IF ALL THE circumstances and evidence, etc., were exactly the same, except that Wesley Cook a/k/a Mumia Abu-Jamal, were either white, Asian, Latino, etc., other than black, would racist Marc Lamont Hill be so up in arms over Abu-Jamal's new getting-away-with-murder sentence of life in prison without parole? Just asking.
Why does the Daily News continue to let a racist bigot like Marc Lamont Hill write a column in the paper? His latest column detailing how he supports Mumia Abu-Jamal is disgusting. To defend a scumbag like Mumia Abu-Jamal, who clearly was convicted of murder by a jury of his peers, is just unbelievable. Maybe we should free Mumia and put Marc Lamont Hill in his place, as that is truly where he belongs.
You would think an associate professor of journalism at Columbia University attempting to tackle such a volatile and race dividing issue as Faulkner/Mumia would be able to represent his ultimate conclusion that Mumia didn't murder Officer Daniel Faulkner in at least a manner a step or two above National Enquirer reporting.
Apparently not. How can you attempt to tackle an issue as sensitive as Faulkner/Mumia in a piece that has you asking (and then answering) your own six questions, and represent to the reader that your answers to your own carefully crafted questions give credence to your position?
Please, allow me to ask you six real questions about the facts of the case and see if you can truthfully answer them in a way that still allows you to justify your ignorant conclusions on the facts of the case. I pity your students (and their parents, paying their tuitions) in your Columbia University journalism class.
Re: National Constitution Center's Rally For Abu-Jamal Insults Police Officers: Be that as it may, those who support Mr. Abu-Jamal are protected by the First Amendment. To deny them - or anybody else - their right to free speech at the National Constitution Center would be the ultimate hypocrisy.
And anybody who feels insulted by this, I suggest you pick up a copy of Constitutional Law For Dummies at your favorite book store. And, yes, the book really does exist. (Makes a great Christmas gift, too!)
Recent Daily News coverage of Mumia Abu-Jamal's transfer from death row to the general prison population - for life, should anti-Mumia forces have their way - reflects the biased and hostile approach the Daily News has taken towards Mumia's case from the start. And, as usual, your "news" stories are virtually indistinguishable from your editorials.
The Daily News has historically gone to great lengths to obfuscate and misrepresent issues in the Mumia controversy, so it comes as no surprise to read in Will Bunch's supposedly factual summary that "forensic evidence" matched the bullet that killed Officer Faulkner to Abu-Jamal's weapon. But trial transcripts show that the prosecution's ballistics expert testified that the lethal bullet was too degraded to match to a specific gun, and characteristics of Mumia's gun, which might be compatible with such a match, were shared with millions of other guns.
As harmful to public understanding as such misstatements is Mr. Bunch's use of half-truths and "errors" of omission: Kenneth Freeman, whom many believe to be Mr. Faulkner's actual killer, not only "died" in 1985 (not 1995), but was quite likely murdered - on the same day that MOVE was bombed. As for Judge Albert Sabo, at issue is not just "demeanor" but his pledge, heard by at least one court employee, to help "fry the n-----."
This tendency to treat matters of fact with casual disregard perhaps becomes more understandable in light of the stated priorities in your Dec. 9 editorial, which seems obsessed with a perceived need to stop people from admiring, paying attention to or caring about Mumia in any way. This only lends more credence to Mumia's observation, "They don't just want my death, they want my silence." Those whose support for Mumia grew out of their opposition to the death penalty should be outraged (and challenged) by the notion that they would abandon him to an equally unjust life sentence now that death is off the table.
The decision to pull back from the attempt to execute Abu-Jamal appears to be a strategic one, based not so much on anticipated difficulties in obtaining a new death sentence as on the D.A.'s desire to avoid a public sentencing hearing in which evidence and testimony unfamiliar to many would have been put into play. This could have led to the whole ball of yarn unraveling, and mass recognition that the "flaws" in Mumia's sentencing were but the tip of the iceberg compared to those in his trial and conviction.
I am writing about all these people that think killing a police officer is great, in regards to the cop killer Mumia (Murderer) Abu-Jamal. Where was his brother who witnessed the shooting? How come the officer's bullet was inside Mumia, and the bullets that killed Danny Faulkner came from Mumias gun?
He was found guilty in all of the court cases, and sentenced to death, but I bet if Lynne Abraham was still D.A., these liberal judges that took him off the death penalty would have been challenged by Lynne, but yet they let Mumia sell magazines, get TV coverage and get donations from around the world - especially France, who gave him a key to the city and named a street after him. Now he is getting rich, and will probably buy his way out of jail.
All I can say is: Every law-enforcement officer, see that they do everything in their power to get rid of these judges and all the liberals that are behind the killer, and that all the money he makes in prison be given to Maureen Faulkner or to the families of fallen officers. Remember, you may be next to be killed by one of these nuts. What is our world coming to?
I do believe Mumia Abu-Jamal killed Officer Daniel Faulkner and should get the death penalty.
However, I didn't like when Maureen Faulkner and Richard Costello called Mumia an animal.
Animals don't shoot and kill people. Mumia is a monster.
If you think Mumia didn't kill Officer Faulkner, you're entitled to your opinion.
Real simple: If I didn't kill anybody, I most certainly would have gone on the witness stand because I'd have nothing to hide. Don't give me that it's his right. Office Faulkner does not have a chance to speak.
As for giving him a new trial, don't you understand why they did this? Duh! Been 30 years. The punk should have been dead years ago. You just have a financial connection with him. Sell out. You see him as a father/son/brother/friend. All things Officer Faulkner cannot be today.
If Mumia didn't do, then who did?