France honors convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal

[torridjoe 48]

So???? I'm not gonna tell a law enforcement officer not to do his job. The whole policy of not chasing illegals is stupid to begin with. And once a suspect runs from law enforcement, whether it's border patrol or campus cop, the law enforcement is entitled to use reasonable force to stop the suspect. And, as it turns out, these agents were correct in their suspicion. They don't deserve 10+ years in prison for trying to protect YOU. That's why you're such a poosay that you'd let people kill your family without even trying to defend them, by your own admission. Focking communist coward.

 

You're simply wrong. They may not pursue. Further, the agent knew the suspect was not armed; he had just faced him with both hands in the air. He never mentioned a gun to anyone, before or after the incident was over.

 

You are in fact basically saying you don't care whether police follow the law or not. Which is what I suspected. You're such a racist d!ckhead you don't care about the law, as long as some Mexican gets waxed.

 

Let people kill my family without defending them? That's one of your better lies. By that I mean one of the more preposterous and malicious, of course. You're a sad sack liar, but some of your lies are moderately entertaining in their ridiculousness.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You're simply wrong. They may not pursue. Further, the agent knew the suspect was not armed; he had just faced him with both hands in the air. He never mentioned a gun to anyone, before or after the incident was over.

 

 

Any evidence?

[Strike 4,134]

You're simply wrong. They may not pursue. Further, the agent knew the suspect was not armed; he had just faced him with both hands in the air. He never mentioned a gun to anyone, before or after the incident was over.

 

You are in fact basically saying you don't care whether police follow the law or not. Which is what I suspected. You're such a racist d!ckhead you don't care about the law, as long as some Mexican gets waxed.

 

Let people kill my family without defending them? That's one of your better lies. By that I mean one of the more preposterous and malicious, of course. You're a sad sack liar, but some of your lies are moderately entertaining in their ridiculousness.

 

1) He did have a gun. He's been bragging about it all over Mexico ever since, along with the money he's going to get for suing:

 

Two of Aldrete-Davila's family members, interviewed by the Daily Bulletin in El Paso last week, said Aldrete-Davila has been smuggling drugs since he was 14 and "wouldn't move drugs unless he had a gun on him," said one.

The family member, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal, added that Aldrete-Davila has "been bragging about the money he's going to get in a lawsuit every time we talk to him - but now he's nervous."

 

2) I do care if the police follow the law. The bottom line is this is a policy not a law. If you don't know the difference let me explain it to you. If you work for the city and are on the Internet posting on message boards during your work day you're probably violating a city internet usage policy but probably not violating the law. And if these guys are so guilty how come the OIG has refused to show evidence to congresspeople who were promised it:

 

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4550939

 

3) You're the one who said you wouldn't defend your family. Sorry for bringing that up. I know it's a sore spot for you like when you said breaking the law wasn't illegal. Sometimes you say or do stupid things. You can't help it you're a pacifist coward and admitted it.

[torridjoe 48]

1) He did have a gun. He's been bragging about it all over Mexico ever since, along with the money he's going to get for suing.

 

2) I do care if the police follow the law. The bottom line is this is a policy not a law. If you don't know the difference let me explain it to you. If you work for the city and are on the Internet posting on message boards during your work day you're probably violating a city internet usage policy but probably not violating the law. And if these guys are so guilty how come the OIG has refused to show evidence to congresspeople who were promised it:

 

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4550939

 

3) You're the one who said you wouldn't defend your family. Sorry for bringing that up. I know it's a sore spot for you like when you said breaking the law wasn't illegal. Sometimes you say or do stupid things. You can't help it you're a pacifist coward and admitted it.

 

1) WHEN did he have a gun? If he had a gun and anyone saw it, it's ALSO policy to yell GUN!, so as to warn other agents/officers. Neither convicted agent ever mentioned a gun to anyone that day--not during the incident, nor after.

 

2) You don't generally get convicted of multiple crimes for violating "policy."

 

3) I never once said I wouldn't defend my family, and you know that or don't care to bother getting it straight. You don't need to be sorry; it merely cements your reputation as a total liar.

[Strike 4,134]

 

3) I never once said I wouldn't defend my family, and you know that or don't care to bother getting it straight. You don't need to be sorry; it merely cements your reputation as a total liar.

 

You can read the quote I added to my post above about the gun. As far as this BS goes, LOL. Yeah sure you didn't say it. I saw it and a bunch of others saw it. This is just like when you said it wasn't illegal to commit a crime and then tried to pretend you didn't say that either.

[Snoopy1 0]

You can read the quote I added to my post above about the gun. As far as this BS goes, LOL. Yeah sure you didn't say it. I saw it and a bunch of others saw it. This is just like when you said it wasn't illegal to commit a crime and then tried to pretend you didn't say that either.

 

 

According to RP that's hearsay....

 

LOL, good times watching you and TJ go at it...

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The stalker returns. Welcome back, loser.

[torridjoe 48]

You can read the quote I added to my post above about the gun. As far as this BS goes, LOL. Yeah sure you didn't say it. I saw it and a bunch of others saw it. This is just like when you said it wasn't illegal to commit a crime and then tried to pretend you didn't say that either.

 

You're simply lying. You are worthless as a human. I said I wouldn't defend the COUNTRY from invasion by another country. My family never entered into it.

 

You're pathetic. Are you naked when you make up sick stuff like this? That's the only thing I can think of--you're getting yourself off with this.

[Strike 4,134]

You're simply lying. You are worthless as a human. I said I wouldn't defend the COUNTRY from invasion by another country. My family never entered into it.

 

You're pathetic. Are you naked when you make up sick stuff like this? That's the only thing I can think of--you're getting yourself off with this.

 

Link? Thought not. Sure you did sure you did. And you never said it isn't illegal to commit a crime either right? See, that's the problem with spinning. Now you're spinning again. It's like you go "how do I change 'I won't defend my family' in to something that's acceptable even from a coward like me?" and then come up with something like this that sounds a little less objectionable. Or maybe you said this at a different time. I don't know. I just know what you DID say and if I were you I'd deny it too.

 

And don't forget to see the quote above from the illegal alien drug smugglers family where he admits he had a gun and brags about the money he's going to get for suing after he drove 743 lbs of pot across our border and got shot in the arse. Keep defending him, just keep defending him. It makes you look great!!

[torridjoe 48]

Link? Thought not. Sure you did sure you did. And you never said it isn't illegal to commit a crime either right? See, that's the problem with spinning. Now you're spinning again. It's like you go "how do I change 'I won't defend my family' in to something that's acceptable even from a coward like me?" and then come up with something like this that sounds a little less objectionable. Or maybe you said this at a different time. I don't know. I just know what you DID say and if I were you I'd deny it too.

 

And don't forget to see the quote above from the illegal alien drug smugglers family where he admits he had a gun and brags about the money he's going to get for suing after he drove 743 lbs of pot across our border and got shot in the arse. Keep defending him, just keep defending him. It makes you look great!!

 

You're the one making an unfounded claim. You provide the link.

 

I never said it isn't illegal to commit a crime, no. I said being here illegally isn't a crime. See? You lied. You have no credibility.

 

Where does it say he admits he had a gun at the time of the incident? No wonder it's easy for you to lie--you can't read!

 

When I begin defending him, I'll let you know. Until then, quit making it up. Only in your preschool mind would upholding justice when cops break the law, be "defending" someone else. They're dirty cops, they got busted, they're in jail where they belong. That's what we're talking about. Because you apparently have such deep seated racist hatred for Mexicans, you've warped your world view into one where it's OK for cops to be criminals, as long as they keep Mexicans out of the country.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Link? Thought not. Sure you did sure you did. And you never said it isn't illegal to commit a crime either right? See, that's the problem with spinning. Now you're spinning again. It's like you go "how do I change 'I won't defend my family' in to something that's acceptable even from a coward like me?" and then come up with something like this that sounds a little less objectionable. Or maybe you said this at a different time. I don't know. I just know what you DID say and if I were you I'd deny it too.

 

And don't forget to see the quote above from the illegal alien drug smugglers family where he admits he had a gun and brags about the money he's going to get for suing after he drove 743 lbs of pot across our border and got shot in the arse. Keep defending him, just keep defending him. It makes you look great!!

 

Or his claim that he never said the conviction was overturned...

 

And he has the gall to call anyone else a worthless human being. Torrid is such a joke its not even funny. I really wonder why I, or anyone else even tries to talk to the guy.

[torridjoe 48]

Or his claim that he never said the conviction was overturned...

 

And he has the gall to call anyone else a worthless human being. Torrid is such a joke its not even funny. I really wonder why I, or anyone else even tries to talk to the guy.

 

It's not a claim, it's a fact. You can't show that I said his conviction was overturned, because very obviously to anyone who read the thread, I never did. The fact that you can't remember to place the words "death penalty" in front of the word "conviction," is one of your myriad problems, not mine.

 

You're probably better off not talking to me. You don't have anything to actually say, apparently, and if you did you'd have a hell of a time getting anyone to believe it, because it seems you're just not that smart.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Or his claim that he never said the conviction was overturned...

 

And he has the gall to call anyone else a worthless human being. Torrid is such a joke its not even funny. I really wonder why I, or anyone else even tries to talk to the guy.

 

Yeah, the shiatstain has made all kinds of wild accusations in this thread against the cops and judges in the Jamal case, and despite my repeated requests for ANY evidence he has to support his lunatic rantings he has yet to provide a single shred. And he ignores the FACT he was convicted and the conviction was upheld on several appeals.

 

Typical of Turbin, whatever he spouts off should be taken as Gospel, but anyone else needs 4 links and an affidavid.

[torridjoe 48]

Yeah, the shiatstain has made all kinds of wild accusations in this thread against the cops and judges in the Jamal case, and despite my repeated requests for ANY evidence he has to support his lunatic rantings...

 

beyond the affadavits and amicus briefs, you mean? You've produced not a single credible source. You're arguing with an appellate judge, not me.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

beyond the affadavits and amicus briefs, you mean? You've produced not a single credible source. You're arguing with an appellate judge, not me.

 

The affadavit and amicus briefs have done exactly squat to prove your point to me, but more importantly, to any court.

 

So far the appellate courts have come down on my side, not yours. As EVIDENCE I point out the scuz is still in prison and a re-trial hasn't been ordered.

[Strike 4,134]

You're the one making an unfounded claim. You provide the link.

 

I never said it isn't illegal to commit a crime, no. I said being here illegally isn't a crime. See? You lied. You have no credibility.

 

Where does it say he admits he had a gun at the time of the incident? No wonder it's easy for you to lie--you can't read!

 

When I begin defending him, I'll let you know. Until then, quit making it up. Only in your preschool mind would upholding justice when cops break the law, be "defending" someone else. They're dirty cops, they got busted, they're in jail where they belong. That's what we're talking about. Because you apparently have such deep seated racist hatred for Mexicans, you've warped your world view into one where it's OK for cops to be criminals, as long as they keep Mexicans out of the country.

 

LOL. Dumbass, I want the link to YOUR version, where you say you wouldn't defend our country if it were invaded. At least provide that, IF YOU CAN.

 

As to this case you're pathetic. The only evidence the gov't has is the word of a chronic criminal illegal alien drug smuggler and you think that is enough evidence to put these guys away. If you're so convinced they're dirty why do you avoid my questions?

 

1) Show some proof that he didn't have a gun, or even something that looked like one as the officer said he saw. I think the quote I posted above from not one, but two of his relatives, is adequate to establish that he had one. I know you know it's adequate as well but you're too much of a doosh to ever admit you're wrong.

 

2) Why won't the OIG turn over the documents that support their case to the congresspeople they promised them to? Maybe because their case is non-existent and they know won't hold up to scrutiny? But you refuse to answer this.

 

3) Why is so much of congress pushing for hearings, a new trial, and/or a pardon for these guys if they're so bad? Noone is trying to help Abu Jumballia are they? hmmmm.......

 

You're pathetic. I hope Fervid has a gun so at least someone in that family will try to protect your children while you're huddled in the corner in the fetal position.

[torridjoe 48]

The affadavit and amicus briefs have done exactly squat to prove your point to me, but more importantly, to any court.

 

So far the appellate courts have come down on my side, not yours. As EVIDENCE I point out the scuz is still in prison and a re-trial hasn't been ordered.

 

so you admit you lied? First you said I hadn't provided ANY evidence; now you're admitting you recognize that I presented them, but they failed to persuade you. (That's no surprise; you're not bright enough to understand them, I don't suspect).

 

Just as long as we're clear you lied, then...

[torridjoe 48]

LOL. Dumbass, I want the link to YOUR version, where you say you wouldn't defend our country if it were invaded. At least provide that, IF YOU CAN.

 

What for? You have no backing whatsoever for your claim that I said it. You're the one who made the accusation; back it up or admit you're lying. Or don't, because I know you're lying and I think so do most people. They know you well enough to realize you're not credible.

 

As to this case you're pathetic. The only evidence the gov't has is the word of a chronic criminal illegal alien drug smuggler and you think that is enough evidence to put these guys away. If you're so convinced they're dirty why do you avoid my questions?

As I pointed out before, the government also has the evidence admitted and stipulated to by the defendants. I'm convinced they're dirty because they broke the law and they don't really deny it, and were convicted for it.

 

 

 

1) Show some proof that he didn't have a gun, or even something that looked like one as the officer said he saw. I think the quote I posted above from not one, but two of his relatives, is adequate to establish that he had one. I know you know it's adequate as well but you're too much of a doosh to ever admit you're wrong.

I can prove that whether he had a gun or not is irrelevant--because the agents never claimed he had one, during the incident. They admitted they saw he had no gun, but fired on him as he ran away. That's...illegal.

 

2) Why won't the OIG turn over the documents that support their case to the congresspeople they promised them to? Maybe because their case is non-existent and they know won't hold up to scrutiny? But you refuse to answer this.

Or maybe it's because they don't have a "case;" that would be the US Attorney's Office in Texas. They're the ones who presented the case for conviction.

 

3) Why is so much of congress pushing for hearings, a new trial, and/or a pardon for these guys if they're so bad? Noone is trying to help Abu Jumballia are they? hmmmm.......

So many? I count 22, or 4% of the last, defeated Congress. Why are these few doing it? Same as you, I guess--they don't care so much about law and justice, as long as the illegals are stopped.

[Strike 4,134]

What for? You have no backing whatsoever for your claim that I said it. You're the one who made the accusation; back it up or admit you're lying. Or don't, because I know you're lying and I think so do most people. They know you well enough to realize you're not credible.

 

As I pointed out before, the government also has the evidence admitted and stipulated to by the defendants. I'm convinced they're dirty because they broke the law and they don't really deny it, and were convicted for it.

I can prove that whether he had a gun or not is irrelevant--because the agents never claimed he had one, during the incident. They admitted they saw he had no gun, but fired on him as he ran away. That's...illegal.

 

Or maybe it's because they don't have a "case;" that would be the US Attorney's Office in Texas. They're the ones who presented the case for conviction.

 

So many? I count 22, or 4% of the last, defeated Congress. Why are these few doing it? Same as you, I guess--they don't care so much about law and justice, as long as the illegals are stopped.

 

LOL. I'm done with you. You can't support your argument. I will end by simply refuting one of your points. I'm sick of doing research to prove your wrong just to have you spin things again and again. A lot more than 22 signed this eh?

 

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homep...cle_1376982.php

 

As I thought you can't prove what you supposedly said about defending your family. You obviously knew what I was talking about so you obviously said it. I feel no need to prove that it was said as you've confirmed it and refuse to prove that your version exists. Logically, you must have said what I attributed to you.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

so you admit you lied? First you said I hadn't provided ANY evidence; now you're admitting you recognize that I presented them, but they failed to persuade you. (That's no surprise; you're not bright enough to understand them, I don't suspect).

 

Just as long as we're clear you lied, then...

 

Um, for them to qualify as evidence they would have to be able to be used in a court of law.

 

Your affadavit would qualify as hearsay and be thrown out since it was nothing more than the recollections of someone who interviewed third parties not under oath.

 

As for your amicus brief. It can hardly be called evidence since the definition of it is:

 

Amicus curiae (plural amici curiae) is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court," that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it.[1]. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case.

 

The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief in a case before an appellate court to which it is not a litigant. Appellate cases are normally limited to the factual record and arguments coming from the lower court case under appeal, and attorneys focus on the facts and arguments most favorable to their clients.

 

 

So, you have lied about provided evidence.

[torridjoe 48]

LOL. I'm done with you. You can't support your argument. I will end by simply refuting one of your points. I'm sick of doing research to prove your wrong just to have you spin things again and again. A lot more than 22 signed this eh?

 

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homep...cle_1376982.php

 

As I thought you can't prove what you supposedly said about defending your family. You obviously knew what I was talking about so you obviously said it. I feel no need to prove that it was said as you've confirmed it and refuse to prove that your version exists. Logically, you must have said what I attributed to you.

 

I thought you were referring to the request for the OIG files, which 22 MoC signed. You did include "pardon," which I missed. OK, 9% of Congress constitutes "so many" in your eyes.

 

That last paragraph is masterful. Did Tony Snow write it for you? It's an award-winner of tortured attempts at logic and spin. That I can't prove what I supposedly said, doesn't bring you any closer to showing that I said what YOU claim I did. I like how you say I confirmed what you said is true, simply because I recognized the lie you were recycling from an earlier time.

 

So...you fock young boys. When I bring this up again, be careful not to admit that you remember me bringing it up the first time, because that will mean you admit that you DO fock young boys, based on what you explained above.

 

And yes--of course what I said about you focking young boys is a lie--because a boy would chew off his own ###### before letting you touch it.

[Strike 4,134]

I thought you were referring to the request for the OIG files, which 22 MoC signed. You did include "pardon," which I missed. OK, 9% of Congress constitutes "so many" in your eyes.

 

That last paragraph is masterful. Did Tony Snow write it for you? It's an award-winner of tortured attempts at logic and spin. That I can't prove what I supposedly said, doesn't bring you any closer to showing that I said what YOU claim I did. I like how you say I confirmed what you said is true, simply because I recognized the lie you were recycling from an earlier time.

 

So...you fock young boys. When I bring this up again, be careful not to admit that you remember me bringing it up the first time, because that will mean you admit that you DO fock young boys, based on what you explained above.

 

And yes--of course what I said about you focking young boys is a lie--because a boy would chew off his own ###### before letting you touch it.

 

LOL. you're really pathetic. First of all, the 9% you now concede is only the republicans who sent a letter to the president the other day. It does not include the democrats, and there are numerous, who also support some sort of justice for these two loyal gov't servants who got screwed.

 

As to your idiotic attempt to defame me, the difference is I never said that and would never acknowledge having said anything remotely like that. On the other hand, when I mentioned that you had said you wouldn't defend your family you were like "no I didn't say that I said I wouldn't defend our country". Why would you even acknowledge anything remotely like what I said you said, and knowing exactly what I was referring to, unless you said it? And if it was really about defending our country, something so far removed from what I know you said, why would you relate the two statements and try to use one to try to defuse the other? Maybe because you actually said what I said you said?

 

Ok, now I"m REALLY done. Enough owning Torrid for one day

[torridjoe 48]

LOL. you're really pathetic. First of all, the 9% you now concede is only the republicans who sent a letter to the president the other day. It does not include the democrats, and there are numerous, who also support some sort of justice for these two loyal gov't servants who got screwed.

 

As to your idiotic attempt to defame me, the difference is I never said that and would never acknowledge having said anything remotely like that. On the other hand, when I mentioned that you had said you wouldn't defend your family you were like "no I didn't say that I said I wouldn't defend our country". Why would you even acknowledge anything remotely like what I said you said, and knowing exactly what I was referring to, unless you said it? And if it was really about defending our country, something so far removed from what I know you said, why would you relate the two statements and try to use one to try to defuse the other? Maybe because you actually said what I said you said?

 

Ok, now I"m REALLY done. Enough owning Torrid for one day

 

is right. That last paragraph is incomprehensible. Go back to letting Tony write for you.

 

How did they get screwed, exactly? Are you saying they didn't get a fair trial? You apologizing for their criminal behavior is not the same thing. And if you want to align yourselves with Congressional Republicans--surely among the most credible and non-corrupt people in the country--go right ahead. The rest of the country thinks you're a clueless idiot, too.

[ProfessorZ 0]

All of this could've been avoided if Cousin Vinny had defended Mumia.

[phillybear 365]

You're simply lying. You are worthless as a human. I said I wouldn't defend the COUNTRY from invasion by another country. My family never entered into it.

 

Actually, torrid, you did say you would not defend your family either. You would allow the invaders to enter your house with no resistence. People were throwing rape scenarios at you, and you were committed to being a pacifist. I have a very good memory, and the declaration was so shocking, it left a lasting impression into my memory.

 

But this thread has been fun. Carry on.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Actually, torrid, you did say you would not defend your family either. You would allow the invaders to enter your house with no resistence. People were throwing rape scenarios at you, and you were committed to being a pacifist. I have a very good memory, and the declaration was so shocking, it left a lasting impression into my memory.

 

But this thread has been fun. Carry on.

 

I'm glad someone else remembered that thread. I do as well, but didn't say anything until now because Turbin would just ask me for PHYSICAL EVIDENCE and then when I provided it he would ignore it completely.

 

Unfortunately it was before the Big Crash and finding the thread is impossible. But it is just another example of Turbin getting caught in a lie.

[Recidivist 1]

beyond the affadavits and amicus briefs, you mean? You've produced not a single credible source. You're arguing with an appellate judge, not me.

 

Are you referring to the amicus brief submitted by Yamamoto?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Gotta love how Turbin ran away from this response with his tail between his legs.

Does it every time his lies are exposed.

 

 

Um, for them to qualify as evidence they would have to be able to be used in a court of law.

 

Your affadavit would qualify as hearsay and be thrown out since it was nothing more than the recollections of someone who interviewed third parties not under oath.

 

As for your amicus brief. It can hardly be called evidence since the definition of it is:

 

Amicus curiae (plural amici curiae) is a legal Latin phrase, literally translated as "friend of the court," that refers to someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case to assist the court in deciding a matter before it.[1]. The information may be a legal opinion in the form of a brief, testimony that has not been solicited by any of the parties, or a learned treatise on a matter that bears on the case.

 

The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief in a case before an appellate court to which it is not a litigant. Appellate cases are normally limited to the factual record and arguments coming from the lower court case under appeal, and attorneys focus on the facts and arguments most favorable to their clients.

So, you have lied about provided evidence.

[Sho Nuff 720]

It's not a claim, it's a fact. You can't show that I said his conviction was overturned, because very obviously to anyone who read the thread, I never did. The fact that you can't remember to place the words "death penalty" in front of the word "conviction," is one of your myriad problems, not mine.

 

You're probably better off not talking to me. You don't have anything to actually say, apparently, and if you did you'd have a hell of a time getting anyone to believe it, because it seems you're just not that smart.

 

I did show where you said it. I explained to you that no conviction was overturned but a sentence was overturned. You still don't get it and keep spinning...rather than just admitting you used the word conviction on accident and made an error.

 

I would be better off not talking to you. As would everyone on this board. Because no matter what anyone posts in disagreement with you, you will deny facts and things posted for everyone to see. Always claiming you are right.

 

I have plenty to say...have said it. And getting anyone to believe it? About you...not that hard. Now you go for the personal attacks on my intelligence. Quite funny coming from the guy who was so entrenched in polls he ended up with a 6 month hiatus from the board because of it.

 

 

Grow up...then get a clue. You are not half as smart as you think you are.

[porkbutt 873]

 

figures torridjoe would show up in this thread to stick up for this piece of sh;t. pieces of sh;t tend to stick together. you should just worry about focking treehugging and blogging in oregon...it's common knowledge that he killed him here in philly.

 

a great article describing liberal poosays like yourself that have no focking clue other than blindly following some gay radical poosay agenda....

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=3642

 

But I'm getting ahead of myself. I was at the hearing in August 1995 because I was trying to discover just what it is about Jamal that has made him into an international celebrity. His fame is certainly a mystery to the working journalists of Philadelphia who have covered his case since the beginning. The evidence against Jamal at his trial was so conclusive that no one, not even those who are Philadelphia's politically liberal equivalent of the conservative, wealthy Main Line residents, doubts that Jamal shot police officer Daniel Faulkner.

 

One of the journalists who knows the case best is David Holmberg, who covered it for the Philadelphia Daily News. At the time of the trial in 1982, he was a committed liberal who was very skeptical of the Philadelphia police. He was prepared to give Jamal the benefit of the doubt. "It was just one of those things where the whole tone was, hey, this is a black guy. This is the Philadelphia police. If you were there at the time, your first inclination was to identify with Jamal," says Holmberg. "But the evidence was just so overwhelming. The testimony was so convincing."

 

The next morning, the newspapers said that a twenty-five-year-old cop by the name of Daniel Faulkner had been shot to death. Jamal was also shot, apparently by the cop. The facts were not controversial. Faulkner had stopped Jamal's brother, William Cook, for a traffic violation. Jamal happened, by what appears to have been pure coincidence, to have been driving a cab nearby. He observed Faulkner and Cook struggling. He ran across the street toward them and shot Faulkner in the back, according to the police account. Faulkner got off one shot and hit Jamal in the chest. Jamal then stood over the fallen officer and fired four more shots. When police arrived on the scene they found Faulkner dying from a bullet between the eyes and Jamal sitting on a curb nearby. A .38 caliber Charter Arms revolver registered to Jamal was at his feet with five spent cartridges in it. Jamal was wearing a holster.

[Rude Rick 0]

All you people ragging on t-joe...your all a bunch of ignorant sheep.

[Strike 4,134]

Actually, torrid, you did say you would not defend your family either. You would allow the invaders to enter your house with no resistence. People were throwing rape scenarios at you, and you were committed to being a pacifist. I have a very good memory, and the declaration was so shocking, it left a lasting impression into my memory.

 

But this thread has been fun. Carry on.

 

What? Independent confirmation of the truth? LOL. TorridMuhammad backtracking and lieing and spinning? Say it isn't so? LOL. I own TorridMuhammad yet again

[Recliner Pilot 61]

So, Turbin still hasn't come up with a shred of evidence to support his outlandish accusations...........and he vanishes like my d!ck in freezing weather. No really, sumbitch looks like a button on a fur coat when it's cold.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

alsonotreally