rigorousintuition.ca

Beeline, I wouldn't call the account of the trial you gave just previously a very "clean" account- it is long on emotionally loaded characterizations but they are not always grounded in concrete facts that would support and sustain those characterizations- but, that said, what if Mumia and his brother did refuse to testify? What if Mumia made outbursts and did try for a while to represent himself, etc.?

Does this in some way make the evidence of misconduct and bias within the prosecution a moot point and obviate the need for a retrial?

Because if you think so, I'm not seeing how...

.

No, what I am saying is very simple, throw all of that other crap out: the preponderance of physical evidence from the crime scene is what convicted Mumia. If there is another trial, the preponderance of physical evidence will convict him again. His gun, his bullets, his dead cop.

Like I said, I would love a new trial. I would love for Mumia to take the stand. I would like to hear what he has to say in his defense, and I would like to hear that testimony cross-examined.

But Mumia and his brother never gave the prosecution that chance. Why is that?

A new Avatar recommendation for Mr. Morgan, as he thinks about his Hot Oven Time Machine...

Great Scott, man...

Sweejak wrote:

kool maudit wrote:recent events leave me wondering whether the bulk of RIers feel traditionalist or right-leaning viewpoints should be barred from the board?

i don't really care save for a general aesthetic criticism of partisanism as a whole, but, you know, inquiring minds etc.

Over 5 pages.
I'll just answer the OP.

No, but I think there is a strong leftward PC component which results in "knee jerk" reactions to what are clearly "common sense" observations and opinions that don't keen to the "left, liberal etc". I've run out of my quotes quota in that sentence, but that's what I think. It happens everywhere and it appears in reverse depending on where you are.

if someone wants to come from a "traditionalist" right-wing viewpoint it would best be a nuanced one that:
a. knows what fascism is.
b. has some awareness of the issue of private power in addition to simply being upset about "our" government's power.
c. knows what authoritarian mindset is

justdrew wrote:if someone wants to come from a "traditionalist" right-wing viewpoint it would best be a nuanced one that:
a. knows what fascism is.
b. has some awareness of the issue of private power in addition to simply being upset about "our" government's power.
c. knows what authoritarian mindset is

Uh... We're talkin' about reality here.

j/k

Beeline, I do agree that there is serious physical evidence against Mumia and that if he did it, it was wrong. I do recall that there was evidence in his favor however- a prostitute/witness coerced to lie, an extremely biased judge, a hit man who testified that Mumia didn't do it, that kind of thing. More than anything I question the sentence- the death penalty but it wasn't premeditated? When no one in Philadelphia can really break through the blue wall that protects so many police murders?

I know that feelings run high about this stuff and that many lefty people exercise a lazy kind of group-think. I also see that many of the hardcore members of the Mumia support movement are either dogmatic members of little vanguard sects, or else one-dimensional black nationalists.

That said, I think that not only is Mumia a really good journalist and commentator who has contributed much to the community but that he got a dose of corrupt Philadelphia "justice"- which is usually at its worst when a black man is accused of killing a white police officer.

I'm with you generally- I think the odds are high that Mumia really did do it but, that said, I absolutely think he deserves a retrial and the possibility of being taken off death row. I also think that the impunity around corruption and wrongful violence which the Philadelphia Police Department has historically held- especially but not only as it concerns people of color- needs to be definitively ended.

Does that all sound like lefty group-think to you?

.

I get all of that. I will concede the inherent racism in the Philadelphia criminal justice sytem, especially in that era, between 1960-1980. I'm sure there were innocents convicted of crimes they did not commit. In fact, I am sure that happens even in the most unbiased systems.

But that doesn't excuse Mumia (if he did it, IMO, he did) of the murder of Danny Faulkner. And by attempting to put the system on trial rather than answering to the charges against him, I think he tried to obfuscate the issue at hand--his guilt or innocence--with a tactic, and that tactic didn't work. What's the saying? An attorney that represents himself has a fool for a client?

Does that all sound like lefty group-think to you?

No, of course not.

justdrew wrote:

Sweejak wrote:

kool maudit wrote:recent events leave me wondering whether the bulk of RIers feel traditionalist or right-leaning viewpoints should be barred from the board?

i don't really care save for a general aesthetic criticism of partisanism as a whole, but, you know, inquiring minds etc.

Over 5 pages.
I'll just answer the OP.

No, but I think there is a strong leftward PC component which results in "knee jerk" reactions to what are clearly "common sense" observations and opinions that don't keen to the "left, liberal etc". I've run out of my quotes quota in that sentence, but that's what I think. It happens everywhere and it appears in reverse depending on where you are.

if someone wants to come from a "traditionalist" right-wing viewpoint it would best be a nuanced one that:
a. knows what fascism is.
b. has some awareness of the issue of private power in addition to simply being upset about "our" government's power.
c. knows what authoritarian mindset is

And they should know:
That traditional doesn't necessarily mean right wing; that fascism doesn't equal authoritarian; that authoritarian and totalitarian don't equal right wing and know why FDR, and Churchill supported fascism; have some understanding that intrusions on personal liberty have a equal intrusion on personal responsibility; grok that the left blames corporations and the right blames government but it's neither... stuff like that.

there is a lot of self-congratulation in this thread. it's kind of funny, because in the course of gadflying a right-wing board, i heard the same "thinking man's forum" formulation many times.

.

I get all of that. I will concede the inherent racism in the Philadelphia criminal justice sytem, especially in that era, between 1960-1980. I'm sure there were innocents convicted of crimes they did not commit. In fact, I am sure that happens even in the most unbiased systems.

But that doesn't excuse Mumia (if he did it, IMO, he did) of the murder of Danny Faulkner. And by attempting to put the system on trial rather than answering to the charges against him, I think he tried to obfuscate the issue at hand--his guilt or innocence--with a tactic, and that tactic didn't work. What's the saying? An attorney that represents himself has a fool for a client?

Does that all sound like lefty group-think to you?

No, of course not.

I also think that the impunity around corruption and wrongful violence which the Philadelphia Police Department has historically held- especially but not only as it concerns people of color- needs to be definitively ended.

Indeed.

Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this: I have some sympathy for what I imagine Mumia did, even though I would never endorse the idea of killing cops as a general principle.

Given that Mumia saw many of his comrades in the Black Panther Party taken out by corrupt activities on the part of the feds and local police- whether by murder or unfair convictions,- I can understand what I think he might have done. He stumbled upon police officers seizing his brother, handcuffed on the street corner and if he reached under the seat of his cab, grabbed his gun and used it impulsively, I think I can understand why.

This doesn't mean what he may have done was right, nor does it mean that I encourage people to kill police officers or any other human beings- I don't- but it does mean that they threw the book at Mumia for what are probably political reasons, and through a (seemingly) unfair process. But I can understand why you'd be frustrated with lazy idiots who repeat totalistic arguments that they heard from somebody else, without bothering to really think about them...

I like what Penguin said:

Penguin wrote:Left wing of what?

I'm sitting outside the hall, in any case. There is no up and down in space.

Simulist wrote:

justdrew wrote:if someone wants to come from a "traditionalist" right-wing viewpoint it would best be a nuanced one that:
a. knows what fascism is.
b. has some awareness of the issue of private power in addition to simply being upset about "our" government's power.
c. knows what authoritarian mindset is

Uh... We're talkin' about reality here.

j/k

I didn't say I thought it likely

but anyway nothing says people can't (and indeed they all do) have various contrarian opinions on specific issues and so many issues are not really defined in left/right because none of the folks leading those banners never address those issues.

beyond that try to follow the posting guidelines, which are very liberal as to what is postable

hey kool maudit,

i was in montreal this past week for the first time!
what a cool city. I had fun walking all around.
did you see any of the MUTEK festival?
i really wanted to see Senor Coconut, but was busy on saturday.

that spooloops fellow seemed interesting too...

hey IanEye,

I caught one of the MUTEK shows, but have been way too busy unfortunately.

I love summer Montreal, and am probably kind of an annoying evangelist to visitors.