• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

No death penalty for Mumia

Life in prison is still a death sentence, just slower.

And now he gets to move out of Death Row and socialize! Won't that be exciting!
 
There's no doubt Mumia did it, at least for those of us who are skeptics.

It seems every high profile murder case has it's gang of useful idiots (OJ, AK, WM3, etc), and this one was no exception.

AFAIK, Paris, France does not have any streets named after Ms. Knox or any of the West Memphis 3.

That's one of the things that really ticks me off.
 
Just because a good case can be made that some people have been wrongly convicted, doesn't mean every sob-story case is in that category.

Rolfe.
 
Life in prison is still a death sentence, just slower.

And now he gets to move out of Death Row and socialize! Won't that be exciting!

Maybe he'll have new inmates to gush over and blame 'the system' for being in prison - that fellow death-row inmate who was in for raping and killing an eight year old girl was getting stale for him to ramble about.
 
In the cases of AK and the wm3 all the useful idiots are busy shilling for the prosecution. Mumia, OTOH, is as guilty as sin. Hopefully now his death sentence has been commuted people will shut up about him and he can sink into obscurity where he belongs.

Paris should rename that street after Daniel Faulkner instead.
 
Free Mumia! With purchase of a second Mumia at regular price. Limit one per customer.

Is the Mumia from Egyptian or non-Egyptian mummies?



On a more serious note I hope that Sword of Truth is right and that this decision will cause some of the people sending Faulkner's widow hate mail and the like to stop doing it. But reading through some of the articles on the linked website makes me think that this might not be the case.
 
In the United States, you can legally use deadly force to protect someone else from assault - unless the person doing the assaulting is a police officer.

Mumia is almost definitely guilty, probably got an unfair trial, and the cop he killed probably had it coming.
 
I don't see why its a problem. The 1st Amendment just says that the gov't can't restrict your speech - not that it cannot be used against you.
No, I don't agree with that. It doesn't say, "Voice whatever political views you want and then the state will decide whether to punish you for them." It says you won't be punished for expressing political views. Not even if the state decides that you have thrown it a huge pretext for doing so. The state presented a case to the jury that Mumia deserved a harsh punishment because, some time before the murder, he had quoted Mao Zedong.

Yates v. US said:
When the propriety of obnoxious or unfamiliar views about government is in reality made the crucial issue, [...] prejudice makes conviction inevitable except in the rarest circumstances.
 
Last edited:
In the United States, you can legally use deadly force to protect someone else from assault - unless the person doing the assaulting is a police officer.

Mumia is almost definitely guilty, probably got an unfair trial, and the cop he killed probably had it coming.

Bullcrap. Faulkner was doing his job and was murdered. Mumia got a completely fair trial that he tried to make a mockery of.

You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
No, I don't agree with that. It doesn't say, "Voice whatever political views you want and then the state will decide whether to punish you for them." It says you won't be punished for expressing political views. Not even if the state decides that you have thrown it a huge pretext for doing so. The state presented a case to the jury that Mumia deserved a harsh punishment because, some time before the murder, he had quoted Mao Zedong.

Mumia went on the stand to tell the jury that he was a non-violent guy. That means the state can use evidence, including stuff he wrote, to show that maybe he isn't such a sweety after all. You're not being punished for saying it. You're having evidence presented as to what kind of criminal you are.

While you might disagree, the PA Supreme Court agreed with my argument- unanimously.
 
In the United States, you can legally use deadly force to protect someone else from assault - unless the person doing the assaulting is a police officer.

Mumia is almost definitely guilty, probably got an unfair trial, and the cop he killed probably had it coming.
On the assumption that this is not a troll: The Daniel Faulkner web site (previously linked) has full transcripts of the trial. If you read through them I think you'll find that the party who did the most to interfere with Mumia's right to a defense, by far, was Mumia.
 
On the assumption that this is not a troll: The Daniel Faulkner web site (previously linked) has full transcripts of the trial. If you read through them I think you'll find that the party who did the most to interfere with Mumia's right to a defense, by far, was Mumia.

Indeed, if anything that's putting it lightly.

Mumia didn't want a trial. He wanted a political grandstand. He wanted a Chicago 7-style chaos-fest. He made ludicrous demands and other demands without warning. He made crazy outbursts at all times. He kept important documents from his own lawyer. He didn't listen to his lawyer, and despite hand-picking his own lawyer he berated and insulted the man when he tried to give Mumia advice.
 
In the United States, you can legally use deadly force to protect someone else from assault - unless the person doing the assaulting is a police officer.

Is that really correct? I'd imagine qualifiers are necessarily added to elaborate that, 'cause it is not as if it is legal to, for example, beat a guy repeatedly over the head with a baseball bat or fire a shotgun-salve at his gut if he's punched another guy.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom