California Teachers “Heart” Police?

Anti-Abu-Jamal T-shirt sold in the Philadelphi...

Image via Wikipedia

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009 -2011

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

Do they really love police, or are their statements to that effect ground cover for their true feelings.  It seems their love is akin to a marriage of convenience and not a lasting love.  There is, or soon will be a rift, and we aren’t talking about the San Andres Rift,  in the state comprising a large part of the left coast.  The rift will be between the police unions/associations and the California Federation of Teachers (CFT.)  What seems a giant slap in the face of every police officer in California and across the nation, was passed in the form of a resolution by their so-called friends in the CFT.  The Dailey Caller in a story by Caroline May says in part:

Between negotiating for more benefits and teaching their students, the California Federation of Teachers has adopted a resolution of support for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

The leaders of the CFT,  glibly it seems, explained their actions in part through the last six words in the paragraph following:

At the CFT’s 2011 Convention in late March, the delegates passed 30 resolutions, from solidifying support for anti-bullying legislation to supporting transitional kindergarten. Among the resolutions largely pertaining to education and collective bargaining rights was Resolution 19 – to “Reaffirm support for death row journalist.”

Reaffirm, that’s a neat concise little word that speaks to a police officer’s murder in 1981 … some thirty years ago.  The police officer’s family have been in and out of court over this period, listening to first one and then other appeals of the convicted murderer, along with pleas by labor groups and others who have sided with the convicted killer, even though there seems not to be an iota of evidence to prove he is innocent:

“Mumia Abu-Jamal has for decades as a journalist fought courageously against racism and police brutality and for the human rights of all people and has taken strong stands in support of working people involved in labor struggles and in support of well-funded, quality, public education,” the resolution reads.

I suppose it is possible to make a saint of a demon, but the author of at least one book has his own opinion of the murderer and his defenders:

Daniel Flynn, author of “Cop killer: How Mumia Abu-Jamal conned millions into believing he was framed” told The Daily Caller that Abu-Jamal was the poster-child for ending the death penalty…20 – 30 years ago.

“Somebody should tell the California Teachers Federation that this is over, he is in jail, he is going to stay there,” Flynn said. “You have numerous eyewitnesses saying Mumia did it. You had ballistic evidence – Mumia’s gun at the scene was consistent with the bullet used to kill Faulkner. Mumia admitted after the fact that he did it.”

Not convinced the convicted killer is guilty?  Read the rest of the story from the link just below and then follow some of the related links.

Read more:

6 thoughts on “California Teachers “Heart” Police?

  1. Small surprise – Right or wrong, the CFT is one of what appear to be hundreds of organizations, local governments, etc. who believe that Mumia Abu-Jamal was wrongly convicted (see the Wikipedia article). There appears to be a great deal of debate on the issue of potential prosecutorial misconduct and/or collusion with the judge, and the validity of evidence has been challenged by multiple parties. Thus far, the issues appear far from resolved to the satisfaction of either side of the debate.

    The resolution – number 19 of 27 contained within the CFT’s resolution report, explains their position in detail. In short, the CFT, from their point of view, is supporting not a cop killer but an innocent man convicted of murdering a police officer.

    • John, it is obvious you read what you feel supports, what I consider, your flimsy observation and little more. To begin, I posted a link in my article to the Wikipedia article you reference in your comment. If you had really followed the article, you would have known the link was posted there. There has been a great deal of faux debate by the convicted murderer’s supporters. You really should dig beyond the one Wikipedia article. As to the CFT resolution, I believe it to be self-serving to and for the organization, and payback or future deposit for fellow union and leftist sympathizer’s support of CFT.

      You are welcome to continue in this vein, but your opinion probably lacks real validity. At least no more than some of the other untried (as in court trial) and untrue observations found among his fellow travelers.

      Thought I’d come back and say: Don’t feel insulted about what I have said above. What I have said is my opinion only,based I believe on the weight of the evidence. But I am passionate regarding this convicted murderer and have followed his shenanigans since before I retired from the NMSP.

      Here’s something to occupy some of your spare time and pass it on if you are interested.

  2. I have stated no opinion here; all I have done is clarify that, in the CFT’s mind and those of a number of other organizations, Mr. Abu Jamal did not commit the murder in question. From their standpoint – and only their standpoint (albeit one shared by quite a number of others) – they are supporting a man they believe to be innocent.

    I did, in fact, review articles (in addition to Wikipedia; the link was provided so that readers would not have to scroll around and find it) on the case before commenting, preferring to focus my efforts on recognized news outlets rather than partisan and/or political sources – which describes nearly all of the references you cited. I did not come away from this effort with a clear opinion on whether or not Mr. Abu-Jamal’s was guilty or improperly convicted; merely with an understanding of what the “other side” of the debate believes.

    I also took the time to find and provide a link to the resolution in question, which was lacking in your article.

    You know, Chuck, it seems lately that you seem unwilling to engage in discussion without taking some sort of personal slap at those who seek to clarify an issue or show the other side of it. I don’t know whether this represents some insecurity about your positions, an intolerance for opinions not entirely agreeing with your own, or some other factor, but I personally don’t think it reinforces your positions or does much for your public image as an elected official.

    • John,

      I added this to my comment below before I saw your new comment:

      Thought I’d come back and say: Don’t feel insulted about what I have said above. What I have said is my opinion only ,based I believe, on the weight of the evidence. But I am passionate regarding this convicted murderer and have followed his shenanigans since before I retired from the NMSP.

      Here’s something to occupy some of your spare time and pass it on if you are interested.

      Now, back to your new comments, thanks for clarifying and I understand your points. Regarding your last paragraph, one can take a direct personal slap or one can do so indirectly. I can certainly consider what you have said and thank you for the criticism. One can always learn.

Comments are closed.