Mumia ad

[james withrow]

Michael Eisenscher : "1) If his trial was a sham, his guilt was not
proven beyond a reasonable doubt."
Me: There's no right to a sham-free trial.  There is a right to a fair
trial-- a fair trial for both the defendent and the state.  Mumia's
trial was fair.  He had the opportunity to defend himself but chose not
to.  That helped make the trial a sham.  There's also no right to a
trial without police malfeasance.  Despite the pressured witnesses and
lying police officers, there is still enough proof to convict him.  In
other words, the police framed the right man, and framed him
unnecessarily, IMO.  

Michael: "3) Mumia is not required to say anything about his guilt or
innocence."
Me:  Sure, but it might be a good idea to say so, if he really is
innocent.  At this point, having been found guilty by a jury, he no
longer has the presumption of "not guilty."

Michael: "4) Have you read the record of his trial?"
Me: No, have you?  Is there anything you'd like to share with us from
that record besides what's been mentioned so far?

Michael:  "Have you interviewed the jurors?"
Me: See my response to the preceding question..

Michael: "Or could it be that you are relying on depictions of his guilt
provided conveniently by the Philly mass media based on information
provided by the same characters and institutions that railroaded him in
the first place?"
Me: The coverage of his case, in the daily newspapers and the
alternative freebies has been extensive and there are plenty of
left-leaning journalists in this town.  No one's willing to defend him
because of the evidence against him.  I can understand why you think the
cops would try to railroad him, but do you have some explanation for why
everyone else would comply in a conspiracy?

Michael: "5) I only wish your passion for justice was as strong as your
passion for retail trade."
Me: My passion is for the safety of myself and my coworkers.  I'm so
sorry if that seems a bit selfish.  But, I spend 40 hours a week dealing
with people who come in off the streets with all kinds of different
agendas.

     Your lack of concern for the safety of workers in the workplace
justifies the suspicion of too many working people about those on the
left: you're quick to defend the accused but you really don't care
whether workers live or die.

Michael: "6) If you cannot bring yourself to rise to (Mumia's) defense,
which of the other victims of this system are you rising to defend?"
Me:  None of them.  I'm against capital punishment but it's really not
my favorite cause. In any case, I''d rather wait for an innocent man or
woman-- someone who didn't murder a trade union member while he was at
work.    

Michael: "Or is it a case of rejecting every case you confront until you
find one that makes you comfortable enough to get past your own biases
and warped sense of justice?"
Me: Do you find that self-righteous name-calling is a productive means
of persuasion?  You might as well strap him into the chair yourself
because you're not saving his life, you're just making a martyr of him.

 
Michael: "In Solidarity, Michael."
Me: Prove that you really are concerned with keeping the streets safe
and murderers locked away and then I'll believe that you're in
solidarity with the millions of people like myself who deal with the
public in their workplace.

                         James in Philly

-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Michael Eisenscher <meisenscher at igc.apc.org>
Subject: Re: Mumia ad
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 19:23:59 -0700 (PDT)
Size: 4743
URL: <../attachments/19980816/dded5eed/attachment.eml>