<p>The whole Mumia thing exists in some realm outside conventional reality. In much of the world, both here and abroad, it is an article of faith that Mumia is innocent and was railroaded at trial. He is the international poster boy for racism in the American justice system and the barbarity of the American death penalty system. I can’t blame anyone, French or not, for objecting to racism in the American justice system (which exists, if not as virulently in the past) or to the death penalty (which is barbaric by the standards of most of the rest of the western world), even if I don’t agree with them fully. “Mumia” is international shorthand for that. Personally, I believe that he’s not a great candidate for that role, but that train left the station years and years ago.</p>
<p>I know my relatives from elsewhere are often quite shocked to learn that there are people who believe in good faith that Mumia actually killed Danny Faulkner. I, along with many other generally liberal people around here, believe Mumia actually killed Danny Faulkner, although I also believe that there were many, many shortcomings in the process that led to his conviction and sentence.</p>
<p>Though only the French could think to Name a street after a man who murdered an honest police officer while making a traffic stop, there are a great many that could rationalize there having done so. </p>
<p>The bereaved family not among them, of course.</p>
<p>JHS - I haven’t really followed this case, but do I understand the facts correctly? </p>
<p>Faulkner makes a routine traffic stop on Mumia’s brother. Mumia shoots Faulkner in front of witnesses and himself is wounded and apprehended. He later confesses to the crime in the hospital in front of more witnesses. After he is ‘lawyered-up’, he recants and claims the witnesses were lying. Forensic/ballistic work is shoddy causing this case to become a major ‘he said-she said’.</p>
<p>To me, this is enough to pass on the idea of naming a street after the guy. Sheesh. or…should I say sacrebleu!</p>
<p>While I agree with JHS’s reading of the case, I also detect a lot of cynicism on the part of the French. It’s a way of sidestepping France’s own racism that erupted in last year’s riots. Apparently, nothing has been done to address the issues that gave rise to the riots. St Denis, where the street is located, includes a high proportion of Muslim immigrants.
The French decision is as symbolic as the American vote: a lot of hot air, designed to appeal to certain constituencies instead of real policies.</p>
<p>I am nothing like a Mumia-case expert, and haven’t followed it for years (and you can get your head taken off for getting stuff wrong on this case, by either side). The whole story is complicated by the fact that Mumia himself has never really told his side of the story (for perfectly valid tactical reasons – it might open him up to cross-examination at a retrial, which is what he is seeking). Most of his defenders limit themselves to attacking the conduct of the trial and the conduct of the Philadelphia police at the time, when systematic harassment of leftist types like Mumia was pretty common.</p>
<p>Operating from memory only, then (and I’m sure there are others who are more up on the details): All or almost all of the witnesses against Mumia are suspect – they have either recanted their testimony and claimed they were pressured into it, or they were being paid by the police without that having been told to the defense or the jury. I think the “routine traffic stop” part is disputed, too, and honestly “routine traffic stop” could well mean a DWB (“driving while black”, i.e., petty harassment). I am not sure, but I think some Mumia supporters may believe it was more sinister than that. Mumia was, and is, a fairly sophisticated, educated person; the story of his hospital confession has always been a little hard to believe, and those witnesses a lot less than credible. The trial had 50 things wrong with it.</p>
<p>So, my personal bottom line is that I think Mumia probably did it – he was clearly involved in whatever happened, he had motive and opportunity, even if his motive was defending himself against something more serious than minor harassment, and I’ve never heard a believable theory of who else could have shot Faulkner. I think there was both sloppy and unethical or corrupt police and prosecutorial work in the effort to get a conviction, aided and abetted by a cynical hanging judge. I think a fair trial might or might not have resulted in a conviction. I don’t care all that much about the unfairness, personally, because I think he probably did it, and I don’t think what went on back then has any real bearing on the way trials are conducted now. If I were a judge I would probably think he was entitled to a retrial, but I haven’t looked at the case or the law that closely. I don’t think anyone should get the death penalty, but honestly cop killers are low on the list of criminals I would prefer not to execute. If there were no death penalty, though, there would be no “Free Mumia” movement, either, so as far as I’m concerned people who love the death penalty should learn to live with the French naming streets after murderers. I have much more sympathy for Danny Faulkner and his family than I do for Mumia.</p>
<p>Personally I think the guy is guilty as sin. Since I grew up and went to school in Berkeley I can attest to the mind-numbing propagandizing many people engage in regarding Mumia and his “cause.” </p>
<p>I found this website amazingly useful (if slightly partisan):</p>