25 years ago this day.

[Beleth]

That's not the point.

Answer the question, please. Was he treated justly and within the law?

 

[CFLarsen]

Answer the question, please. Was he treated justly and within the law?

Probably. Do you understand that it is not the point I am making?

 

[Beleth]

Probably.

Yes or no, please.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes or no, please.

Since there hasn't been a file for mistrial, I would assume a yes. But I don't know for sure.

Do you understand that it is not the point I am making?

 

[Beleth]

Since there hasn't been a file for mistrial, I would assume a yes. But I don't know for sure.

Do you understand that it is not the point I am making?

Do you understand that whatever point you might be making is irrelevant if he was treated justly and within the law?

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you understand that whatever point you might be making is irrelevant if he was treated justly and within the law?

I answered your question. Answer mine:

Do you understand that it is not the point I am making?

 

[Beleth]

I answered your question. Answer mine:

Do you understand that it is not the point I am making?

My answer to your question is contingent on your answer to my question.

Do you understand that whatever point you might be making is irrelevant if he was treated justly and within the law?



PS - Why are you screaming?

 

[CFLarsen]

My answer to your question is contingent on your answer to my question.

Do you understand that whatever point you might be making is irrelevant if he was treated justly and within the law?

That is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. Do you understand that?

PS - Why are you screaming?

I am not screaming. I would use CAPS if I were SCREAMING. I am emphasizing my question, which you seem very reluctant - or unable - to answer. Perhaps you didn't see it, which is why I bold it.

It isn't my contention that it was illegal that Mumia got a lawyer he didn't want. I am saying that he was forced to have a lawyer he didn't want.

Is that clear? Do you understand this?

 

[Beleth]

That is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. Do you understand that?

As I said before, my answer to this question is contingent on your answer to the following question:

Do you understand that whatever point you might be making is irrelevant if he was treated justly and within the law?

It isn't my contention that it was illegal that Mumia got a lawyer he didn't want. I am saying that he was forced to have a lawyer he didn't want.

Of what relevance is that if he got a just, lawful trial?
(Note that this is just a rephrasing of the question you are having such a hard time answering. Perhaps you will be able to answer it now.)

 

[Donal]

Except thats not true. He interviewed lawyers and picked one. He then decided during the trial to act as his own attorney. Only after it was evident he did have the capacity to do so, was he forced to allow Jackson (the attorney he originally chose) to represent him.

 

[CFLarsen]

As I said before, my answer to this question is contingent on your answer to the following question:

Do you understand that whatever point you might be making is irrelevant if he was treated justly and within the law?

And I answered it, several times. Do you understand that it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making? I am not contesting the legality, I am saying that Mumia didn't get the lawyer he wanted.

Do you understand this, yes or no? Why do you have such a hard time answering this simple question?

Of what relevance is that if he got a just, lawful trial?

Because a "just, lawful trial" does not necessarily mean that he got what he deserved. Just take a look at the rate of people who have been exonerated from death row. 1 in 9 is innocent. Do you think the 1 innocent guy got what he deserved?

(Note that this is just a rephrasing of the question you are having such a hard time answering. Perhaps you will be able to answer it now.)

I have answered it many times now.

I do not contest the legality of Mumia being forced to accept a lawyer against his will. I am saying that he was forced to accept a lawyer against his will.

Now, answer my question:

Do you understand that I am not contesting that that Mumia got a lawyer he didn't want, but that I am only saying that he didn't get a lawyer he didn't want?

Yes or No?

 

[Loss Leader]

You know, from a legal perspective there really isn't much to the Mumia case, at least not in Pennsylvania. Defense of others is tricky at best. In most states, you can defend another person, even with deadly force, if you reasonably believe that person to be in jeopardy. However, if the person you are attacking is a police officer, states are split. In some, if you reasonably believe that you are defending someone from an assailant who turns out, unbeknownst to you, to be a police officer (or is obviously an officer but is breaking the law), you may be allowed to plead that as an affirmative defense.

Unfortunately, Pennsylvania does not follow that rule. If you defend another against what turns out to be a police officer, your beliefs are irrelevant. You have no affirmative defense. You are not allowed to defend another from a police officer.

Mumia did. In that state, it was a crime. The fact that he used deadly force only tells us which crime.

I have sympathy for an otherwise intelligent person who got caught making a very, very bad decision. And I do not believe in the death penalty in any case. But the guy is guilty and should not go free.

 

[CurtC]

And I answered it, several times. Do you understand that it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making? I am not contesting the legality, I am saying that Mumia didn't get the lawyer he wanted.

Allow me to jump in here and say that I understand that it's a separate question - whether he was forced to use a lawyer he didn't want is separate from whether the legal rules were followed.

However, saying that he didn't get the lawyer he wanted is an oversimplification. He did want that lawyer, and decided at a later time that he changed his mind.

 

[Beleth]

And I answered it, several times.

Here are your responses to me after I asked that question:

1. I answered your question. Answer mine:
   
   Do you understand that it is not the point I am making?

2. That is completely irrelevant to the point I am making. Do you understand that?

Those are not answers. Those are questions.

Can you phrase your answer in the form of an answer, please?

Do you understand that it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making? I am not contesting the legality, I am saying that Mumia didn't get the lawyer he wanted.

Do you understand this, yes or no? Why do you have such a hard time answering this simple question?

Because, as I have said twice before and will repeat a third time now, my answer to that question is contingent on your answer to the question you keep pseudo-answering with more questions. Why are you having such a hard time understanding that?

Because a "just, lawful trial" does not necessarily mean that he got what he deserved.

Actually, that's the definition of "just".

Just take a look at the rate of people who have been exonerated from death row. 1 in 9 is innocent.

Evidence?

Do you think the 1 innocent guy got what he deserved?

We are not talking about some vague "1 innocent guy", we are talking specifically about Wesley Cook. And you believe that Wesley Cook got a just, lawful trial. Therefore you must believe that it was neither unjust nor illegal for him to be forced to have a lawyer he didn't want.

Am I right so far?

I have answered it many times now.

I do not contest the legality of Mumia being forced to accept a lawyer against his will. I am saying that he was forced to accept a lawyer against his will.

I know that is what you are saying.
What I don't know is why you are saying it.

Now, answer my question:

Do you understand that I am not contesting that that Mumia got a lawyer he didn't want, but that I am only saying that he didn't get a lawyer he didn't want?

Yes or No?

Actually, you are saying the exact opposite: that he did get a lawyer he didn't want.

Why won't you tell me why you are saying that?

First off, as Donal pointed out, it's not entirely true. Cook selected that attorney of his own free will. Cook then relegated that attorney to a lower position, and when the judge saw what Cook's goals in the trial were, the judge reinstated the attorney to his previous position.

Second off, as you have agreed, it did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

So why are you making a claim that is not only a half-truth, but wholly unimportant even if it were fully true?

 

[Beleth]

Name one organization (or person) that doesn't make mistakes.

The Danish Court System.
From the smallest of the Byretten to the Højesteret and Rigsretten themselves.

As my evidence, I present to you every decision they have passed down since their inception. Each decision has been utterly, absolutely, unambiguously, unarguably, fair and moral and just and legal.

If you claim otherwise, provide evidence to prove your claim.

If you do not claim otherwise, retract your insinuation that all organizations or people make mistakes.

 

[kookbreaker]

Unfortunately, Pennsylvania does not follow that rule. If you defend another against what turns out to be a police officer, your beliefs are irrelevant. You have no affirmative defense. You are not allowed to defend another from a police officer.

Mumia did. In that state, it was a crime. The fact that he used deadly force only tells us which crime.

To this day a part of me suspects that Mumia set the whole situation up to take out a cop. I admit this is purely opinion based on these factors:

Its really hard to take the wrong way up Locust St. 'by accident', as Mumia's brother did.

Its hard to believe he did this right where his brother would be parked.

The reaction upon the arrival of other police officers: "I ain't got nothin' to do with this". It just makes me wonder if he was distancing himself from a plan that his brother came up with but didn't tell him the final result.

 

[CFLarsen]

Evidence?

Why don't you read this thread, instead of making fool of yourself?

Do you understand that it is completely irrelevant to the point I am making?

I am not contesting the legality, I am saying that Mumia didn't get the lawyer he wanted.

Do you understand this, yes or no?

The Danish Court System.
From the smallest of the Byretten to the Højesteret and Rigsretten themselves.

As my evidence, I present to you every decision they have passed down since their inception. Each decision has been utterly, absolutely, unambiguously, unarguably, fair and moral and just and legal.

If you claim otherwise, provide evidence to prove your claim.

If you do not claim otherwise, retract your insinuation that all organizations or people make mistakes.

Your ignorance of the Danish Court System shines through. Any defendant or prosecutor can appeal to a higher court (usually once, unless it is a pricipal case), where the verdict can either be confirmed or overturned.

Once recent case was where two Palestinian brothers were found guilty of murder and subsequently deported. The Supreme Court overturned the latter verdict.

Your call.

 

[CFLarsen]

The Bureau of Justice Statistics has just released the 2005 version of its annual report on the death penalty in the U.S. The report notes that both the number of death sentences and the size of death row were down for 2005, and that this represents a trend over the past 5 years. The report states that there were 60 executions in 2005, all by lethal injection, and that the time between sentencing and execution was longer in 2005 than in 2004.
Source

Texas is sending fewer to death row

Texas may lead the nation by far in the number of executions carried out each year, but figures released last week suggest that support here for the ultimate punishment may be on the wane.

Over the last 10 years, the number of death sentences imposed in the state has dropped 65%, from 40 in fiscal 1996 to 14 in 2006, according to statistics compiled by the Texas Office of Court Administration. In that time, murders have remained about the same: State crime statistics show 1,476 murders in 1996 and 1,405 in 2005.

The figures are in line with a national decline in death sentences, and show that "Texas is catching up with the trend," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center.

A growing number of wrongly convicted inmates across the country and the use of DNA evidence to exonerate the innocent have made jurors increasingly reluctant to impose the death penalty, Dieter said.
...

"There has always been the idea of Texas being tough on crime, but I think as people see how much potential there is for mistakes, they're less inclined to be so heavy handed," said Vicki McCuistion, program director of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

...

Dianne Clements, president of the Houston-based victims rights group Justice For All, said the decline had more to do with U.S. Supreme Court decisions limiting the kinds of cases eligible for the death penalty than a major shift in thinking.

Whatever the reason, the death penalty is on its way out. Welcome to the civilized world.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Whatever the reason, the death penalty is on its way out. Welcome to the civilized world.

Could you please take this political diatribe to the politics subforum?

 

[CurtC]

Claus, I don't see why you're bringing in information about the death penalty at this point. We were discussing Mumia's lawyer, and Mumia's desires regarding his representation.

I am saying that Mumia didn't get the lawyer he wanted.

But he did get the lawyer he wanted.