Paris praises Mumia

[Justice 0]

 

Image Placeholder while I prepare a response.

Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... Where's our response?

[Guest MD2020]

Ok, here's the disputed facts

 

Mumia saw his brother getting arrested or beat down by what turned out to be an undercover cop and went over to help or whatnot.  A struggle soon followed and the cop wound up dead, and Mumia was holding a gun, crying.  Meanwhile, the brother escaped.  A heavily majority white jury found Mumia guilty of first degree murder, while his brother remained in hiding, and could not testify on behalf of Jamal.

 

The thing is that Mumia is one of the best journalists in the world; he is no Jayson Blair.  I have seen his writing; it is unbelievably excellent.  Someone that talented on Death Row, combined with a corrupt city of Philadelphia, and you get massive protests of him getting the death penalty.  But the brother is still not testifying, and for that, Jamal may be toast.

Uh....no.

 

Mumia's brother, William Cook, was pulled over for going the wrong way down a one-way street. Faulkner radioed that he pulled over Cook's car, and then went out to investigate. Clark started to refuse arrest, struck Faulkner, and a struggle happened.

 

Mumia was across the street at this time, and ran towards the two men. While about 10-12 inches away, Mumia shot Faulkner in the back. Faulkner turned and returned fire, striking Mumia in the chest. Then, as Faulkner laid on the ground, Mumia put his gun a few inches from his face and pulled the trigger, sending a bullet into Faulkner's brain, and killing him instanly.

 

As for the racial aspect of the jury, there has been no evidence shown that this is the case. Mumia himself used his peremptory challanges to exclude black jurors. And, in both 1989 and 1998, the PA Supreme Court found "not a trace of support for an inference that the use of peremptories was racially motivated".

there are 1000's of accounts of that day, and the one you have is from the people that believe that he is guilty. Go to a site that thinks he's innocent and it will tell another story.

 

Like its said, there's nowhere to get a definitive story anymore. I personally don't give a shit.

1000s of accounts? Huh? It happened at 4:00 in the morning, during winter, in Center City Philadelphia--where would these 1000s of accounts come from?

 

The scenario that I put forth is based on eyewitness testimony--you know, by people who were there. That tends to give them a little more credibility in my opinon.

 

And yes, danielfaulkner.com does think Mumia is guilty. There also have posted the trial transcripts and appeal decisions. How come none of the "Mumia is innocent" sites do that?

 

The "Free Mumia" sites tend to have the discredited "It wasn't a .38!!!" story and other such untruths. That's why I don't trust them.

[Ripper 0]

Ok, here's the disputed facts

 

Mumia saw his brother getting arrested or beat down by what turned out to be an undercover cop and went over to help or whatnot.  A struggle soon followed and the cop wound up dead, and Mumia was holding a gun, crying.  Meanwhile, the brother escaped.  A heavily majority white jury found Mumia guilty of first degree murder, while his brother remained in hiding, and could not testify on behalf of Jamal.

 

The thing is that Mumia is one of the best journalists in the world; he is no Jayson Blair.  I have seen his writing; it is unbelievably excellent.  Someone that talented on Death Row, combined with a corrupt city of Philadelphia, and you get massive protests of him getting the death penalty.  But the brother is still not testifying, and for that, Jamal may be toast.

Uh....no.

 

Mumia's brother, William Cook, was pulled over for going the wrong way down a one-way street. Faulkner radioed that he pulled over Cook's car, and then went out to investigate. Clark started to refuse arrest, struck Faulkner, and a struggle happened.

 

Mumia was across the street at this time, and ran towards the two men. While about 10-12 inches away, Mumia shot Faulkner in the back. Faulkner turned and returned fire, striking Mumia in the chest. Then, as Faulkner laid on the ground, Mumia put his gun a few inches from his face and pulled the trigger, sending a bullet into Faulkner's brain, and killing him instanly.

 

As for the racial aspect of the jury, there has been no evidence shown that this is the case. Mumia himself used his peremptory challanges to exclude black jurors. And, in both 1989 and 1998, the PA Supreme Court found "not a trace of support for an inference that the use of peremptories was racially motivated".

there are 1000's of accounts of that day, and the one you have is from the people that believe that he is guilty. Go to a site that thinks he's innocent and it will tell another story.

 

Like its said, there's nowhere to get a definitive story anymore. I personally don't give a shit.

1000s of accounts? Huh? It happened at 4:00 in the morning, during winter, in Center City Philadelphia--where would these 1000s of accounts come from?

 

The scenario that I put forth is based on eyewitness testimony--you know, by people who were there. That tends to give them a little more credibility in my opinon.

 

And yes, danielfaulkner.com does think Mumia is guilty. There also have posted the trial transcripts and appeal decisions. How come none of the "Mumia is innocent" sites do that?

 

The "Free Mumia" sites tend to have the discredited "It wasn't a .38!!!" story and other such untruths. That's why I don't trust them.

Oh for christ sake, I don't care if he is guilty or not, but honestly, the only person that was a clear eyewitness was a drug addicted prostitute that others alledged was given a deal to testify. No eyewitness ever saw when Mumia was shot, yet the site you are quoting talks of how he was turning or falling when he shot him or whatever.

 

As cute as they want to make thier site seem, that thing has no more legitamacy than the "FREE MUMIA~!" sites. Every "myth" that they "disprove" can be "proven" another way(expect for the wrong bullet thing).

 

There are people that say the officer shot first and then turned to aviod MUMIA's shot and thats when he got shot in the back. This site says Mumbia shot him, the officer turned fired and fell. I don't know what happend, and seeing as the "eyewitnesses that saw everything" never saw the officer even pull his gun, how accurate can they be.

 

In all honesty, I think that he did murder the cop, but lets stop pretending that people that think differently are idiots and that site is gospel. It is the same as a "Free Mumia" site in that it will say anything that supports it belief and ignore anything that doesn't.

 

It basically lost all creditbility when it said that the Black Panthers "advocated drug dealing, murder...etc."

[Guest MD2020]

I disagree. They have the full trial transcripts, decisions, appeals, etc. on their website. You can see exactly what the witnesses said, how they identified Mumia, etc. None of the Mumia sites have this. Therefore, I feel that DF.com is more legitimate than the Free Mumia sites.

 

As for Cynthia White, she was not the only witness. While the other witnesses did not clearly see Mumia shoot Faulkner in the back, they did see him deliver the fatal blow:

 

Robert Chobert:

 

Jamal - "You did see the cop being shot - the man shoot the cop?"

 

Chobert - "Yeah, I said I did didn't I."

 

Jamal - "Well, you sure did. And you saw me in the back of the wagon didn't you?"

 

Chobert - "Yes, I did."

 

Jamal - "What made you certain it (I) was the same man?"

 

Chobert - "Because I saw you, buddy. I saw you shoot him."

 

Jamal - "You saw me-"

 

Chobert - I saw you shoot him, and I never took my eyes off you until you got in the back of the wagon

 

 

Michael Scanlan:

 

At that point, the Officer reacted, trying to subdue the gentleman, and during that time, another man came running out of the parking lot across the street towards the officer and the gentleman in front of the police car. I saw his hand come up, like this, and I heard a gunshot when the man got to the policeman and the gentleman he had been talking to. Then the officer fell down on the sidewalk and the man walked over and was standing at his feet and shot him twice, I saw two flashes.

 

Scanlan described watching the gunman fire into the fallen officer's face:

 

ADA McGill: Do you know whether or not any of those shots hit the officer?

 

Scanlan: Yes, Sir. I could see that one hit the officer in the face. Because his body jerked. His whole body jerked.

 

(Comments in Italiacs not part of the offical transcript--they are included to describe the next question).

 

I do not think that all people who think Mumia is innocent are idiots. Some--yes. But not all. I do think that they are mistaken, or, in very rare extreme cases, know that Mumia is guilty but don't care.

 

As for the theory of Faulkner turning, I admit that it's a theory. But it's a theory supported by the evidence. I would be interested if you could tell or show me any sites where it says that Faulkner shot first. Thank you.

[Ripper 0]

I would but it would require me to research this pointless argument that I personally don't care about. I'm sure someone will. But bottom line, the bullet came from a downward angle, thus meaning that the officer HAD to be standing when he took the shot. All of the witnesses NEVER saw the officer even draw his gun, but claimed to have seen everything. Frankly, they had to not be looking at one time or another. So then comes the theory that the officer must have pulled his gun when he was on the ground...only the evidence doesnt' say that.

 

How can you claim to have seen the entire crime but completely missed a guy pulling and firing a gun at the other? I think that Mumia did the shit, but that is fucking absurd.

[Justice 0]

The theory of him turning around and shooting the gun though with Mumia leaning forwards works much better than anything else suggested. I mean, if he spun around and he's right-handed it could easily block out all the view of the people on the right-side of him. And a quick shot before going down with Mumia leaning forwards from running could easily cause a downward angle for the shot. But again, it's all theory. Of course, one could say that maybe they were still a bit shocked at what was going on to take what's going on.

 

In all honesty, eyewitnesses are overrated. They often screw things up or miss things or stuff like that, but with the evidence given (Ballistics and the bullet itself) seems to point towards Mumia no matter what, and that's really something you can't dispute.

[Ripper 0]

Yeah, I mean he is guilty in my eyes because he obviously shot the guy and they try to say he didn't. If he went for a self defense or justifiable homicide plea, maybe. But to say he didn't do it...comeon.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I wonder if I could spare us all the trouble and just arrange to have the bastard shivved in the showers.

 

Gotta go make some phone calls.....

The man who shivs Mumia gets free cigs from the guards till the day he dies.

 

Which is why I assume he is kept away from gen. pop. in prison.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Judge is a murderer.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

One question:

 

Did Faulkner have anything against the brothers prior to this? Because the prosecution uses the phrase "premeditated murder" several times when both theories seem to agree that the murder happened very quickly and in result to Faulkner pulling over his brother. How could that be pre-planned?

[Justice 0]

One question:

 

Did Faulkner have anything against the brothers prior to this? Because the prosecution uses the phrase "premeditated murder" several times when both theories seem to agree that the murder happened very quickly and in result to Faulkner pulling over his brother. How could that be pre-planned?

I think the fact that Mumia was sitting in a cab across the street lends itself to being a bit premeditated, but I'm not quite sure.

 

Tyler: Wow, you hold grudges for a long time, don't you?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Tyler: Wow, you hold grudges for a long time, don't you?

 

Die, whore.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

One question:

 

Did Faulkner have anything against the brothers prior to this? Because the prosecution uses the phrase "premeditated murder" several times when both theories seem to agree that the murder happened very quickly and in result to Faulkner pulling over his brother. How could that be pre-planned?

I think the fact that Mumia was sitting in a cab across the street lends itself to being a bit premeditated, but I'm not quite sure.

 

Tyler: Wow, you hold grudges for a long time, don't you?

So he had his brother intentionally speed and then hope he was pulled over, and then instead of shooting him from a safe distance with a rifle, he got up real close, shot him with his own gun, and did so in enough time to give Faulkner enough time to get a shot off in self-defense?

 

Surely there are easier ways to kill a policeman.

[Justice 0]

*Shrugs* I dunno, I'm just telling you what I know. Maybe he wanted to kill him like that, standing over him and killing him with a shot to the head execution-style. Maybe he wanted to send a message with it and have it be symbolic rather than just killing him. But hey, this is all big speculation.

 

Tyler: I love you, too .

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Tyler: I love you, too .

 

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

*Shrugs* I dunno, I'm just telling you what I know. Maybe he wanted to kill him like that, standing over him and killing him with a shot to the head execution-style. Maybe he wanted to send a message with it and have it be symbolic rather than just killing him. But hey, this is all big speculation.

 

Tyler: I love you, too .

I'm not saying that Mumia is innocent (in all likelihood he is guilty from the trial transcripts I stayed up last night reading) but if Mumia wasn't jacking off with his Move buddies and asking for John Africa to be his counsel, he could've pointed out that the murder was spur-of-themoment and had a shot at a life sentance.

[Guest MD2020]

One question:

 

Did Faulkner have anything against the brothers prior to this? Because the prosecution uses the phrase "premeditated murder" several times when both theories seem to agree that the murder happened very quickly and in result to Faulkner pulling over his brother. How could that be pre-planned?

I think the fact that Mumia was sitting in a cab across the street lends itself to being a bit premeditated, but I'm not quite sure.

 

Tyler: Wow, you hold grudges for a long time, don't you?

So he had his brother intentionally speed and then hope he was pulled over, and then instead of shooting him from a safe distance with a rifle, he got up real close, shot him with his own gun, and did so in enough time to give Faulkner enough time to get a shot off in self-defense?

 

Surely there are easier ways to kill a policeman.

Not speeding. Wrong way down one way street.

 

I think that Mumia saw his brother in trouble and went to help. IMO, if he had shot Faulkner just the one time, it would be "in the heat of the moment" type thing and not first-degree murder. Perhaps second-degree or manslaughter. However, since he stood over Faulkner's body, and fired several times, it's first degree.

 

But like I said, that's just me.

[Ripper 0]

One question:

 

Did Faulkner have anything against the brothers prior to this? Because the prosecution uses the phrase "premeditated murder" several times when both theories seem to agree that the murder happened very quickly and in result to Faulkner pulling over his brother. How could that be pre-planned?

I think the fact that Mumia was sitting in a cab across the street lends itself to being a bit premeditated, but I'm not quite sure.

 

Tyler: Wow, you hold grudges for a long time, don't you?

So he had his brother intentionally speed and then hope he was pulled over, and then instead of shooting him from a safe distance with a rifle, he got up real close, shot him with his own gun, and did so in enough time to give Faulkner enough time to get a shot off in self-defense?

 

Surely there are easier ways to kill a policeman.

Not speeding. Wrong way down one way street.

 

I think that Mumia saw his brother in trouble and went to help. IMO, if he had shot Faulkner just the one time, it would be "in the heat of the moment" type thing and not first-degree murder. Perhaps second-degree or manslaughter. However, since he stood over Faulkner's body, and fired several times, it's first degree.

 

But like I said, that's just me.

Yeah, but seeing as he(Mumia) was shot, any lawyer worth a shit could have argued justifiable homicide or at least gotten him life. Especially when no eyewitness saw the officer shoot him, they could have argued that he was shot first. i might be bullshit, but its just about planting a seed for reasonable doubt.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Not speeding. Wrong way down one way street.

 

I think that Mumia saw his brother in trouble and went to help. IMO, if he had shot Faulkner just the one time, it would be "in the heat of the moment" type thing and not first-degree murder. Perhaps second-degree or manslaughter. However, since he stood over Faulkner's body, and fired several times, it's first degree.

 

But like I said, that's just me.

Yes, but competant legal counsel (Which Mumia took away from himself) could argue that he was acting out of his brother's defense in the first place, and after he exchanged shots with Faulkner he was not in control of his actions and was acting out of self-preservation.

 

But, Mumia's defense was so sloppy and hinged on evidence brought forth by a medical doctor with no ballistics experience (which was disproved anyway) that he really shot himself in the foot.

[Justice 0]

Then it comes down to the argument of "Does a police officer have the right to fire if he sees a guy with a gun running at him" which is not a good position, but better than the one he's currently in.

[Justice 0]

Yes, but competant legal counsel (Which Mumia took away from himself) could argue that he was acting out of his brother's defense in the first place

They tried to make this case and it didn't quite work, but there's some logic to it.

 

, and after he exchanged shots with Faulkner he was not in control of his actions and was acting out of self-preservation.

 

I think this is near impossible to argue. Just how he stood over him and shot him in the face would be well over what one could consider self-defense.

 

Just to understand, though, I know that this isn't your view on the actual case at hand, your just suggesting a better defense for him.

[Guest MD2020]

Then it comes down to the argument of "Does a police officer have the right to fire if he sees a guy with a gun running at him" which is not a good position, but better than the one he's currently in.

Is this really relevant if Mumia shot first, which is consistent with the eye-witness testimony.

 

Basically, the eyewitnesses all say that they heard a shot and saw Faulkner go down. From there, no one knows how Mumia got shot, but it's clear that he did, and then Mumia shot Faulkner in the face.

 

And bad legal counsel doesn't fly since Mumia defended himself.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Then it comes down to the argument of "Does a police officer have the right to fire if he sees a guy with a gun running at him" which is not a good position, but better than the one he's currently in.

Mumia fired first according to witnesses, so Faulkner had the law on his side at that point. But Mumia tried to be repentant, and he explained that he was simply trying to help his brother out, that kills the death sentance right there. (If murder is not done in cold blood in a liberal city in America the death penalty is a hard sell) But the brother not testifying was a great hinderance (and very suggestive) and Mumia made no attempt to be repentant. He even challenged the US goverment's RIGHT to convict him. What an ass.

[Justice 0]

Ah, I thought you were using the "Maybe he was fired on first" argument with that. Sorry there.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Yes, but competant legal counsel (Which Mumia took away from himself)  could argue that he was acting out of his brother's defense in the first place

They tried to make this case and it didn't quite work, but there's some logic to it.

 

, and after he exchanged shots with Faulkner he was not in control of his actions and was acting out of self-preservation.

 

I think this is near impossible to argue. Just how he stood over him and shot him in the face would be well over what one could consider self-defense.

 

Just to understand, though, I know that this isn't your view on the actual case at hand, your just suggesting a better defense for him.

Dude, don't feel bad about correcting me, I've only been studying the case for a few hours, and we're not even arguing. We're kinda comparing notes, really.

[Ripper 0]

Then it comes down to the argument of "Does a police officer have the right to fire if he sees a guy with a gun running at him" which is not a good position, but better than the one he's currently in.

Is this really relevant if Mumia shot first, which is consistent with the eye-witness testimony.

 

Basically, the eyewitnesses all say that they heard a shot and saw Faulkner go down. From there, no one knows how Mumia got shot, but it's clear that he did, and then Mumia shot Faulkner in the face.

 

And bad legal counsel doesn't fly since Mumia defended himself.

Thats where the problem lies. Balistics say that Faulkner HAD to be standing when he fired the shot. All of the witnesses say they heard a shot and Faulkner went down....something doesn't match.

 

Of course the fact that Faulkner was shot in the back doesn't help but could be easily argued that he rolled when on the ground. The fact that the eyewitnesses claim to have seen Mumia run across the street and to the officer(basically claiming to see the whole thing) but never seeing him being shot, when the shot had to come when he was standing, is a pretty easy way for the defense to refute their testimony.

 

But of course Mumia was a jackass and ran away the good councel he had, so fuck him.

[Dr. Tom 0]

But Mumia tried to be repentant, and he explained that he was simply trying to help his brother out, that kills the death sentance right there.

It does?

 

How?

 

Because he decided it would be good for him to feel sorry for it? Or because the whole thing falls under the umbrella of "helping his brother out." Sorry, but when someone "help his brother out" by shooting a cop in the back then standing over the prone, wounded officer and shooting him in the face, that goes quite a ways beyond help, IMO. That makes someone a cold-blooded killer.

 

(If murder is not done in cold blood in a liberal city in America the death penalty is a hard sell)

The whole thing seems pretty cold-blooded to me.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Because, if he wasn't thinking, if it was done on the spur of the moment and wasn't pre-meditated and simply escelated from there one could argue that second degree murder is more appropriate.

[Ripper 0]

Because, if he wasn't thinking, if it was done on the spur of the moment and wasn't pre-meditated and simply escelated from there one could argue that second degree murder is more appropriate.

Is it possible to get murder one without premeditation? Or is murder one decided upon the nature of the crime and/or its intent?

[Justice 0]

Because, if he wasn't thinking, if it was done on the spur of the moment and wasn't pre-meditated and simply escelated from there one could argue that second degree murder is more appropriate.

Is it possible to get murder one without premeditation? Or is murder one decided upon the nature of the crime and/or its intent?

I think they can pull a premeditation when he stepped over his body and went for the kill shot like he did.

 

And B-X, where the hell is your response to all this?