Marquette University honors ’70s cop-killer Assata Shakur with mural

[jsglow]

Jesus was a criminal.  MLK was a criminal.  George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc. were treasonous.

We honor criminals all the time.  I think you need to draw a different line in the sand other than "well, she was convicted." 

I'm not going to debate this with you Sultan.  She's a convicted murderer who executed a defenseless law enforcement officer as determined by a jury of her peers in a lawful court, not Nelson Mandela,  MLK or Jesus Christ. 

Do you argue simply for the sake of arguing?  Don't you dare answer that. 

[GGGG]

I'm not going to debate this with you Sultan.  She's a convicted murderer who executed a defenseless law enforcement officer as determined by a jury of her peers in a lawful court, not Nelson Mandela,  MLK or Jesus Christ. 

Do you argue simply for the sake of arguing?  Don't you dare answer that. 

Dude, you drew a line in a sand and made an absolute statement.  Never a good thing. 

And sorry if you don't less using message boards for their intended purpose.

[jsglow]

Dude, you drew a line in a sand and made an absolute statement.  Never a good thing. 

And sorry if you don't less using message boards for their intended purpose.

Ignore.  First one.  Congrats.

[GGGG]

Ignore.  First one.  Congrats.

LOL...you have a good weekend too!

[keefe]

LOL...you have a good weekend too!

[4everwarriors]

I'm not for sure why we all can't get along, ai na?

[forgetful]

Is the FBI aware of all of this?  Because they added her to the most wanted list in 2013.  

Yes they are.  It was the FBI's analysis of evidence that concluded that she did not handle or shoot a gun at the scene and that the ballistics were consistent with a person surrendering. 

She does actively proselytize against the american system and did escape from prison at gunpoint.  She is one of the iconic figures on the lam and that is largely the reason for her inclusion on the most wanted list. 

[Jay Bee]

I'm not for sure why we all can't get along, ai na?

Cause some people are cop killers, hey?

[keefe]

Cause some people are cop killers, hey?

And some people are killer cops, ai'na?

[rocket surgeon]

Yes they are.  It was the FBI's analysis of evidence that concluded that she did not handle or shoot a gun at the scene and that the ballistics were consistent with a person surrendering. 

She does actively proselytize against the american system and did escape from prison at gunpoint.  She is one of the iconic figures on the lam and that is largely the reason for her inclusion on the most wanted list. 

i'm confused-fbi's analysis of...and she did not handle the gun or shoot it...

then why was she convicted and sent to jail?  did she not have competent defense/public defenders?  appeal process? or was this the "way things were handled" in the 70's?  was it b/c she was a known rable rouser, black panthers(not being racist here)?  the 70's were a very volitable time-vietnam, weather underground, manson, et.al.

picked a bad day to hang out with the black panthers or their ilk and be in the vicinity of a dead cop-heyna? 

[forgetful]

i'm confused-fbi's analysis of...and she did not handle the gun or shoot it...

then why was she convicted and sent to jail?  did she not have competent defense/public defenders?  appeal process? or was this the "way things were handled" in the 70's?  was it b/c she was a known rable rouser, black panthers(not being racist here)?  the 70's were a very volitable time-vietnam, weather underground, manson, et.al.

picked a bad day to hang out with the black panthers or their ilk and be in the vicinity of a dead cop-heyna? 

Did you miss the part about the jury being constructed of close friends and family of the deceased cop.

[rocket surgeon]

Did you miss the part about the jury being constructed of close friends and family of the deceased cop.

nope.   that was included in my "confused" part. 

        if that were the situation presented, as i do not doubt your setting of the scenario with the jury weighted heavily in favor of the plaitiff, should that not have been apparent and taken into account by the defense.  how did the defense allow this jury to be chosen?  alarms should have gone off. i will admit that i do not know the exact process by which a jury is chosen, but i simply envision it being akin to a draft with each side being able to present to the other who they want on and who they strike.  sounds like something that happened in the south, back in "the day" 

[forgetful]

nope.   that was included in my "confused" part. 

        if that were the situation presented, as i do not doubt your setting of the scenario with the jury weighted heavily in favor of the plaitiff, should that not have been apparent and taken into account by the defense.  how did the defense allow this jury to be chosen?  alarms should have gone off. i will admit that i do not know the exact process by which a jury is chosen, but i simply envision it being akin to a draft with each side being able to present to the other who they want on and who they strike.  sounds like something that happened in the south, back in "the day" 

That's what a lot claimed happened.  A public assigned defender and rigged jury. I have no idea what actually occurred, just wanted to post the "possible" other side of the story.  It is this other side of the story that is getting her a lot of modern supporters.

[wildbillsb]

To the collegiate basketball Pantheon somewhere up there:  Please, please, please, by all that is holy, let the basketball season start.........anon.

Thank you.

[Eldon]

Yes they are.  It was the FBI's analysis of evidence that concluded that she did not handle or shoot a gun at the scene and that the ballistics were consistent with a person surrendering. 

She does actively proselytize against the american system and did escape from prison at gunpoint.  She is one of the iconic figures on the lam and that is largely the reason for her inclusion on the most wanted list. 

I was being facetious, but okay.

So you're telling me that the FBI knows that it committed a grave injustice against this woman, according to its own evidence.  

And yet the FBI willingly draws attention to this case by officially labeling her a terrorist simply because she writes a couple of anti-American poems?

Let me rephrase what I interpret you as saying.  The FBI believes that the benefit of capturing a now-Cuban rabble-rouser outweighs the cost of drawing national attention to a case that it grossly botched?  The FBI wants revenge for her escape from prison that badly?  She rouses the rabble that much?

Conspiracy theories are fun to entertain and all, but they typically don't explain as many facts as the official story and when they do, they often require outlandish assertions in order to do so.

[Eldon]

To the collegiate basketball Pantheon somewhere up there:  Please, please, please, by all that is holy, let the basketball season start.........anon.

Thank you.

Go hang at the Al, bud.

[source?]

Did you miss the part about the jury being constructed of close friends and family of the deceased cop.

This statement is demonstrably false. I'm going to assume that you are simply misinformed, not intentionally misleading people. If you are interested in the truth, the jury was chosen by both parties from a pool of over 400 candidates. Of the 15 jurors selected, 10 women and 5 men, there were 5 who had some kind of relationship to some state trooper (not the one who was murdered). One girlfriend, two nephews, and two friends. None of them had any relationship with the trooper who was murdered. The trial was not even held in the county where the shooting occurred because the judge was worried about finding an impartial jury. Shakur also had a team of 6 attorneys working at her trial.

Shakur was also charged with another murder, which was dismissed due to the state failing to bring charges in a timely manner.

[mu-rara]

He was fired for calling out a student in his blog after being warned not to.  Keep pretending that didn't happen.

Marquette has plenty of right-leaning professors that have published all sorts of stuff and managed to keep their jobs.  Marquette recently had a left-leaning director who authorized a mural of a controversial figure along with one of her quotes, and she was fired.

So I think it is pretty obvious to me why people were let go, and it wasn't simply because they said or wrote the wrong thing.

I missed this.  Can you point me in that direction?

[Pakuni]

I missed this.  Can you point me in that direction?

Some snippets from the letter to McAdams from Arts & Sciences Dean Richard Holz (full letter linked below):

Instead of listening to Marquette's repeated requests and cautions not to put student names on the Internet, you applied your own inconsistent rationalizations about whose privacy is entitled to protection. Based upon your years of Internet postings, you knew or should have known that your Internet story would result in vulgar, vile, and threatening communications to Ms. Abbate.

You have been asked, advised, and warned on multiple prior occasions not to publicize students' names in connection with your blog posts. In March 2008, you published the name of a student who worked in advertising for the Marquette Tribune after she had declined to run an advertisement highlighting alleged risks from the “morning after” pill. Only after that student contacted you to advise of the impacts upon her and to request you to cease and desist did you delete her name. In March 2011, you published blog posts regarding a student who was helping to organize a campus performance of The Vagina Monologues. Again, the harmful consequences of your unilateral naming of students were pointed out. You acknowledged at that time that publishing student names on the Internet was a matter of concern, but given your naming of Ms. Abbate that acknowledgment from 2011 appears to be without meaning or effect.

Read the whole letter. Please. It's pretty damning.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ3f8dSDhNX1FQRnlpcTQ/view?pli=1&sle=true

[GGGG]

I missed this.  Can you point me in that direction?

Page 14 of this letter.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ3f8dSDhNX1FQRnlpcTQ/edit?pli=1

[Skatastrophy]

I find it very strange that anyone is angry about this.

[Tugg Speedman]

I find it very strange that anyone is angry about this.

They don't like his politics and it blinds them.  They are using this excuse to hate on him while pretending it has nothing to do with his politics.

[forgetful]

This statement is demonstrably false. I'm going to assume that you are simply misinformed, not intentionally misleading people. If you are interested in the truth, the jury was chosen by both parties from a pool of over 400 candidates. Of the 15 jurors selected, 10 women and 5 men, there were 5 who had some kind of relationship to some state trooper (not the one who was murdered). One girlfriend, two nephews, and two friends. None of them had any relationship with the trooper who was murdered. The trial was not even held in the county where the shooting occurred because the judge was worried about finding an impartial jury. Shakur also had a team of 6 attorneys working at her trial.

Shakur was also charged with another murder, which was dismissed due to the state failing to bring charges in a timely manner.

Like I said a few times.  No idea what actually transpired.  I was just referring to the claims made by supporters of Shakur.  It would appear that the reports by supporters are being a little loose with details (aka not directly related to the trooper). 

The issues with all evidence saying she did not handle or shoot a gun, though are demonstrably correct.  As is the ballistics reports saying she was surrendering (first shot) and then fleeing (second shot in the back). 

[GGGG]

They don't like his politics and it blinds them.  They are using this excuse to hate on him while pretending it has nothing to do with his politics.

McAdams?  Absolutely false.  I knew a number of conservative professors at Marquette.  I know plenty of them now.  I don't want to see a single one of them fired.

IMO the reasons for doing so in this case were obvious and plain as day.  You simply don't do what he did, especially after being warned about it in the past.

[Warriorfish]

They don't like his politics and it blinds them.  They are using this excuse to hate on him while pretending it has nothing to do with his politics.

And they ignore that MU has been harassing the guy for years.

Also, McAdams just didn't call out some random student on his blog.  He called out a student teacher, which is a very different matter, and is part of the contentious nature of this.  IMO, if you're teaching a class, you are a teacher first and student second.