It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court rejects request to re-impose death sentence for Philadelphia cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jama

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Supreme Court rejects request to re-impose death sentence for Philadelphia cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal


www.pennlive.com

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has rejected a request from Philadelphia prosecutors who want to re-impose a death sentence on former Black Panther Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted of killing a white Philadelphia police officer 30 years ago.
The Associated Press/fileConvicted police killer Mumia Abu-Jamal is seen in this undated file photo.


The justices on Tuesday refused to get involved in the racially charged case. A federal appeals court ordered a new sentencing hearing for Abu-Jamal after finding that the death-penalty instructions given to the jury at Abu-Jamal’s 1982 trial were p
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Well, the first problem I see with this story is the headline.

It should read:

S.C rejects request to re-impose death sentence for murderer of a Philadelphia cop: -Officer Daniel Faulkner

This is such a crock of stuff. Honest to pete. For us LEO's in PA this is a touchy subject. Heck-guys I work with use to work the same shift in Philly-they are taking the news poorly, as expected.

This is another one of those Death Penatly cases that gets put into the lime light due to celebraties and whatnots getting all worked up about it, eventually getting sympathy pleas and then... the victim is all forgotten.

Never mind the evidence and testimony of the people that were there.... AT THE TIME. Not years later....

I could see if there was some Proof-Positive DNA, Video or documentary evidence for some type of review etc.

But not recanted statements etc, dead witnesses or sauvy Attorneys.. On, and fancy radical P.R. firms and movei makers.

Justice is not served with this decision.



www.pennlive.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 10/11/2011 by anon72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
You're crying because someone isn't going to die today.

Such a sad world we live in.

If evidence is recanted it places doubt on the entire process. You cannot kill a man when doubt exists about his guilt.

You should take a look at the Troy Davis case, where there was substantial evidence indicating he was innocent and he was still killed.

www.guardian.co.uk...

Until we can prove guilt 100% of the time in 100% of the cases the death penalty should be abolished.



edit on 11-10-2011 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


I didn't get that impression from anon72. He and his friends dedicate (and offer) their lives to defend what can simply be called "the right." There is a belief that crimes need to be punished, and the legal system preserved. The punishment for some crimes should be as severe as possible. Anything less is a betrayal of the justice system.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


You exposed something important when you said "he and his friends."

This is exactly why a police officer's opinion shouldn't count when dealing with either the prosecution of someone suspected of a crime against another officer or the prosecution of an officer when suspected of acting outside of his authority.

There is reason to believe this case isn't as cut and dry as was first thought, when witnesses start recanting their testimony. Are you familiar with the term "beyond a reasonable doubt?"

edit on 11-10-2011 by TinkerHaus because: Typo



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Dear TinkerHaus,


This is exactly why a police officer's opinion shouldn't count when dealing with either the prosecution of someone suspected of a crime against another officer or the prosecution of an officer when suspected of acting outside of his authority.
I'm sure you can see at least two difficulties with this position. One, the belief that officers will not testify against one of their own. Are police less honorable than every other group in society? If not, then why should we listen to the opinion of gays, or blacks, or women, or Masons in cases involving those groups. Either you can't make the cse for banning officers or you have to ban nearly everyone.

The second problem is more practical. Who do you propose to investigate crimes involving the police, librarians?


There is reason to believe this case isn't as cut and dry as was first thought, when witnesses start recanting their testimony. Are you familiar with the term "beyond a reasonable doubt?"


For me, its more cut and dry than I first thought. At least as far as guilt goes: Earlier post

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


And therein lies the problem. Too many Americans are willing to condemn a man to death without even caring to understand the full story. Not just our criminals but all the innocent people we're killing in the Middle East and around the world.

There are countless examples of police lying for police.


I'm glad a new generation is ready to roll in and take control. It seems to me the older the person the more likely they are to condone needless killing.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TinkerHaus
 


That's the problem. The full story was out.

It got changed over time to what we hear the Ed Asners spewing.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Until we can prove guilt 100% of the time in 100% of the cases the death penalty should be abolished.


I do not think you have to have 100% certainty 100% of the time in order to execute those murderers who are certainly guilty.

I'd be happy if the death sentence was imposed each time there was 100% certainty of guilt - not just "beyond reasonable doubt".

For the 99-95-50-whatver % for which the level of guilt is "only" beyond reasonable doubt - no death penalty.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by anon72
 


Killing someone as punishment for killing someone is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If we, as a nation, value life, then we must value ALL life. Even the ones that are placed in desperate situations and subsequently act horribly.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Until we can prove guilt 100% of the time in 100% of the cases the death penalty should be abolished.


I do not think you have to have 100% certainty 100% of the time in order to execute those murderers who are certainly guilty.

I'd be happy if the death sentence was imposed each time there was 100% certainty of guilt - not just "beyond reasonable doubt".

For the 99-95-50-whatver % for which the level of guilt is "only" beyond reasonable doubt - no death penalty.



The 12 jurors that convicted Cameron Todd Willingham were 100% sure that he was guilty. They were told so by "experts" who had "facts" supporting them.

Nevermind that the "experts" use an unscientific "science" that has since been proven wrong. And nevermind that this man lost his wife and children in a horrible accident, then got to spend the rest of his life on death row before the state murdered him.

No. There is no "100%". I accept absolutely no excuses for our atrocities in this.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
[No. There is no "100%". I accept absolutely no excuses for our atrocities in this.


Really??

You can never be positively sure that anyone did anything at all??

Just a hypothtical - someone walks into a restaurant (or school or shop or whereever) and blazes away with a small arsenal & kils a few people - is caught on the spot, with the guns, confesses, etc., you'd still say there's doubt as to their guilt?

BTW determining guilt is NOT the same as determining whether there is "reasonable doubt" or not.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


I am not saying that i cannot determine guilt. I am saying that I cannot, in good conscience, vote to take the life of another person. Especially in a legal system where "reasonable doubt" has been PROVEN to be wrong (see my previous link).

If killing is wrong, then killing is wrong. Even if a judge condones it.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join