty people, like myself, think the rule of law is more important than punishing criminals who've committed particularly heinous crimes with death, even if their guilt is apparent. A lot of pro death penalty people are satisfied with a criminal's obvious guilt, even if that person didn't get a fair trial. Just another example of the Bush wing of the GOP's disdain for the Constitution, the rule of law, and basically everything America stands for. It's amazing that they profess such hatred for Islamofascists, since they tend to agree on basically a police state that does whatever the hell it wants to their own citizens. Amazing too how these people profess a great love of liberty and America and do everything they can to subvert our ideas. Sad, too.

You just can't help yourself, can you? You are such a dumbass political hack it is pathetic.

 

What does this case have anything to do w/Bush? Was he in office when Mumia murdered that police officer? Was Bush in office when Mumia was convicted?

 

Furthermore, many people are sick and tired of the violent criminals being let loose on our streets b/c they have more protections under our legal system than their victims do. Luckily, America doesn't "stand" for my view or your's...it stands for the right for both of us to have our own views on the subject without either of us being "wrong", you uneducated coffee b|tch.

[RLLD 3,539]

Bush's fault, i love it...

[kpbuckeye 2]

This is IMO the big difference between many people who are anti death penalty vs. pro death penalty. A lot of anti death penalty people, like myself, think the rule of law is more important than punishing criminals who've committed particularly heinous crimes with death, even if their guilt is apparent. A lot of pro death penalty people are satisfied with a criminal's obvious guilt, even if that person didn't get a fair trial. Just another example of the Bush wing of the GOP's disdain for the Constitution, the rule of law, and basically everything America stands for. It's amazing that they profess such hatred for Islamofascists, since they tend to agree on basically a police state that does whatever the hell it wants to their own citizens. Amazing too how these people profess a great love of liberty and America and do everything they can to subvert our ideas. Sad, too.

 

 

What is sad is somehow you found a way to drag bush into this.

you have to be the most pathetic person on the planet.

[RLLD 3,539]

What is sad is somehow you found a way to drag bush into this.

you have to be the most pathetic person on the planet.

 

He is still second to Torrid and Gutter by a mile

[Strike 4,076]

This is IMO the big difference between many people who are anti death penalty vs. pro death penalty. A lot of anti death penalty people, like myself, think the rule of law is more important than punishing criminals who've committed particularly heinous crimes with death, even if their guilt is apparent. A lot of pro death penalty people are satisfied with a criminal's obvious guilt, even if that person didn't get a fair trial. Just another example of the Bush wing of the GOP's disdain for the Constitution, the rule of law, and basically everything America stands for. It's amazing that they profess such hatred for Islamofascists, since they tend to agree on basically a police state that does whatever the hell it wants to their own citizens. Amazing too how these people profess a great love of liberty and America and do everything they can to subvert our ideas. Sad, too.

 

Apparently the rule of law for you is different than the rule of law for me. For me, the rule of law says that if you're tried in a court of law and found guilty you're guilty, unless another court says differently. In your world you get to make judgements as to the fairness of trials and, if you're personally not happy with the outcome, the trial was unfair and the rule of law is somehow violated. This guy has had appeals, yes? And, while they overturned his death sentence they did not overturn the guilty verdict, yes? Was the appeal unfair too? See, I think O.J. was guilty. But I live with the fact that a jury found him not guilty of criminal charges. I don't like it but that is the "rule of law" you hold so dear. I also think Michael Jackson is a pedophile but again, he has not been found guilty of such and I honor the rule of law. People such as yourself b!tch about the rule of law not because it hasn't been followed but because the outcome of it being followed doesn't suit you.

[The Total Package 0]

Did he kill Faulkner? Yes.

Did he get a fair trial? No.

Does he deserve to have a street named after him? Absolutely not.

Are the French jackasses? Yes.

[RLLD 3,539]

Did he kill Faulkner? Yes.

Did he get a fair trial? No.

Does he deserve to have a street named after him? Absolutely not.

Are the French jackasses? Yes.

 

[GobbleDog 822]

Why exactly do the French want to honor him? What did he do for the French? Import a bunch of Jerry Lewis DVDs or something?

[FranksTanks 0]

Why exactly do the French want to honor him? What did he do for the French? Import a bunch of Jerry Lewis DVDs or something?

to add: since when do Americans care what the French do? Why do we even vote on this kind of stuff?

[GobbleDog 822]

to add: since when do Americans care what the French do? Why do we even vote on this kind of stuff?

I wondered that too - it does seem like a waste of time. But I can sort of understand wanting to give the French official notice that America is displeased.

[MDC 5,947]

Apparently the rule of law for you is different than the rule of law for me. For me, the rule of law says that if you're tried in a court of law and found guilty you're guilty, unless another court says differently. In your world you get to make judgements as to the fairness of trials and, if you're personally not happy with the outcome, the trial was unfair and the rule of law is somehow violated. This guy has had appeals, yes? And, while they overturned his death sentence they did not overturn the guilty verdict, yes? Was the appeal unfair too? See, I think O.J. was guilty. But I live with the fact that a jury found him not guilty of criminal charges. I don't like it but that is the "rule of law" you hold so dear. I also think Michael Jackson is a pedophile but again, he has not been found guilty of such and I honor the rule of law. People such as yourself b!tch about the rule of law not because it hasn't been followed but because the outcome of it being followed doesn't suit you.

 

This would make sense if I thought Mumia was innocent - I don't. I just don't think he got a fair trial.

 

Nice try though. Way to maintain your perfect record of total wrongness, sh1t-smear.

[davebg 0]

This would make sense if I thought Mumia was innocent - I don't. I just don't think he got a fair trial.

 

Nice try though. Way to maintain your perfect record of total wrongness, sh1t-smear.

First, you just proved Strike's point. He was tried in a court of law. He was retried...over and over...had appeals and there was no shortage of publicity, supporters, etc. His conviction was not overturned.

 

That is the very definition of "rule of law"...as opposed to "your opinion", which doesn't count for jack sh|t b/c you weren't on the jury and you're a secretary, not a judge.

 

Second, why did it take you all day to respond? Trying to avoid taking credit for the way you dragged Bush into this discussion and got taken to task for it or was there just a really long line at Starbucks?

Damn those executives and their cups of double, no fat, half-caf, mochafrappachino nog!