No death penalty for Mumia

[bynmdsue]

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.

No, it's not true, you can't use deadly force in response to an assault.

Well, you CAN, but it's not advised.

 

[Gazpacho]

Not sure where you heard that stuff about deadly force but it isn't generally the law in the US. Wouldn't recommend testing it out.

 

[Strawberry]

I'd guess its probably legal to use necessary force to defend yourself or someone else from attack. Whether or not deadly force was deemed necessary would depend on each individual case.

 

[ZirconBlue]

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.

I suspect he is also equivocating on "assault".

 

[BenBurch]

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!

Which means he might not live all that long...

 

[applecorped]

Free Mumia! With purchase of a second Mumia at regular price. Limit one per customer.

I give them as gifts but they always get re-gifted.

 

[applecorped]

Too bad. I would have put the needle in his arm personally.

I would have helped you.

 

[MG1962]

Does anyone know what the prosecutions motive was for the murder?

 

[bynmdsue]

Which means he might not live all that long...

Well, I'm sure cop-killers are popular inside, but famous folks are also great targets if one wanted to increase their "juice", as it were.

 

[bynmdsue]

Does anyone know what the prosecutions motive was for the murder?

His brother was fighting with Off. Faulkner

 

[Freddy]

No, it's not true, you can't use deadly force in response to an assault.

Well, you CAN, but it's not advised.

In every U.S. jurisdiction I'm aware of, you can use the level of force that is reasonably necessary to effect self-defense or defense of another. So it depends on what sort of assault we're talking about. If the assault involves a deadly weapon, or multiple attackers and a defenseless victim who is still being assaulted despite already being prone, deadly force would likely be legal. If, for example, the assailants are unarmed and kicking a prone victim in the head repeatedly, the threat of deadly force might be the reasonable course, followed by the application of force if the threat does not stop the attack. But even then, how do you know whether someone is unarmed? It is always a factual determination based on the particular circumstances, and the standard is reasonableness.

In addition, some states evaluate reasonableness subjectively ("reasonable to me based on my subjective perception of the circumstances"), while others (most, I think) use an objective test (the hypothetical "reasonable person"). I realize that what I've called an objective test might seem subjective as well, but that's the legal jargon. Also, some states require that in self-defense situations you must retreat if you can safely do so. Some states have a duty to retreat except in one's home. Some states have no duty to retreat.

 

[bynmdsue]

In every U.S. jurisdiction I'm aware of, you can use the level of force that is reasonably necessary to effect self-defense or defense of another. So it depends on what sort of assault we're talking about. If the assault involves a deadly weapon, or multiple attackers and a defenseless victim who is still being assaulted despite already being prone, deadly force would likely be legal. If, for example, the assailants are unarmed and kicking a prone victim in the head repeatedly, the threat of deadly force might be the reasonable course, followed by the application of force if the threat does not stop the attack. But even then, how do you know whether someone is unarmed? It is always a factual determination based on the particular circumstances, and the standard is reasonableness.

In addition, some states evaluate reasonableness subjectively ("reasonable to me based on my subjective perception of the circumstances"), while others (most, I think) use an objective test (the hypothetical "reasonable person"). I realize that what I've called an objective test might seem subjective as well, but that's the legal jargon. Also, some states require that in self-defense situations you must retreat if you can safely do so. Some states have a duty to retreat except in one's home. Some states have no duty to retreat.

All true but proportionality and escalation have to be accounted for also. Assault has been defined all the way down to yelling "you no-good so-and-so" albeit more colorfully. That's not an assault reqiuring a deadly force response. I'm not sure if you could end a rape with gunplay legally. Probably. At least I hope.

 

[kookbreaker]

For the record, Mumia's brother was pulled over by Faulkner. During the arrest he struggled with Faulkner and was subdued with about 3-4 blows, according to witnesses. Well after Mumia's brother had been subdued Mumia shot Faulkner in the back.

In later mythmaking, the Mumia machine tried to spread the tale that Faulkner was brutally beating Cook, but there was simply no evidence for it whatsoever. They were simply "cashing in" on the Rodney King incident.

 

[Freddy]

All true but proportionality and escalation have to be accounted for also. Assault has been defined all the way down to yelling "you no-good so-and-so" albeit more colorfully. That's not an assault reqiuring a deadly force response. I'm not sure if you could end a rape with gunplay legally. Probably. At least I hope.

Absolutely agree. Disproportionate force is presumptively unreasonable. That presumption will only be overcome if one can show that the force was not actually disproportionate.

To respond to your other inquiry/point, rape always qualifies as "serious bodily injury or death," reasonable fear of which is enough to invoke self-defense or defense of others. Rape itself is serious bodily injury, and someone coming across a rape in progress will always be reasonable in fearing that the victim may be killed if something isn't done. In contrast, an assault that barely meets the technical definition of assault will not justify a deadly force response.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Does anyone know what the prosecutions motive was for the murder?

I don't think the prosecution murdered anyone.

 

[Jono]

For the record, Mumia's brother was pulled over by Faulkner. During the arrest he struggled with Faulkner and was subdued with about 3-4 blows, according to witnesses. Well after Mumia's brother had been subdued Mumia shot Faulkner in the back.

In later mythmaking, the Mumia machine tried to spread the tale that Faulkner was brutally beating Cook, but there was simply no evidence for it whatsoever. They were simply "cashing in" on the Rodney King incident.

All in all, I find it difficult to believe Faulkner was trying to beat Mumia's brother to death. He might've lost it and/or felt threatened enough to deal out punches, which is understandable but not really "decorum" for a police officer. The thing is, which most people do not seem to understand, is that even self-defense against an overly aggressive cop is very problematic. Heck, the same goes for regular security guards et al. You can report them for any assault, but it's a lot harder to, in court, justify returned violence against a guard or police officer.

 

[kookbreaker]

All in all, I find it difficult to believe Faulkner was trying to beat Mumia's brother to death.

Given the minimal amount of injuries he had, yes.

He might've lost it and/or felt threatened enough to deal out punches, which is understandable but not really "decorum" for a police officer.

According to witnesses, it was William Cook who started the struggle. Take a swing at an officer and yes, you will get hit.

 

[MG1962]

For the record, Mumia's brother was pulled over by Faulkner. During the arrest he struggled with Faulkner and was subdued with about 3-4 blows, according to witnesses. Well after Mumia's brother had been subdued Mumia shot Faulkner in the back.

In later mythmaking, the Mumia machine tried to spread the tale that Faulkner was brutally beating Cook, but there was simply no evidence for it whatsoever. They were simply "cashing in" on the Rodney King incident.

I do have a question about the whole incident, and so far wiki is my only source of information

Cook was pulled over by the officer, took exception and started a fight.

Mumia pulls up in a second car, sees the fight shoots the officer.

Did the prosecution ever explain how Mumia happened to be there. Did his brother call him? Did he happen to be just driving by? or something else?

 

[bynmdsue]

Mumia was already there parked across the street. It was an unlucky coincidence.

 

[kookbreaker]

I do have a question about the whole incident, and so far wiki is my only source of information

Cook was pulled over by the officer, took exception and started a fight.

Correct.

Mumia pulls up in a second car, sees the fight shoots the officer.

Did the prosecution ever explain how Mumia happened to be there. Did his brother call him? Did he happen to be just driving by? or something else?

He was parked across the street. And ran across the street to shoot Faulkner. Since he was driving a cab and that area was a red light district cabs being around are not strange (one of the witnesses was a cabbie). As bymndsue says it was a coincidence.

That being said, while the prosecution never made an issue of it, a lot of Cook's antics smell funny. Turning the wrong way? Up Locust St?! Then taking a swing at the arresting officer?!

A part of me, albeit with almost no real evidence, suspects that Mumia goaded or otherwise convinced his brother to pull this stunt but didn't tell him he was going to shoot a cop. His brother has never, ever given a single statement or gone on the stand* about what happened that night, even though the ludicrous scenarios presented by the defendants would mean his brother would have had to had witness the 'real killer'. The only statement Cook ever made was "I ain't got nothin' to do with this". But it is pure speculation.



* Cook (and Mumia) did sign an affidavit confirming the confession of a serial confessor to the crime once all of Mumia's appeals were used up.