DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Universe Prince on September 21, 2007, 06:13:34 PM
-
The story, as I understand it, is that some dark-skinned teens asked for permission to hang out by a tree, on school property, where normally a bunch of pale-skinned teens hang out. The dark-skinned teens got permission, but then found nooses hanging from the tree. Nooses painted in the school colors apparently. (I'm sure someone thought that was clever.) This got a mild reaction from the school officials, and, long story short, tempers flared until a pale-skinned teen ended up getting the snot beat out of him by six dark-skinned teens. The local D.A. then decided to charge those six dark-skinned teens with attempted second-degree murder and conspiracy to commit second-degree murder, and the local D.A. thought a good idea would be to try those six dark-skinned teens as adults.
After I read various accounts of this story the other day, my first thought was that I understood exactly why the pale-skinned kid got the snot beat out of him. And to be quite honest I'm having an emotional reaction to this story to the point that I have to say I am thinking the Jena 6 should get off with a slap on the wrist, and the guys who hung the nooses should be publicly humiliated in some fashion.
What sort of person hangs nooses in a tree just because someone with darker skin wants to share the shade of that tree? I don't really know for sure, but my first guess is a low-grade imbecile. And yet, I know the person(s) who hung the nooses is(are) probably not actually that stupid. So why would someone do something that stupid anyway? And charging the teens with attempted and conspiracy to commit second-degree murder? What the frak? I seriously do not understand this. I don't get it. Is it fear? Hate? What causes people to make these choices in A.D. 2007?
-
I think the main reason the six "dark skinned" guys are apparently being held to a tougher standard is that - from what I've read - they continued to beat the snot out of the white skinned guy even after he fell unconscious. Indeed, apparently some didn't even start hitting him until he passed out.
When the guy cannot fight back any longer, and you keep on hitting him, it goes from a simple assault to attempted murder.
-
I think the main reason the six "dark skinned" guys are apparently being held to a tougher standard is that - from what I've read - they continued to beat the snot out of the white skinned guy even after he fell unconscious. Indeed, apparently some didn't even start hitting him until he passed out. When the guy cannot fight back any longer, and you keep on hitting him, it goes from a simple assault to attempted murder.
I don't think that supports a "slap on the wrist" prosecution approach, then :-\
-
from what I've read - they continued to beat the snot out of the white skinned guy even after he fell unconscious. Indeed, apparently some didn't even start hitting him until he passed out.
I haven't read that. Where did you find it?
-
six on one is not a simple beat down
assault is still assualt
but the noose cause should point out the beaten kid formally request to be beaten
it`s the severity that is in question
pretty much nobody is innocent in this case
p.s. the fact these kids needed permission to sit in a shaded tree
colors the claims jena is not racist
-
six on one is not a simple beat down
Nope - it could be considered felony assault, or even attempted murder.
but the noose cause should point out the beaten kid formally request to be beaten
From what I saw, I don't think he had anything to do with the noose, he was just bragging about something one of his friends had done.
pretty much nobody is innocent in this case
You're right there. In an earlier incident, a white kid 'allegedly' pulled a gun on a group of black kids, and one of them took it away from him and kept it (to show to his parents?). The black kid was arrested and charged with theft of a firearm, while nothing happened to the white kid. I'm not sure what the outcome was, but it does cast suspicion on the prosecutor's decision to press such severe charges in the beating case.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_Six
white tree?????
that just means fulfilling a prophecy
phfff
and i still say everybody is guilty
thanks hnumpah
in fact not enough people are charged
-
from what I've read - they continued to beat the snot out of the white skinned guy even after he fell unconscious. Indeed, apparently some didn't even start hitting him until he passed out.
I haven't read that. Where did you find it?
Four days after the arson, several students jumped a white classmate, Justin Barker, knocking him unconscious before stomping and kicking him.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/04/bell.jena.six/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/04/bell.jena.six/?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail)
"When I heard a black boy say something to Justin, I turned my head and I saw somebody hit Justin," one student wrote in a statement. "He fell in between the gym door and the concrete barricade. I saw Robert Bailey kneel down and punch Justin in the head. ... Then Carwin Jones kicked him in the head. ... Theo Shaw tried to kick him so I pushed Theo Shaw down. I also saw Mychal Bell standing over him."
http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS/70916045 (http://www.thetowntalk.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS/70916045)
A while later, an African-American student allegedly punched Barker from behind, knocking him unconscious. Then, say white witnesses, a group of black students that included Bailey continued to assault Barker, kicking and stomping on him.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20218937/site/newsweek/page/0/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20218937/site/newsweek/page/0/)
-
From your MSNBC link:
The tension culminated back at school the following Monday. Justin Barker, a white student who says he is friends with the kids who hung the nooses, reportedly taunted Bailey at lunch (Barker denies this). A while later, an African-American student allegedly punched Barker from behind, knocking him unconscious. Then, say white witnesses, a group of black students that included Bailey continued to assault Barker, kicking and stomping on him. (Jena High student Justin Purvis and other black witnesses dispute this.) Barker, who was treated for injuries at a nearby hospital, was released later that day, apparently in strong enough shape to attend a class-ring ceremony that evening.
Hm. I'm finding myself still more than a bit skeptical of the attempted second-degree murder or conspiracy to commit second-degree murder charges. But those charges have been reduced. And I still seriously question the teens being tried as adults.
But as I said, I'm reacting emotionally. Racism disgusts me. And no, that is not a figure of speech. And I confess a part of my bias here is that I percieve the black teens as defending themselves against the kind of racism that makes me angry enough to want to strike out. There is a part of me that would very much like to gather up the guys responsible for the nooses, and the school district committee that overruled the recommendation of expulsion for those guys, and give them all good hard slap in the face and to ask just what the frak were they thinking? And that's the mild reaction. There is also a part of me that feels they need a good public whipping. This is, I know, an emotional reaction, and not a rational one. What can I say? The story makes me angry.
I considered not saying much if anything about this story, because I usually don't say much here at the Saloon when a story makes me this angry. I don't say much because I know my reaction is mostly emotional. But I feel I need to say something. I do not want to say nothing. I don't want to let this one pass, and have said nothing. So this is me trying express my anger without ranting.
The nooses alone should have gained those responsible expulsions (edit) expulsions for those responsible (/edit). It should not have been tolerated as merely a prank, imo. It should not have been tolerated at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but as much as I try to be patient and understanding of other people, I have very little patience or understanding for that kind of behavior. So I am, rightly or wrongly, biased in favor of the Jena 6. Because if I could be put in their place, I cannot say for certain that I would not have hit someone.
-
One wonders what the outcry would be if this were a white on white beat down or black on black beat down
Would there be a Jena 6?
Is the noose the figurative trump card for the defense? Is the symbolism of the noose a valid excuse for the anger that culminated in what obviously borders on a racial hate crime?
-
<<p.s. the fact these kids needed permission to sit in a shaded tree
colors the claims jena is not racist>>
kimba's the only one in this thread who got it right. The issue isn't the conduct of this teen or that teen. Teens say dumb, stupid and outrageous things all the time. I don't think anyone's child should have his head stomped into a permanent vegetal state (which could easily have been the result of the attack) just for saying something stupid, ugly or offensive. Whoever participated in that assault should be charged with the appropriate offence and prosecuted to the max, subject to whatever defences or mitigation (self-defence, provocation, etc.) are available, if any. The school administration is negligent not only for not reacting forcefully to the nooses in the first instance, but probably for not being pro-active in combating the endemic racism which must inevitably have seeped into the school from the larger society. Fighting racism should be one of a public school's primary endeavours in a state like Louisiana.
You have to wonder, of course, about asking permission to sit under a fucking tree. THAT, coupled with the instances of selective prosecution given in this thread and with the drive-by noose exhibition, indicates the real problem of the South, despite all the denials of the bullshit "New South" variety - - deep-seated, underlying racism, bred in the bone. Don't tell me that if the past seven or eight generations had it, that this generation doesn't. That's just insulting the intelligence of anyone who can read a newspaper.
-
I guess everyone missed where the administration told the black students that they didn't need anyone's permission to sit anywhere they wanted.
-
<<I guess everyone missed where the administration told the black students that they didn't need anyone's permission to sit anywhere they wanted.>>
Nobody missed it. What YOU missed was the significance of the felt need to ask.
-
Nobody missed it. What YOU missed was the significance of the felt need to ask.
Guess it's been too long since you were in high school. What with all the cliques and stuff....
-
Why would they need to ask the PRINCIPAL about sitting in on some clique's turf? That would be very odd. The way the cliques were organized was that they all seemed to do it themselves. People just knew not to embarrass themselves by sitting at the "wrong" lunch table. Besides which, to sit at another clique's table would have been to abandon your own habitual lunch companions. Most people looked forward to eating with their friends.
-
So they could say that the principal told them they could sit there? You know, the ultimate power figure in the school?
Maybe tweak the nose of whitey?
-
Sounds pretty far-fetched to me. I think they just figured the tree might have been whites-only and they didn't want to transgress school policy. Then when they HAD the permission and the nooses and other harassment and taunting began to occur, they snapped.
-
Oh good gravy....let's put that right next to "If Bush knew....." ::)
-
Put it right next to anything you like. Whatever happens to be plain common sense and public knowledge will always seem nonsensical to the right-wing fringe of see-no-evil-hear-no-evil monkeys who are always covering up either their eyes or their ears.
-
Put it right next to anything you like. Whatever happens to be plain common sense ....
Plain common sense? Hysterical. Ranting the theory that this was some "unspoken school policy" and as a result, the blacks in question "snapped" defies all aspects of common sense. Snapped perhaps at the white kid bragging about what other kids may have done, facilitated by the insidious downloading of how much a victim they're supposed to be, simply by the color of their skin. School Policy??
I remember my 1st year in HS, during some pep rally, I was standing under this big shaded tree, with several oter students I didn't know. Another student came up to me, and with a smile said "hi", and asked me how I was doing. I said "fine", and he mentioned, "Do you happen to know where you are"? I'm thnking trick question, but he then answered for me, along the lines of if I didn't leave the immediate area, the trashcan over to the left was going to be my new home. It was a hangout for certain Seniors, mostly the jocks. It wasn't some unspoken school policy. It was an unspoken click region. Sure, i could have gone to the principal and asked "permission" to hang out there, and he would have said of course. Nothing to do with "school policy"
Nothing excuses any student from hanging nooses in trees or from cars. That's simply looking to incite a negative reaction. But trying to claim, (with of course the tact of "It's the south" as the supposed smoking gun) that this is school policy for blacks to have to ask permission to stand some specific place, is beyond moronc. It's fits neatly right next to the garbage that if Bush knew (in advance about 911, he would have sat on the info)
-
Prince, there is a piece of the story you missed. I found a "nutshell" version on colorofchange.org:
Last fall in Jena, the day after two Black high school students sat
beneath the "white tree" on their campus, nooses were hung from the
tree. When the superintendent dismissed the nooses as a "prank," more
Black students sat under the tree in protest. The District Attorney
then came to the school accompanied by the town's police and demanded
that the students end their protest, telling them, "I can be your best
friend or your worst enemy... I can take away your lives with a stroke
of my pen."
A series of white-on-black incidents of violence followed, and the DA
did nothing. But when a white student was beaten up in a schoolyard
fight, the DA responded by charging six black students with attempted
murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
The noose-hanging incident and the DA's visit to the school set the
stage for everything that followed. Racial tension escalated over the
next couple of months, and on November 30, the main academic building of
Jena High School was burned down in an unsolved fire. Later the same
weekend, a black student was beaten up by white students at a party.
The next day, black students at a convenience store were threatened by a
young white man with a shotgun. They wrestled the gun from him and ran
away. While no charges were filed against the white man, the students
were later arrested for the theft of the gun.
That Monday at school, a white student, who had been a vocal supporter
of the students who hung the nooses, taunted the black student who was
beaten up at the off-campus party and allegedly called several black
students "nigger." After lunch, he was knocked down, punched and
kicked by black students. He was taken to the hospital, but was
released and was well enough to go to a social event that evening.
Six Black Jena High students, Robert Bailey (17), Theo Shaw (17),
Carwin Jones (18), Bryant Purvis (17), Mychal Bell (16) and an
unidentified minor, were expelled from school, arrested and charged
with second-degree attempted murder. The first trial ended last
month, and Mychal Bell, who has been in prison since December, was
convicted of aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated
battery (both felonies) by an all-white jury in a trial where his
public defender called no witnesses. During his trial, Mychal's
parents were ordered not to speak to the media and the court
prohibited protests from taking place near the courtroom or where the
judge could see them.
-
Because if I could be put in their place, I cannot say for certain that I would not have hit someone.
But would you have ganged up on him, or continued to beat him after he was unconscious?
-
And I still seriously question the teens being tried as adults.
Why? From Henny's post:
Six Black Jena High students, Robert Bailey (17), Theo Shaw (17),
Carwin Jones (18), Bryant Purvis (17), Mychal Bell (16) and an
unidentified minor, were expelled from school, arrested and charged
with second-degree attempted murder.
Of the ones whose ages were listed, every one of them qualifies to be tried as an adult depending on the seriousness of the crime. Different states have different statutes, but I'd bet just about every one of them allows teens as young as 16 to be tried as adults.
What I question, based on other elements of the story, is the bias of the sheriff and prosecutor.
The District Attorney then came to the school accompanied by the town's police and demanded that the students end their protest, telling them, "I can be your best friend or your worst enemy... I can take away your lives with a stroke of my pen."
A series of white-on-black incidents of violence followed, and the DA did nothing. But when a white student was beaten up in a schoolyard fight, the DA responded by charging six black students with attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder.
The noose-hanging incident and the DA's visit to the school set the stage for everything that followed. Racial tension escalated over the next couple of months, and on November 30, the main academic building of Jena High School was burned down in an unsolved fire. Later the same
weekend, a black student was beaten up by white students at a party. The next day, black students at a convenience store were threatened by a young white man with a shotgun. They wrestled the gun from him and ran away. While no charges were filed against the white man, the students
were later arrested for the theft of the gun.
That Monday at school, a white student, who had been a vocal supporter of the students who hung the nooses, taunted the black student who was beaten up at the off-campus party and allegedly called several black students "nigger." After lunch, he was knocked down, punched and kicked by black students. He was taken to the hospital, but was released and was well enough to go to a social event that evening.
-
Today's news suggested that the two who were arrested for hanging the two nooses from the back of their truck, ages 18 and 16, were bonafide members of the KKK.
"What I question, based on other elements of the story, is the bias of the sherrif and the prosecutor."
I think most of America, when viewing the klan of the southern states, always assumes or concludes after protracted nonaction that the sherrif and prosecutor are always involved--otherwise what would explain the lack of legal action against racial outbreaks like this one.
If this be generally true, and I believe it to be so, the fact that the sherrif and prosecutor are odiously involved suggests two things: (1) the problem is near omnipresent and endemic, socially permitted, highly entrenched, (2) it is a recognizable porthole to change, and simply by addressing from a federal level, change can be brought about. Start prosecuting these corrupt officials on the local level with the federal hammer and you would soon see some recognizable change. If no compliance, start shutting off all valves to the state, take over programs that give to Blacks and increase them--a furthur inspiration to begin to cauterize the hate that clearly exists.
A furthur suggestion might be to apply the Rico hammer directly to klan members, where it clearly qualifies for application.
-
Strange country we live in.
Apparently it is ok for a gang of six to kick the snot out of a boy because six months earlier someone hung a noose on a tree.
Or it is ok to kick the shit out of a guy who is unconscious motionless on the ground because the sheriff or the DA may or may not have some baggage.
And apparently it is ok to let these guys off because some white boy hired a lawyer and plea bargained down to a lesser crime.
-
I'm not saying anyone comes out of this all lily-white. What I am saying is that I do suspect the motives of the sheriff and DA in light of past events, especially the one involving the white kid who pulled a gun on a group of black kids and got off with nothing - so there was no plea-barrgain involved there - while the kid who took the gun from him was charged with theft of a firearm.
As far as letting the ones who hung the noose go, I don't necessarily agree with it, but that was the choice that was made. Charging the black kids as adults and with serious crimes after continuing their attack once the victim was unconscious, I also have no problem with, except, as I said, I suspect the law may not be being evenly applied here.
-
Or it is ok to kick the shit out of a guy who is unconscious motionless on the ground because the sheriff or the DA may or may not have some baggage.
"...Later the same weekend, a black student was beaten up by white students at a party..."
"That Monday at school, a white student, who had been a vocal supporter of the students who hung the nooses, taunted the black student who was beaten up at the off-campus party and allegedly called several black students "nigger..."
-
"That Monday at school, a white student, who had been a vocal supporter of the students who hung the nooses, taunted the black student who was beaten up at the off-campus party and allegedly called several black students "nigger..."
That doesn't excuse beating the snot out of a kid who is unconscious. And conflating the issue dilutes the law.
-
The District Attorney then came to the school accompanied by the town's police and demanded that the students end their protest, telling them, "I can be your best friend or your worst enemy... I can take away your lives with a stroke of my pen."
That was in response to a series of fights at the school, not to a protest. The DA came to an assembly the principal called to address the fights and protests after a series of them. The comment he made was when he couldn't (initially) get the attention of the students in the assembly.
-
Strange country we live in.
Apparently it is ok for a gang of six to kick the snot out of a boy because six months earlier someone hung a noose on a tree.
To begin at the beginning: should a noose be hung from a white-only tree, it is morally incumbent upon all Whites to proffer forth the guilty or the names. Laws regarding witnessing crimes are in effect in the general national legal body--you can't just refuse to talk because you got friends or don't like, etc. The Law considers requiring witnesses to tell the truth to be the morally correct posture.
Admittedly, no evidence of legal application may exist down there in our most arcane state, and the issue of "kids" and legal perscription always exists. That then is a corporal part of the problem. A law should be passed that when a hate crime happens on or just of the campus of an educational institution, people who witness this be required by penalty of law to render forth testimony, or be given stiff, meaningful, educational, tough love sentences. This would occlude the potency of enablement and engendering, which are ribs of "hate crime" statues and also, strangely concurrent, the varying theories regarding our youth and their growing anger and recalcitrancies.
No ignoring this primal encounter point. It must be examined thoroughly. The worst case scenario would be to leave this lack of responsible response from the Whites completely alone--to ignore it. It's importance must be shouted out. The transgression by the collective Whites gives manifestation of mob mentality here, or at the very least proof of universal approval of the act. It is responsible adults displaying maturity to kids.
Providing emphacis on the need for honesty from a group of afterall children, we can proceed, having had established a foundation for real, not fluid, law, to prosecute the real offenders.
They be the prosecutor.
The prosecutor was the legal chair for the school board; the school board voted to have it labelled a "hate crime" and he persuaded them to change.
If the status is moved to a "hate crime" he will have to be punished for his enabling and engendering.
I am looking for a Dylan song which would lament a "colonel hanged by his own petard."
-
"That Monday at school, a white student, who had been a vocal supporter of the students who hung the nooses, taunted the black student who was beaten up at the off-campus party and allegedly called several black students "nigger..."
That doesn't excuse beating the snot out of a kid who is unconscious. And conflating the issue dilutes the law.
You seem caught up on the single kid beaten by six negroes.
I admit the image is terrifying.
Think we will see the day when it happens to us, randomly and without reason?
It has been happening to the Blacks all along.
If "who started it" matters, we'll lose that one too.
-
<<Ranting the theory that this was some "unspoken school policy" and as a result, the blacks in question "snapped" defies all aspects of common sense. >>
I never said this was "unspoken school policy," but that the black students might have felt that it was. As a matter of fact, about three posts back, I was careful to emphasize that this might have been perceived or felt to be school policy by the black students. Here's what I said then:
<<Nobody missed it. What YOU [Ami] missed was the significance of the felt need to ask.>>
I thought that made it pretty clear that I was not talking about actual school policy, which would have required a real need to ask, but only about a perceived school policy, which would have produced a "felt" rather than a real or actual need to ask.
Unfortunately I wasn't as clear in my later posts. However, this one (the last but one before sirs' insane ranting) I said this:
<<Sounds pretty far-fetched to me. I think they just figured the tree might have been whites-only and they didn't want to transgress school policy. Then when they HAD the permission and the nooses and other harassment and taunting began to occur, they snapped.>>
I think it's pretty clear from that that we are not talking about actual school policy. We are still talking about perceived or felt policy, not actual policy. However, some of our conservative friends apparently suffer severe handicaps in reading for comprehension, and I guess had I been even clearer, it might have prevented sirs' outburst.
<<But trying to claim, (with of course the tact of "It's the south" as the supposed smoking gun) that this is school policy for blacks to have to ask permission to stand some specific place, is beyond moronc. >>
Well, sure it is. But what's even MORE moronic is misrepresenting what I said in the way that you did. It is pretty fucking stupid, and anyone reading what I posted, anyone that is with a modicum of cognitive brain-power, would have realized that I said no such thing.
-
I thought that made it pretty clear that I was not talking about actual school policy, which would have required a real need to ask, but only about a perceived school policy, which would have produced a "felt" rather than a real or actual need to ask.
According to testimony, that question (about sitting under the tree) was asked in "jocular" fashion.
-
"That Monday at school, a white student, who had been a vocal supporter of the students who hung the nooses, taunted the black student who was beaten up at the off-campus party and allegedly called several black students "nigger..."
That doesn't excuse beating the snot out of a kid who is unconscious. And conflating the issue dilutes the law.
I think the build-up of racial tension helps to explain it. No, it doesn't excuse it, but the boys shouldn't have been charged with attempted murder either.
-
I think the build-up of racial tension helps to explain it. No, it doesn't excuse it, but the boys shouldn't have been charged with attempted murder either.
Why not? There was a very real possibility the kid could have died.
One kick to the temple and the outcome could have been very different.
-
I thought that made it pretty clear that I was not talking about actual school policy, which would have required a real need to ask, but only about a perceived school policy, which would have produced a "felt" rather than a real or actual need to ask.
According to testimony, that question (about sitting under the tree) was asked in "jocular" fashion.
"Jocular" has long been fashionable in Dixie.
In very fact, Dixie's highest preference for their ninnies is that they be "jocular."
What went so horribly wrong?
-
<<According to testimony, that question (about sitting under the tree) was asked in "jocular" fashion.>>
Well, I didn't see that, but it obviously takes away one argument that racism is endemic in Jena. Still leaving the other arguments (the selective prosecution examples, the nooses on the tree and the pickup truck.)
Crane - - if the alleged victims of racism are joking about it to the principal, and especially if the core idea of the the joke is the supposedly segregated tree, itself a truly absurd idea, then it does take away from my original idea that the request to the principal indicates a serious problem of racism in the mind of some of the black students. Again, not to deny the other objective indicia of real racism and real problems.
-
<<Strange country we live in.
<<Apparently it is ok for a gang of six to kick the snot out of a boy because six months earlier someone hung a noose on a tree.
<<Or it is ok to kick the shit out of a guy who is unconscious motionless on the ground because the sheriff or the DA may or may not have some baggage.>>
I don't know where you make this stuff up from. NOBODY figures it's OK to beat a kid unconscious. You persist, on the one hand, in totally misrepresenting the liberal (i.e., anti-racist) side of this issue and OTOH of minimizing the undeniable evidence of selective prosecution and systemic racial bias in the Sheriff's and D.A.'s offices.
<<And apparently it is ok to let these guys off because some white boy hired a lawyer and plea bargained down to a lesser crime.>>
Ask domer about that. Probably happens every fucking day in every criminal court in the U.S. and Canada. Maybe you'd prefer to pay the higher taxes necessary to pay for all the additional trials and appeals that would result if plea bargaining were banned, or for the facilities to house all the extra convicts for all those extra years. Think about it - - more court-houses, more D.A.'s, more clerks and investigators, more judges, more court reporters, more secretaries and receptionists, more gasoline to transport them back and forth , more prisons, more guards, more insurance, more public defenders . . . the list goes on, my friend. You, who are so concerned with the cost of Canada's "free" health care, maybe ought to take a little more interest in the cost of banning or limiting plea bargains in your own country.
-
This is my bottom line.
Try the boys for the crime they committed.
If so motivated, try the community in a separate trial.
Do not combine them. That would be an injustice.
-
I think the build-up of racial tension helps to explain it. No, it doesn't excuse it, but the boys shouldn't have been charged with attempted murder either.
Why not? There was a very real possibility the kid could have died.
One kick to the temple and the outcome could have been very different.
Could have been, but obviously wasn't the case.
"He was taken to the hospital, but was released and was well enough to go to a social event that evening."
-
And if it happens to your son, you would be willing to write it off as boys will be boys?
BTW why isn't this a hate crime?
Race certainly was a factor.
-
And if it happens to your son, you would be willing to write it off as boys will be boys?
BTW why isn't this a hate crime?
Race certainly was a factor.
I don't care which way you frame it, the boy was egging it on by calling the other boys "niggers." And I hope to teach my son well enough that he would never be involved in a situation like this to begin with.
That said, the boys should still be punished for the fight, and if such a thing happened to my son, of course I would be upset and angry. But attempted murder is taking it too far.
-
And should this be classified as a hate crime?
-
And should this be classified as a hate crime?
Probably it should be. But I think that the actions on both sides (including previous fights and incidents) were all hate based crimes - it's kind of a wash.
-
the boy was egging it on by calling the other boys "niggers."
Source?
I haven't read that at all.
-
Probably it should be. But I think that the actions on both sides (including previous fights and incidents) were all hate based crimes - it's kind of a wash.
Should previous activity be pertinent in hate crime adjudication?
Or is that for a jury to decide?
Tthis whole thing is about arbitrary decisions by the DA.
-
"He was taken to the hospital, but was released and was well enough to go to a social event that evening."
So, if I take a shot at you during an armed robbery, and miss, I can't be charged with attempted murder simply because you're able to go to a party later that evening? It is the act that is charged, not necessarily the outcome.
-
<<Ranting the theory that this was some "unspoken school policy" and as a result, the blacks in question "snapped" defies all aspects of common sense. >>
I never said this was "unspoken school policy," but that the black students might have felt that it was. As a matter of fact, about three posts back, I was careful to emphasize that this might have been perceived or felt to be school policy by the black students.
Let me give you a quckl reality lesson, Tee. People can FEEL anything. There's frequently no rhyme or reason for someone to feel some emotion. Using feelings vs one's own thought process is one of the biggest flaws to liberal ideology, since so much is based on good intentions to make one feel better, but damn the consequences of the actions/proposals, so long as it makes one feel good about it.
Here's what I said then: <<Nobody missed it. What YOU [Ami] missed was the significance of the felt need to ask.>>
I thought that made it pretty clear that I was not talking about actual school policy, which would have required a real need to ask, but only about a perceived school policy, which would have produced a "felt" rather than a real or actual need to ask.
Which is course is 100% PURE SPECULATION, with not a shred of evidentiary back-up, again, much liked the Bush lied garbage. It's basically what you want it to be...or should I say, its your feeling that this is how it went down. Which simply adds even more layers of non-substance to your end of the discussion
-
<<Let me give you a quckl reality lesson, Tee. People can FEEL anything. There's frequently no rhyme or reason for someone to feel some emotion. Using feelings vs one's own thought process is one of the biggest flaws to liberal ideology, since so much is based on good intentions to make one feel better, but damn the consequences of the actions/proposals, so long as it makes one feel good about it. >>
First of all, the issue is dead because as Ami has pointed out, apparently the kid's asking permission was meant as a joke, not because he really felt he needed permission. If he had NOT been joking, your point that "there's frequently o rhyme or reason for someone to feel some emotion" is (like pretty much everything you say) absurdly unreal and truly indicative of someone who has no real experience of life - -of course most emotions or feelings are based on something and in this particular case, if the kid HAD felt the need to ask for permission to sit under the tree, the only logical reason he would have felt the need to ask would have been the underlying racism of the society - - which, BTW, is quite real, as demonstrated by the other factors in the case - - the nooses, the actions of the Sheriff and D.A. and the selective prosecutions and obvious abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
<<Which is course is 100% PURE SPECULATION [referring to school policy as perceived by black students, based on what I then assumed in the absence of contrary evidence was a real need to ask permission to sit under the tree] with not a shred of evidentiary back-up, again . . .>>
standard sirs modus operandi - - the "not a shred of evidence" malarkey, after all of the evidence, in this case, the nooses, the prosecutor's and sheriff's actions and the relatively benign school reaction to the nooses, had all been laid out in painstaking detail by myself and other posters in this very thread. sirs' belief is, if the evidence is against you, don't argue with it, just claim that it does not exist, and maybe there's one imbecile in 1,000 (likely an illiterate) who will be taken in by the denial.
<<much liked the Bush lied garbage. It's basically what you want it to be...or should I say, its your feeling that this is how it went down. >>
The Bush "garbage" is basically an iron-clad case that he lied the country into war, which I would think most normal people have come to accept as self-evident. The circumstantial case for a lie (which, short of a confession or a tape of the lie's actually being planned or discussed, is the ONLY kind of a case it's possible to have) is overwhelming. Once again, defeated in every discussion of the actual issue, with all cards on the table, sirs resorts to the back-door tactic of ignoring all the evidence that proves Bush lied, denies the existence of any such evidence, and tries to pull it off in a one-word indictment ("garbage") as if, by calling it garbage, sirs has finally settled the issue once and for all. Pathetic.
<<Which simply adds even more layers of non-substance to your end of the discussion>>
Right, windbag. It (what, exactly?) "simply adds even more layers of non-substance," why? Why because sirs says so, of course. You are so full of shit. If you want to attack something I said, fine. But you'll have to do a lot better than just calling it "garbage" or "adds more layers of non-substance." You'll have to lay out your reasons. Oh, sorry, I forgot. You already did that, and I wiped the floor with them. Sorry.
-
<<much liked the Bush lied garbage. It's basically what you want it to be...or should I say, its your feeling that this is how it went down. >>
The Bush "garbage" is basically an iron-clad case that he lied the country into war, which I would think most normal people have come to accept as self-evident.
:D Well, at least I got to laugh at the joke of the day, so far. The day is young however, and likely frought with many more to come from the left side of the aisle
-
<<Well, at least I got to laugh at the joke of the day, so far. The day is young however, and likely frought with many more to come from the left side of the aisle>>
You get to laugh at lots of things, sirs. As do I. One of the benefits of belonging to this group, I guess.
-
<<Well, at least I got to laugh at the joke of the day, so far. The day is young however, and likely frought with many more to come from the left side of the aisle>>
You get to laugh at lots of things, sirs.
Now there's a substantiated understatement
-
I cannot help but envision sirs as being totally hairless and naked from rolling around so much at all the opinions he considers mirthful. Rolling around on threadbare a threadbare carpet covered with buttons, rags and drool.
-
That's pretty .....ummm..... revealing Xo, if that's what you tend to ummmmm ... envision :P
-
Perhaps you are unaware of the vast number of times you indicate you are prone to laugh at the posts of other individuals.
It's not like I want to envision this. Far from it.
-
Then my suggestion is don't. Or at least don't display such a tendency in a public forum
-
Is the noose the figurative trump card for the defense? Is the symbolism of the noose a valid excuse for the anger that culminated in what obviously borders on a racial hate crime?
By itself, no. It's one thing added to several others that lead up to the beating. But I'd say the nooses in the tree is a good symbol of the sort of racism in the environment of the teens. Expulsions for the students who made and hung the nooses would have done a lot to deflate the situation, at least for the African-American teens. But that didn't happen. And from there, the racial insults apparently continued, until someone got the snot beat out of him. No, beating the guy up is not a good response, but it is one I can understand. And the fact that those teens were living with the kind of racism that results in nooses in a tree, well, yeah, I think that should be a factor to consider in this case. But that's my opinion, and said I said before, I know my reaction is emotional. I've tried to separate my emotions from this situation, but I confess I'm finding that very difficult. I keep going back to the fact that they were living in a environment that included someone put nooses in a tree and get basically a slap on the wrist for it. Which leads me back to my emotional reaction.
-
are the nooses something for the jury to consider or the DA, when setting charges?
-
Six Black Jena High students, Robert Bailey (17), Theo Shaw (17),
Carwin Jones (18), Bryant Purvis (17), Mychal Bell (16) and an
unidentified minor, were expelled from school, arrested and charged
with second-degree attempted murder. The first trial ended last
month, and Mychal Bell, who has been in prison since December, was
convicted of aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated
battery (both felonies) by an all-white jury in a trial where his
public defender called no witnesses. During his trial, Mychal's
parents were ordered not to speak to the media and the court
prohibited protests from taking place near the courtroom or where the
judge could see them.
Damn. What year is this again? 1957?
-
Because if I could be put in their place, I cannot say for certain that I would not have hit someone.
But would you have ganged up on him, or continued to beat him after he was unconscious?
I hope not, but I don't know.
-
Apparently it is ok for a gang of six to kick the snot out of a boy because six months earlier someone hung a noose on a tree.
I don't believe anyone is arguing that. The nooses in the tree was one incident of many according to the reports I've read. If the racist incidents had stopped with the nooses in the tree, you might have a point, but they didn't and you don't.
-
Let's review.
Nooses hung from tree. No one physically harmed.
Snot kicked out of a kid.
Nooses trump the snot kicking.
God bless america.
-
are the nooses something for the jury to consider or the DA, when setting charges?
Seems to me evidence of the factors leading up to the beating would be something for the jury to consider, yes. Isn't the motivation for a crime relevant information? Is it not relevant that this beating took place after some six months of racist insults and actions including nooses in a tree?
-
Let's review.
Nooses hung from tree. No one physically harmed.
Snot kicked out of a kid.
Nooses trump the snot kicking.
God bless america.
I repeat: If the racist incidents had stopped with the nooses in the tree, you might have a point, but they didn't and you don't. And I'm not arguing the nooses trump the beating. I'm saying the racism is relevant to understanding what happened and why. You may want to simplify this into beating versus nooses, but I don't believe the situation is that simple. The sequence of events was not nooses in tree and then nothing for six months and then suddenly out of the blue some African-American teens beat the snot out of a white student. During that six months there was, according to the reports I've read, a lot of racist talk and actions. Does that excuse the beating, no. But it should be considered as relevant to the situation. But if all you want to see is "Nooses trump the snot kicking", well, frak you.
-
Go frak yourself.
I have no problem with the nooses being introduced in the trial phase of this incident. And if the nooses are a mitigating factor so be it.
I don't have a problem with the noose incident being reported.
But many of the emotional and or logical supporters of the Jena 6 are asking that the charges be dropped to the level of a schoolyard brawl because of the nooses and the back and forth of racial taunts leading to the incident. And that is just wrong.
-
I think you gotta look at the nature of the assault itself. How serious was it, what degree of violence was employed by the perps and what was the actual damage done to the victim? Those are the only considerations that should determine what charges are laid because no matter what kind of ass-hole racist pig the victim was, the assailants had no right to take the law into their own hands. Provocation IMHO is no defence at all because any of the assailants could have just walked away from the provocation - - there was no need to respond with violence because as I understand it, self-defence was not an issue.
However when the sentence is considered, I think provocation might be a mitigating factor. Personally in crimes of violence I don't much believe in provocation as a major mitigating factor, I think the state has a much bigger interest in punishing violent crime by setting examples of harsh punishment than it does in discouraging assholism or even racism. I think if the state wants to actively discourage racism (and recognizing the First Amendment factors in such a decision, I'm not even sure if the state should get into that business) I'd say that IF they are going to use the criminal law to discourage racism, they should think about introducing new criminal law to penalize racist comments that provoke violence - - that way the racist who is also a victim can be punished for his racism, discouraging others, while at the same time the power of the law to discourage ALL violence is not weakened so that no one is encouraged even marginally to commit violence on his own against racist provocateurs.
-
the boy was egging it on by calling the other boys "niggers."
Source?
I haven't read that at all.
I've read that in several places and also saw it referenced on a couple of the national news networks. I already had a source in here - go back to where I posted from colorofchange.org.
-
Probably it should be. But I think that the actions on both sides (including previous fights and incidents) were all hate based crimes - it's kind of a wash.
Should previous activity be pertinent in hate crime adjudication?
Or is that for a jury to decide?
Tthis whole thing is about arbitrary decisions by the DA.
I absolutely believe that previous activity should be pertinent, or at the very least all relevant facts leading up to the fight should be presented to the jury. This fight did not happen in a vacuum, nor should it be examined in one.
-
"He was taken to the hospital, but was released and was well enough to go to a social event that evening."
So, if I take a shot at you during an armed robbery, and miss, I can't be charged with attempted murder simply because you're able to go to a party later that evening? It is the act that is charged, not necessarily the outcome.
Strawman. There was no gun involved here.
-
I've read that in several places and also saw it referenced on a couple of the national news networks. I already had a source in here - go back to where I posted from colorofchange.org.
I have not seen it on any of the national news sources.
-
I've read that in several places and also saw it referenced on a couple of the national news networks. I already had a source in here - go back to where I posted from colorofchange.org.
I have not seen it on any of the national news sources.
OK... (what should I say here?)
Ami, go watch more TV.
-
Ami, go watch more TV.
I use TV mostly for entertainment. I prefer to get my news from online feeds like AP, Reuters, etc.
-
Strawman. There was no gun involved here.
No, it isn't - the premise is the same. If I try to kill you during a robbery, and fail, should I not still be charged with attempted murder?
-
here`s a bigoted thought on my part
if those kids go without punishment ,wouldn`t this bring the correct message that it`s ok to commit assault if somebody say something that`s insulting to you.
but only if you belong to a privledged to group
I don`t recall folks in that group saying the assault was wrong
I`ll take the hit in being called a bigot
I`m canadian I think I`ll be shielded from most of the blows
-
here`s a bigoted thought on my part
if those kids go without punishment ,wouldn`t this bring the correct message that it`s ok to commit assault if somebody say something that`s insulting to you.
but only if you belong to a privledged to group
I don`t recall folks in that group saying the assault was wrong
I`ll take the hit in being called a bigot
I`m canadian I think I`ll be shielded from most of the blows
No, it's not bigoted on your part. I don't think anyone believes it should go unpunished - they did, after all, commit a crime. It's just the severity of the charges that are in question.
-
I got no problem with the attemted murder charge though
6 0n 1 just doesn`t ring as a simple beat down
and teenagers simply do not know how to hold back
I grew up with a guy who learned karate and it`s really a miracle he never saw jail
their wasn`t a week he didn`t try a sleeper hold on somebody.
he`s not a safe guy to be around
he`s a police instructor now and i still don`t know how he never got a sexual harrasment charge on him yet
he still never learned self-restraint
-
I think you gotta look at the nature of the assault itself. How serious was it, what degree of violence was employed by the perps and what was the actual damage done to the victim? Those are the only considerations that should determine what charges are laid because no matter what kind of ass-hole racist pig the victim was, the assailants had no right to take the law into their own hands.
I'm sure under other circumstances I would agree. By that I mean, if I were not still reacting to this on an emotional level, I'd probably have said much the same thing as you did. But there is still a part of me that is going, "yeah, but they were angry because they were being subjected to overt, hateful racism." So I'm having a hard time assessing this objectively.
... at the same time the power of the law to discourage ALL violence is not weakened so that no one is encouraged even marginally to commit violence on his own against racist provocateurs.
Yeah, that is a good point. One I should certainly consider more, I know. Unfortunately, every time I think about this case, I also think I'd certainly have been angry enough to take a sock at the guy. And part of me still thinks the racist bastards deserve a public whipping. I know that really would be the wrong response, but I'm still reacting emotionally to the case.
-
I'm realizing my response to this case is wrong, but I'm still angered by the level of racism involved. I'm not the sort of guy who sees racism lurking behind every interaction between pale-skinned folks and dark-skinned folks. I know racism is still an issue in our culture, but I really just don't see it all the time or even a lot of the time. For me personally, skin color has the same significance as eye color or hair color. Where some people see racial diversity, I just see people. I don't think in terms of skin color diversity any more than I think of hair color diversity. And while there are very few things in this world that I genuinely hate, racism is one of those things. And a case like the one in Jena, well, it just makes me, literally, disgusted and angry. I guess I'm directing my hate at the racists, even though I know I shouldn't. My emotional reaction is skewing my perspective, and I know it, but I don't feel that my reaction is wrong even though on a more detached intellectual level I know it is.
-
racism is very bad
but try being in my parents country(china) which by being born in a particular village means nobodies life will improve ever
the term chinese is much too general a term
here in this side of the pacific pretty much any healthy relatively bright person can get a mcdonalds job.
people here have no idea how incredibly amazing that is.
That is not a option in most of the world
racism is bad and should be stopped ,but most of those kids are still able to get a mcdonalds job.
with some money everybody CAN go to community college.
I`m no way saying everybody in america can make it here
just that the options here are extremely high.
my option here are limited by racism but I still can get an education and live a fairly decent life.