How is this the Selma of our time? [Archive]

dudalb

19th September 2007, 12:58 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_Six

I fail to see the comparison. The 'Jena 6' committed a crime. They should be punished. How is this a major civil rights event?

Jesse Jackson has attacked Obama for being "too white" becuase Obama is not jumping on the Jena 6 Bandwagon. Who died and gave Jackson the right to decide who is Black and who is not?
My contempt for Jesse the Shakedown Artist grows every day.
IMHO The Jena Six deserved to be punished,but the Sentences were too heavy for the offense.

Beerina

19th September 2007, 05:17 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_Six

I fail to see the comparison. The 'Jena 6' committed a crime. They should be punished. How is this a major civil rights event?

Yes, but attempted murder? There have been a number of tit-for-tat racial incidents, but arrests, prosecutions, and convictions seem to be heavily weighted against blacks.

JoeEllison

19th September 2007, 05:22 PM

Yes, but attempted murder? There have been a number of tit-for-tat racial incidents, but arrests, prosecutions, and convictions seem to be heavily weighted against blacks.
Yep. In that situation, the law was applied in a way that was inherently racist.

dudalb

19th September 2007, 06:17 PM

Yep. In that situation, the law was applied in a way that was inherently racist.

There is something to that,but the problem I have is when they paint the defendents as total innocents,which they were not.
Yeah,they deserve a few months in dentention of some sort,but not as much as the sentence. So both sides seem to be in the wrong here.

JoeEllison

19th September 2007, 06:22 PM

There is something to that,but the problem I have is when they paint the defendents as total innocents,which they were not.
Yeah,they deserve a few months in dentention of some sort,but not as much as the sentence. So both sides seem to be in the wrong here.

Who painted them as innocents? I'll need to see quotes that specifically use words like "innocent" or "blameless". Otherwise, I'm going to assume that you're basing your idea of something besides evidence.

GroundStrength

20th September 2007, 06:20 AM

Yes, but attempted murder? There have been a number of tit-for-tat racial incidents, but arrests, prosecutions, and convictions seem to be heavily weighted against blacks.

I agree that the sentances are too stiff. My contention is that this is an example of
teenaged-dumb-assed-ness and not a great civil rights event.

I am sure that it was caused by racial tensions, but from both sides.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are poopyheads.

daredelvis

20th September 2007, 08:56 AM

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are poopyheads.

They may be just that, but I hold most of my anger for the system that continues to justify their existence. That is, the noose, the all white jury, the attempted murder charge, the totally f*&%ed up system. Get rid of all that and Al and Jesse will fade away.

Daredelvis

GroundStrength

20th September 2007, 10:26 AM

They may be just that, but I hold most of my anger for the system that continues to justify their existence. That is, the noose, the all white jury, the attempted murder charge, the totally f*&%ed up system. Get rid of all that and Al and Jesse will fade away.

Daredelvis

I mostly agree. But I think that the nooses while dispicable did not physically harm anyone. There most likely is some southern good-ole-boy mentality involved here which is sad, but that does not retract from the fact that six black youths attacked and injured a single white-boy.

Saying that an all-white jury is a problem is assuming that "whitey" is incapable of being fair. I find that hard to believe.

IMO Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson's roles are never justified. They are race-pimps.

Dancing David

20th September 2007, 12:29 PM

The basis is this, nut the new selma this is not

1. The incident stems from the 'black' students sitting under a 'white' tree at the campus. Not an official white tree but the student viewed it as such.

2. Somebody hung nooses in the tree as a response to the 'black' students sitting under the tree.

3. At some point the black kids jumped some white kids.

4. The charges were exagerated 'murder' and the like and one 16 year old was trued as an adult.

The reason it is civil rights is because the charges and the sentences seem unrelated to the events and related to the 'race' of the convicted.

I am sure that white men beat the crap out of each other is bars all the time and never get charged with attempted murder, heck they rarely even get aggravated battery.

Dancing David

20th September 2007, 12:35 PM

I agree that the sentances are too stiff. My contention is that this is an example of
teenaged-dumb-assed-ness and not a great civil rights event.

I am sure that it was caused by racial tensions, but from both sides.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are poopyheads.

But the sentences are a civil rights issue if they are based upon the 'race' of the convicted.

Dancing David

20th September 2007, 12:38 PM

I mostly agree. But I think that the nooses while dispicable did not physically harm anyone. There most likely is some southern good-ole-boy mentality involved here which is sad, but that does not retract from the fact that six black youths attacked and injured a single white-boy.

But do you think that lynching is not a threat? Remember that those good ole boys did hang and burn and torture a whole lot of people. It is a threat for sure. And not very funny.

GroundStrength

20th September 2007, 12:49 PM

The basis is this, nut the new selma this is not

1. The incident stems from the 'black' students sitting under a 'white' tree at the campus. Not an official white tree but the student viewed it as such.

Agreed.

2. Somebody hung nooses in the tree as a response to the 'black' students sitting under the tree.

Is there evidence as to who(whom) hung the nooses?

3. At some point the black kids jumped some white kids.

Agreed.

4. The charges were exagerated 'murder' and the like and one 16 year old was trued as an adult.

I have conceeded that the original charges were out of line. I understand that they have been reduced.

The reason it is civil rights is because the charges and the sentences seem unrelated to the events and related to the 'race' of the convicted.

How so?

I am sure that white men beat the crap out of each other is bars all the time and never get charged with attempted murder, heck they rarely even get aggravated battery.

If six men of any color attack and injure another man of any color I think that the charges would be similar.

GroundStrength

20th September 2007, 12:51 PM

But the sentences are a civil rights issue if they are based upon the 'race' of the convicted.

Proof?

GroundStrength

20th September 2007, 12:52 PM

But do you think that lynching is not a threat? Remember that those good ole boys did hang and burn and torture a whole lot of people. It is a threat for sure. And not very funny.

There is no proof as to who hung the nooses.

So your arguement is invalid.

rtalman

20th September 2007, 01:13 PM

I must be living in a bubble, the first I heard about this was this morning.

White's Tree?:jaw-dropp

Nooses in the White's Tree after Blacks dare to sit there?:eye-poppi:jaw-dropp

Do such bumpkins still exist?

CptColumbo

20th September 2007, 01:14 PM

But the sentences are a civil rights issue if they are based upon the 'race' of the convicted.
It was my understanding that they haven't been sentenced yet, and only one has been tried as of today and his conviction as an adult was overturned.

Charging them as adults seems excessive, but I haven't seen the damage that was done to the young man who was attacked.

GroundStrength

20th September 2007, 01:42 PM

dsm

20th September 2007, 02:05 PM

Most likely, but there is no proof to who hung the nooses.

Do you want to try to make the case that some black student(s) hung the nooses on the idea that there was a plan to attack a white student and the nooses could be used as cover for the attack ("we retaliated because we were threatened")?

Wouldn't it have been easier to attack and kill the white student in a totally secluded area so that there was no evidence?

:rolleyes:

rtalman

20th September 2007, 02:11 PM

Most likely, but there is no proof to who hung the nooses.There was proof enough to warrant 3 student's suspensions for the act.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12353776

TonyL

20th September 2007, 02:16 PM

3. At some point the black kids jumped some white kids.

4. The charges were exagerated 'murder' and the like and one 16 year old was trued as an adult.

It's not that clear cut. A group of kids knocked a boy unconscious and proceeded to beat and kick him while he was lying on the ground unconscious. In that light, attempted murder charges, although a stretch, may not be completely out of line. Especially if witness accounts made it clear that the attackers showed no indication that they would stop beating him before he was dead, or someone else stopped them.

Now, I'm not saying that there isn't a bit of a double standard in Jenna, but this was more than a quick fight with a few bruises.

GroundStrength

20th September 2007, 02:26 PM

There was proof enough to warrant 3 student's suspensions for the act.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12353776

Ok. Then they are asses.

From the link

"White students can do things and receive a slap on the hand," Jackson says. But authorities "want to throw the book at blacks," he adds.

White students: Hang nooses from the "White" Tree.

Black students: Gang-assault a single person and continue to beat him after being knocked unconcious.

Not hard to see why.

Redtail

20th September 2007, 04:10 PM

Ok, first off I believe both sides were wrong. It is 2007, putting nooses in trees to "send a message to the Blacks that this is our tree" is stupid. Beating up a White kid because he "may" have had something to do with it (from what I've read/heard he didn't.) is stupid too.

Someone asked something along the lines "Do people like this still exist?"
Oh yes they do indeed. Within three weeks of my starting grad school I was informed that Connecticut was "Klan country" and my "Little queer buddy (a classmate who was gay and living with his partner) better watch himself!" It was at this time I informed him that I was, in fact, Black just very light skinned. (They hate that.)

Lastly, "How is this the Selma of our time?" Simple it is in no way, shape or form, the Selma of our time. As I have mentioned in other subforums, my Grandmother marched in Selma. They were pelted with rocks, hit with billy clubs, bull whips, endured teargas and fire hoses. (Grandma walked with a limp till she died last year due to getting thrown against a wall by a fire hose.) When they endure things like those mentioned above they can bring up Selma.

fuelair

20th September 2007, 07:20 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_Six

I fail to see the comparison. The 'Jena 6' committed a crime. They should be punished. How is this a major civil rights event?
Because Jesse Jackson and Al "lie my ass off" Sharpton hadn't gotten any decent publicity recently (showing good judgement on the part of news agencies everywhere).

fuelair

20th September 2007, 07:25 PM

The Central Scrutinizer

20th September 2007, 08:22 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_Six

I fail to see the comparison. The 'Jena 6' committed a crime. They should be punished. How is this a major civil rights event?

Exactly.

This whole thing is idiotic. How do you know? Hint #1 - Al Sharpton is involved.

These idiots keep talking about "equal treatment". Except, that is impossible, since they weren't equal crimes. In fact, the hanging of the nooses probably wasn't a crime at all.

Then there's the whole "Free the Jena 6". Why? They committed a crime. So we should release them just because they are black? How is that equal treatment?

EeneyMinnieMoe

20th September 2007, 09:13 PM

The sad thing is, if both them victim and the criminals were white, this would have been settled with some jail time and community service and if both the victim and the criminals were black, it wouldn't have even gotten to court.

If my understanding of this is correct, the white kids were let off way too easily for the "prank", the white kid was asking for it, not to say he should have been beaten up but he was asking for it, and the black kids were punished much too harshly. For something understandable but not justifiable.

It is a big deal and I understand why people would be angry about five black kids being charged so disproportionatly to a crime. It's no joke to slap a teenager with attempted murder- that could very easily ruin someone's entire life.

quixotecoyote

20th September 2007, 10:00 PM

GroundStrength

21st September 2007, 05:49 AM

Exactly.

This whole thing is idiotic. How do you know? Hint #1 - Al Sharpton is involved.

These idiots keep talking about "equal treatment". Except, that is impossible, since they weren't equal crimes. In fact, the hanging of the nooses probably wasn't a crime at all.

Then there's the whole "Free the Jena 6". Why? They committed a crime. So we should release them just because they are black? How is that equal treatment?

Amen. This is what I have been trying to say.

GroundStrength

21st September 2007, 05:53 AM

Lastly, "How is this the Selma of our time?" Simple it is in no way, shape or form, the Selma of our time. As I have mentioned in other subforums, my Grandmother marched in Selma. They were pelted with rocks, hit with billy clubs, bull whips, endured teargas and fire hoses. (Grandma walked with a limp till she died last year due to getting thrown against a wall by a fire hose.) When they endure things like those mentioned above they can bring up Selma.

Exactly. Comparing this to Selma is an incredible insult to brave Americans like your grandmother. Shame on Al and Jesse.

daredelvis

21st September 2007, 07:06 AM

From the npr link, it doesn't appear the beating was directly related to the nooses.

Apparently the previous week a black student was beaten for trying to attend a whites-only party and the next day was threatened with a gun in a parking lot. The next school day a white kid was bragging about the beating and the black students jumped him.

Don't muddy up the discussion with facts! [repeat]Al and Jessie!!!{/repeat]

Daredelvis

The Central Scrutinizer

21st September 2007, 07:20 AM

Another entry in the "who can say the dumbest thing" contest.

A reporter on the Today show is reviewing the cause of the march yesterday:

"Six black students were arrested for beating a white student. No whites were arrested"

Unbelievable.

Beth

21st September 2007, 07:45 AM

Exactly.

These idiots keep talking about "equal treatment". Except, that is impossible, since they weren't equal crimes. In fact, the hanging of the nooses probably wasn't a crime at all.

Then there's the whole "Free the Jena 6". Why? They committed a crime. So we should release them just because they are black? How is that equal treatment?

I'm confused about this too. I don't think the hanging of the nooses is a crime. It's offensive and despicable, but not a crime. Three boys were suspended for the action. What additional punishment would be appropriate?

It does seem that the charges of attempted murder were out of line, but those charges have been dropped. Six boys severely beating up one, continuing after he was unconscious and required hospitalization, is definitely a crime and some sort of charges seem warranted to me.

frank462

21st September 2007, 09:28 AM

First of all, I believe the original charges were too much. But this is one of the problems that arises when you classify something as a "hate crime". The victim was beaten because he is white. Following the logic(?) of hate crime advocates, there should be extra punishment added just because of that. Or are whites the only ones capable of committing hate crimes?

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are publicity whores.

Comparing this to Selma is just asinine and an insult to those people who were there.

JoeEllison

21st September 2007, 09:34 AM

GroundStrength

21st September 2007, 09:36 AM

The sad thing is, if both them victim and the criminals were white, this would have been settled with some jail time and community service and if both the victim and the criminals were black, it wouldn't have even gotten to court.

What?!? Six males attacked and beat a single male unconcious and continued to attack him. Regardless of color.

If my understanding of this is correct, the white kids were let off way too easily for the "prank", the white kid was asking for it, not to say he should have been beaten up but he was asking for it, and the black kids were punished much too harshly. For something understandable but not justifiable.

Horse crap. The kids who hung the nooses were suspended for three days from school. Which is an appropriate punishment for such a stupid action.

The white kid was NOT asking for it. The actions of the six are not understandable or justifiable. A six on one gang attack is never understandable or justifiable, and should be met with severe punishment.

It is a big deal and I understand why people would be angry about five black kids being charged so disproportionatly to a crime. It's no joke to slap a teenager with attempted murder- that could very easily ruin someone's entire life.

The attempted murder charges have been reduced.

ponderingturtle

21st September 2007, 09:38 AM

The sad thing is, if both them victim and the criminals were white, this would have been settled with some jail time and community service and if both the victim and the criminals were black, it wouldn't have even gotten to court.

If my understanding of this is correct, the white kids were let off way too easily for the "prank", the white kid was asking for it, not to say he should have been beaten up but he was asking for it, and the black kids were punished much too harshly. For something understandable but not justifiable.

It is a big deal and I understand why people would be angry about five black kids being charged so disproportionatly to a crime. It's no joke to slap a teenager with attempted murder- that could very easily ruin someone's entire life.

So can kicking someone in the head after you knock them out.

GroundStrength

21st September 2007, 09:40 AM

What I find interesting is that so many people see Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and automatically assume that the case is meaningless because of an irrational emotional response to their involvement. People see Jackson or Sharpton, and their brains shut off.

Yes, because their stupidity seems to be contagious.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RPL6MO0&show_article=1

Wouldn't want to become infected.

bignickel

21st September 2007, 09:53 AM

So can kicking someone in the head after you knock them out.
Oh. Wow. That factoid did not make it into any of the news stories I've read so far.

That definitely puts (more) negative light on all the whole affair.

Here's a question: would there be supporters for these thugs (I won't dignify them with the term 'Jena 6') if someone had happened to catch the whole beating on video tape? Probably not as many, I'm guessing.

JoeEllison

21st September 2007, 09:55 AM

Yes, because their stupidity seems to be contagious.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RPL6MO0&show_article=1

Wouldn't want to become infected.

I don't see any "stupidity". I DO see you, though... I see you very clearly.

GroundStrength

21st September 2007, 10:04 AM

I don't see any "stupidity". I DO see you, though... I see you very clearly.

And what do you see Joe? Hmmm...a racist? a bigot? I see you have run out of ideas already. I am neither. I'll tell you what you see...a person who is tired of laying down for race-bating poverty pimps.

These kids committed a crime a heinous crime, but Al and Jesse want them excused becase they are black. I say not this time.

I also find it amusing that you think you can "See" me through my postings on an internet message board. What you don't see is the four hispanic families who have lived with us over the past 10 years. The black babies that my wife and I take care of and the fact that my wife is an american indian.

Whatever.

You make me sick.

Skeptic Guy

21st September 2007, 10:33 AM

From what I read above, the "Jena 6" beating may have been in response to the beating of a black student and a white student pulling a gun on someone. I wonder how accurate that is? And if it is accurate, what was the punishment of the white kids? I can imagine how this spiraled out of control with the more recent beating. The school officials and the police should have made more of an effort to settle things down.

It sounds to be that there is more of a back story here than may be in the media today.

JoeEllison

21st September 2007, 10:44 AM

JoeEllison

21st September 2007, 10:45 AM

race-bating poverty pimps.

Yep, I see you very clearly indeed.

GroundStrength

21st September 2007, 10:48 AM

Yep, I see you very clearly indeed.

Very well then, enjoy basking in the greatness that is me!

LibraryLady

21st September 2007, 10:56 AM

Just a note: Selma was the Selma of my time.

chran

21st September 2007, 11:27 AM

Yep, I see you very clearly indeed. :rolleyes:

ponderingturtle

21st September 2007, 11:49 AM

From what I read above, the "Jena 6" beating may have been in response to the beating of a black student and a white student pulling a gun on someone.
By the NPR story, the white kid pulled the gun on some black kids, they took it from him and beat him up. So they got charged with the theft of a fire arm and he got not charges.

By the NPR story the charges do not seem to unreasonable. Maybe assault with a deadly weapon(generally that is any weapon including shoes) might have been a better charge, and they do seem to be ignoring the crimes of white students, but charging them does not seem to make me uncomfortable.

I think kicking someone in the head when they are unconscious should have serious charges involved regardless of how hurt the person was by the action.

ponderingturtle

21st September 2007, 11:50 AM

Oh. Wow. That factoid did not make it into any of the news stories I've read so far.

That definitely puts (more) negative light on all the whole affair.

Here's a question: would there be supporters for these thugs (I won't dignify them with the term 'Jena 6') if someone had happened to catch the whole beating on video tape? Probably not as many, I'm guessing.

That is what the NPR link said happened.

SpaceMonkeyZero

21st September 2007, 11:55 AM

If it weren't for racism, Jesse and Al would be out of a job.

Al Sharpton still has to pay up for the Tawana Brawley fiasco... and he has the blood of a cop on his hands who committed suicide because of it.

billydkid

21st September 2007, 12:12 PM

It's just as much a "Selma" as was the racist hysteria surrounding the "LA Four". How anyone could watch what those animals did and then come to their defense - completely revolting. To be honest, I haven't had the heart to look into the Jena thing. I'm so sick of all of it I don't care anymore. And Jesse Jackson could not be a lower, more self serving, exploitative slime if he tried.

Dancing David

21st September 2007, 12:15 PM

Agreed.

Is there evidence as to who(whom) hung the nooses?

Agreed.

I have conceeded that the original charges were out of line. I understand that they have been reduced.

How so?

It would seem that there was a another beating at the school and the charges were different.

But that could be my poor memory.

If six men of any color attack and injure another man of any color I think that the charges would be similar.

I disagree, when juveniles beat each other it is very rarely charged as aggravated battery, at least at school. And from what I have seen you beat the crap out of someone in a bar and even use a weapon and get charged with misdemeanor battery.

I was just answering your post, I wasn't calling you out.

SpaceMonkeyZero

21st September 2007, 12:16 PM

Right, but most of what I see is people saying "damn that Jesse Jackson! Damn him to HELL!!!":rolleyes:

The way I see it... Revs Jesse or Al showing up to make a story out of a racial issue (*cough*DukeLacrossePlayers*cough*) is like Michael Jackson showing up at your kid's summertime overnight camp.

quixotecoyote

21st September 2007, 01:16 PM

By the NPR story, the white kid pulled the gun on some black kids, they took it from him and beat him up. So they got charged with the theft of a fire arm and he got not charges.

By the NPR story the charges do not seem to unreasonable. Maybe assault with a deadly weapon(generally that is any weapon including shoes) might have been a better charge, and they do seem to be ignoring the crimes of white students, but charging them does not seem to make me uncomfortable.

I think kicking someone in the head when they are unconscious should have serious charges involved regardless of how hurt the person was by the action.

I don't remember anything in the link suggesting the gunman was beaten after being disarmed.

I do remember that incident came after the black students were beaten for attending the wrong party.

I also remember the beating from which charges were filed happened directly after the victim was bragging about the previous beating. So yes there should have been charges and punishment. But there should have been charges and punishment for the previous beating and the gun incident which there weren't. There should also have been mitigating factors taken into account, such as that the student who was beaten by the black kids had just finished bragging about having beaten black kids.

daredelvis

21st September 2007, 02:20 PM

I don't remember anything in the link suggesting the gunman was beaten after being disarmed.

No, the outrage in that incident is that the black students were charged after the white student brandished the weapon (see NPR story). The whole situation stinks, but let us not forget that the real issue is that Al and Jessie are involved.

Daredelvis

shuize

21st September 2007, 02:34 PM

I am in Japan and have not followed the whole story (so I may be missing something). But, for those who feel attempted murder is too strong a charge, how would you have charged the six who kicked and beat the unconscious individual had he died?

I don't think it would be a stretch for a prosecutor to charge "murder" in that situation. Nor do I think it is so unreasonable to charge attempted murder for repeatedly kicking someone in the head while he is lying on the ground unconscious.

As for the noose and the tree, that crap does not play either. If I were the local prosecutor, I would have come up with something beyond the school's three day suspension for the individuals involved. Maybe stick them with a charge of felony "terroristic threats" and then negotiate it down to "disorderly conduct".

Alareth

21st September 2007, 04:16 PM

Because Jesse Jackson and Al "lie my ass off" Sharpton hadn't gotten any decent publicity recently (showing good judgement on the part of news agencies everywhere).

Al has been down this way several times to get face time on the news over the 12 year old that was shot by a cop in West Memphis, AR several months ago.

EeneyMinnieMoe

21st September 2007, 08:11 PM

What?!? Six males attacked and beat a single male unconcious and continued to attack him. Regardless of color.

Horse crap. The kids who hung the nooses were suspended for three days from school. Which is an appropriate punishment for such a stupid action.

The white kid was NOT asking for it. The actions of the six are not understandable or justifiable. A six on one gang attack is never understandable or justifiable, and should be met with severe punishment.

It does seem to me that incidents like this go completely unpunished when it's young black men on other young black men. And that white guys assaulting and battering white guys don't, at one time anyway, face almost 40 years in prison.

Hanging nooses where black kids were sitting is way more serious than that. That could be interpreted a hate crime- it's threatening them with lynching.

He said something racist about a racist incident that had taken place shortly before, in that climate. That might just get you beat up by the black guys.

Redtail

22nd September 2007, 12:49 AM

I would like to give my gratitude to your Grandmother for what she did - and my apologies to her for what those ********* ************* ******* eating *********** did to her under the banner of white! She is a true hero!!!:):):)

Exactly. Comparing this to Selma is an incredible insult to brave Americans like your grandmother. Shame on Al and Jesse.

Thank you both. :)

Horse crap. The kids who hung the nooses were suspended for three days from school. Which is an appropriate punishment for such a stupid action.

I have to disagree here. A noose is an instrument of death. That's a helluva a message to send to a teenager and expect rational reaction.

The white kid was NOT asking for it. The actions of the six are not understandable or justifiable. A six on one gang attack is never understandable or justifiable, and should be met with severe punishment.

This is where the npr story comes into question. If the kid had a gun and pulled it out, (note this is IMO) he did ask for it. Now if the story isn't true then yes the 6 should be punished but not to the point of jail time unless the victim was severely injured. Now keep in mind this is coming from a person who grew up in a small town, in the south, before things like Columbine. I saw several of my classmates KO'd and it happened to me too.
Now, just for the record, (and GS I'm not directing this at you so please don't take it that way.) as for Jesse and Al, I dislike Al. Al just gets on my nerves, I have nothing but contempt for Jesse. If Jesse had a point that was 100% right in the mind of America I would have to find a reason to agree that he didn't mention so I could justify it to myself.

WildCat

22nd September 2007, 06:46 AM

ponderingturtle

22nd September 2007, 11:19 AM

I don't remember anything in the link suggesting the gunman was beaten after being disarmed.
They had a fight scuffel and he lost. Beat up does not equal beaten.

I do remember that incident came after the black students were beaten for attending the wrong party.

One student. Who was at the firearms incident if I remember the article correctly.

I also remember the beating from which charges were filed happened directly after the victim was bragging about the previous beating. So yes there should have been charges and punishment. But there should have been charges and punishment for the previous beating and the gun incident which there weren't. There should also have been mitigating factors taken into account, such as that the student who was beaten by the black kids had just finished bragging about having beaten black kids.

The thing is that it does not seem like anyone was seriously hurt at any of the beatings.

ponderingturtle

22nd September 2007, 11:27 AM

I have to disagree here. A noose is an instrument of death. That's a helluva a message to send to a teenager and expect rational reaction.

True, but I am not sure what exact laws you could attach to the action. Hate crime though vandalism maybe

This is where the npr story comes into question. If the kid had a gun and pulled it out, (note this is IMO) he did ask for it. Now if the story isn't true then yes the 6 should be punished but not to the point of jail time unless the victim was severely injured. Now keep in mind this is coming from a person who grew up in a small town, in the south, before things like Columbine. I saw several of my classmates KO'd and it happened to me too.

So kicking someone in the head after you knock them out is just something kids do? That is why I think this is a serious crime, if they had stopped after knocking him out I could see your point, but trying to hurt a defenseless individual should be a more serious that a provoked fight.

The gun was a shotgun that he got from his car.

Redtail

22nd September 2007, 01:31 PM

True, but I am not sure what exact laws you could attach to the action. Hate crime though vandalism maybe

IIRC the DA said there was no law against it, and I'm not saying there should be one, just that I don't think that three days suspension was a real punishment.

So kicking someone in the head after you knock them out is just something kids do? That is why I think this is a serious crime, if they had stopped after knocking him out I could see your point, but trying to hurt a defenseless individual should be a more serious that a provoked fight.

The gun was a shotgun that he got from his car.

Not something that kids just do, but something that can and does happen. Again I'm not saying the 6 boys shouldn't be punished, they should, but add the shotgun into the mix and (IMO) the initial attack was justified.

shuize

22nd September 2007, 02:04 PM

True, but I am not sure what exact laws you could attach to the action. Hate crime though vandalism maybe.

IIRC the DA said there was no law against it, and I'm not saying there should be one, just that I don't think that three days suspension was a real punishment.

Sorry, but that's BS. And it doesn't even need to be handled as a "hate crime." Any prosecutor worth his salt could charge "terroristic threats" or some kind of "disorderly conduct" for hanging a noose from a tree where students congregate.

Even if the charges didn't stick, you show the community that you're not going to tolerate that crap by making the defendants sweat out the anxiety and expense of a trial. The same goes double for those who repeatedly kick an unconscious person in the head. Put it up and let the defendants explain why that's not attempted murder. If the jury acquits, then fine. But in the meantime, the community understands that you're not going to tolerate such actions and everybody -- regardless of color -- will be prosecuted for their moronic behavior.

Dancing David

23rd September 2007, 04:43 AM

I agree!

WildCat

23rd September 2007, 06:20 AM

Sorry, but that's BS. And it doesn't even need to be handled as a "hate crime." Any prosecutor worth his salt could charge "terroristic threats" or some kind of "disorderly conduct" for hanging a noose from a tree where students congregate.
Exactly, freedom of speech does not give you the right to threaten someone.

IIRC, it was initially recommended that the 3 white students who did this should get kicked out of school for 1 year, and the principal decided 3 days was enough.

ponderingturtle

24th September 2007, 05:58 AM

IIRC the DA said there was no law against it, and I'm not saying there should be one, just that I don't think that three days suspension was a real punishment.

And it was an in school suspension. I can agree with that, but I am not sure a longer out of school suspension would have changed any things.

So I do not think that a much more severe penalty could be used, because I am not sure that say the school could expel the students, and it is not something that there is a law against. So the nooses while very repugnant it does not seem that there is clearly anything seriously different that could be done.

Not something that kids just do, but something that can and does happen. Again I'm not saying the 6 boys shouldn't be punished, they should, but add the shotgun into the mix and (IMO) the initial attack was justified.

Which attack is the initial attack? There was no fire arm there, that event was not referenced by the individual by any account I have seen. What was referenced was the fight at the party.

When is it justified for 6 guys to jump 1 guy and kick him in the head after knocking him out for talking crap?

I agree that some of the white students should also have been charged with the crimes they committed, but I do not see the charged against the black students as being terribly out of proportion to the actions involved.

GroundStrength

24th September 2007, 06:46 AM

It does seem to me that incidents like this go completely unpunished when it's young black men on other young black men. And that white guys assaulting and battering white guys don't, at one time anyway, face almost 40 years in prison.

I would like to see that evidence.

Hanging nooses where black kids were sitting is way more serious than that. That could be interpreted a hate crime- it's threatening them with lynching.

But, six black kids beating a white kid unconcious is not a hate crime. I like your double standard.

He said something racist about a racist incident that had taken place shortly before, in that climate. That might just get you beat up by the black guys.

Just might, and gang-style-attacking that person just might get you charged with attempted murder or aggrevated assault with a deadly weapon.

GroundStrength

24th September 2007, 06:52 AM

Thank you both. :)
I have to disagree here. A noose is an instrument of death. That's a helluva a message to send to a teenager and expect rational reaction.

Yes, it is and I understand its importance in this situation and am not trying to make light of it. These young men need a good visit behind the woodshed from their fathers for intentionally using a symbol of that nature. Problem is their fathers are most likely holes of ass too.

GroundStrength

24th September 2007, 06:59 AM

By the NPR story, the white kid pulled the gun on some black kids, they took it from him and beat him up. So they got charged with the theft of a fire arm and he got not charges.

But this is not the incident in question...

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_6

From the link

On December 4, 2006, 17-year-old white Jena High School student Justin Barker was assaulted at school. He was struck on the back of the head and knocked down by a black student. According to some witnesses, a group of black students then repeatedly kicked him.[20]

Some individuals have stated that Barker had mocked Robert Bailey, Jr., who had allegedly been beaten up by a white man the previous Friday.[5] Barker denies making the comments.[20]

This is not the same young man who had the gun.

ponderingturtle

24th September 2007, 07:29 AM

But this is not the incident in question...

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_6

From the link

This is not the same young man who had the gun.

I never said that they where the same incident. The one people are upset over happened the following day and had less provocation. Talking crap now means you deserve being knocked unconscious and then kicked repeatedly in the head.

I wish someone would apply that logic to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Skeptic Guy

24th September 2007, 07:38 AM

Let's put aside what should have happened and see what did happen. If I got any of the details wrong, I am sure you'll let me know. :D

1) White kids hung nooses from a tree where a black kid "dared" to sit: no charges

2) White kid pulled a gun (a deadly weapon) on a black kid: no charges.

3) White kid beat-up a black kid for attending a "white party": no charges

4) Black kid knocked out a white kid and kicked him while he was down (The claim of kicking came from the other white kids, no? Maybe there is a question as to its veracity?): attempted murder

And then there's the morons that were riding around town in their pick-em-up truck with a bunch of nooses hanging from the truck bed.

I know that beating up people no matter their color is wrong and is not the answer, but it seems to me that there was an environment of racism in that town that had been going on for some time. I would imagine it took its toll on on those black kids. Maybe they snapped. Maybe they had had enough and took out their anger on one of the smart-a**'s that called them the "n-word" one too many times. I don't know, but to call them "thugs" and "criminals" is to ignore the atmosphere under which they may be living.

And of course Jesse and Al are using the situation to their advantage and no I don't believe it is Selma, but I think there is a tragedy here that both the community and the school are ignoring.

GroundStrength

24th September 2007, 08:10 AM

Let's put aside what should have happened and see what did happen. If I got any of the details wrong, I am sure you'll let me know. :D

1) White kids hung nooses from a tree where a black kid "dared" to sit: no charges

No charges because no crime. Very offensive, stupid and prickish but not a crime.

2) White kid pulled a gun (a deadly weapon) on a black kid: no charges.

I guess it would depend on whether the gun was loaded, but I am not an expert on this. Here in Texas I can walk down the street with a rifle. Again, I don't know the law there.

3) White kid beat-up a black kid for attending a "white party": no charges

Were the police called? Was the crime reported? If so then this is a problem.

4) Black kid knocked out a white kid and kicked him while he was down (The claim of kicking came from the other white kids, no? Maybe there is a question as to its veracity?): attempted murder

Correction: Six black kids gang-attack one white kid and beat him unconcious and then continued to attack him.

And then there's the morons that were riding around town in their pick-em-up truck with a bunch of nooses hanging from the truck bed.

Yes, these would be morons, but again no crime. Now perhaps the community will pass legislation that will make it a crime. I'm okay with that.

I know that beating up people no matter their color is wrong and is not the answer, but it seems to me that there was an environment of racism in that town that had been going on for some time. I would imagine it took its toll on on those black kids. Maybe they snapped. Maybe they had had enough and took out their anger on one of the smart-a**'s that called them the "n-word" one too many times. I don't know, but to call them "thugs" and "criminals" is to ignore the atmosphere under which they may be living.

Perhaps, but still committing a crime is not the answer. These types of backwards racist country-***** need to grow up.

And of course Jesse and Al are using the situation to their advantage and no I don't believe it is Selma, but I think there is a tragedy here that both the community and the school are ignoring.

Yep.

Skeptic Guy

24th September 2007, 09:19 AM

No charges because no crime. Very offensive, stupid and prickish but not a crime.

I don't know about that. Hate crime? There's a lot of history behind that symbol. If someone burned a cross in a yard, there would be charges.

I guess it would depend on whether the gun was loaded, but I am not an expert on this. Here in Texas I can walk down the street with a rifle. Again, I don't know the law there.

I don't think it matters if the gun was loaded or not. It's scary enough to have people walking down the street with a gun in their hand; pointing one (loaded or unloaded) at someone is a whole different discussion.

Were the police called? Was the crime reported? If so then this is a problem.[/quoted]

I don't know if it was reported or not, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of uproar about that from the community. It's a crime whether it was reported or not.

[quote]Correction: Six black kids gang-attack one white kid and beat him unconscious and then continued to attack him.

Again, I am not condoning the attack. But there are a lot of fights in high schools across this country and I would imagine that a few of them were related to racial issues. I wonder how many result in charges of attempted murder charges.

Also, it is my understanding that the white kid was released the same day of the attack, so I am not sure how realistic the claims of savagery are. I only question what benefit it would be to anyone to have these kids locked up over this?

Yes, these would be morons, but again no crime. Now perhaps the community will pass legislation that will make it a crime. I'm okay with that.

Perhaps, but still committing a crime is not the answer. These types of backwards racist country-***** need to grow up.

Yes, they do but I am afraid that they are going to "grow up" at the expense of these kids. I don't believe they are thugs or crooks, but kids in a very bad situation.

ponderingturtle

24th September 2007, 09:36 AM

I don't know about that. Hate crime? There's a lot of history behind that symbol. If someone burned a cross in a yard, there would be charges.

And if people marched down the street wearing Nazi uniforms you know that they would not have Jewish lawyers defending their hateful acts.

Oops, that is exactly what happened.

Hate and expressing it is not a crime. The hanging of the nooses might not illegal, anymore than when Fred Phelps goes on and on about how the lord will punish all homosexuals and homosexual enablers.

Also, it is my understanding that the white kid was released the same day of the attack, so I am not sure how realistic the claims of savagery are. I only question what benefit it would be to anyone to have these kids locked up over this?

So attacking you with a weapon, the amount you get hurt should be the main indication of the severity of the crime? If I don't manage to cut you coming after you with a knife is OK?

As a general legal position shoes are weapons. They also continued to hurt an unconscious person. The extent that they managed to hurt him is not the only thing to consider when determining what crimes the committed.

korenyx

24th September 2007, 10:07 AM

I think Al and Jesse need to read Free at Last: A History of the Civil Rights Movement and Those Who Died in the Struggle. By Sara Bullard with an Introduction by Julian Bond.

The book is for 6th-10th graders so Al and Jesse might understand it!

Kore

Skeptic Guy

24th September 2007, 10:56 AM

And if people marched down the street wearing Nazi uniforms you know that they would not have Jewish lawyers defending their hateful acts.

Oops, that is exactly what happened.

Hate and expressing it is not a crime. The hanging of the nooses might not illegal, anymore than when Fred Phelps goes on and on about how the lord will punish all homosexuals and homosexual enablers.

Ok, I'll buy that. But I think it contributed to the mind-set of the young black kids and indicated that all was not warm and inviting to people of color living in that town.

So attacking you with a weapon, the amount you get hurt should be the main indication of the severity of the crime? If I don't manage to cut you coming after you with a knife is OK?

No, of course not. It seemed to me that some were pointing to the severity of the crime as justification of the severity of the charges. I only wonder if the severity of the crime was being over-blown. However, I would expect that the charges for pulling a gun on someone be at least as severe.

As a general legal position shoes are weapons. They also continued to hurt an unconscious person. The extent that they managed to hurt him is not the only thing to consider when determining what crimes the committed.

Look, if we go with the letter of law there should be a lot of people from Jena in jail. But I wonder if that is the best way to serve the kids on both sides. There is obviously a lot of racial tension going on there and the only way it's going to get better is to have the kids start talking to one another and have the adults start acting like such and educating the kids about race. I have seen no evidence that any of that is going on and locking a kid up is a waste.

ponderingturtle

24th September 2007, 11:08 AM

Ok, I'll buy that. But I think it contributed to the mind-set of the young black kids and indicated that all was not warm and inviting to people of color living in that town.

I agree with that. I am just not sure what punishment could have been supported against them. Kicking them out of school would likely also result in lawsuits, as well as polarizing the town.

I am not as sure that those decisions where necessarily bad ones.

No, of course not. It seemed to me that some were pointing to the severity of the crime as justification of the severity of the charges. I only wonder if the severity of the crime was being over-blown. However, I would expect that the charges for pulling a gun on someone be at least as severe.

The crime is serious in what they did, it is not serious in how hurt the person beaten was. But I do not see a good reason why the extent that someone is hurt should be the primary marker of the crime. They did continue to kick him after he was unconscious, that is a very serious thing to do. Now I could see serious assault with a deadly weapon charges(those I have heard generally extend to any weapon used not an innate part of the human body).

Look, if we go with the letter of law there should be a lot of people from Jena in jail. But I wonder if that is the best way to serve the kids on both sides. There is obviously a lot of racial tension going on there and the only way it's going to get better is to have the kids start talking to one another and have the adults start acting like such and educating the kids about race. I have seen no evidence that any of that is going on and locking a kid up is a waste.

And I think that is the way it should be, there should be a lot more of the people involved in the other violent incidents in jail.

Beth

24th September 2007, 11:09 AM

Let's put aside what should have happened and see what did happen. If I got any of the details wrong, I am sure you'll let me know. :D

I heard a few more details about it, though I haven't verified those details. Others can correct me if I am wrong.

First, the white kids wouldn't let the black kids sit under the tree. Black kids asked prinicipal if they could. Prinicipal said yes they could, it was for everyone not just whites. So black kids went ahead and sat under the tree.

1) White kids hung nooses from a tree where a black kid "dared" to sit: no charges

2) White kid pulled a gun (a deadly weapon) on a black kid: no charges.

Police were involved. White kid who pulled weapon wasn't charged with any crime. Black kids who wrestled the gun away from him were charged with assault.

3) White kid beat-up a black kid for attending a "white party": no charges
This was a detail I hadn't heard before.

Then, a white kid was bragging about how the white kid with gun hadn't been charged but the black kids had been. Basically adding insult to injury and rubbing verbal salt in their wounds.

4) Black kid knocked out a white kid and kicked him while he was down (The claim of kicking came from the other white kids, no? Maybe there is a question as to its veracity?): attempted murder

I doubt I know the whole story yet, but I thought the additional details added a lot of context to what happened. It makes the black kids motivation for beating the white kid clearer. It seems there was a pattern of black kids getting charged inappropriately and white kids not getting charged at all when they should have been. It doesn't excuse their actions, but it makes them more understandable and it makes the outrage others have expressed more understandable as well.

GroundStrength

24th September 2007, 11:11 AM

Look, if we go with the letter of law there should be a lot of people from Jena in jail. But I wonder if that is the best way to serve the kids on both sides. There is obviously a lot of racial tension going on there and the only way it's going to get better is to have the kids start talking to one another and have the adults start acting like such and educating the kids about race. I have seen no evidence that any of that is going on and locking a kid up is a waste.

Yes, yes and yes.

However, I continue to have zero confidence that JJ or Al or JJ and Al can have a postive effect.

ponderingturtle

24th September 2007, 11:19 AM

Police were involved. White kid who pulled weapon wasn't charged with any crime. Black kids who wrestled the gun away from him were charged with assault.

Theft of firearm. At least that is what I remember. Not sure how the crimes relate in terms of seriousness.

ponderingturtle

24th September 2007, 11:21 AM

Yes, yes and yes.

However, I continue to have zero confidence that JJ or Al or JJ and Al can have a postive effect.

Of course they can't have a positive effect, it is clear that this town is not suffering from a severe lack of stupid, so importing even more of it is entirely unnecessary.

Skeptic Guy

24th September 2007, 11:46 AM

I think we are pretty close in agreement. I don't feel that anyone should go to jail about what went on. I think there is a lot of hate going around in that town (on both sides) and it won't go away by locking people up. In fact, I think that the hatred would grow if you started doing that. Calling the "Jena 6" thugs is inaccurate and counter-productive. I think we need to understand the context in which these events happened and try to prevent them from reoccurring.

And I agree that JJ and Al are there for the general good, but they aren't the only ones and I really hope that there are better people there that are willing to help.

ponderingturtle

24th September 2007, 11:49 AM

I think we are pretty close in agreement.
I don't at least on specific details

I don't feel that anyone should go to jail about what went on.

I don't agree with this. It seems like shooting at someone and missing means no crime happened.

Calling the "Jena 6" thugs is inaccurate and counter-productive.
Fine nice boys who understand the true meaning of kick them when they are down.

Skeptic Guy

24th September 2007, 11:59 AM

I don't at least on specific details

Ok...

I don't agree with this. It seems like shooting at someone and missing means no crime happened.

Or pulling on a gun on someone and having no crime happen.

Fine nice boys who understand the true meaning of kick them when they are down.

IF they did. But putting them in jail will not do anything but make them more likely to do it again. It is my opinion that they have been kicked while they have been down for a long time.

ponderingturtle

24th September 2007, 12:06 PM

Or pulling on a gun on someone and having no crime happen.

We in general agree as to how various event rank. I think that likely should have resulted in a crime. He got it from his car, he could easily have left and not been a problem but chose to escalate it with a firearm. I think he should probably get charged with something.

But I am not sure about the specific laws. Getting a gun when challenged and coming back with it might well fit into the stand your ground laws in some places.

IF they did. But putting them in jail will not do anything but make them more likely to do it again. It is my opinion that they have been kicked while they have been down for a long time.

This seems to be a different claim than has been seriously presented. The general issue of knocked out and then kicked seems to have been generally accepted. I would be interested in why you are suggesting that the incident in question did not progress like that.

The Atheist

24th September 2007, 12:39 PM

Ok, first off I believe both sides were wrong.

One of the few sane comments so far.

What I find interesting is that so many people see Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and automatically assume that the case is meaningless because of an irrational emotional response to their involvement. People see Jackson or Sharpton, and their brains shut off.

Kudos to you, Joe. We don't agree on many things, but I'm with you all the way here.

GroundStrength

24th September 2007, 12:46 PM

I think we are pretty close in agreement. I don't feel that anyone should go to jail about what went on. [QUOTE]

I dont. I do.

[QUOTE]I think there is a lot of hate going around in that town (on both sides) and it won't go away by locking people up. In fact, I think that the hatred would grow if you started doing that. Calling the "Jena 6" thugs is inaccurate and counter-productive. I think we need to understand the context in which these events happened and try to prevent them from reoccurring.

Yes, there is a lot of hate. Calling them the "Jena 6" doesn't help matters either.

And I agree that JJ and Al are there for the general good, but they aren't the only ones and I really hope that there are better people there that are willing to help.

I don't think that JJ and Al are there for the general good. Unless the general good means JJ and Al's good.

Skeptic Guy

24th September 2007, 01:06 PM

[quote=Skeptic Guy;2994070]I think we are pretty close in agreement. I don't feel that anyone should go to jail about what went on. [quote]

I dont. I do.

I don't believe that kids need to go to school because of a fight but we'll have to disagree.

Yes, there is a lot of hate. Calling them the "Jena 6" doesn't help matters either.

That's why I put them in quote. I don't agree they should have that monikor as much as I don't believe they should be called "thugs"...unless we start calling the white kids "terrorists", "racists", or some such.

I don't think that JJ and Al are there for the general good. Unless the general good means JJ and Al's good.

That's a typo. I meant "aren't", not "are". This we agree on.

ponderingturtle

24th September 2007, 01:10 PM

That's why I put them in quote. I don't agree they should have that monikor as much as I don't believe they should be called "thugs"...unless we start calling the white kids "terrorists", "racists", or some such.

I am ok with thugs and racists in the relative cases(well likely apply both to most of the various participants)

Skeptic Guy

24th September 2007, 01:10 PM

We in general agree as to how various event rank. I think that likely should have resulted in a crime. He got it from his car, he could easily have left and not been a problem but chose to escalate it with a firearm. I think he should probably get charged with something.

But I am not sure about the specific laws. Getting a gun when challenged and coming back with it might well fit into the stand your ground laws in some places.

This seems to be a different claim than has been seriously presented. The general issue of knocked out and then kicked seems to have been generally accepted. I would be interested in why you are suggesting that the incident in question did not progress like that.

I believe they were both wrong. I just don't think prison for anyone involved is going to make it better. Their kids and are being taught hatred by their family and community, but then I'm a bleeding-heart liberal. :D

I guess I don't have anything that says for sure they didn't kick the kid while he was down. I believe that I read somewhere that the only person saying that he did was the victim and his friends. I don't know.

ponderingturtle

24th September 2007, 01:12 PM

I believe they were both wrong. I just don't think prison for anyone involved is going to make it better. Their kids and are being taught hatred by their family and community, but then I'm a bleeding-heart liberal. :D

I guess I don't have anything that says for sure they didn't kick the kid while he was down. I believe that I read somewhere that the only person saying that he did was the victim and his friends. I don't know.

And if that is the only evidence then I would hope that they wouldn't be convicted on the strength of that evidence.

The Central Scrutinizer

24th September 2007, 01:25 PM

IIRC, it was initially recommended that the 3 white students who did this should get kicked out of school for 1 year, and the principal decided 3 days was enough.

IIRC, it was the other way around. The principal wanted to boot them, but the board overruled. Not that it really matters one way or the other.

Redtail

24th September 2007, 11:33 PM

And it was an in school suspension. I can agree with that, but I am not sure a longer out of school suspension would have changed any things.

Well that's coming from what i saw when I was in high school. a couple of kids got caught with weed and were expelled for the year. (Granted that is a crime and this was a different state different time but the nooses were worse IMO.) Also a couple was caught having sex in a store room and was suspended for 10 days. (11 days absent without an excuse meant you were held back for that year but again IMO the nooses were worse.)

So I do not think that a much more severe penalty could be used, because I am not sure that say the school could expel the students, and it is not something that there is a law against. So the nooses while very repugnant it does not seem that there is clearly anything seriously different that could be done.
I would say 10 days at least if not the rest of the year for all parties involved albeit the ones involved in the 6-1 should also have to deal with the charges of misdemeanor assault IF the story about the gun is false.

Which attack is the initial attack? There was no fire arm there, that event was not referenced by the individual by any account I have seen. What was referenced was the fight at the party.I wasn't aware that any charges had been filed for that assault. I was referring to the 6-1.

When is it justified for 6 guys to jump 1 guy and kick him in the head after knocking him out for talking crap?When he pulls a gun so he can feel safe talking crap. (If that story is not true then there is no justification.)

I agree that some of the white students should also have been charged with the crimes they committed, but I do not see the charged against the black students as being terribly out of proportion to the actions involved.I agree, IF the White student didn't pull a gun. If he did, it's way out of proportion.

Yes, it is and I understand its importance in this situation and am not trying to make light of it. These young men need a good visit behind the woodshed from their fathers for intentionally using a symbol of that nature. Problem is their fathers are most likely holes of ass too.

Agreed, and the 6 who ganged up on the White kid (Again if the gun story isn't true.) should have the same done to them plus the legal action.

quixotecoyote

25th September 2007, 12:30 AM

You realize the gun incident happened on an earlier (but recent) day. It provides context, sort of a West Side Story atmosphere of low-grade high school war, but doesn't directly impact.

The party fight does directly impact because the 1 in the 6-1 was bragging about that beating immediately prior to the incident.

ponderingturtle

25th September 2007, 05:52 AM

Well that's coming from what i saw when I was in high school. a couple of kids got caught with weed and were expelled for the year. (Granted that is a crime and this was a different state different time but the nooses were worse IMO.) Also a couple was caught having sex in a store room and was suspended for 10 days. (11 days absent without an excuse meant you were held back for that year but again IMO the nooses were worse.)

The problem is that those are also both illegal, and when a real crime is involved it is easier to use harsher punishments. If they had pressed legal charges think about how bad that would have been. The couple having sex might well end up as registered sex offenders.

I agree with the sentiment, but it has to stand up to legal challenge.

I would say 10 days at least if not the rest of the year for all parties involved albeit the ones involved in the 6-1 should also have to deal with the charges of misdemeanor assault IF the story about the gun is false.

So a separate event on a different day changes the legality of their actions? I don't see that at all. The beating that they are charged with was I think entirely different people. The only event that relates to it was the fight at the party(I do not really have enough information to say if I would class it as a beating or just a very unequal fight)

I wasn't aware that any charges had been filed for that assault. I was referring to the 6-1.
When he pulls a gun so he can feel safe talking crap. (If that story is not true then there is no justification.)

You are mixing events the gun event was not at school. It was at a convenience store and he pulled a shotgun out of his car.

Agreed, and the 6 who ganged up on the White kid (Again if the gun story isn't true.) should have the same done to them plus the legal action.

The gun story is true but an separate event.

GroundStrength

25th September 2007, 05:53 AM

I would say 10 days at least if not the rest of the year for all parties involved albeit the ones involved in the 6-1 should also have to deal with the charges of misdemeanor assault IF the story about the gun is false.

I wasn't aware that any charges had been filed for that assault. I was referring to the 6-1.
When he pulls a gun so he can feel safe talking crap. (If that story is not true then there is no justification.)

I agree, IF the White student didn't pull a gun. If he did, it's way out of proportion.

Agreed, and the 6 who ganged up on the White kid (Again if the gun story isn't true.) should have the same done to them plus the legal action.

Redtail, I think you are confusing the incidents. The white student that was jumped by the six black students did not have a gun. The shotgun incident was a totally different situation.

For the record, I think that the whole situation is sad. I my area of Houston race relations are pretty damn good.

burrahobbit

25th September 2007, 06:10 AM

ponderingturtle

25th September 2007, 06:38 AM

Saw a BBC news program on this a few weeks ago (in India). I dont know how accurate that was but it said that the boy who was "brutally assaulted" was walking around the next day (or in a couple of days) and attending church. If that is the case then even assault seems to be too much of a charge and attempted murder simply ludicrous.

So if I try to shoot you and miss, no crime? If I attack you with a knife and don't manage to cut you no crime?

At what point does the details of the attack matter more than the ammount of dammage?

I guess you are also in the camp of "kicking people in the head after knocking them out is just boys being boys"

cloudshipsrule

25th September 2007, 07:47 AM

ponderingturtle

25th September 2007, 07:58 AM

My problem with Al and JJ is that, despite bringing a few thousand people together in a march, they tend to divide blacks and whites as a whole. They refuse to acknowledge the wrong done by their precious 6 and focus on the injustice of the sentencing.

If they would only step up and proclaim the wrong done by BOTH sides they would gain respect. It seems they are attention whores and dividers and nothing more.

But if they admit the wrong by both sides and this is the Selma of our times, what does that mean for their relevance? They need to find any situation that they can to show general racism to prove that they are relevant to the modern world. If this is the best that they can do, it says something about their relevancy I would think.

carlvs

25th September 2007, 08:47 AM

Ok... you all have your fun trashing Al and Jesse. Now I want to see you give EQUAL treatment to these pieces of filth::mad: (http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3415)

The FBI is looking at a white supremacist Web site that lists the addresses of the Jena 6 — or at least five of the six black youths accused by a Louisiana district attorney of beating a white classmate. The site “essentially called for their lynching,” an agency spokeswoman said Saturday, AP reports. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201404.html?nav=rss_technology)And I would like to know how the mayor of Jena is going to help calm tensions down by this?!?!:mad::mad::mad: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-jena25_websep25,1,4962646.story)

...the leader of a white supremacist group in Mississippi published interviews that he conducted with the mayor of Jena and the white teenager who was attacked and beaten, allegedly by the six black youths. In those interviews, the mayor, Murphy McMillin, praised efforts by pro-white groups to organize counterdemonstrations...And the actions of one of the white teens involve seem to be equally "honorable:"

...the teenager, Justin Barker, urged white readers to "realize what is going on, speak up and speak their mind."

GroundStrength

25th September 2007, 09:30 AM

Ok... you all have your fun trashing Al and Jesse. Now I want to see you give EQUAL treatment to these pieces of filth::mad: (http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3415)

Any call for lynching is horrible and should be met with the appropriate legal action.

And I would like to know how the mayor of Jena is going to help calm tensions down by this?!?!:mad::mad::mad: (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-jena25_websep25,1,4962646.story)

From the article

McMillin has insisted that his town is being unfairly portrayed as racist—an assertion the mayor repeated in an interview with Richard Barrett, the leader of the Nationalist Movement, a white supremacist group based in Learned, Miss., who asked McMillin to "set aside some place for those opposing the colored folks."

I am not endorsing any demonstrations, but I do appreciate what you are trying to do," Barrett quoted McMillin as saying. "Your moral support means a lot."

Hardly ringing the nazi bell.

And the actions of one of the white teens involve seem to be equally "honorable:"

Again from the article
Barker's father, David, said his family did not know the nature of Barrett's group when they agreed to be interviewed, adding, "I am not a white supremacist, and neither is my son."

Nice job of cherry picking.

slingblade

25th September 2007, 10:49 AM

I mostly agree. But I think that the nooses while dispicable did not physically harm anyone.

This assumes that physical harm is the only valid type of harm.

I can assure you, other types of harm can do tremendous amounts of damage. Damage that can't be fixed with a bandage or a cold compress.

There most likely is some southern good-ole-boy mentality involved here which is sad, but that does not retract from the fact that six black youths attacked and injured a single white-boy.

Yes, they did. Is such an attack, regardless of race or any sort of provocation, always "attempted murder?"

Saying that an all-white jury is a problem is assuming that "whitey" is incapable of being fair. I find that hard to believe.

Using the language of absolutes, I'd find it hard to believe, too. But "incapable" is too strong a word, given the place and its history. How about "less likely," with all circumstances taken firmly into consideration?

ponderingturtle

25th September 2007, 11:04 AM

GroundStrength

25th September 2007, 11:21 AM

This assumes that physical harm is the only valid type of harm.

I can assure you, other types of harm can do tremendous amounts of damage. Damage that can't be fixed with a bandage or a cold compress.

Yep, but those are not crimes (as of yet).

Yes, they did. Is such an attack, regardless of race or any sort of provocation, always "attempted murder?"

The charges have been (as they should have) reduced to some sort of battery. So your point is moot.

Using the language of absolutes, I'd find it hard to believe, too. But "incapable" is too strong a word, given the place and its history. How about "less likely," with all circumstances taken firmly into consideration?

I can agree with that. Maybe a change of vinew(sp?).

carlvs

25th September 2007, 11:28 AM

This assumes that physical harm is the only valid type of harm.

I can assure you, other types of harm can do tremendous amounts of damage. Damage that can't be fixed with a bandage or a cold compress.

While I agree with you, unfortunately, some people on this forum seem to think that can be easily remedied by just getting a "thicker skin...":(:(:(

ponderingturtle

25th September 2007, 11:49 AM

While I agree with you, unfortunately, some people on this forum seem to think that can be easily remedied by just getting a "thicker skin...":(:(:(

Propose your method of makeing such speech illegal. It is clear you are starting with a repeal of the first amendment, where do you go from there?

GroundStrength

25th September 2007, 11:54 AM

While I agree with you, unfortunately, some people on this forum seem to think that can be easily remedied by just getting a "thicker skin...":(:(:(

who has suggested this?

slingblade

25th September 2007, 01:46 PM

Propose your method of makeing such speech illegal. It is clear you are starting with a repeal of the first amendment, where do you go from there?

The first fallacy is that all speech in a "free speech" society is equally free. It is not. You know that, or else you should.

Libel and slander are crimes, and are committed with speech, either written or spoken. Not all speech in a free speech society is free.

"Terroristic threats." That's a crime. I believe it also involves speech.

Don't begin by assuming your conclusion in your premise. That's a no-no.

Irony

25th September 2007, 02:16 PM

Propose your method of makeing such speech illegal. It is clear you are starting with a repeal of the first amendment, where do you go from there?

Threatening to hang someone from a tree and set them on fire is not protected speech.

Dorian Gray

25th September 2007, 03:44 PM

The 17-year-old who got oral sex from his 15-year-old girlfriend is looking at this whole thing from his cell and going "WTF?"

burrahobbit

26th September 2007, 12:30 AM

So if I try to shoot you and miss, no crime? If I attack you with a knife and don't manage to cut you no crime?

At what point does the details of the attack matter more than the ammount of dammage?

I guess you are also in the camp of "kicking people in the head after knocking them out is just boys being boys"

If six youths got together to "attempt to murder" a single white kid and only managed to inflict damage that failed to prevent him from attending a school function THE SAME DAY, I am entitled to seriously doubt the motivation of the prosecuting authority in pressing such charges. Subsequent reduction of the charges to assault with a deadly weapon (or whatever tennis shoes are) only make me more suspicious that there is something going on here beyond justice taking its course.

ponderingturtle

26th September 2007, 09:36 AM

The first fallacy is that all speech in a "free speech" society is equally free. It is not. You know that, or else you should.

Libel and slander are crimes, and are committed with speech, either written or spoken. Not all speech in a free speech society is free.

How is this libel or slander?

"Terroristic threats." That's a crime. I believe it also involves speech.

Please show the relevent section of the states law.

You are claiming laws are violated, fine show them.

ponderingturtle

26th September 2007, 09:37 AM

Threatening to hang someone from a tree and set them on fire is not protected speech.

But saying someone should be hung from a tree and set on fire is.

ponderingturtle

26th September 2007, 09:38 AM

If six youths got together to "attempt to murder" a single white kid and only managed to inflict damage that failed to prevent him from attending a school function THE SAME DAY, I am entitled to seriously doubt the motivation of the prosecuting authority in pressing such charges. Subsequent reduction of the charges to assault with a deadly weapon (or whatever tennis shoes are) only make me more suspicious that there is something going on here beyond justice taking its course.

So you don't think that intent and actions are what matter it is results of the attack?

slingblade

26th September 2007, 08:02 PM

How is this libel or slander?

I did not say it was. I said that there are crimes committed with words, ergo, not all speech is "free" or protected. And not all speech should be "free" or protected.

Please show the relevent section of the states law.

You are claiming laws are violated, fine show them.

No, I am not.

I am claiming, quite logically thank you, that it is not "messing with the first amendment" to declare some forms of speech criminal, even in a society that values and protects speech.
It has to be done carefully, with due diligence and consideration, and not written in stone, but it can be done and has been done.

You mistook examples meant only to counter your general argument about free speech to have been applied solely to the specific case at hand.

Please read again. You missed the points completely.

Redtail

26th September 2007, 10:28 PM

Redtail, I think you are confusing the incidents. The white student that was jumped by the six black students did not have a gun. The shotgun incident was a totally different situation.

For the record, I think that the whole situation is sad. I my area of Houston race relations are pretty damn good.

Heh. Yeah I did get it confused. I just read a time line that explains it better and came to retract that statement. (We know about the "fog of war" they need a "fog of press" qualifier too.)

So, where it stands now (At least in my twisted little world.) all available grand parents need to have a talk with the entire school and explain what racism really is. Then the Black grand parents need to explain to the Black students that it is stupid for them to risk going to jail because someone else is stupid. White grand parents need to explain that Jim Crow like "pranks" need to be the stuff of history books. Never forgotten, but never repeated.

And for the record, race relations are good here too, my fiancee is White.

Also you're right, it is sad that we're still fighting about this crap. One of the few things I find even more said is that odds are I will one day have to explain to my child why some kid called them an ignorant *** name because their parents are from two different "races".

To Quote Redd Fox:

"Someone asked me, Why did you marry outside of your race? I said Mutha**** what do you think I married a duck!??!I Married a woman! From the HUMAN race!!!!"

quixotecoyote

26th September 2007, 10:34 PM

So you don't think that intent and actions are what matter it is results of the attack?

I think the results in this case indicate intent. I know that I, alone with the intent to murder, could create a situation where myself or the victim was dead or hospitalized. When 6 people did not put serious hurt on a lone person , it's time to consider how serious they were.

ponderingturtle

27th September 2007, 05:36 AM

I did not say it was. I said that there are crimes committed with words, ergo, not all speech is "free" or protected. And not all speech should be "free" or protected.

No, I am not.

I am claiming, quite logically thank you, that it is not "messing with the first amendment" to declare some forms of speech criminal, even in a society that values and protects speech.
It has to be done carefully, with due diligence and consideration, and not written in stone, but it can be done and has been done.

You mistook examples meant only to counter your general argument about free speech to have been applied solely to the specific case at hand.

Please read again. You missed the points completely.

So then you are not claiming that there was any crime commited by the hanging of the nooses?

In labeling them "Terroristic threats" you certainly seem to be saying that they are illegal.

ponderingturtle

27th September 2007, 05:39 AM

I think the results in this case indicate intent. I know that I, alone with the intent to murder, could create a situation where myself or the victim was dead or hospitalized. When 6 people did not put serious hurt on a lone person , it's time to consider how serious they were.

So assaulting unconsious people with weapons is fine as long as you don't hurt them?

You have wierd views. I would see it then as reasonable defense "Look if I ment to kill him I would have shot him and not just near him"

slingblade

27th September 2007, 07:44 AM

So then you are not claiming that there was any crime commited by the hanging of the nooses?

In labeling them "Terroristic threats" you certainly seem to be saying that they are illegal.

Ok, let's try this again, very slowly, because you are not reading for comprehension. At. All.

You said:
Propose your method of makeing such speech illegal. It is clear you are starting with a repeal of the first amendment, where do you go from there?

Now, my response is focused on that comment, alone. Making certain kinds of speech illegal does not require repealing the first amendment. Your comment was nothing short of hyperbole. Is that part clear now?

Then, I gave examples to bolster my point. I mentioned that libel and slander, any libel, any slander, are crimes which involve speech. Making them crimes did not require repealing the first amendment. Still with me?

I gave one final, not-related-to-the incident example: terroristic threats are considered a crime, and involve speech. Making this kind of language criminal did not require repealing the first amendment.

My examples were not meant to be applied to this incident. I am not labeling anything in this incident as libel, or slander, or a terroristic threat. I am simply pointing out to you that we already have laws on the books which limit speech, and creating these laws did not require repealing the first amendment.

Do you think you understand now?

I'm not saying anyone in this case committed libel.
I'm not saying anyone in this case commited slander.
I'm not saying anyone in this case committed a terroristic threat.

I am only saying that we can limit speech, in a free-speech society, without having to repeal the first amendment.

Is it clear now?

ponderingturtle

27th September 2007, 08:06 AM

Ok, let's try this again, very slowly, because you are not reading for comprehension. At. All.

Is it clear now?

No. You object to the responce of growing a thicker skin, but are not willing to say that this is or even should be illegal speech.

So what should people do? They are not supposted to learn to accept that there are hateful bigots in the world and should not remove their rights to speak their bigotry. Then how should people deal with hateful bigotry dirrected at them?

JoeEllison

27th September 2007, 08:25 AM

So assaulting unconsious people with weapons is fine as long as you don't hurt them?

You have wierd views. I would see it then as reasonable defense "Look if I ment to kill him I would have shot him and not just near him"I think your view is sort of weird. If you want to accuse someone of attempted murder, it usually helps to be able to show that they were trying to kill the person. If the situation is 6 on 1, and the 1 walks away, it is hard to see how they could have really been trying to kill him. If I were trying to kill someone, and I had 5 friends to help me, they person would surely be at least seriously injured, probably crippled, and very likely dead.

It doesn't even sound like an "assault" as such. We used to get in fights in school, and no one ever got arrested.

slingblade

27th September 2007, 08:28 AM

No. You object to the responce of growing a thicker skin,

I did? Where? Please quote the post.

but are not willing to say that this is or even should be illegal speech.

What? Where? Please quote the post from which you got this conclusion.

So what should people do? They are not supposted to learn to accept that there are hateful bigots in the world and should not remove their rights to speak their bigotry. Then how should people deal with hateful bigotry dirrected at them?

My post was in response to this one of yours:

Propose your method of makeing such speech illegal. It is clear you are starting with a repeal of the first amendment, where do you go from there?

We don't have to repeal the first amendment in order to make certain kinds of speech illegal.

That's all I said. Why are you trying to twist my simple statement into something it isn't?

ponderingturtle

27th September 2007, 08:57 AM

I think your view is sort of weird. If you want to accuse someone of attempted murder, it usually helps to be able to show that they were trying to kill the person. If the situation is 6 on 1, and the 1 walks away, it is hard to see how they could have really been trying to kill him. If I were trying to kill someone, and I had 5 friends to help me, they person would surely be at least seriously injured, probably crippled, and very likely dead.

It doesn't even sound like an "assault" as such. We used to get in fights in school, and no one ever got arrested.

Well the whole situation is not known. As this was on school property it is not unlikely that they did not choose when to stop kicking an unconscious person in the head on their own.

So if they where trying to seriously hurt/kill him, but where prevented from doing so, that would seem to fit into attempted murder precisely. But I would also be open to assault with a deadly weapon, but that is a general crime for kicking someone in the head, adding in that he was unconscious should mean something.

ponderingturtle

27th September 2007, 09:00 AM

I did? Where? Please quote the post.

I will grant you that you did not say that, I was mistaken in that. It was carlvs who said that in agreement with you about how much harm that they could do.

We don't have to repeal the first amendment in order to make certain kinds of speech illegal.

That's all I said. Why are you trying to twist my simple statement into something it isn't?

And you do if you want all the speech that you where refering to as inflicting tremendous amounts of damage.

slingblade

27th September 2007, 09:06 AM

I will grant you that you did not say that, I was mistaken in that. It was carlvs who said that in agreement with you about how much harm that they could do.

Thank you, I appreciate that. :)

And you do if you want all the speech that you where were refering to as inflicting tremendous amounts of damage.

I'm sorry, but this sentence is not formed in such a way that it actually says anything. Can you rephrase so I comprehend it?

Never mind. Let me, instead, ask you a question:

If I want to have a certain kind of speech made illegal, do I need to repeal the first amendment?

TonyL

27th September 2007, 09:09 AM

IIf the situation is 6 on 1, and the 1 walks away, it is hard to see how they could have really been trying to kill him.
Technically, he didn't walk away, he was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, treated for a concussion and other injuries, and released later that day. According to the Jena Times, although he did attend a school event that night, his injuries were severe enough that he was unable to stay long and left early.
If I were trying to kill someone, and I had 5 friends to help me, they person would surely be at least seriously injured, probably crippled, and very likely dead.
Assuming that you had planned adequetly and nobody stopped you before you could finish the job.
It doesn't even sound like an "assault" as such. We used to get in fights in school, and no one ever got arrested. Yeah, but I bet you operated on a code of conduct where you stopped when the other person was knocked down.
I'm also assuming you guys didn't continue to beat unconscious people while having your friends try to block the teacher's from intervening.

The question is, Would the victim still be alive if the teachers had not been able to intervene?

ponderingturtle

27th September 2007, 09:28 AM

I'm sorry, but this sentence is not formed in such a way that it actually says anything. Can you rephrase so I comprehend it?

Never mind. Let me, instead, ask you a question:

If I want to have a certain kind of speech made illegal, do I need to repeal the first amendment?

If you wanted to make any speech that would as you put it inflict tremendous ammounts of dammage? Then yes I think you would. That is the point of my reaction to carlvs reaction to your post.

GroundStrength

27th September 2007, 09:28 AM

Technically, he didn't walk away, he was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, treated for a concussion and other injuries, and released later that day. According to the Jena Times, although he did attend a school event that night, his injuries were severe enough that he was unable to stay long and left early.

Assuming that you had planned adequetly and nobody stopped you before you could finish the job.
Yeah, but I bet you operated on a code of conduct where you stopped when the other person was knocked down.
I'm also assuming you guys didn't continue to beat unconscious people while having your friends try to block the teacher's from intervening.

The question is, Would the victim still be alive if the teachers had not been able to intervene?

:clap:

Irony

27th September 2007, 09:45 AM

But saying someone should be hung from a tree and set on fire is.

That's not what the nooses represent.

A noose hung from a tree is not a political statement. The noose represents a direct threat to a community of people that the noose hanger and a mob are going to chase you down, tie a bag over your head, take you and possibly some of your family and friends to a tree, tie a noose around your neck (the wrong way so you don't die from the drop), hang you from the tree, then light you on fire and have a party as you slowly burn to death. This sort of thing has happened fairly often in the recent past and could easily happen today in places like Jena. You are just plain naive if you think that the nooses represent some sort of political dissent rather than a real and credible threat to people's lives.

slingblade

27th September 2007, 09:52 AM

If you wanted to make any speech that would as you put it inflict tremendous ammounts of dammage? Then yes I think you would. That is the point of my reaction to carlvs reaction to your post.

You know, your complete failure to understand, and my attempts to clarify to the point of absurdity, have derailed this thread enough.

Whatever it is you're trying to say (because the post up there is all but unintelligible), you are welcome to it, even though it's wrong.

ponderingturtle

27th September 2007, 10:48 AM

That's not what the nooses represent.

A noose hung from a tree is not a political statement. The noose represents a direct threat to a community of people that the noose hanger and a mob are going to chase you down, tie a bag over your head, take you and possibly some of your family and friends to a tree, tie a noose around your neck (the wrong way so you don't die from the drop), hang you from the tree, then light you on fire and have a party as you slowly burn to death. This sort of thing has happened fairly often in the recent past and could easily happen today in places like Jena. You are just plain naive if you think that the nooses represent some sort of political dissent rather than a real and credible threat to people's lives.

And why does that make it so different from other sayings that would count as protected speech? Speech does not need to be political to be protected.

And you can make statements about violence to certain extents.

For example burning crosses, well that is generally legal(subject to local fire code) as long as you do it on your own property.

If you think such a thing should be illegal, then get working on drafting an appropriate law, or show an example of one.

ponderingturtle

27th September 2007, 10:51 AM

You know, your complete failure to understand, and my attempts to clarify to the point of absurdity, have derailed this thread enough..

And you have been compleatly unclear about how people should respond to constitutionaly protected speech that they find to be very painful and upsetting.

And as you jumped into a responce to someone else, it is rather strange of you.

slingblade

27th September 2007, 10:57 AM

And you have been compleatly unclear about how people should respond to constitutionaly protected speech that they find to be very painful and upsetting.

I wasn't trying to answer that.

And as you jumped into a responce to someone else, it is rather strange of you.

In what way?

ponderingturtle

27th September 2007, 11:05 AM

I wasn't trying to answer that.

In what way?

The initial statement I made was not to you, but do someone replying to you.

This is my initial statement

Propose your method of makeing such speech illegal. It is clear you are starting with a repeal of the first amendment, where do you go from there?

and I was replying to this
While I agree with you, unfortunately, some people on this forum seem to think that can be easily remedied by just getting a "thicker skin...":(:(:(

Then you jumped in trying to prove that for some reason that is not essentially the only way that can deal with hurtful speech that is protected under the first amendment(and it protects a lot of really hurtful speech)

slingblade

27th September 2007, 11:07 AM

I know all that.

I was pointing out the hyperbole of your statement.

billydkid

27th September 2007, 11:10 AM

I think your view is sort of weird. If you want to accuse someone of attempted murder, it usually helps to be able to show that they were trying to kill the person. If the situation is 6 on 1, and the 1 walks away, it is hard to see how they could have really been trying to kill him. If I were trying to kill someone, and I had 5 friends to help me, they person would surely be at least seriously injured, probably crippled, and very likely dead.

It doesn't even sound like an "assault" as such. We used to get in fights in school, and no one ever got arrested.Well, suppose they had killed this person withou "meaning to" - what would it have been then? More than a few people have been killed by being "beaten up" (and, no, this was not a fight. It was an assault and nothing less.) and certainly the potential to kill someone by kicking them in the head is obvious to all but the most dimwitted.

billydkid

27th September 2007, 11:12 AM

And why does that make it so different from other sayings that would count as protected speech? Speech does not need to be political to be protected.

And you can make statements about violence to certain extents.

For example burning crosses, well that is generally legal(subject to local fire code) as long as you do it on your own property.

If you think such a thing should be illegal, then get working on drafting an appropriate law, or show an example of one.And accept the fact that you want to live in a country where symbolic gestures and speech are prohibited - depending pn whether or not someone, somewhere finds it offensive.

ponderingturtle

27th September 2007, 11:30 AM

I know all that.

I was pointing out the hyperbole of your statement.

But having to get used to, or be hurt by such speech is one of the requirements of the first ammendment. The nature of the first amendment requires the "getting a thicker skin".

TonyL

27th September 2007, 11:33 AM

For example burning crosses, well that is generally legal(subject to local fire code) as long as you do it on your own property.

Partly, but not entirely true. If you live, say, across the street from the African American family that just moved into the neighborhood, the action can be considered a direct threat of violence against the family across the street. I seem to recall that the courts have held that, in this and similar situations, the cross burning can be treated as a direct threat of violence. (caveat: I'm not a legal scholar and my recollection could be incorrect)

I'm not claiming the nooses in the tree at the school rise to this level, but an argument could be made that this was a threat of violence against any minority who decided to sit under the tree.

ponderingturtle

27th September 2007, 11:36 AM

And accept the fact that you want to live in a country where symbolic gestures and speech are prohibited - depending pn whether or not someone, somewhere finds it offensive.

Well in this case you can make a decent argument that it was targeted at specific individuals, and so is more than a general threat. But this is getting a bit hard to say specifically.

Was the intended statement
"Any black person who sits under the white tree should be hung" that would seem to be basically a legal statement of belief.

or was the statement
"Any black person who sits under the white tree will be hung" and which case it is a specific threat.

ponderingturtle

27th September 2007, 11:37 AM

Partly, but not entirely true. If you live, say, across the street from the African American family that just moved into the neighborhood, the action can be considered a direct threat of violence against the family across the street. I seem to recall that the courts have held that, in this and similar situations, the cross burning can be treated as a direct threat of violence. (caveat: I'm not a legal scholar and my recollection could be incorrect)

I'm not claiming the nooses in the tree at the school rise to this level, but an argument could be made that this was a threat of violence against any minority who decided to sit under the tree.

And I did only say generaly legal. As for the illegality of that situation, I would be suprised if it was uniform across the country.

Irony

27th September 2007, 11:40 AM

Well in this case you can make a decent argument that it was targeted at specific individuals, and so is more than a general threat. But this is getting a bit hard to say specifically.

Was the intended statement
"Any black person who sits under the white tree should be hung" that would seem to be basically a legal statement of belief.

or was the statement
"Any black person who sits under the white tree will be hung" and which case it is a specific threat.

It was the latter. Evidently you aren't familiar with this type of community, but to those familiar with this sort of thing the message was unambiguous.

ponderingturtle

27th September 2007, 11:42 AM

It was the latter. Evidently you aren't familiar with this type of community, but to those familiar with this sort of thing the message was unambiguous.

That is easy to assert, how do you prove it?

Irony

27th September 2007, 11:49 AM

That is easy to assert, how do you prove it?

It's not an easy thing to prove in court, but saying it's not a threat is like saying OJ was innocent.

GroundStrength

27th September 2007, 12:29 PM

It was the latter. Evidently you aren't familiar with this type of community, but to those familiar with this sort of thing the message was unambiguous.

How many people have recently been hung with a noose in that community.

slingblade

27th September 2007, 12:33 PM

If it wasn't "recent" (not defined), why would that remove the threat?

[Godwining considered, but rejected]
:p

GroundStrength

27th September 2007, 12:58 PM

If it wasn't "recent" (not defined), why would that remove the threat?

[Godwining considered, but rejected]
:p

Irony unequivocably stated

It was the latter. Evidently you aren't familiar with this type of community, but to those familiar with this sort of thing the message was unambiguous.

If noone has been lynched in Jena in the last 50-75 years, then I offer that it was the former.

If the young men who put the nooses in the tree mean the latter, then I shiver at the thought.

Irony

27th September 2007, 02:04 PM

Irony unequivocably stated

If noone has been lynched in Jena in the last 50-75 years, then I offer that it was the former.

If the young men who put the nooses in the tree mean the latter, then I shiver at the thought.

I'm not familiar with the history of Jena in particular, but lynchings were a common form of "gool-ol' family fun" in the US well under 50 years ago, with the last one being, I believe, about 20 years ago. Jena today is very much like Birmingham was in the 60's, so I have no doubt that a lynching could happen there today.

TonyL

27th September 2007, 06:37 PM

I'm not familiar with the history of Jena in particular, but lynchings were a common form of "gool-ol' family fun" in the US well under 50 years ago, with the last one being, I believe, about 20 years ago.
Really? 1987? You got a source for that? Because I'm pretty sure something like that would have made the national news, and I don't remember hearing about it.
Jena today is very much like Birmingham was in the 60's, so I have no doubt that a lynching could happen there today.
Somehow I doubt that. But, if you some evidence of bombings and police with attack dogs, I'll gladly change my opinion of the place.

slingblade

27th September 2007, 09:37 PM

Really? 1987? You got a source for that? Because I'm pretty sure something like that would have made the national news, and I don't remember hearing about it.

Will 1981 do?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_24_109/ai_n16546033

Darth Rotor

28th September 2007, 08:25 AM

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0367479/aftersunset_df-1677.jpg.html?path=pgallery&path_key=Hayek%2C%20Salma&seq=8

Sorry, I read the title as "the Salma of our time."

From the comments here, it seems that reduction of the charges from attempted murder to assault and battery, or aggrivated assault, is a reasonable step. Why the attempted murder charge was originally made is certainly a good question.

The Redd Fox quote was a delight. :) As a number of you have noted, folks down in Jena have a lot of work to do. Al and Jesse aren't a helpful input.

DR

TonyL

28th September 2007, 08:34 AM

Will 1981 do?

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_24_109/ai_n16546033

Fair enough. It's a little beyond my memory horizon, so I tend to forget that the case that bankrupted the Klan only happened a mere 26 years ago. So if you want to be generous, I guess you could classify that as about 20 years (although I'd say about 25 or about 30 myself)

slingblade

28th September 2007, 10:06 AM

TonyL

28th September 2007, 10:44 AM

There is also the dragging death of James Byrd, Jr. of Jasper, TX in the 1990s. Though the man wasn't hung from a tree, I am willing to extend my definition of lynching to include this barbarism. YMMV.

Yes, and people all over the country are still being killed in barbaric ways. Should I be able to use the Matthew Shepard case to say that Crucifiction happened in this country less than ten years ago and could easily happen again?

I should also point out that the two cases you brought up serve to highlight the difference between those two events and the lynchings that happened 40+ years ago. These two cases drew instant outrage and were not supported by the communities in which they happened. As a result, the perpetrators were quickly prosecuted. The lynchings 40+ years ago were accepted by the community, rarely prosecuted, and when prosecuted, rarely led to convictions. So although similar in means, there is a marked difference.

However, all of this is straying far from the point to which I was responding. Namely, the massive exaggeration being made about the degree of racism present in Jena today. Claiming the climate in Jena today is the same as Birmingham in the 60's is like saying a Whopper is the same as a Fillet Mignon. Sure they're both technically beef, but there is a huge difference between the two.

Darth Rotor

28th September 2007, 10:48 AM

Yes, and people all over the country are still being killed in barbaric ways. Should I be able to use the Matthew Shepard case to say that Crucifiction happened in this country less than ten years ago and could easily happen again?

I should also point out that the two cases you brought up serve to highlight the difference between those two events and the lynchings that happened 40+ years ago. These two cases drew instant outrage and were not supported by the communities in which they happened. As a result, the perpetrators were quickly prosecuted. The lynchings 40+ years ago were accepted by the community, rarely prosecuted, and when prosecuted, rarely led to convictions. So although similar in means, there is a marked difference.

However, all of this is straying far from the point to which I was responding. Namely, the massive exaggeration being made about the degree of racism present in Jena today. Claiming the climate in Jena today is the same as Birmingham in the 60's is like saying a Whopper is the same as a Fillet Mignon. Sure they're both technically beef, but there is a huge difference between the two.
The Whopper might also be kangaroo meat, or soy something or other, or clay, or something sorta like beef. ;)

DR

slingblade

28th September 2007, 11:32 AM

Yes, and people all over the country are still being killed in barbaric ways. Should I be able to use the Matthew Shepard case to say that Crucifiction happened in this country less than ten years ago and could easily happen again?

Yes. Why would that be a problem?

I should also point out that the two cases you brought up serve to highlight the difference between those two events and the lynchings that happened 40+ years ago. These two cases drew instant outrage and were not supported by the communities in which they happened. As a result, the perpetrators were quickly prosecuted. The lynchings 40+ years ago were accepted by the community, rarely prosecuted, and when prosecuted, rarely led to convictions. So although similar in means, there is a marked difference.

However, all of this is straying far from the point to which I was responding. Namely, the massive exaggeration being made about the degree of racism present in Jena today. Claiming the climate in Jena today is the same as Birmingham in the 60's is like saying a Whopper is the same as a Fillet Mignon. Sure they're both technically beef, but there is a huge difference between the two.

I'm not sure what point is progressed by quantifying it precisely, but it's a free country.

TonyL

28th September 2007, 11:51 AM

Yes. Why would that be a problem?
Because it is a meaningless claim that in no way adds to the discussion. For example:
Disembowelment on an alter can easily happen again . . .
An attack by an armor clad, sword wielding man can easily happen again . . .
Both of these are technically true statements, but they in no way address whether either is likely to happen in a particular place.
I'm not sure what point is progressed by quantifying it precisely, but it's a free country.
Basic honesty and integrity. If you want to claim that any community where racism exists is a community where bombings and lynchings are an almost certainty, well you're free to do so. But such claims are inherently dishonest, they display a lack of interest in rational discussion, and only serve to make the poster look like a crank.

slingblade

28th September 2007, 11:42 PM

Because it is a meaningless claim that in no way adds to the discussion. For example:
Disembowelment on an alter can easily happen again . . .
An attack by an armor clad, sword wielding man can easily happen again . . .
Both of these are technically true statements, but they in no way address whether either is likely to happen in a particular place.

Basic honesty and integrity. If you want to claim that any community where racism exists is a community where bombings and lynchings are an almost certainty, well you're free to do so. But such claims are inherently dishonest, they display a lack of interest in rational discussion, and only serve to make the poster look like a crank.

But....I'm not claiming that. I haven't claimed anything. I found an incident that closely met your criterion and posted a link to it. I also gave my opinion on the second incident I mentioned, and acknowledged it's just my opinion.

Then you asked a general question, which I answered, and now you're trying to attach an argument I haven't made to my answer.

Maybe you got confused.