objectiveness

[signmeup]

In defense of my post... (mumia)

First of all, I'm familiar with the verdict which ultimately lead to the incarceration of Jamal. Furthermore, I've read many of the countless articles chronicling his life and the trial, as well as the contingent which defend the virtue of a fallen police officer.

I'm neither clueless or stupid . I'm a San Jose State alumnus who received a degree in Aviation Operations in 1997. Those who question my cognitive ability and/or acumen, are themselves "clueless." It is presumptuous- not necessarily presumpTIVE- to denigrate me on the internet as the supporter of a convicted *********. The syntax of my previous post was very simple, "guilty or not guilty?" I intimated nothing. I thank you all for the diatribes though .

In conclusion, allow me to explain my motivation for the post. "Stirring the pot" was not my intention. Starting an intelligent/objective discussion was the impetus. I honestly didn't anticipate the antagonism; accept my apology

P.S. Perhaps you'll appreciate this thread because it lacks the personal assaults, responses to my previous post precipitated(read: hackneyed)

[Dinosaur]

Guilty.

[retired]

Totally guilty!!!

Retired

[signmeup]

Originally posted by Dinosaur:
Guilty.

I never said I disagreed: was never given an opportunity

[kateykakes]

Originally posted by signmeup:
I never said I disagreed: was never given an opportunity

Sure you were, sign. You had every opportunity to do so when you typed the original post. You could have stated your opinions then. Why didn't you?

And btw, GUILTY!

[ 12-16-2001: Message edited by: kateykakes ]

[Dinosaur]

This case is 20 years old, signmeup. It needs no further debate....and here is most definitely not the proper place to make the attempt.

Just drop it.

[jellybean40]

Guilty.

[Mike Tx]

Originally posted by signmeup:
In defense of my post... (mumia)

First of all, I'm familiar with the verdict which ultimately lead to the incarceration of Jamal. Furthermore, I've read many of the countless articles chronicling his life and the trial, as well as the contingent which defend the virtue of a fallen police officer.

I'm neither clueless or stupid . I'm a San Jose State alumnus who received a degree in Aviation Operations in 1997. Those who question my cognitive ability and/or acumen, are themselves "clueless." It is presumptuous- not necessarily presumpTIVE- to denigrate me on the internet as the supporter of a convicted *********. The syntax of my previous post was very simple, "guilty or not guilty?" I intimated nothing. I thank you all for the diatribes though .

In conclusion, allow me to explain my motivation for the post. "Stirring the pot" was not my intention. Starting an intelligent/objective discussion was the impetus. I honestly didn't anticipate the antagonism; accept my apology

P.S. Perhaps you'll appreciate this thread because it lacks the personal assaults, responses to my previous post precipitated(read: hackneyed)

I think you are a liar.

Even an idiot( no offense ) must realize the offense you put forth with a post like that in a place like this.

Again, I think you are liar. And, I could care less what you think about that. You have proven it clearly. Your intent was to stir up the cops. You lose.

[Mike Tx]

Originally posted by signmeup:
In defense of my post... (mumia)

First of all, I'm familiar with the verdict which ultimately lead to the incarceration of Jamal.

This proves you are a liar. You ask the question, they lock the topic, and you respond with more evidence you are a sh*t stiring liar.

[jellybean40]

Guilty.

[signmeup]

Originally posted by MikeTx:


This proves you are a liar. You ask the question, they lock the topic, and you respond with more evidence you are a sh*t stiring liar.

Very intellectual, compelling, retort
...

[Zamboni]

I don't honestly know enough about the case to make an informed decision. I know that he has failed in numerous appeals so that tends to lead me to believe he is guilty. But I also know that our justice system does sometimes screw up in its zeal to convict suspected murderers, especially cop killers.

So I'm not saying I think he deserves a new trial or is innocent. I'm just saying I am not informed enough to have a credible opinion and won't without fully reviewing the case (not likely given I don't have time or access to all the case materials).

[Delta_V]

Originally posted by signmeup:
I'm a San Jose State alumnus who received a degree in Aviation Operations in 1997. Those who question my cognitive ability and/or acumen, are themselves "clueless."

And the point of telling everyone about your degree is what, exactly? I've seen some real yahoos graduate from college, and earning a degree has nothing to do with having common sense. All a degree shows is that you have the ability to read, write, and take tests.

If you intended to start an 'intellegent and objective' discussion about Mumia on a POLICE board, then you are indeed clueless. It doesn't matter how many degrees you have.

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: PatrickM98 ]

[SGT Dave]

It's a liberal thing...they ALWAYS play the "intelligence" card, as if it is the only defining factor in a person's stature in the community.

I know old men at the hardware store that dropped out of school, and wear overalls that know more about the economy and world politics that some college professors, but the self appointed liberal elite will never believe this is possible because they didn't go to college. Reading three newspapers a day, watching CNN, and two hours of evening news a night don't compete with a degree.

I agree with Patrick-he could have said he understood and had cognitive abilites without citing his degree and alma mater and so forth.

As another example-I thought I'd gotten a computer virus from a new contact last week. I won't go into the details, but it was obvious it came from him. I sent a NICE email simply asking if it was possible he had gotten one, and told him why I thought I had gotten it from him.

His reply, and I'm not exaggerating, started like this:

"I KNOW you didn't get a virus from me. I use McAffee 6.0 AND Norton and I have a B.S. in Computer Tecnology with honors from ... "

Yeeeeeeeaaaahhh...

If he has that kind of degree, theres NOOOOOOOOO way he could have gotten a computer virus...

[SGT Dave]

Oh, and on the original post...

You go right ahead and brand us "close minded" if you want to-I don't care. You bait it with the caveat "an intelligent discussion" (which, in most circles, has the unwritten inference that those who can’t/will not “discuss” it must not be “intelligent” ) but that don’t get our attention. Some matters are certain and don’t need any “intelligent discussion.” Hey-let’s have an “intelligent discussion” on whether evil spirits cause cancer!

You will likewise also brand us “pawns” because “we let the courts do our thinking and we don’t question it.” Duh…

I guess I do have a problem with the whole “question authority” mentality, but you will have to also understand that they don’t make all the mistakes that HBO movies, network TV, books, and so on would have you to believe. It can happen, and has happened, but FAR less than you wish to think.

Dr. Sam Shepherd-SOME question
Mumia-NO question

Just because YOU evidently feel there’s room for “discussion” doesn’t mean we do. We on this board don’t need to have any “discussion” on the matter. A court verdict is binding, even if not satisfying to all. In other words, you must want to change the whole justice system signmeup.

The reason I say that is this: Our whole system of determining guilt or innocence is based around the standard “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

PAY ATTENTION HERE-our forefathers and all the courts throughout history did not require “beyond a SHADOW of a doubt” only beyond a REASONABLE doubt. This was the way it was intended, and that’s the way it IS. Our judges sleep well, and I sleep well.

Just because the Mumia cause has been “embraced” by a “Who’s Who” of the liberal elite, doesn’t mean the average person on the street isn’t swayed by their publicity grabbing “statements.”

Mumia, the POS, is indeed guilty, because the courts have said he is. If you need “intelligent discussion” go to one of their web sites and jump in with both feet.

Also, we (the board) will NOT be a pawn in their game, even if you chose on your own to be. In other words, your “intelligent discussion” would be brought up by one of the Mumia supporters (kind of like a jock strap- a “mumia supporter” ) a week from now in this context:

“Good grief-even the COPS on a LAW ENFORCEMENT website Officer.com are discussing whether or not he’s guilty!”

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: SGT Dave ]