Once again, President Obama and Eric Holder are spitting in the face of a majority of people in this country. The latest comes with the news that the President has nominated a man named Debo Adegbile to head up the Justice Department Civil Rights Division succeeding another radical left winger, Thomas Perez. And who did Mr Adegbile represent and help get out from under the death penalty? None other than celebrated cop-killer and darling of the radical left, Mumia Abu Jamal.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/01/08/obama-nominates-racist-cop-killer-defender-debo-adegbile-to-head-doj-civil-rights-division-n1773332
One can only imagine what will come next. Possibly a presidential pardon for Abu Jamal when Obama leaves office? Remember that Holder is the man who ramrodded those pardons of the FALN terrorists and Marc Rich through when Bill Clinton left office.
This is sickening.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Anyone who represented Mumia abu Jamal is good in my book. (Leaving aside the fact that every criminal defendant has a right to a competent legal defense, so attorneys have to do a competent job for their client, no matter what they believe personally, right Gary?) But Mumia's attorneys did by and large believe in him, and I do also. Even if I didn't, nothing in what Gary highlights would disqualify the man from office.
I think there is at least a 50:50 chance that someone else shot Officer Faulkner, and Faulkner, in an understandably weakened state, shot the nearest black man who vaguely resembled the man who fired the shot.
I think there is a 95 percent chance that Officer Faulkner was grossly abusing his authority and disgracing his uniform, which is not a capital offence, but can be a mitigating circumstance if someone is driven by momentary rage to retaliate.
I think there is a 35 percent chance that Mumia actually shot him after seeing him badly abusing Mumia's brother.
Yes elwood, I know, with what I think and $10... but the underlying point is, nobody KNOWS what happened. Faulkner might have known, but he's dead. Mumia might know, but maybe only knows part because he didn't see it all. There may be witnesses who know, but they haven't come forward, not anyone with coherent, comprehensive, consistent accounts that hold up over time.
So, with what Gary thinks, or what anyone else thinks, and $10... we still have a whole lot of reasonable doubt. And Mumia turns out to be such a warm, humane, kindly man, and an excellent writer.
Siarlys,
You really show your ignorance here. Abu Jamal was tried and convicted. Numerous appellate courts upheld that verdict. There was overwhelming evidence. Isn't it a coincidence that he turned out to be "the nearest black guy" at the scene where his brother was involved in a fight with officer Faulkner. You have no evidence to back up your assertion that the officer was doing anything wrong. It was a traffic stop.
Your problem is that you have bought into the radical left band wagen to free this murderer.
I am really disappointed by your character assassination of Daniel Faulkner.
Why does Siarlys not surprise me here?? This is the same kind of goofy thinking that allows right-wing kooks to justify the bombing of abortion clinics by claiming they are saving human lives by their actions.
The fact that the cop is dead does not automatically vindicate his character. Otherwise, to take an analogy to extremes, we'd have little photos with captions like "Good news Herr Doenitz. The Feuhrer's death vindicates his character."
Naturally his wife believes in him, and nobody should impugn her for it, but its not strong evidence either. Its what any spouse would do for a deceased loved one. Unfortunately, many urban police forces have a tendency to stick by their brothers in blue, right or wrong, and even retaliate viciously against any officer who breaks that code, so the fact that his fellow officers attest to his good character doesn't mean much either.
We all know he was convicted. We also all know that innocent people are convicted sometimes. Appellate courts parse procedure, and seldom reach actual innocence. The evidence was far from overwhelming. He wasn't "the nearest black guy." There was a large and angry crowd at the scene. Mumia was the one who had a bullet in his stomach, which may or may not have meant that he had shot Officer Faulkner.
Your problem is that if someone of reasonable intelligence and courtesy doesn't agree with you, the only explanation you can offer is that they "bought into" some "band wagon."
I haven't assassinated Officer Faulkner's character at all. As to the question of reasonable doubt of Mumia's guilt, I've pointed to some reasonable possibilities, which I find plausible, although, like everything about this case, far from proven.
elwood, believe it or not, a police officer berating, assaulting, battering, or intimidating by threat of force and violence, directed against a civilian during a traffic stop, is not constitutionally protected activity. Its also not a license to kill them and get off scot free.
If a full and honest airing of all evidence had been conducted, it is quite possible that Mumia would have been convicted of manslaughter. Or possibly not. But he was railroaded on perjured evidence and unsupported inferences. And the bullet in Faulkner's body was arguably the wrong size and shape to have come from Mumia's gun at all. (Unfortunately, it was, from what I've read, so mangled that it couldn't be proven reliably which gun it HAD come from).
I would favor a presidential pardon for Mumia, but President Obama has no jurisdiction. Mumia is in state prison, convicted of a state offence. Presidents can only pardon federal offences. You can breath a little easier now Gary.
P.S.--I meant to add that there is nothing racist about this that I can see. After all, a jury which knew a lot more about the case than any of us, and which incidentally had two black people on it, unanimously convicted him of first degree murder after less than six hours of deliberation, and then returned with a unanimous death penalty decision in less than two hours. Wasn't much doubt in their minds.
Gary notes that numerous appellate courts have sustained the guilty verdict. While a court did overturn the death penalty, that decision was based on what is usually referred to as a "technicality" involving jury instructions; no court to date, including SCOTUS I believe, has had any problem with the factual basis for the conviction itself and, similarly, none has seen race lurking in the wings.
Oh, I don't think the trial or conviction were racist elwood, any more than I believe that you, Gary, Squid, or Miggie are motivated by racism. It can be wrong without being racist.
Some degree of racism MAY have been an element in Officer Faulkner's initial dealings with Mumia's brother... but that isn't going to be litigated, because Officer Faulkner is dead. So its only a possibility. There are probably still some officers on the Philadelphia police force who are motivated by some degree or variety of racism... but when an officer is shot, that definitely takes precedence over what color the defendant is, in how officers feel about it. (We can all agree on that, I think).
The evidence presented at trial painted an overwhelming picture of guilt... unfortunately, it was incomplete, and in part fabricated, also drawing inferences that were far from obvious based on the evidence. Officers rightly get upset when a fellow officer is killed in the line of duty... but like all humans, there is a tendency to assume the guilt of the person arrested, rather than wait for all the evidence to add up. Sometimes there is even a desire to "make sure they are convicted" even if possibly not the right party, or not guilty of the degree of crime charged.
Geronimo Pratt was convicted by a unanimous jury, and a majority of them recanted their verdict after all the evidence came out... but jurors don't get to go back and do it over. Some of the more courageous joined the defence committee working to get him released.
Counter-point: some people who worked on Hurricane Carter's defense were so badly abused, by Carter, that they came to believe he was probably guilty. We'll never know for sure.
Siarlys,
You still have not provided any information as to Officer Faulkner's bad character. I think you have seen too many movies.
Siarlys--while you may not believe race played a part in this, the overwhelming, near-universal majority of Mumia supporters do, and are quick to bleat about it whenever possible. That is nothing more than race-mongering.
And, contrary to your assertion, jurors (maybe not the same ones, but new jurors), do in fact get to "go back and do it over". With considerable frequency, appellate courts overturn convictions for any of a great number of reasons and remand the case back to the trial court for a re-trial. It is not exceedingly difficult to find judges who are extremely liberal and who will do so in a heartbeat. Mumia's attorneys have had I believe over 30 years during which they have conducted numerous appeals, none of which have been successful but for the one relative to the death sentence.
I reiterate that in all of the many appeals, there has never been a finding of any fabrication, perjury, or anything else of that nature. Couple this with the fact that along with all the other evidence, three (3) people (I believe none of whom, incidentally, were police officers) testified that they actually saw Mumia shoot and kill Faulkner, and this case becomes a "bird's nest on the ground" as to guilt or innocence. Sorry you can't, more probably won't, see that.
Frankly Gary, you haven't provided any information as to Mumia's bad character. Do either of us really need to recreate the content of the pile of briefs both sides filed at various stage of litigation?
elwood, I'm not an authorized spokesperson for "Mumia's supporters." I only speak for myself. You whined, I offered you some positive reassurance. More than this I cannot do.
I reiterate that in all of the many appeals, there has never been a finding of any fabrication, perjury, or anything else of that nature.
You think it becomes more true or less false the more often you repeat it? The record is full of fabrication and perjury, only the state's attorneys deny it all of course. The testimony of those who claimed to "see" Mumia fire the fatal shot gave mutually inconsistent testimony, and later admitted that police threatened or bribed them to make it all up.
Of course a new trial can render a new verdict... but a juror from the previous trial changing their mind cannot.
Any more silly word games you'd like to play?
I haven't supplied info as to Mumia's bad character? Here's one. He is a convicted murderer doing life in prison. It is certified.
Circular reasoning at its finest Gary.
Now that we've talked ourselves into exhaustion on this point, I note once again that even if everything you believe about Mumia is true, that is no reflection on whether someone who acted as his defence attorney, a bona fide member of the bar and officer of the court charged with providing a competent legal defence, should in future be eligible for consideration to hold an office of public trust.
Post a Comment