Wojtek denies scariness

Doug Henwood dhenwood at panix.com
Fri Feb 11 12:55:42 PST 2000


Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:54:51 -0500 From: Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> Subject: RE: Remembering the Scottsboro Case (was Re: Breaking Butterflies&

Poisoning Wells) In-reply-to: <200002102129.VAA09795 at services.infothecary.com> X-Sender: sokol at jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com Message-id: <3.0.6.32.20000211115451.00e99430 at jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" References: <3.0.6.32.20000210154023.00e88210 at jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>

At 09:29 PM 2/10/00 +0000, /jordan wrote:
>
>Let's hear it for 15-second-man-on-the-street analysis! Of course,
>the question is not "Should he be punished if he killed a cop?"
>(which seems to be the question they must have thought you asked)
>but rather "Does a person accused of a crime where there are no
>living witnesses deserve a fair trial even if the only evidence is
>circumstantial?" ... and what does it have to do with your neighbors
>being black? I bet if you asked my French neighbors, they'd say
>the same thing. So?
>
> I absolutely understand them.
>
>Doug is right: you *are* scary.

Jordan: you knowledge of the case as as good as mine because both come form the same source: media reports. And according to that source, the evidence against Mumia is pretty condemning - few people other than crazed cult members disagree that he did shoot the cop. Of course boith you and I know that the mere fact of firing a weapon is not enough to convince someone of homicide - the devil is in the details, as they say, motives, contributory behavior, extenuationg circumastances etc. - all that to be determined at a trial.

The point I tried to make, however, that such details matter very little to popel who are simply tired of street violence, macho men with guns setting their scores. They demand justice, which in their view is the ability to walk without the fear of being shot and punishing anyone who threatens that ability.

I can understand that where you are coming from, "self- defence" is an absolute, meaning that a man should be free to shoot anyone he percieves as a threat ( I used to work for an elcted rep in CA, I read that in the letters from gun rights advocates). That is perhaps acceptabele in the macho Wild West - but in the civilised world, believe me, *that* is really scary.

ps. while i see the gun control liberals as pathetic fools, it is the "vigilante self-defence" crowd that makes me really puke. It is them who should be banned from possessing anything that even resembles a weapon, not the so-called criminals whose motives seem quite rational in comparison.

wojtek



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list