Michael Replies: Last time I looked at the Constitution and prevailing legal practice, citizens are certainly entitled to a sham-free trial. It's called presumption of innonce until proven guilty (by the state) beyond a reasonable doubt. It's called the right to representation of one's choice. It's called the right to a trial in which witnesses testify honestly and truthfully rather than fabricating evidence and testimony to get a conviction. Just because you have concluded that Mumia is guilty does not disqualify him from traditional legal and constitutional protections.
>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 Replies: If the first trial was defective, the finding of guilt was also. That's why appellate courts overturn verdicts, remand cases for retrial, and set wrongly convicted prisoners free.
>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 Replies: I asked if you had read the record because you seem to be so certain he is guilty. I questioned the basis for your certainty. My assumption is that you have relied on the mainstream media for information about Mumia's case and his guilt. I don't think that doing so offers substantive evidence of his guilt or the facts of the case. Had you read the same media prior to Angela Davis's trial, you would have had to conclude she was a raving terrorist who conspired to break convicted felons out of prison. That's why we have trial by jury rather than trial by headline, but a fair trial with adedquate defense before a fairly chosen jury of peers free from lying witnesses and fabricated evidence.
>Michael: "Have you interviewed the jurors?"
>Me: See my response to the preceding question..
Michael Replies: See my rejoinder 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 Replies: "No one"???? There's a rather substantial national and international campaign on his behalf. I don't have to explain "why everyone else would comply in a conspiracy" because everyone else is not the point. Public opinion is that a jury and the media do not constitute a tribunal for adjudicating guilt or innocence beyond a reaonsable doubt. That you have concluded he is guilty is eminently clear, but that is just your opinion (based on what besides news media portrayals?).
>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.
Michael Replies: Those people who come in off the street to purchase items in your store are called customers. I don't minimize your desire to work in safety, but your apprehensions about your personal safety and Mumia's guilt or innocence should get disentangled. It seems your emotions are guilding your judgment about the facts of his case. I dare say that your personal risk or those of your coworkers of incurring harm as a result of Mumia's freedom is pretty small (unless you think he reads your email about him and is pissed off enough to come looking for you when he gets out). If your fears are that great, perhaps you ought to find another way to make your living, one that does not involved having to deal with people who come in off the street 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 Replies: I do not lack concern for your safety or those of other working people. I've spent the better part of my life organizing and representing workers (including cab drivers, who have a higher risk than yours or the cops of suffering personal violence) and engaging in battles over issues like occupational safety & health. I care about whether workers live or die (I am one), but I also care about justice. I don't let my personal fears cloud my judgment about principles by which I believe a just and decent society ought to be governed. (And since when did you get appointed guardian of workers' interests?)
>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 Replies: Well don't put yourself out! While you're waiting for the perfect victim to come along so that you can lift a finger in their defense, a lot of injustice is being perpetrated, including but not limited to cases of capital punishment.
>
>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 Replies: I have not called you any names (self-righteously or otherwise) but I have characterized your apparent indifference, prejudice, a fear-driven view of justice and the system that administers it.
>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
James, I don't have anything to prove to you. I don't seek your approval and your disapproval of my views is of little consequence to me personally. I do take seriously that your are sincerely fearful in your work. I'm sorry that those fears have been translated into what I consider a distorted sense of justice and an inflamed set of stereotypical views.