Liberals praise convicted cop killers while grabbing your guns

There should be a hunting season for these scumbags. I don't care for dead animals on my wall, but the head of a cop killer...:)
 
Definite cool points on the sensationalist thread title. I'm just sad you didn't manage to get "commie" in there somewhere, too.

I honestly can't say much regarding Shakur; I'm not too familiar with her story compared to Mumia Abu Jamal's.

As far as he goes, I think most people don't even get why those of us who oppose his imprisonment do so. It's certainly not about "fawning over murderous dirtbags." It's about the justice system as a whole and the fact that (at least in Abu Jamal's case) the trials we give the "obviously" guilty are often suspect at best. Somebody who kills a police officer generally belongs in prison; however, before we put them there they are supposed to receive a fair and impartial trial regardless of how guilty we think they are.

If it takes letting a cop-killer free to drive that point home to those in the justice system, so be it. Unfortunately, I don't think that's ever going to happen. As it stands, I think naming a street after him is a positive thing as well. If it keeps this mockery of our justice system from being forgotten, it's well worth it; again, if that requires naming a street after a cop-killer, then so be it.

And that's assuming he's even guilty of the crime. We have convicted innocent people before, even with what appear to be fair trials. Considering what happened here, I'm not willing to state as fact that he is, in fact, a cop-killer. Though yeah, it's pretty darn likely.

As far as the resolution mentioned in the article, it was clearly a set up to vilify any who dared vote against it. Gee, do we condemn the murder of a police officer, demand that a street not be named after a cop-killer, and thanks cops everywhere for being such swell guys? Might as well name it the "Puppies and Kittens Resolution of 2006." Let's forget that the street we're complaining about is in another sovereign nation and that the reason they've named it after them is because we failed to give him a fair trial. That's certainly not relevant.

Doesn't Congress have better things to do? I guess this is the kind of things defeated incumbents do to stir things up before they get the boot. Goodbye, Mr. Fitzpatrick. And a hearty goodbye to you too, Mr. Santorum.
 
I'll meet you at the Adolf Hitler Cafeteria for lunch after I finish taking an exam in the Charles Manson Linguistics Building then. We should really stop by the John William King Bookstore on the way there. He dragged a black man from Jasper behind his pickup truck until he literally fell apart, but some could argue he was only 'serving his community'.

Sounds as sickening as naming a building for a black racist copkiller doesn't it?
 
Adolf Hitler Cafeteria

Hitler killed himself. He never had a trial. There also isn't much doubt that he was in fact the leader of the Nazi regime, and that the regime did commit both war crimes and crimes against humanity. No parallel.

Charles Manson Linguistics Building

Little closer on this one. However, there is little doubt that Manson is criminally insane, and he received the closest thing to a fair trial one can get for such a high profile crime. His behavior, both during trial and afterwards, leaves little doubt as to his guilt, and there is little evidence that his conviction was as racially or politically motivated as Abu Jamal's.

John William King Bookstore on the way there. He dragged a black man from Jasper behind his pickup truck until he literally fell apart, but some could argue he was only 'serving his community'.

And here's where it becomes obvious you didn't even get the point. Abu Jamal did not get a street named after him because he killed a cop, he got a street named after him because he was sentenced to death (since commuted to life, but PA is still trying to change that) without a fair trial. It has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence, or the nature of the crime he committed, but rather the nature of the treatment he received from the justice system. From the little I've read, Shakur falls in about the same category.

This last example, John William King, is a bit more interesting though. In theory he could be held up as an example of a failing of our prison system (the theory is that it was his experiences during his first prison sentence that motivated him to commit the crime he's not waiting to be put down for). You take a nonviolent offender, put him in a place where assault, murder, and gang rape are routine, and wonder that he comes out a sick individual.

It could be argued that it was our own prison system that created the John William King that was capable of such an act, after debasing, dehumanizing, and destroying the John William King that went in (though he didn't sound like a stellar individual to begin with...but still). At that point, I suppose the case could be made to memorialize him in a similar way...I'll give France a call, and see if they're interested.

EDIT: Oops...I see from your final line that you were referring specifically to the Morales/Shakur Community Center. Perhaps a little later I'll look into that a little more and see if my post needs any editing...but I have a feeling that my point won't change.
 
Yeah, Juan, the cops had it coming. Let the guy go free

Again, with the missing of the point.

Agree or disagree, the push to have him released (or at least retried) has nothing to do with the "cops having it coming." It has nothing to do with the nature of his crime whatsoever, or whether or not he is guilty.

Screw it. If you didn't get the point the first two times, a third isn't going to make a difference.

EDIT: In other words, if you're going to address me please actually respond to what I wrote. If you're just going to spew some generic one-line knee-jerk response that has nothing to do with what I wrote, please leave my name off of it.
 
If it takes letting a cop-killer free to drive that point home to those in the justice system, so be it.
Well, after that line, I need not read anymore.

Juan, NO KILLER should be set free just to "drive a point home." Hey, why don't you shoot yourself in the head to "drive the point home" that gun safety is a serious business.

Surely, you can find two better champions of your cause..
 
If it takes letting a cop-killer free to drive that point home to those in the justice system, so be it.
Well, after that line, I need not read anymore.

Juan, NO KILLER should be set free just to "drive a point home." Hey, why don't you shoot yourself in the head to "drive the point home" that gun safety is a serious business.

Surely, you can find two better champions of your cause...
Maybe, maybe not. If your cause is to ensure that even the guilty get fair trials, then these two scumbags (assuming they're guilty) would actually be the perfect candidates. The idea that it's okay to railroad somebody to death row (or life in prison, or even a year in prison if that year involves a little forcible sodomy) just because they're guilty is all fine and dandy right up until the point that it happens to somebody who only appears guilty. Takes more than an "oops," or even a sizeable legal settlement, to undo that wrong.

Honestly, I think part of the reason those running our justice system pull (or pulled) shenanigans like this is because it just honestly isn't all that big a deal if they accidentally screw over an innocent person. Let them out, give them some money, it's all good. No. Just no. Better to have one hundred guilty men go free, and all that.

Legal settlements, unless they happen often, really don't affect them much. Public outcry can be weathered until the public stops caring. But having to watch somebody who killed one of their own walk free...that might have some affect. Again, assuming he's guilty (which I think is likely).

Granted, if you were even reading this you probably stopped at that last paragraph. That's kinda cheap, by the way...it only takes a minute of your time, and if you're going to respond to somebody's statement you really ought to read the whole thing. But whatever. At least you responded to what I actually wrote.

I don't like the idea. I'm not all "yay, let's set some cop-killers free!" But keeping one man behind bars is much less important, at least to me, than preserving the integrity of our justice system...regardless of his crime.
 
Back
Top