NationStates Jolt Archive

I had no idea what this was until about last week or so when someone brought it up in my Comp. class. And I've found that reports of events relating to the Jena 6 crap varies widely.

I don't really have an opinion about this. But I've found that I agree less and less with people that support the 6 the more I learn about it, because it seems that a lot of what they say turns out to be false.

So what is up with this?

(Oh, and BTW, this incident really opened my eyes to why America is the Greatest Nation in the World... haha just kidding!)

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

It's:

A) Killing a lot of trees because of the many race cards it has demanded.
B) Going to start the next LA riot.
C) Annoying as hell.

As far as I know it started with some rope being hung from a tree, couple of white students caught, school board let them go saying it was a "prank". A couple other incidents occured against blacks and then this happened. A white was being a smartass so he got jumped. So of course given the previous incidents, the arguement by some is OMG RACISTS in regard to the town. Maybe so, though that hardly excuses what occured here. This "free the Jena 6" is nonsense.

Though it does give us all a great show in the media circus for and fodder for Fox News and talk shows so I guess some people win out in this. Just not the town of Jena.

I don't know...apparently all I have been able to get out of this is that some white kids make a tasteless and wrong racial insult with hanging nooses somewhere I think on the highschool campus...IMO those kids should be expelled end of discussion and the whole thing taken into Juvenile courts/school counseling ..well apparently some black students beat up a white student..

the one causing the biggest fuss who is a minor being charged as an adult (or was) already has several other charges in his past including violent ones..I think 2 counts of battery or something like that

Originally they (the judicial system) wanted to try him for attempted murder...this IMO was insane...assault yes...Attempted Murder no..anywho now you have the likes of Al Sharpton and others wanting all the charges against all the black students dropped..which is equally insane as trying to pin attempted murder...

I honestly don't give a damn about the whole thing...much like how i found the ESPN Vick Divide thing to be laughable at the crowds idiocy and ignorance...but that was to be expected as well..and again don't really give a damn about that event either..

I honestly don't give a damn about the whole thing...

Pos-def agree with you on that, especially since no one seems to be able to get the facts straight.

Yes...when all the facts are straight and presented then i might take interest in it..until then its just a giant media clusterfuck

Hence why I have not been following it closely.

Pos-def agree with you on that, especially since no one seems to be able to get the facts straight.

Yes...when all the facts are straight and presented then i might take interest in it..until then its just a giant media clusterfuck

Hence why I have not been following it closely.

Me neither..of course any time I see Al Sharpton supporting something I am usually turned off at that point..

you know... I vaguely remember someone having a thread here about nooses being hung in a tree.

I'm having a hard time making heads and tails about this, I'm trying to research everything, but this just sounds a lot like the Duke Lacrosse case all over again, until someone finds an unbiased source on the Jena 6 situation, I really can't comment on it.

I'm having a hard time making heads and tails about this, I'm trying to research everything, but this just sounds a lot like the Duke Lacrosse case all over again, until someone finds an unbiased source on the Jena 6 situation, I really can't comment on it.

sit down..have a few beers and join the club

Racism seems alive and well.

sit down..have a few beers and join the club

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton aren't really helping things, I'll give it that much.

Racism seems alive and well.

Ok, you got my attention, would you care to elaborate?

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton aren't really helping things, I'll give it that much.

they never do

they never do

Why don't they ever have moments like this?

TV: And three black males are on trial for the beatings and death of a white man.

Jesse/Al: Meh....it's too hot....and I'm tired.

*turns TV channel*

Announcer: "It's GIRLS GONE WILD!"

Jesse/Al: and plus I just found some good TV!

lol ggw

Basically, it's seven layers of bullshit all wrapped up in a who-gives-a-fuck tortilla. :)

Basically, it's seven layers of bullshit all wrapped up in a who-gives-a-fuck tortilla. :)

*gives LG a sack of pies* You win.

You know, I know that I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but this really doesn't seem like a Civil Rights problem that Al and Jesse are trying to make it look like, but maybe I'm wrong, who knows.

Why don't(snip) TV!

So the excessive charges against the 6, charging one lad with theft for disarming somebody of a shotgun, nooses hanging out of a tree that- in this year 2007 - is unofficially reserved for "whites"....none of that says "racism" to you....?

Ok, you got my attention, would you care to elaborate?

Do you seriously believe having a tree in a school that some white students claim only they are allowed to sit under isn't racism?

There's a lot more to this story, reading the Wiki link:
Former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke has publicly given support for Jena's "white residents". Duke carried a clear majority of the vote in Jena for his unsuccessful bid for Governor during the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election.
Seems like there's a lot of racist rednecks in Jena.
This incident was probably just an end-result of long-term race-baiting and provocation. Though it doesn't excuse them beating the crap out of the white kid.

True. However even the beating the white lad got seems to have been taken and used as a weapon, rather than a school ground incident. I find it disturbing that a prosecutor is able to abuse his position in such a manner. Given the history of my small part of the world, I can safely say that those responsible can count themselves lucky that Al Sharpton is all they have to worry about.

you know... I vaguely remember someone having a thread here about nooses being hung in a tree.I've found pretty much everything associated with the Jena case disgusting.

Basically, it's seven layers of bullshit all wrapped up in a who-gives-a-fuck tortilla. :)

QFT. [/thread]

So the excessive charges against the 6, charging one lad with theft for disarming somebody of a shotgun, nooses hanging out of a tree that- in this year 2007 - is unofficially reserved for "whites"....none of that says "racism" to you....?

Do you seriously believe having a tree in a school that some white students claim only they are allowed to sit under isn't racism?

From Wiki

At Jena High School, about 10% of enrolled students are African Americans and more than 85% are white. Early reporting asserted that students of different races seldom sat together, although this has been disputed. According to early reports, black students typically sat on bleachers near the auditorium, while white students sat under a large tree, referred to as the "white tree" or "prep tree", in the center of the school courtyard. On September 22, 2007, however, the Associated Press reported that, according to teachers and administrators at the school, the tree in question wasn't a "white tree", as students of all races had sat under it at one time or another. During a school assembly on August 31, 2006, a black male freshman student asked permission from the principal to sit under the "white tree". According to U.S. Attorney Donald Washington, a Bush appointee who is himself black, the question was posed in a "jocular fashion". The principal told the students they could "sit wherever they wanted." The freshman and his friends then sat under the tree.

Now what was that again? Unless the school officials themselves tell the black student that they can't sit under the tree, and unless a strict segregation seating chart is enforced by the school officials themselves then I'm afraid the tree isn't a "white-only" tree. As for the Noose hanging incident, the school found out who did it, and suspended them for three days. They would've expelled them but the School Board thought it was too harsh.

Try again.

From Wiki



Now what was that again? Unless the school officials themselves tell the black student that they can't sit under the tree, and unless a strict segregation seating chart is enforced by the school officials themselves then I'm afraid the tree isn't a "white-only" tree. As for the Noose hanging incident, the school found out who did it, and suspended them for three days. They would've expelled them but the School Board thought it was too harsh.

Try again.

I was going on the BBC version of the story I had seen

A black student asked the school's principal whether he was permitted to sit under the shade of the school courtyard tree, a place traditionally reserved for white students only. He was told he could sit where he liked.

The following morning, when the students arrived at school, they found three nooses dangling from the tree.

Happy to accept there is no tradition of it being a whites only tree though then I do not understand why the question would have been asked - do you know why? However the putting the nooses in the tree seems like a racist act to me - are you saying that wasn't racially motivated?

From Wiki
Now what was that again? Unless the school officials themselves tell the black student that they can't sit under the tree, and unless a strict segregation seating chart is enforced by the school officials themselves then I'm afraid the tree isn't a "white-only" tree. .

I quote myself below
is unofficially reserved for "whites". Its hard to judge reading comprehension when the basic skill of reading itself seems absent.....



As for the Noose hanging incident, the school found out who did it, and suspended them for three days. They would've expelled them but the School Board thought it was too harsh.


Placed in an alternative school for a month and "Suspended" in-school for two weeks for putting nooses on a tree, in a school in the American south, in a town where David Dukes won a majority. Yet a school yard fight becomes the subject of a criminal prosecution in which ATTEMPTED MURDER is brought as a charge and all are charged as Adults....Hmmmmm.

I was going on the BBC version of the story I had seen

Yes, because BBC (being in Britain) has a much better idea of what's going on here than say, AP.

Happy to accept there is no tradition of it being a whites only tree though then I do not understand why the question would have been asked - do you know why? However the putting the nooses in the tree seems like a racist act to me - are you saying that wasn't racially motivated?

Once again. During a school assembly on August 31, 2006, a black male freshman student asked permission from the principal to sit under the "white tree". According to U.S. Attorney Donald Washington, a Bush appointee who is himself black, the question was posed in a "jocular fashion".

As in joking! As for the noose hanging, it could be racially motivated, I can see how one could make that connection, yes. However, the Jena six situation deals with six black students beating up a white student who so far have not been connected to the hanging of noose in the tree. As for Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson parachuting in, notice they didn't do that until this gain the national spotlight.

Yes, because BBC (being in Britain) has a much better idea of what's going on here than say, AP.



Compared to Wikipedia yes I would say the BBC is a pretty accurate news source.

Here's some more:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/jena6.asp

I quote myself below.

Ok, so prove that it's 'unoffically' a white's only tree. Go ahead, I want you to prove that white student actively engage in keeping other races from sitting at the tree, and no the noose hanging incident doesn't count.

Its hard to judge reading comprehension when the basic skill of reading itself seems absent.....

Oh I know, and talk about the strawman that people put up, jeez.

Placed in an alternative school for a month and "Suspended" in-school for two weeks for putting nooses on a tree,

Seems like a fair punishment, especially since the noose really didn't harm anyone, and even though it could've been seen as a racist act (which I have no doubt that it was), and really, it isn't as bad as say, brining an automatic machine gun to a school football game. Which happened in Charlotte/Mecklenburg schools last year I think.

in a school in the American south, in a town where David Dukes won a majority.

Actually it was a governor race, and he lost.

Duke carried a clear majority of the vote in Jena for his unsuccessful bid for Governor during the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election

Yet a school yard fight becomes the subject of a criminal prosecution in which ATTEMPTED MURDER is brought as a charge and all are charged as Adults....Hmmmmm.

Well....I know it's going to seem silly, but when you have SIX people beating the crap out of you, and your injuries are:

A doctor treated Barker, who was left unconscious after the attack, at the local hospital. He was released after two hours of treatment and observation for a concussion and an eye that had swollen shut.[11] The emergency physician's record shows that he also had injuries to his face, ears and hand.

and the fact that he shown up unconscious at the hospital, then yea, I can see the attempted murder charge, at the least attempted manslaughter, and so far Barker does not have any relations to the "Noose" incident so this could also be seen as a hate crime, and they are charge as adults because at the time the crime took place, four of them were 17, close to adult age and pretty much should know better, and one of them was 18. There was one that was 16, but comon, even at the age of 16 you should know better.

*burns race card*

and the fact that he shown up unconscious at the hospital, then yea, I can see the attempted murder charge, at the least attempted manslaughter, and so far Barker does not have any relations to the "Noose" incident so this could also be seen as a hate crime, and they are charge as adults because at the time the crime took place, four of them were 17, close to adult age and pretty much should know better, and one of them was 18. There was one that was 16, but comon, even at the age of 16 you should know better.

*burns race card*

And according to wikipedia, one was 14 and he was tried as a juvie. Four were tried as adults because they were 17 and one was 16 and was tried as an adult and this is where the media goes wild when when this person's conviction was thrown out by two courts because the person should have been tried as a juvie and under LA law, that is the correct procedure.

And according to wikipedia, one was 14 and he was tried as a juvie. Four were tried as adults because they were 17 and one was 16 and was tried as an adult and this is where the media goes wild when when this person's conviction was thrown out by two courts because the person should have been tried as a juvie and under LA law, that is the correct procedure.

So everything is actually resolved.

*watch race card burns some more*

So everything is actually resolved.

*watch race card burns some more*

Actually no because there are still cases pending if wikipedia is to be believed.

The other five
On September 4, 2007, charges against Carwin Jones and Theo Shaw were reduced to aggravated second-degree battery and conspiracy,[37] as were those of Robert Bailey, Jr., on September 10.[38]

Despite the overturning of Mychal Bell's conviction, the charges against the other four teenagers remained unaffected because they were over seventeen at the time of the incident, thus making them adults under Louisiana law.[4]

Ok, so prove that it's 'unoffically' a white's only tree. Go ahead, I want you to prove that white student actively engage in keeping other races from sitting at the tree, and no the noose hanging incident doesn't count.
You: "I dare you to prove racism."
Us: "Well they hung nooses over a branch under a tree just "coincidentally" after a black kid sat under it."
You: "That doesn't count."
Us: "What the fuck do you mean that doesn't count? A black kid sat under a tree that only white kids have sat under and nooses just happen to appear on its branches the next day? Bullshit. That's called fucking intimidation. Are you going to go out and protest that when the Klan burns crosses in black people's yards it isn't racism or an action to prevent black people from doing something?"

Get a god damn clue.

And according to wikipedia, one was 14 and he was tried as a juvie. Four were tried as adults because they were 17 and one was 16 and was tried as an adult and this is where the media goes wild when when this person's conviction was thrown out by two courts because the person should have been tried as a juvie and under LA law, that is the correct procedure.
From what I understand, the 16 yr old wasn't tried as a juve because he'd already been through the courts for other offences and, as a result, they can try him as an adult.

(Quote from Nodinia) ...in a school in the American south, in a town where David Dukes won a majority. /quote

Actually it was a governor race, and he lost.

Duke carried a clear majority of the vote in Jena for his unsuccessful bid for Governor during the 1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election
uhhh...what part of 'won a majority in the town of Jena' do you not understand?
to put it even more simply:
"a town where David Dukes won a majority" = "Duke carried a clear majority of the vote in Jena"

Doesn't matter that he was unsuccessful over all of Louisiana. Fact remains people in Jena overwhemingly supported an avowed (and proud of it) racist. Speaks volumes for the sort of ppl who live in Jena and their attitudes towards Blacks.

You: "I dare you to prove racism."
Us: "Well they hung nooses over a branch under a tree just "coincidentally" after a black kid sat under it."
You: "That doesn't count."
Us: "What the fuck do you mean that doesn't count? A black kid sat under a tree that only white kids have sat under and nooses just happen to appear on its branches the next day? Bullshit. That's called fucking intimidation. Are you going to go out and protest that when the Klan burns crosses in black people's yards it isn't racism or an action to prevent black people from doing something?"

Get a god damn clue.

The fact remains that the Noose hanging incident was done by THREE, I know you can count, THREE White students, in a school that is 85% White. So, three a majority does not make. Saying that Three = unofficial racism on part of the school's white student body is like saying that Al Qaeda = The entire religion of Islam.

uhhh...what part of 'won a majority in the town of Jena' do you not understand?
to put it even more simply:
"a town where David Dukes won a majority" = "Duke carried a clear majority of the vote in Jena"

Doesn't matter that he was unsuccessful over all of Louisiana. Fact remains people in Jena overwhemingly supported an avowed (and proud of it) racist. Speaks volumes for the sort of ppl who live in Jena and their attitudes towards Blacks.

Ok, then show me the voting record for Jena, LA in the 1991 Governors race. Show me that every single person in Jena, LA voted for the Ku Klux Klan member. Show me that he didn't just do the same thing that Bush did in 2004, which was to propose a gay marriage ban right before the 2004 election which stirred up the Republican's religious right base. Show me that David Duke didn't do something similar for his base in Jena, LA.

Ok, so prove that it's 'unoffically' a white's only tree. Go ahead, I want you to prove that white student actively engage in keeping other races from sitting at the tree, and no the noose hanging incident doesn't count. *

I like the way you realise you've no argument at the end and try to get the noose excluded as grounds.

However, I think that best answered by the QFT bit here -


You: "I dare you to prove racism."
Us: "Well they hung nooses over a branch under a tree just "coincidentally" after a black kid sat under it."
You: "That doesn't count."
Us: "What the fuck do you mean that doesn't count? A black kid sat under a tree that only white kids have sat under and nooses just happen to appear on its branches the next day? Bullshit. That's called fucking intimidation. Are you going to go out and protest that when the Klan burns crosses in black people's yards it isn't racism or an action to prevent black people from doing something?"

Get a god damn clue.

Yes, most definetly QFT.


Seems like a fair punishment, especially since the noose really didn't harm anyone, and even though it could've been seen as a racist act (which I have no doubt that it was), .

No harm at all. Like leaving coal and matches in somebodys porch, or setting a cross on fire in their lawn, or maybe having a nice parade in white sheets by torch light....


and really, it isn't as bad as say, brining an automatic machine gun to a school football game. Which happened in Charlotte/Mecklenburg schools last year I think..

Would you like to explain how that incident is relevant to this? I fail to see the linkage.....


Actually it was a governor race, and he lost.
..

I think the fact that a majority of Jenas citizenry voted for him in order that he might win was the important concept there....


Well....I know it's going to seem silly, (....), even at the age of 16 you should know better.


Strange he could make it out that night. Stranger still the lack of charges against white people involved in various incidents of violence. And havent the courts subsequently tossed out most of the charges? Why were such charges brought...a "whoops, this is my first prosecution" moment?

The fact remains that the Noose hanging incident was done by THREE, I know you can count, THREE White students, in a school that is 85% White. So, three a majority does not make. Saying that Three = unofficial racism on part of the school's white student body is like saying that Al Qaeda = The entire religion of Islam.

No, we're saying that theres clearly a pattern of racism before, during, and after the "noose" business. We cannot judge the extent to which it pervades the student body but can say that at least in regard to the school board, adult population and law enforcement, there is more than a slight whiff of brimstone.

The fact remains that the Noose hanging incident was done by THREE, I know you can count, THREE White students, in a school that is 85% White.
You: "But not all white people are members of the Klan."

And that is besides the fact that the number of nooses hanged and the number of people given slaps on the wrist does not mean that they were the only people in on it or the only people that agreed with it.


So, three a majority does not make. Saying that Three = unofficial racism on part of the school's white student body is like saying that Al Qaeda = The entire religion of Islam.

Many in Jena's black community wanted the three white students expelled. But when the white superintendent and other school administrators investigated, they decided the nooses were a prank. Instead of expulsion or arrest, the three received in-school suspension.

Three white students were quickly identified as being responsible, and the high school principal recommended that they be expelled.

"Hanging those nooses was a hate crime, plain and simple," said Tracy Bowens, a black mother of two students at the high school who protested the incident at a school board meeting.

But Jena's white school superintendent, Roy Breithaupt, ruled that the nooses were just a youthful stunt and suspended the students for three days, angering blacks who felt harsher punishments were justified.

Read: "Burning crosses in people's yards? Hahaha, it's all in good fun, don't everbody get so riled up."

Tying a nose to a tree : Bad, possibly criminal.
Agreeing with someone who tied a noose to a tree : Bad, but not criminal.
Beating someone severely for agreeing with someone who tied a noose to a tree : Bad, definitely criminal.
Agreeing with someone who beat someone serverely who agreed with someone who tied a noose to a tree : Bad, but not criminal.

That about sums it up.

Well....I know it's going to seem silly, but when you have SIX people beating the crap out of you, and your injuries are:

If six people "beat the crap out of you", your injuries are going to be much, much, much worse. A single punch that catches you off guard and knocks you to the ground could result in the kind of injuries this kid had. In fact, a person could sustain these injuries by tripping and falling on a concrete surface.

The more I read about this case, the more idiotic the claims seem. This kid was beaten up by six people and managed to go to a school function several hours later, with his worst injury being an eye swollen partially shut? Bullshit. Unless there are a whole lot more injuries that aren't being reported, it sounds more like one guy hit him and he fell to the sidewalk. The others were likely surrounding him chanting or watching like you generally see in a schoolyard fight. If they had truly "repeatedly kicked him", as the DA seems to think, his injuries would have been much more extensive.

Meanwhile, when at least one of the black students involved was attacked by white men - all adults, a single man was charged with simple battery and simply put on probation.

and the fact that he shown up unconscious at the hospital, then yea, I can see the attempted murder charge, at the least attempted manslaughter,

Attempted murder/manslaughter for a schoolyard fight? Seriously??? At absolute most, I'd expect to see assault and battery charges - and most schoolyard fights don't even get that far.


Us: "What the fuck do you mean that doesn't count? A black kid sat under a tree that only white kids have sat under and nooses just happen to appear on its branches the next day? Bullshit. That's called fucking intimidation. Are you going to go out and protest that when the Klan burns crosses in black people's yards it isn't racism or an action to prevent black people from doing something?"

Get a god damn clue.

To be fair, such displays have been ruled as being death threats in many cases. What did these students get? 3 days suspension.

To be fair, such displays have been ruled as being death threats in many cases. What did these students get? 3 days suspension.
I meant hate crime, but I couldn't think of the word so intimidation worked by the way he worded the question.

I meant hate crime, but I couldn't think of the word so intimidation worked by the way he worded the question.

Indeed. I'm just amazed by how easily an obvious threat (or hate crime) becomes a "harmless prank". One of the student's parent even claims that the student didn't know what it meant, which is one of the biggest loads of BS I've heard in this whole thing.

"What? It's just a rope in a circle, right?"
:headbang:

heh even with all the new facts and stuff I can't get interested in this....odd

The problem with this matter is you have folks like Sharpton and Jackson whom I fear jumped the shark years ago clammoring about how this is an entirely racially motivated system and a travisty of justice.

Then you have folks like Wilgrove here trying to argue that it's a clear cut(excuse the expression) black and white issue that has nothing to do with race.

The truth, of course, is somewhere in the middle. These individuals allegedly committed a fairly serious crime. As such, if convicted, should be appropriatly punished. Claims that they should be set free are ludcrus. If they are proven to be criminals, they deserve to be jailed.

That being said, to suggest that there were not very clear, extremely deeply rooted racial issues behind this whole thing just reaks of wilfull ignorance. Was this tree officially a "whites only" area? Of course not. That would be illegal. But to claim that just because it was not legally sanctioned by the school officials (who could not by definition legally sanction such a thing) that there was no problem is absurd. This is an area of the country with deep seated long standing racism. Long standing racism that resulted in a high voter turnout for david fucking duke.

A deep seated tradition of racism that was continued and promulgated by the belief of some of the white school children had the right to exclude black school children from sitting in certain areas. When those tabboos were broken, a scene was reinacted reminiscent of early lynch mobs. A deep seated tradition of racism that caused for which the superintendant, overruling the principal's decision, gave them a three day suspension.

For a death threat. One he called a "prank".

A deep seated tradition of racism that flaired up when "them uppity niggers" sat where they weren't welcome. A deep seated tradition of racism that finally flaired up into an act of violence.

A deep seated tradition of racism that resulted in initial charged of attempted murder, which were wholey and utterly inappropriate.

yes, if the allegations are true these individuals are criminals, and should be treated as such. But to claim that the matter is as simple as that, and ignore the blatantly obvious undertones that run throught this whole thing, and the undeniable stink of racism that permiated all the events leading up to, and immediatly following the attack....well, as I said before, it's nothing more than willful ignorance.

I can see the attempted murder charge, at the least attempted manslaughter

Someone please explain to me how someone can "attempt manslaughter"

The attempted murder charge was obviously bullshit considering the kid "sent to the hospital" got out of the hospital two hours later. Which translated into real time is "15 minutes treated at the hospital." Unless he was bussed there, he was taken to the emergency room and the emergency room is the hospital's waiting room and is just as slow if not slower than any other waiting room.

yes, if the allegations are true these individuals are criminals, and should be treated as such.

I agree with this, with the caveat that it shouldn't be treated differently from similar events. Fights happen at high schools all the time. From what I understand, very few go to criminal prosecution at all and I doubt most result in charges that would lead to jail time.

But to claim that the matter is as simple as that, and ignore the blatantly obvious undertones that run throught this whole thing, and the undeniable stink of racism that permiated all the events leading up to, and immediatly following the attack....well, as I said before, it's nothing more than willful ignorance.

Indeed.

I just read the wiki article...and it's so fucking stupid to me. They have all these incidents on their that pre-date the assault...as if they have anything to do with it. The point of the matter is 6 black kids jumped this 1 White kid, who's only 'crime' MAY have been making fun of one of the Black kids.

This kid's eye was swollen shut! What the fuck are dumbshit morons like David Bowie doing when they SUPPORT these ATTACKERS!?

"The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) established a fund to help pay attorney fees.[41] On September 18, musician David Bowie donated $10,000 to it and made a statement, "There is clearly a separate and unequal judicial process going on in the town of Jena. A donation to the Jena Six Legal Defense Fund is my small gesture indicating my belief that a wrongful charge and sentence should be prevented."[42]


Rally
Even though Bell's conviction was overturned, a rally in support of the Jena 6 was held in Jena on September 20, 2007,[43] the date when Bell was scheduled for sentencing.[44] The more than 10,000 demonstrators assembled were addressed by Darryl Matthews, General President of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity. In his speech, entitled We Demand Justice for the Jena 6!, Matthews stated "It is sobering to know that in 2007 Martin Luther King’s dream of equal treatment, respect, fairness and opportunity is still not realized."[45] Civil rights activists Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Martin Luther King III,[46] and rapper Mos Def attended;[47] Darryl Hunt was scheduled to be a key speaker.[48]

Because of the rally's large expected size (estimates up to 40 to 60 thousand)[46] schools on the south side of LaSalle Parish, including Jena High School, were closed on September 20, 2007.[49]"

I MEAN COME THE FUCK ON.
The fact of the matter is that 6 black kids beat the shit ouf a white kid, because he was White and here is the kicker...he wasn't even involved in any of the previous stuff going on in that town. This was a seperate incident but people are trying to smush it together....:rolleyes:

I MEAN COME THE FUCK ON.
The fact of the matter is that 6 black kids beat the shit ouf a white kid, because he was White and here is the kicker...he wasn't even involved in any of the previous stuff going on in that town. This was a seperate incident but people are trying to smush it together....:rolleyes:
Yeah, 6 black kids put a white kid in the hospital! ... for two hours. I think some one who had the shit beat out of him by six people would be in the hospital for more than two hours. I bet at least an hour of that was in the emergency room unless he was bussed. And there were a shit load of incidents which culminated in this, blowing them off is ignorant and foolish. Try not to make your true colors too obvious there.

I just read the wiki article...and it's so fucking stupid to me. They have all these incidents on their that pre-date the assault...as if they have anything to do with it. The point of the matter is 6 black kids jumped this 1 White kid, who's only 'crime' MAY have been making fun of one of the Black kids.

They *say* 6 kids jumped 1. The injuries simply don't back it up. A single punch could result in all of the injuries sustained.

And pretending that none of the incidents have anything to do with it ignores quite a bit, considering that one of the Jena 6 had been beaten by a group of white men and that derisive comments Barker made about that incident seem to have prompted this one.

I MEAN COME THE FUCK ON.
The fact of the matter is that 6 black kids beat the shit ouf a white kid, because he was White and here is the kicker...he wasn't even involved in any of the previous stuff going on in that town. This was a seperate incident but people are trying to smush it together....:rolleyes:

(a) If 6 kids had "beat the shit out of" another, he would have sustained much worse injuries. Either that, or most or all of the 6 don't have the strength of a 10-year old.

(b) The fight was apparently brought on when Barker made derisive comments about a previously racially motivated fight in which one of the accused "got his ass kicked." This counters both your contention that the other incidents were unrelated and your contention that they beat him up simply because of his ethnicity.

The fact of the matter is that 6 black kids beat the shit ouf a white kid, because he was White and here is the kicker...he wasn't even involved in any of the previous stuff going on in that town. This was a seperate incident but people are trying to smush it together....:rolleyes:

It appears to be previously smushed. Again, lets say that the incident wasnt linked to fights leading back to somebody hanging the nooses. The fact is that a relatively minor infraction brought heavy charges, while similar on the part of whites did not.

My point is that the White kid that got beat up did not have anything to do with the previous racial incidents that were going on in that town.

The Black kids just took it out on him...and if he made fun of someone...regardless. A normal civilized kid does not beat the shit out of someone because of a comment. :rolleyes:

Uh huh, and once again we just ignore the fact that a history of racism and racial abuse as well as recent incidents had turned that place into a fucking powder keg.

They're also claiming that before this some white kids pounded on a black kid who ignored the subtle warning and still sat under the, "white tree." Apparently there is some anger that white kids were beating up black kids without meaningful discipline, but black kids get tried as adults when they do the same thing. If this is true, then there are a lot of people in Jena who should be removed from positions of responsibility.

That said, I'm not getting cable just so I can watch this shit on CourtTV. All y'all scandal junkies'll just have to keep me updated if anything interesting comes up...

The Black kids just took it out on him...and if he made fun of someone...regardless. A normal civilized kid does not beat the shit out of someone because of a comment. :rolleyes:

It happens in schools around the country every day, regardless of ethnicity. Should someone get in a fight because of derisive comments? Of course not. Do they? All the damn time.

It happens in schools around the country every day, regardless of ethnicity. Should someone get in a fight because of derisive comments? Of course not. Do they? All the damn time.

Momma jokes anyone? :p

How is it that six black youths attack one white youth, and it is they, that are considered victims of racism? Something is not right here.

How is it that six black youths attack one white youth, and it is they, that are considered victims of racism? Something is not right here.

six black youths arrested for attacking a white youth, doesn't seem like they are the victims of racism.

A black youth charged with attempted murder for an assault in the same town where white boys who made what amounts to death threats by enacting scenes reminiscent of a lynching were given a slap on the wrist by a superintendant who considered it a "prank"...that on the other hand reeks of racism.

six black youths arrested for attacking a white youth, doesn't seem like they are the victims of racism.

A black youth charged with attempted murder for an assault in the same town where white boys who made what amounts to death threats by enacting scenes reminiscent of a lynching were given a slap on the wrist by a superintendant who considered it a "prank"...that on the other hand reeks of racism.

A direct six on one attack is far worse than hanging a noose from a tree, therefore the punishment should be worse as well.

six black youths arrested for attacking a white youth, doesn't seem like they are the victims of racism.

A black youth charged with attempted murder for an assault in the same town where white boys who made what amounts to death threats by enacting scenes reminiscent of a lynching were given a slap on the wrist by a superintendant who considered it a "prank"...that on the other hand reeks of racism.

Not to mention that, in another incident where several white men - all adults - were involved, one man was charged with simple battery.

And I'm still not convinced that this was 6 black youths attacking a white one. The injuries make it sound more like one black youth attacking a white one, and 5 others arrested for being there.

A direct six on one attack is far worse than hanging a noose from a tree, therefore the punishment should be worse as well.

Worse? Yes.

But that doesn't mean that the punishment for the nooses wasn't too lax and the attempted murder charges weren't too harsh.

I wonder if any of the white youths have criminal records at least one of the black youths does including violent crimes...anyone with any info on the others...on both sides

The Black kids just took it out on him...and if he made fun of someone...regardless. A normal civilized kid does not beat the shit out of someone because of a comment. :rolleyes:


Now thats just bollocks. Fuck knows how many school ground rows get started because of a "comment", let alone bar room brawls. Get your hood on.

I considered it foolishness as well, but after a bit of investigation, I found a lot of people are complaining about racism because similar white-on-black violence has occurred in the area with lesser charges.

That is understandable; however, complaining that the kids are being charged is not. They *did* gang-beat someone, after all.

If six people "beat the crap out of you", your injuries are going to be much, much, much worse. A single punch that catches you off guard and knocks you to the ground could result in the kind of injuries this kid had. In fact, a person could sustain these injuries by tripping and falling on a concrete surface.

(Shrugs) That's a question for the jury to decide. Charges in this situation seem wholly appropriate. And note that the prosecutor lowered the charges from attempted murder to aggravated assault.


Meanwhile, when at least one of the black students involved was attacked by white men - all adults, a single man was charged with simple battery and simply put on probation.

True or not, it's irrelevant to the case at hand. Nobody really seems to be arguing that these 6 thugs are innocent, just that the prosecutor in this town isn't charging whites equally in other cases.

Attempted murder/manslaughter for a schoolyard fight? Seriously??? At absolute most, I'd expect to see assault and battery charges - and most schoolyard fights don't even get that far.

The prosecutor lowered the charges. But attempted murder is an appropriate charge in a case where 6 guys attack another guy and proceed to beat and kick him into unconsciousness.

The problem with this matter is you have folks like Sharpton and Jackson whom I fear jumped the shark years ago clammoring about how this is an entirely racially motivated system and a travisty of justice.

Then you have folks like Wilgrove here trying to argue that it's a clear cut(excuse the expression) black and white issue that has nothing to do with race.

The truth, of course, is somewhere in the middle. These individuals allegedly committed a fairly serious crime. As such, if convicted, should be appropriatly punished. Claims that they should be set free are ludcrus. If they are proven to be criminals, they deserve to be jailed.

That being said, to suggest that there were not very clear, extremely deeply rooted racial issues behind this whole thing just reaks of wilfull ignorance. Was this tree officially a "whites only" area? Of course not. That would be illegal. But to claim that just because it was not legally sanctioned by the school officials (who could not by definition legally sanction such a thing) that there was no problem is absurd. This is an area of the country with deep seated long standing racism. Long standing racism that resulted in a high voter turnout for david fucking duke.

A deep seated tradition of racism that was continued and promulgated by the belief of some of the white school children had the right to exclude black school children from sitting in certain areas. When those tabboos were broken, a scene was reinacted reminiscent of early lynch mobs. A deep seated tradition of racism that caused for which the superintendant, overruling the principal's decision, gave them a three day suspension.

For a death threat. One he called a "prank".

A deep seated tradition of racism that flaired up when "them uppity niggers" sat where they weren't welcome. A deep seated tradition of racism that finally flaired up into an act of violence.

A deep seated tradition of racism that resulted in initial charged of attempted murder, which were wholey and utterly inappropriate.

yes, if the allegations are true these individuals are criminals, and should be treated as such. But to claim that the matter is as simple as that, and ignore the blatantly obvious undertones that run throught this whole thing, and the undeniable stink of racism that permiated all the events leading up to, and immediatly following the attack....well, as I said before, it's nothing more than willful ignorance.

QFT. Thank you, thank you, thank you for making a post on this subject that involves actual sense.

I considered it foolishness as well, but after a bit of investigation, I found a lot of people are complaining about racism because similar white-on-black violence has occurred in the area with lesser charges.

That is understandable; however, complaining that the kids are being charged is not. They *did* gang-beat someone, after all.I don't know that there is any significant push against the black kids being charged for the crime they committed. The outrage I have seen is at the blatantly obvious racism in the handling of this incident and related incidents. White people get slaps on the wrist, black people end up in prison.

What sickens me is that when I first read the story it took me a moment to figure out what the big stink was about. Not because I didn't see how racist and fucked up it was, but because this kind of crap is so common in my country that I didn't see why this particular case was getting so much attention.

That bums me out. I view America as a country in which racism is so common that I'm not the least bit surprised by cases like the "Jena 6." Yuck.

True or not, it's irrelevant to the case at hand. Nobody really seems to be arguing that these 6 thugs are innocent, just that the prosecutor in this town isn't charging whites equally in other cases.

um, yeah, that's exactly the point. If the prosecutor isn't charging whites equally in similar cases, that creates a very strong presumption of racist motivations

The prosecutor lowered the charges. But attempted murder is an appropriate charge in a case where 6 guys attack another guy and proceed to beat and kick him into unconsciousness.

causing injuries that required a few hours in a hospital, nothing more. A charge of attempted murder requires an indication that they were, wait for, it, attempting to murder him. You can't just slap a lable of "attempted murder" on an assault and battery unless there is actual demonstrable indication that, yes, they actually intended to murder him.

And the idea that that 6 people who had the intent to murder someone would accomplish only reasonably superficial injuries is...laughable.

The reason "assault and battery" and "attempted murder" are seperate crimes is because they are seperate acts. You can not call every assault an attempted murder, that is ludicrus. There must be actual indication of a willigness and intent to commit murder.

Where is that indication? The fact that the injuries were only reasonably superficial requiring only a few hours in a hospital does not lend itself to that assumption.

Where is the evidence that they intended to murder him? Because I just haven't seen it.

(Shrugs) That's a question for the jury to decide.

The fact that these injuries could be caused by a single punch is for the jury to decide? No, that is something to be admitted into evidence.

The jury's job is to decide whether or not the state has adequately proven that these 6 committed the crimes they are charged with.

Charges in this situation seem wholly appropriate. And note that the prosecutor lowered the charges from attempted murder to aggravated assault.

Charges certainly could be appropriate, but the initial charges were completely and ridiculously inappropriate.

True or not, it's irrelevant to the case at hand. Nobody really seems to be arguing that these 6 thugs are innocent, just that the prosecutor in this town isn't charging whites equally in other cases.

And that is relevant to the charges of racism. Whatever the criminal justice system does, it must provide equal protection under the law. If someone receives a harsher charge/punishment (or a lesser one) because of the color of his skin, that is an injustice.

The prosecutor lowered the charges. But attempted murder is an appropriate charge in a case where 6 guys attack another guy and proceed to beat and kick him into unconsciousness.

Given the description of the injuries, there is really isn't any evidence that he was kicked at all. In fact, it's pretty good evidence that most of the 6 were either not involved, or that at least one teacher stood by and watched as they all took turns getting out of each others' way and going for the head. Except for a report of some injury to his hand, all of his injuries were restricted to the head. If six guys are surrounding you and beating and kicking you, they aren't all going to be able to go for the head. You would expect to see, at the very least, significant bruising in other areas of the body. With any real kicking going on, broken ribs and other such injuries would be overwhelmingly likely.

Meanwhile, people seem to think that having a single eye swollen shut or a loss of consciousness somehow automatically implies a major beating. It doesn't. Losing consciousness can be completely explained by a single thrown punch. One punch knocks him down, he hits his head on the concrete, and he loses consciousness. Hell, he could have tripped and received all of the injuries that have been reported.

If someone had brought a gun and shot him, or even pulled out a baseball bat and hit him with it, I might agree with attempted murder charges. As it is, the charges were patently ridiculous.

How is it that six black youths attack one white youth, and it is they, that are considered victims of racism? Something is not right here.
Yeah, something isn't right - you are about as informed on this topic as my pet cat.

i have the solution lock them all up and make them go through a program where they have to work for say 3 months with a student of the opposite skin color....still no luck finding any info on the others past criminal records or if they even have any..only the one does...or at least thats the only one I can find...

causing injuries that required a few hours in a hospital, nothing more. A charge of attempted murder requires an indication that they were, wait for, it, attempting to murder him. You can't just slap a lable of "attempted murder" on an assault and battery unless there is actual demonstrable indication that, yes, they actually intended to murder him.

Again, the prosecutor reduced the charges before trial. The attempted murder charge was just his opening move. People are stuck on this attempted murder charge, but that's old history.

And the idea that that 6 people who had the intent to murder someone would accomplish only reasonably superficial injuries is...laughable.

So, if I shoot at someone and miss completely, you wouldn't support a charge of attempted murder because I did not actually do any harm?

The prima facie case of attempted murder does not actually require any injury to have occurred. You're stuck on a legally irrelevant fact here.

The reason "assault and battery" and "attempted murder" are seperate crimes is because they are seperate acts. You can not call every assault an attempted murder, that is ludicrus. There must be actual indication of a willigness and intent to commit murder.

All personal violence crimes are part of a continuum, from simple assault up to 1st degree murder. The legal rule is that you intend the natural consequences of your actions. Death is one of the natural potential consequences of 6 guys knocking down and kicking and beating a prone guy into unconsiousness. But, again, the prosecutor reduced the charges before trial. Prosecutors will typically file charges based on the toughest crime the facts support.

Again, the prosecutor reduced the charges before trial. The attempted murder charge was just his opening move.

Regardless of whether he reduced the charges, if he began with an injust charge, he is failing in his duty as a prosecutor. The job of the prosecutor is NOT to have people convicted. It is NOT to get them the longest jail time possible.

The job of a prosecutor is to see that justice is done. Nothing more, nothing less. To charge someone with an unjust charge is to fail in that job.

So, if I shoot at someone and miss completely, you wouldn't support a charge of attempted murder because I did not actually do any harm?

The prima facie case of attempted murder does not actually require any injury to have occurred. You're stuck on a legally irrelevant fact here.


Oh please, don't presume that you know more about the law than me, alright? You'll just embarass yourself.

All personal violence crimes are part of a continuum, from simple assault up to 1st degree murder. The legal rule is that you intend the natural consequences of your actions.

Quite right, just as if you fire a gun, which has lethal force, you intend to use lethal force, unless it is clear you were specifically intending to apply it in a non lethal way.

The natural consequence of non lethal force, such force resulting in only reasonably superficial injuries, however, is not death. Which is the point. Considering he was not severely injured and was never in any direct danger of death, it is laughable in the extreme to suggest that death was the natural consequence of non lethal force.

Prosecutors will typically file charges based on the toughest crime the facts support.

Quite right. But when the use of force was limited in scope to cause only reasonably superficial injuries, the facts do not, in any way support a presumption that the natural intended consequence of such non lethal force was a lethal result.

It is simply absurd to suggest that an attack which left only reasonably superficial injuries was done with intent to kill. The natural consequence of a level of force that left those injuries is not death.

Quite right. But when the use of force was limited in scope to cause only reasonably superficial injuries, the facts do not, in any way support a presumption that the natural intended consequence of such non lethal force was a lethal result.

It is simply absurd to suggest that an attack which left only reasonably superficial injuries was done with intent to kill. The natural consequence of a level of force that left those injuries is not death.

And the prosecutor tried to argue that tennis shoes equate to a deadly weapon...

*shakes head*

The Jena 6 is a bunch of bullshit. Those kids need to go to jail because they committed assault. Their race has nothing to do with it, they broke the law. If it was the other way around a black kid got beat up everyone would scream "hate crime!" But yet when a white kid gets beaten up, people want to free the people who committed the crime. This makes no sense.

Regardless of whether he reduced the charges, if he began with an injust charge, he is failing in his duty as a prosecutor. The job of the prosecutor is NOT to have people convicted. It is NOT to get them the longest jail time possible.

The job of a prosecutor is to see that justice is done. Nothing more, nothing less. To charge someone with an unjust charge is to fail in that job.

Maybe he started with that charge in order to force him to accept a plea deal for assault or something along those lines. In which case, if the assault was indeed as described, then I think justice would be being served. perhaps that was the point of the initial attempted murder charge and also why they were dropped before trial. (if the plea deal would have been accepted could have saved some time and money for the gov't too.) Of course we don't know if any of this did happen, just a hypothetical.

Again, the prosecutor reduced the charges before trial. The attempted murder charge was just his opening move. People are stuck on this attempted murder charge, but that's old history.
Oh sure, he reduced the charges (this month) - to a crime that requires a deadly weapon to qualify for so unless they were all black belts in some major martial art... Oh, and his argument were that tennis shoes on feet were a deadly weapon and the all white jury agreed.

Maybe he started with that charge in order to force him to accept a plea deal for assault or something along those lines.

If a prosecutor, for what ever reason, charges someone with a crime that the facts do not support, that is a breach of professional ethics. Regardless of why he did it, it's wrong. A prosecutor should know that it is wrong. A criminal charge is serious business, and when a prosecutor charges someone with a crime that the facts do not support then that prosecutor has failed in his ethical obligations to seek justice.

The Jena 6 is a bunch of bullshit. Those kids need to go to jail because they committed assault. Their race has nothing to do with it, they broke the law. If it was the other way around a black kid got beat up everyone would scream "hate crime!" But yet when a white kid gets beaten up, people want to free the people who committed the crime. This makes no sense.

Jail them all the white kids who made the racist prank with the tree and the black kids who assaulted the white kid...the one black kid with a record already should get more time than those with no record then when they get out make them all go through counseling sessions and tolerance...that sounds like a logical and fair...to me anyways...why can't the people in Jena figure this one out

The Jena 6 is a bunch of bullshit. Those kids need to go to jail because they committed assault. Their race has nothing to do with it, they broke the law. If it was the other way around a black kid got beat up everyone would scream "hate crime!" But yet when a white kid gets beaten up, people want to free the people who committed the crime. This makes no sense.

It was a school ground incident. SCHOOL GROUND. Fer fucks sake, if this is what needs the law involved I'd still be inside for what happened when I was 8....

Oh sure, he reduced the charges (this month) - to a crime that requires a deadly weapon to qualify for so unless they were all black belts in some major martial art... Oh, and his argument were that tennis shoes on feet were a deadly weapon and the all white jury agreed.

The jury that included a family friend of the victim, no less.

It was a school ground incident. SCHOOL GROUND. Fer fucks sake, if this is what needs the law involved I'd still be inside for what happened when I was 8....

I don't know what i would have gotten...I was an evil lil bastard all the way up through middle school

It was a school ground incident. SCHOOL GROUND. Fer fucks sake, if this is what needs the law involved I'd still be inside for what happened when I was 8....

assault is assault, whether it happens in a school or it happens on the street. Its still a crime.

Jail them all the white kids who made the racist prank with the tree and the black kids who assaulted the white kid...the one black kid with a record already should get more time than those with no record then when they get out make them all go through counseling sessions and tolerance...that sounds like a logical and fair...to me anyways...why can't the people in Jena figure this one out

why should they go to jail for a prank?

and the fact is a prosecutor can't just throw charges at people with disregard to the facts of the circumstances, "opening move" or not. Jaywalker? We'll charge him with terrorism! Snuck into a movie theater? Rapist! Got into a fist fight? Imported 13 year old filipino boys to be sold into slavery!

No, just...no. It doesn't work that way. A prosecutor doesn't get to "bluff" like that. He doesn't get to throw in unsubstantiated charges then yell "gotcha!" when you confess to something lesser out of fear. A charge must fit the facts.

And it just doesn't here. And we need to ask ourselves why that is.

If a prosecutor, for what ever reason, charges someone with a crime that the facts do not support, that is a breach of professional ethics. Regardless of why he did it, it's wrong. A prosecutor should know that it is wrong. A criminal charge is serious business, and when a prosecutor charges someone with a crime that the facts do not support then that prosecutor has failed in his ethical obligations to seek justice.

It may have been a breach of professional ethics but, if his goal was only to get him convicted of the rightful charges brought against the defendant, then you would be hard pressed to say he wasn't seeking justice.

Well at the very least expulsion from school..not a 3 day suspension...that or put them in a different education program if those are available..I know here if a kid does something like that they get sent to alternative school...for the kids who don't know/want to play nice with the other students..that or they are expelled...since not to long ago a kid gave a black student a card with a lynched black person on it and some other racial slurs...the white student was expelled and sent to alternative...

you could also argue that hanging nooses from a tree and such is more than a prank and could constitute terroristic threatening

Oh please, don't presume that you know more about the law than me, alright? You'll just embarass yourself.

I'll play:

Here is Lousiana RS:27, defining attempt:

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78386

Attempt; penalties; attempt on peace officer; enhanced penalties

A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.

Now, let's look at the definition of 2nd degree murder:

http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=78398

§30.1. Second degree murder

A. Second degree murder is the killing of a human being:

(1) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm;

Could a prosecutor make a case that the intent of the 6 here was to inflict "great bodily harm?" Certainly. 6 guys kicking a prone guy with enough force to knock him unconscious are a fine line away from kicking him to death.

And notice that based on these two statutes, there is no requirement of any actual injury to the victim, all you need is the intent to inflict same.


The natural consequence of non lethal force, such force resulting in only reasonably superficial injuries, however, is not death. Which is the point. Considering he was not severely injured and was never in any direct danger of death, it is laughable in the extreme to suggest that death was the natural consequence of non lethal force.

Kicking a prone person in the head is not "non-lethal force." It is a pretty effective way to kill someone, especially if 6 guys are doing the kicking. The fact that the victim here got lucky means that you can charge these guys with attempted murder, rather than actual murder.

Could a prosecutor make a case that the intent of the 6 here was to inflict "great bodily harm?" Certainly.

Oh? Really? So then...where's the great bodily harm?

6 guys kicking a prone guy with enough force to knock him unconscious are a fine line away from kicking him to death.

Not in the slightest. It's remarkably easy to render someone unconscious. It takes far less than near lethal force to do so.

And notice that based on these two statutes, there is no requirement of any actual injury to the victim, all you need is the intent to inflict same.

yes, I know, we covered intent crimes back when I was in lawschool. Now please show me evidence of intent.

Kicking a prone person in the head is not "non-lethal force."

The significantly less than life threatening injuries he faced would seem to disagree.

It is a pretty effective way to kill someone,

The fact that he was not at any time even close to death would seem to disagree.

The fact that the victim here got lucky means that you can charge these guys with attempted murder, rather than actual murder.

Absolutly. Once you show evidence that there was an intent to kill. Which I fear superficial, not in any way life threatening injuries just doesn't do.

and the fact is a prosecutor can't just throw charges at people with disregard to the facts of the circumstances, "opening move" or not. Jaywalker? We'll charge him with terrorism! Snuck into a movie theater? Rapist! Got into a fist fight? Imported 13 year old filipino boys to be sold into slavery!

No, just...no. It doesn't work that way. A prosecutor doesn't get to "bluff" like that. He doesn't get to throw in unsubstantiated charges then yell "gotcha!" when you confess to something lesser out of fear. A charge must fit the facts.

And it just doesn't here. And we need to ask ourselves why that is.

Well, i don't doubt that there is racism in Jena, and I didn't realize that a battery charge needed the use of a potentially deadly weapon, and I don't feel that tennis shoes constitute as much. Perhaps assault would have been a more justified charge.

why should they go to jail for a prank?

Death threats are a crime, whether you meant them as a prank or not.


Could a prosecutor make a case that the intent of the 6 here was to inflict "great bodily harm?" Certainly. 6 guys kicking a prone guy with enough force to knock him unconscious are a fine line away from kicking him to death.

Once again this idiotic premise that knocking someone unconscious takes great effort.

The fall from the first punch could have knocked the guy unconscious. If he had been kicked repeatedly in the head, you'd expect to see broken facial bones, significant bruising all over the head, and a great deal of swelling. None of those things were observed.

Kicking a prone person in the head is not "non-lethal force." It is a pretty effective way to kill someone, especially if 6 guys are doing the kicking. The fact that the victim here got lucky means that you can charge these guys with attempted murder, rather than actual murder.

It's interesting that you insist that something happened, despite there being no physical evidence for it.

If I claimed that someone had kicked me repeatedly, but I had no injuries consistent with such a claim, would you believe me?

It may have been a breach of professional ethics but, if his goal was only to get him convicted of the rightful charges brought against the defendant, then you would be hard pressed to say he wasn't seeking justice.

how do you figure? Charge him with something unethical in hopes that he'll plead to the proper charge?

no, that's not seeking justice. Why? Because of the fact they're guilty until proven innocent. A prosecutor must operate under that principle. If you charge someone with something you know can not possibly stick, for all you know you have scared an innocent person into confessing to a crime they didn't do so they wouldn't be convicted of an even worse crime, which you lack sufficient evidence to believe they committed.

Charging someone with a crime that the facts simply do not support is in no way shape or form seeking justice.

and I really am baffled on the insistance that an attack took place with lethal force despite no indication of any serious injury. You're trying to argue they intended to kill him, or, at very least, used a level of force sufficient to do so despite the fact that he was not in any way seriously injured.

There's a significant difference between getting lucky and not being killed by a force that could kill you, and a force that really wasn't intended nor sufficient to kill you.

You're asking us to believe that this guy was gang attacked by 6 people, repeatedly kicked in the face with a level of force capable of killing him, and miraculously "got lucky" and sustained nearly superficial injuries.

That a gang of 6 people had him lying on the ground, kicking him in the face, with the intent to kill him, and managed to...give him a black eye.

That the level of force applied was capable of causing great bodily harm despite the total and utter lack of significant bodily harm.

Death threats are a crime, whether you meant them as a prank or not.




death threat!? you can't be serious. It was a school yard prank, nothing more. People need more of a sense of humour.

The Jena Six were well more than justified. They acted pre-emptively in self-defense.

how do you figure? Charge him with something unethical in hopes that he'll plead to the proper charge?

no, that's not seeking justice. Why? Because of the fact they're guilty until proven innocent. A prosecutor must operate under that principle. If you charge someone with something you know can not possibly stick, for all you know you have scared an innocent person into confessing to a crime they didn't do so they wouldn't be convicted of an even worse crime, which you lack sufficient evidence to believe they committed.

Charging someone with a crime that the facts simply do not support is in no way shape or form seeking justice.

So, by your logic a prosecutor shouldn't try to convict anyone since they might be innocent of the charge, and that the charge and resulting distress of the accused could lead them to admit doing something they never did?

Either way, it doesn't seem to me to be a very unusual thing for a prosecutor to do. In all my engagements with an authority they have threatened to do things well outside of reason given the circumstances, if I didn't comply with them.

Oh? Really? So then...where's the great bodily harm?

The question is whether they had the intent to do so, not whether they actually accomplished it.

yes, I know, we covered intent crimes back when I was in lawschool. Now please show me evidence of intent.


Seems like everyone's a lawyer these days. You don't consider kicking a prone man in the head as evidence of intent to cause great bodily harm? Again, we intend the natural consequences of our actions- kicking a prone person in the head is a good indication of your intent to cause great bodily harm.

The significantly less than life threatening injuries he faced would seem to disagree.

Again, the fact that the victim got lucky, doesn't really change their intent here.

Absolutly. Once you show evidence that there was an intent to kill. Which I fear superficial, not in any way life threatening injuries just doesn't do.

Or an intent to cause great bodily harm, which can be shown by their actions here, i.e., kicking a prone man in the head.

The fall from the first punch could have knocked the guy unconscious. If he had been kicked repeatedly in the head, you'd expect to see broken facial bones, significant bruising all over the head, and a great deal of swelling. None of those things were observed.

That's certainly an argument the defense can make at trial. I imagine that would have been part of their strategy if the prosecutor had actually gone to trial on the attempted murder charge.

It's interesting that you insist that something happened, despite there being no physical evidence for it.

There is evidence of injury, and there were eyewitnesses to the attack. the defense is free to question evidence and the eyewitness accounts, but that doesn't mean the prosecutor filed improper charges.

And yet once again you miss the point by a mile. If kicking someone at the level of force they did in the mannor they did was sufficient to cause great bodily harm...why didn't it?

Yes yes, I know it doesn't have to, it only has to be capable of it. If I shoot at you and miss, I have done something capable of causing great bodily harm, I did not do so however, because I missed.

But what prevented great bodily harm in this instance? If you are so certain that the level of force was capable of causing great bodily harm, then why didn't it? Did someone secretly replace their shoes with nerf sneakers that morning? Were they all blind and kept missing? Was the victim lucky that he just happened to be returning from practicing his role as the star in The Man in the Iron Mask and didn't change out of costume yet?

Yes, a bullet can cause great bodily harm. Yes if I shoot at you and miss I still intended to cause great bodily harm. I did NOT actually CAUSE great bodily harm because of my sucky aim.

So, tell me, if the evidence supports that they applied a level of force capable of causing great bodily harm, and yet the evidence supports that great bodily harm did not in fact occur, what intervened in the process?

Because either something occured (such as me missing hitting you with a bullet) that caused them to fail in their efforts to cause great bodily harm, or they did not actually use enough force to cause said harm.

So go ahead, tell me, if they used sufficient force to cause great harm, yet there was no great harm, something must have prevented said harm. And if the natural conclusion of the evidence is that there was sufficient force, yet the natural conclusion of the evidence is that there was no great harm as result, the evidence must also show the intervening factor that prevented such harm from occuring.

So tell me, what was it?

There is evidence of injury, and there were eyewitnesses to the attack. the defense is free to question evidence and the eyewitness accounts, but that doesn't mean the prosecutor filed improper charges.

That's nice. I can also claim I saw you stab a guy 15 times in the chest, but that's not enough to substantiate charging you with assault with a deadly weapon if the guy you supposedly stabbed has no stab wounds.

The mere fact that someone says they saw it doesn't justify a charge when all other evidence serves to contradict that testimony or, at very least, call into question its verasity.

"I saw six guys gang up on him and savagely kick him repeatedly in the head" does not by itself show enough to justify charging them with attempted murder when the evidence shows that it really doesn't appear that he was violently kicked in the face with significant force by a gang of people.

And the fact that the prosecutor went ahead anyway certainly creates the presumption that he didn't really care about the fact, and just wanted to nail some uppity niggers.

death threat!? you can't be serious. It was a school yard prank, nothing more. People need more of a sense of humour.

...

...

...

...I cannot even find the words to express how messed-up this comment is.

There is evidence of injury, and there were eyewitnesses to the attack.

There is no evidence of injury that would relate to being repeatdedly kicked in the head. One does not get up from that and go out the same night.

"I saw six guys gang up on him and savagely kick him repeatedly in the head" does not by itself show enough to justify charging them with attempted murder when the evidence shows that it really doesn't appear that he was violently kicked in the face with significant force by a gang of people.

And the fact that the prosecutor went ahead anyway certainly creates the presumption that he didn't really care about the fact, and just wanted to nail some uppity niggers.

QFT. Thats what this reeks of. A refined version of a lynching to keep the 'coloureds' mindful of their place.

And yet once again you miss the point by a mile. If kicking someone at the level of force they did in the mannor they did was sufficient to cause great bodily harm...why didn't it?

Off the top of my head: (a) bad aim, and/or (b) the victim rolling around and covering his head sufficiently to protect himself, and/or (c) the fight getting broken up before it could actually get to the point where great bodily harm was inflicted, and/or (d) just plain good luck on the victim's part in that their blows didn't strike anything too vital.

You don't happen to be a defense attorney, do you?

Frankly one of two things is possible. Either all six people did gang up on the guy, savagely kick him in the face with potentially lethal force, however by extreme chance he had no defensive wounds, no overal bodily injuries, nothing at all consistant with six people kicking you while you lay on the ground, and he suffered only minor injuries requiring only a brief stay in the hospital and was able to go out that night

or

That's not what happened

And while the first option is somewhat possible, highly unlikely, but somewhat possible, a situation that is "highly unlikely but somewhat possible" does not justify an attempted murder charge. You con't get to charge someone with attempted murder if they "possibly, but highly unlikely" intended to kill someone. The standard is significantly higher than that.

Off the top of my head: (a) bad aim, and/or (b) the victim rolling around and covering his head sufficiently to protect himself, and/or (c) the fight getting broken up before it could actually get to the point where great bodily harm was inflicted, and/or (d) just plain good luck on the victim's part in that their blows didn't strike anything too vital.

You don't happen to be a defense attorney, do you?
Ha, I'd like to know from whence your legal...expertise...stems. I certainly hope you do not intend to become a prosecutor if you think you can, without repercussion, file similar charges based on the 'arguments' you've laid out here.

Off the top of my head: (a) bad aim,

Not what the witness said, as the witness clearly said he saw them repeatedly kick him. So that's totally inconsistant with eye witness testimony.

and/or (b) the victim rolling around and covering his head sufficiently to protect himself,

No injuries consistant with that.

and/or (c) the fight getting broken up before it could actually get to the point where great bodily harm was inflicted,

Not consistant with eyewitness testimony

and/or (d) just plain good luck on the victim's part in that their blows didn't strike anything too vital.

ahh, so he was kicked with force sufficient to cause great bodily harm but just by miraculous circumstances he did not have any bones broken, teeth knocked out, tissue damage, lasting injury to his eyes, or anything what so ever to prevent him from going out and partying that night?

Sorry, miraculous circumstances, hypothetical events in total conflict to the prosecution's own witness and theoretical events inconsistant with evidence are not enough to substantiate a criminal charge.

Fail, try agian.

The Jena Six were well more than justified. They acted pre-emptively in self-defense.

Pre-emptive self-defense? That's a new one.

Ha, I'd like to know from whence your legal...expertise...stems. I certainly hope you do not intend to become a prosecutor if you think you can, without repercussion, file similar charges based on the 'arguments' you've laid out here.

I'm not a defense attorney, nor do I intend to be a prosecutor.

And I doubt there will be any real repercussions for the prosecutor in this case. But I think these 6 are going to be convicted or plead to some form of
assault.

QFT. Thats what this reeks of. A refined version of a lynching to keep the 'coloureds' mindful of their place.

Their place is the part of society where people don't gang up and kick someone who's lying on the ground. You know, the law-abiding part. The part we all have to be mindful of, regardless of our skin color.

I think it's too early in the investigation to say whether or not the attempted murder charges are warranted; I'm not a fighter or a doctor, and I wasn't there, so I can't say what amount or force of kicking would produce what kind of wounds, and what could be done to avoid those wounds.

But they did kick him, however, hard, and so it should be tried as assault. I'm not sure if there's mitigating factors like heat of the moment to take into account, but on the other hand I'm not sure how hard it is to argue a heat of the moment response when it's six people comitting the crime.

Their place is the part of society where people don't gang up and kick someone who's lying on the ground. You know, the law-abiding part. The part we all have to be mindful of, regardless of our skin color.

I think it's too early in the investigation to say whether or not the attempted murder charges are warranted; I'm not a fighter or a doctor, and I wasn't there, so I can't say what amount or force of kicking would produce what kind of wounds, and what could be done to avoid those wounds.

But they did kick him, however, hard, and so it should be tried as assault. I'm not sure if there's mitigating factors like heat of the moment to take into account, but on the other hand I'm not sure how hard it is to argue a heat of the moment response when it's six people comitting the crime.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that they should not be appropriately charged.

What many ARE arguing is that the charges were wildly inappropriate and give rise to an inference of racist motivation, especially when white people in similar circumstances were charged with significantly less.

The fact that those charges were dropped calls into question whether they should ever have been brought in the first place.

ahh, so he was kicked with force sufficient to cause great bodily harm but just by miraculous circumstances he did not have any bones broken, teeth knocked out, tissue damage, lasting injury to his eyes, or anything what so ever to prevent him from going out and partying that night?

Like I said, this is why we have trials. It's a great summary of the defense's case, but so what? The prosecutor looked at the evidence and originally decided it warranted these charges. Was he wrong? Maybe, and he did decide to reduce the charges before going to trial. But, again, we're arguing questions of fact here. The worst you can say about the prosecutor was that he was ambitious in his charges.

And let's not forget that one of the 6 was already convicted in a jury trial of a lesser offense. The conviction was overturned on procedural grounds, not due to lack of proof.

So, where does that leave us? You don't like the initial charges, but you can't provide any evidence they were improper. Prosecutors have a lot of discretion, after all.

Victim: Hick.
Jena 6: Beat him up. Duh.
Prosecutor: Probably overkill but the evidence might be otherwise.
White Racists (i.e., KKK): Stupid.
Black Racists (I.e., Black Panthers): Equally stupid.
Freeing the Jena 6: Stupid. They are guilty, they need to be punished.
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson: They aren't helping anything.
The Town of Jena: Has problems but that's another topic.

Ideal result:

Jena 6- all but the 14 and 16 year old tried as adults for some kind of assault or battery against the victim. Hate crime possibility explored.

EDIT: National significance: Stupid shit blown out of proportion by racists and attention-mongers on both sides, the fact that so many people talk about it is more indicative of national problems than the issue itself.

So, where does that leave us? You don't like the initial charges, but you can't provide any evidence they were improper.

Lack of severe concussion (or possibly any, as he was held for observation and then released), no skull fracture, and his tootlers still seem to be stuck in his gums in the way nature intended. He got a few slaps from a few kids resulting in a black eye and a few bruises.

Well at the very least expulsion from school..not a 3 day suspension...that or put them in a different education program if those are available..I know here if a kid does something like that they get sent to alternative school...for the kids who don't know/want to play nice with the other students..that or they are expelled...since not to long ago a kid gave a black student a card with a lynched black person on it and some other racial slurs...the white student was expelled and sent to alternative...

you could also argue that hanging nooses from a tree and such is more than a prank and could constitute terroristic threatening
They got more than a three day suspension.

Here's an AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_re_us/a_place_called_jena

Two nooses — not three — were found dangling from the tree. Beyond being offensive to blacks, the nooses were cut down because black and white students "were playing with them, pulling on them, jump-swinging from them, and putting their heads through them," according to a black teacher who witnessed the scene.

The three youths accused of hanging the nooses were not suspended for just three days — they were isolated at an alternative school for about a month, and then given an in-school suspension for two weeks.

The six-member jury that convicted Bell was, indeed, all white. However, only one in 10 people in LaSalle Parish is African American, and though black residents were selected randomly by computer and summoned for jury selection, none showed up.

More stuff is in the article.

What I find most disturbing about this incident is the lack of objective journalism. I had to search far and wide to find this one piece by the AP. I can't find anything on Reuters. This is a big reason I've avoided this story for as long as I have.

What I'm not saying is the charge of "attempted murder" was warranted. It doesn't sound like it was in any way shape or form, but the lack of credible sources makes me withhold final judgment. What I am saying is the white students and their prank is a separate incident and needs to be looked at as such. These two incidents need to be disconnected from each other.

They got more than a three day suspension.

Here's an AP story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_re_us/a_place_called_jena







More stuff is in the article.

What I find most disturbing about this incident is the lack of objective journalism. I had to search far and wide to find this one piece by the AP. I can't find anything on Reuters. This is a big reason I've avoided this story for as long as I have.

What I'm not saying is the charge of "attempted murder" was warranted. It doesn't sound like it was in any way shape or form, but the lack of credible sources makes me withhold final judgment. What I am saying is the white students and their prank is a separate incident and needs to be looked at as such. These two incidents need to be disconnected from each other.

One could argue that the first incident being the white student's prank or whatever you want to call it led as a catalyst for the assault on the white student...

I'm just tossing out my take on it as I try and put factual pieces together myself

this message at the OP,



about a month ago on cspan late at night there was a thing about the anniversary of the Dred Scot decision.

one guy talked about the point of view of the famous abolitionist John Brown.
he got violent before the civil war. but was killed.
this guy representing Brown's point of view argued that the constitution said the gov't was supposed to keep the peace, etc... all that good stuff.

and that John Brown was not the one causing the ruckus here,
but the slave owners who were doing the harm.



the "n" word, and most certainly nooses (in the south for sure) are a direct historical line to this.

personally, i cannot support violence, but the John Brown stuff is true.
i think there are few here who would say the slave was not justified in taking the life of the master to be free.

i think there are few here who would say the slave was not justified in taking the life of the master to be free.

sadly, there actually are a few here who would

One could argue that the first incident being the white student's prank or whatever you want to call it led as a catalyst for the assault on the white student...

I'm just tossing out my take on it as I try and put factual pieces together myself

I use the word prank carefully. Looking at the article, seeng there were two nooses, not three. Reading that black and white kids were playing with the nooses the next day. I'm leaning towards idiotic, thoughtless prank. One that should have earned the teens a stiffer punishment than they recieved. But a prank non the less.

In my school (way back when), some students thought it would be hilarious to give LSD to unsuspecting students. Horribly mean and dumb, but still a prank.

I'd like to know why the AP story doesn't run in more papers. The AP is, in my experience, extremely credible. It's more than a little disheartening that the press chooses the more sensational version, without even looking at the AP piece. And if the AP is wrong about the facts, why is no one challenging it? That's a big question in my mind.

One could argue that the first incident being the white student's prank or whatever you want to call it led as a catalyst for the assault on the white student...

I'm just tossing out my take on it as I try and put factual pieces together myself

I would consider such an argument BS...

If I see a person of a different race doing something offensive towards my race, my first impulse (or any impulse for that matter) would not be to engage in a fight with a person of that other race. IMHO anyone who has that poor of control, SHOULD be locked up.

I'm leaning towards idiotic, thoughtless prank. One that should have earned the teens a stiffer punishment than they recieved. But a prank non the less.

In my school (way back when), some students thought it would be hilarious to give LSD to unsuspecting students. Horribly mean and dumb, but still a prank.

Where do you draw the line and stop calling it a "prank"?

Personally, I think drugging your classmates may be a prank, but it's also a fucking crime. People have been maimed and killed by pranks. Why should the word "prank" suddenly diffuse the seriousness of an action? Yes, it was an idiotic, thoughtless prank to hang those nooses. It was also a terroristic threat and a hate crime.

Brushing aside this kind of behavior as "pranks" is a complete failure on the part of the adults. I know, first hand, that such attitudes encourage more "pranks," while if it was simply made clear that it's unacceptable bullshit then the bullshit stops pretty damn fast.

My own high school had a lovely tradition called "taping." Throughout the school year, a "taping list" would be posted by a particular drinking fountain in the school. This list contained the names of the freshmen who could expect to be taped after school. When you're taped, you are jumped by a group of upperclassmen who physically subdue you and then duct tape you to something. For instance, a friend of mine was driven to a local grocery store and taped to the shopping cart rack outside. A kid in my class was stripped nude and taped to the underside of a bench in the girl's locker room.

Funny? Sure, to the people torturing their classmates. I've met guys who think it's funny if you shove a beer bottle into a woman's vagina while she's unconscious from the drugs you gave her. Pardon me if I don't think that the hilarity value of an assault should factor in at sentencing.

This tradition stretched back about as far as duct tape has existed.

Midway through my freshman year, a law was passed that specifically classified hazing as assault, and further stipulated that minors could be charged as adults if they committed hazing assaults.

The taping lists were torn down by teachers the moment they went up, and a guard kept an eye on who put them up in the first place.

Taping stopped.

Seriously, I don't mean "it's rare now." I mean, it stopped. In the space of about 4 months.

All it took was for the law and the adults to quit making excuses for these "pranks".

What the Jena 6 did was assault. It is a crime. What the white kids did was also a crime. Neither group should be told that what they did was "just a prank." They should be reminded that yeah, maybe it was a prank, but it was also illegal and fucking pathetic and they are going to grow the fuck up right now or they will be put in jail, which is totally not in any way like serving an hour of detention in the cafeteria.

I use the word prank carefully. Looking at the article, seeng there were two nooses, not three. Reading that black and white kids were playing with the nooses the next day. I'm leaning towards idiotic, thoughtless prank. One that should have earned the teens a stiffer punishment than they recieved. But a prank non the less.

In my school (way back when), some students thought it would be hilarious to give LSD to unsuspecting students. Horribly mean and dumb, but still a prank.

So Seung-Hui Cho was playing a particularly lethal 'prank' at Virginia Tec?

Pre-emptive self-defense? That's a new one.

It's called the US Prerogative.


What I'm not saying is the charge of "attempted murder" was warranted.
Last I heard, the prosecutor has yet to charge them with something he is actually allowed to. He charged them with assault with a deadly weapon, being their tennis shoes.

It's called the US Prerogative.

Yeah, which means I will lend my support to it just as much as that of the Iraqi occupation by the US....

That is, complete, utter and total opposition to it.

I use the word prank carefully. Looking at the article, seeng there were two nooses, not three. Reading that black and white kids were playing with the nooses the next day. I'm leaning towards idiotic, thoughtless prank. One that should have earned the teens a stiffer punishment than they recieved. But a prank non the less.

In my school (way back when), some students thought it would be hilarious to give LSD to unsuspecting students. Horribly mean and dumb, but still a prank.
mean, dumb, illegal, extremely cruel and - most important of all - dangerous. Incredibly dangerous.
You think tripping on LSD when you don't know you've taken it is gonna be a fun thing to do?
Especially if you've never taken anything like that before.

And then there's the odd chance that someone might have an allergic reaction to the drug - or it interferes with the prescription drug they're on.

When a 'prank' becomes life-threatening, it's not a prank.

Is it just me or is beating a kid until he's unconscious so much worse than hanging a noose anywhere?

Where do you draw the line and stop calling it a "prank"?

Personally, I think drugging your classmates may be a prank, but it's also a fucking crime. People have been maimed and killed by pranks. Why should the word "prank" suddenly diffuse the seriousness of an action? Yes, it was an idiotic, thoughtless prank to hang those nooses. It was also a terroristic threat and a hate crime.
You'll get no argument from me there. The LSD boys went to prision for a very long time. Deservedly so.

Is it still a hate crime if it wasn't representational of the KKK? I'm asking because I don't know what is and isn't KKK sybolism like the three nooses were. So are two nooses just as bad? Is the fact that black and white students playing on them the next day relevant to anything?

And dont' get me wrong. The boys that did that needed to be severely punished. Maybe a year in alternative school instead of a month.

Is anyone else bugged that the news is underreporting their punishment though. Still too lenient, but WTF?

Brushing aside this kind of behavior as "pranks" is a complete failure on the part of the adults. I know, first hand, that such attitudes encourage more "pranks," while if it was simply made clear that it's unacceptable bullshit then the bullshit stops pretty damn fast.
I agree with that 100%.

My own high school had a lovely tradition called "taping." Throughout the school year, a "taping list" would be posted by a particular drinking fountain in the school. This list contained the names of the freshmen who could expect to be taped after school. When you're taped, you are jumped by a group of upperclassmen who physically subdue you and then duct tape you to something. For instance, a friend of mine was driven to a local grocery store and taped to the shopping cart rack outside. A kid in my class was stripped nude and taped to the underside of a bench in the girl's locker room.

Funny? Sure, to the people torturing their classmates. I've met guys who think it's funny if you shove a beer bottle into a woman's vagina while she's unconscious from the drugs you gave her. Pardon me if I don't think that the hilarity value of an assault should factor in at sentencing.
In no way did I mean to imply that. Regardless of the motive the boys needed to be punished. Period. More severe that they were (even by the accuate version of the story). What I'm saying is their motive counts for a hell of a lot. If they were just like "LOL, nooses are funneh. Let's go hang nooses and every1 will freak. LOL" vs "Damn *** sitting under my tree. Let's make them afraid to be here." There's a difference.

This tradition stretched back about as far as duct tape has existed.

Midway through my freshman year, a law was passed that specifically classified hazing as assault, and further stipulated that minors could be charged as adults if they committed hazing assaults.

The taping lists were torn down by teachers the moment they went up, and a guard kept an eye on who put them up in the first place.

Taping stopped.

Seriously, I don't mean "it's rare now." I mean, it stopped. In the space of about 4 months.

All it took was for the law and the adults to quit making excuses for these "pranks".
And there shouldn't be. Calling it a death threat and a hate crime is where I'm not feeling it. If that incident was racially motivated that's one thing. Those kids should have been criminally charged. If the white kids just didn't like that particular black kid or their brain dropped out and they somehow thought hanging nooses would be a wild good time and quite funny, then they need to be expelled, sent to an alternative school for longer than a month.They should have had a very long suspension and then been sent to the alternative school for the rest of their highschool time IMO. Depending on how close they were to graduating, they shouldn't be allowed to participate in the ceremony either. Explusion might be a bit harsh depending on the town. I live in a city. If a kid's expelled here, there's another school they can feasibly get to. That might not be the case there. Also, another highschool is just that. It's not really a punshment. Being sent to alt. school (at least here) is the ultimate punishment. No one wants to go there.

What the Jena 6 did was assault. It is a crime. What the white kids did was also a crime. Neither group should be told that what they did was "just a prank." They should be reminded that yeah, maybe it was a prank, but it was also illegal and fucking pathetic and they are going to grow the fuck up right now or they will be put in jail, which is totally not in any way like serving an hour of detention in the cafeteria.

What I'm saying is, I'm still not convinced one had anything to do with the other. With a lack of objective journalism in this case, I don't know that I could ever be convinced that the two are connected.

mean, dumb, illegal, extremely cruel and - most important of all - dangerous. Incredibly dangerous.
You think tripping on LSD when you don't know you've taken it is gonna be a fun thing to do?
Especially if you've never taken anything like that before.

And then there's the odd chance that someone might have an allergic reaction to the drug - or it interferes with the prescription drug they're on.

When a 'prank' becomes life-threatening, it's not a prank.

If that was their motivation, it still is. The kids that did the LSD prank are spending most of their adult life in prison. As well they should. Motive doesn't count so much until "hate crime" and "death threat" start being thrown around. In my example, the boys got the same sentance regardless. In the Jena case, those boys needed to be criminally prosecuted if that was indeed a hate crime. And I'll say it again, they still needed a harsher punishment.

Last I heard, the prosecutor has yet to charge them with something he is actually allowed to. He charged them with assault with a deadly weapon, being their tennis shoes.

Even attempting the "assault with a deadly weapon" charge is retarded. And yeah, I did write that wrong. They knocked a kid out, how about aggrivated assault? Without seeing the case and without being a lawyer, that pops into my head as being an apt charge.

Even attempting the "assault with a deadly weapon" charge is retarded. And yeah, I did write that wrong. They knocked a kid out, how about aggrivated assault?
That is what they are being charged with (which is what I already pointed out) :rolleyes:
In Louisiana, aggravated assault requires the use of a deadly weapon.

That is what they are being charged with (which is what I already pointed out) :rolleyes:
In Louisiana, aggravated assault requires the use of a deadly weapon.
So here's your general definition:
person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. In all jurisdictions statutes punish such aggravated assaults as assault with intent to murder (or rob or kill or rape) and assault with a dangerous (or deadly) weapon more severely than "simple" assaults.Source. (http://www.answers.com/topic/aggravated-assault?cat=biz-fin)

Aggrivated battery in Louisiana only requres a dangerous weapon, not a deadly weapon.
Aggravated battery is a battery committed with a dangerous weapon.

Whoever commits an aggravated battery shall be fined not more than five thousand dollars, imprisoned with or without hard labor for not more than ten years, or both.
source (http://www.babcockfirm.com/statutes/aggravatedbattery.html)

If you plan on being a jackass, it usually helps to have your facts straight.

And let me head you off at the pass before you try to switch topics on me. I'm arguing that your definiton phails, not whether or not the boy's sneakers are a dangerous weapon.

If you plan on being a jackass, it usually helps to have your facts straight.
Seeing as your not a lawyer or even informed beforehand, maybe you should fucking do one of those before being an elitist jackass.

Seeing as your not a lawyer or even informed beforehand, maybe you should fucking do one of those before being an elitist jackass.

You aren't a lawyer and you weren't informend beforehand. So maybe you should take your own advice.

I gathered information to make an intelligent post instead of just spewing out the garbage in my head because it sounds good. My information cited actual Louisiana statutes as well as the legal definiton of aggrivated assault. In no way did either say a deadly weapon was a mandatory component.

So one of us makes an informed post while the other just makes stuff up. I wonder who the jackass is?

So one of us makes an informed post while the other just makes stuff up. I wonder who the jackass is?

*raises hand*

I know! I know! Pick me!

You aren't a lawyer and you weren't informend beforehand. So maybe you should take your own advice.

I gathered information to make an intelligent post instead of just spewing out the garbage in my head because it sounds good. My information cited actual Louisiana statutes as well as the legal definiton of aggrivated assault. In no way did either say a deadly weapon was a mandatory component.

So one of us makes an informed post while the other just makes stuff up. I wonder who the jackass is?

Yes, you looked up stuff after the fact. I looked up my stuff before the fact and confused dangerous with deadly. That still makes me more informed than you, especially considering I had already said in this thread they were charged with aggravated assault and you then suggested they should be charged with it. Good job, Dr Seuss.

*sigh* the legal illiterate are on parade again today I see. I wonder what twisted logic in the universe allows someone to claim that while he is operating with factually wrong information, this makes him more informed than someone, mindful of her own ignorance, looks it the fuck up before speaking.

That you can say with a straight face that you are "more informed" because you got it wrong is just mindblowingly stupid.

And, by the way, I am a lawyer. And she's right.

OWNED!!!

Yes, you looked up stuff after the fact. I looked up my stuff before the fact and confused dangerous with deadly. That still makes me more informed than you

*sigh* the legal illiterate are on parade again today I see. I wonder what twisted logic in the universe allows someone to claim that while he is operating with factually wrong information, this makes him more informed than someone, mindful of her own ignorance, looks it the fuck up before speaking.

That you can say with a straight face that you are "more informed" because you got it wrong is just mindblowingly stupid.

And, by the way, I am a lawyer. And she's right.

OWNED!!!
There is a reason I have him on ignore - it is so I don't have to listen to his elitist tirades. He didn't own shit.

There is a reason I have him on ignore - it is so I don't have to listen to his elitist tirades. He didn't own shit.

WOW! And people say that I'm closed minded.

WOW! And people say that I'm closed minded.
As opposed to Snafturi, I actually knew what they were being charged with and when those charges were changed. Nit picking that I confused deadly and dangerous, probably because I scanned what I read too fast, is just showing how Neo Art is being a biased elitist asshat in directing his attacks at me. Hence him being on ignore.

Yes, you looked up stuff after the fact. I looked up my stuff before the fact and confused dangerous with deadly. That still makes me more informed than you, especially considering I had already said in this thread they were charged with aggravated assault and you then suggested they should be charged with it. Good job, Dr Seuss.

Yes, because I have magical powers that let me look things up after I post them. As I've already proven to you, aggrivated assault doesn't need a weapon to be involved, deadly or otherwise. You are talking about aggrivated battery which needs a "dangerous" weapon, not a deadly weapon.

Let's see what you did indeed post and how many times you said "aggrivated assault." These are all the posts in the thread that mention a charge:
The attempted murder charge was obviously bullshit considering the kid "sent to the hospital" got out of the hospital two hours later. Which translated into real time is "15 minutes treated at the hospital." Unless he was bussed there, he was taken to the emergency room and the emergency room is the hospital's waiting room and is just as slow if not slower than any other waiting room.
A bullshit charge.

Oh sure, he reduced the charges (this month) - to a crime that requires a deadly weapon to qualify for so unless they were all black belts in some major martial art... Oh, and his argument were that tennis shoes on feet were a deadly weapon and the all white jury agreed.
And that's factually inaccurate as I've shown. Here you're also showing you understood the charge to be assault with a deadly weapon, not dangerous, with your martial arts quote.

In Louisiana, aggravated assault requires the use of a deadly weapon.
And that's not correct.

He charged them with assault with a deadly weapon, being their tennis shoes.
Assault with a deadly weapon is a stupid charge. That's also not aggrivated assault.

So you've said it's "attempted murder," "aggrivated assault," and "assault with a deadly weapon." From all that I'm to deduce you meant "aggrivated battery?"

Given the martial arts quote, you were talking deadly, not dangerous.

So you either can't write what you mean or you are just making stuff up. Either way, you need to sort that problem out before making a jackass post.

And anyway, back to my orginal point, some sort of "aggrivated assault"* charge would have been appropriate. "Assault by a deadly weapon" is a retarded charge given the case.

*As generically defined.

Snafturi, there was actually an attempted murder charge thrown in, but later dropped. So yeah, there was that.

But yes, of cours, aggrevated assault is substantially different than "assault with a deadly weapon"

I am not debating with Neo Art because he is an elitist ass and I am not debating with you Snafturi because you are completely uniformed on this subject and are being intentionally obtuse. They were charged with attempted murder which was reduced this month to aggravated battery, the dangerous weapon (I though I read deadly, so sue me but get a fucking grip) being tennis shoes on their feet.

And you were making ignorant comments before that because you said "I think they should be charged with aggravated assault" well no fucking shit, they are already being charged with it and it is still bs.

Snafturi, there was actually an attempted murder charge thrown in, but later dropped. So yeah, there was that.

But yes, of cours, aggrevated assault is substantially different than "assault with a deadly weapon"

Yeah, I re-wrote my post when I realized he was talking about the old charges not the new ones. The original charges were insane. I am not debating that one bit. Given that a boy was knocked unconcious and sent to the hospital, aggravated assault sounds appropriate for an initial charge. Once again, that's just from reading the news, not the actual case.

I am not debating with Neo Art because he is an elitist ass and I am not debating with you Snafturi because you are completely uniformed on this subject and are being intentionally obtuse. They were charged with attempted murder which was reduced this month to aggravated battery, the dangerous weapon (I though I read deadly, so sue me but get a fucking grip) being tennis shoes on their feet.
And here you prove you entirely missed the point of that first post.

And you were making ignorant comments before that because you said "I think they should be charged with aggravated assault" well no fucking shit, they are already being charged with it and it is still bs.
Thinking aggrivated assault might have been an appropriate first charge instead of attempted murder is ignorant? Seeing as how that wasn't the initial charge, I think that was an appropriate comment.

So what should they have been charged with? I'm curious.

Yeah, I re-wrote my post when I realized he was talking about the old charges not the new ones. The original charges were insane. I am not debating that one bit. Given that a boy was knocked unconcious and sent to the hospital, aggrivated assault sounds appropriate for an initial charge. Once again, that's just from reading the news, not the actual case.

umm, it depends on whether we want to classify shoes as a dangerous weapon. It's a stretch, but more reasonable. I think plain old "assault and battery" is fine, but a case can be made that a shoe is a dangerous weapon.

Deadly? No, that's just stupid. Attempted murder? Even stupider.

umm, it depends on whether we want to classify shoes as a dangerous weapon. It's a stretch, but more reasonable. I think plain old "assault and battery" is fine, but a case can be made that a shoe is a dangerous weapon.

Deadly? No, that's just stupid. Attempted murder? Even stupider.

"Aggravated assault" might be a stretch, but it seems like it falls into the spectrum of "appropriate". It also seems the definition of "dangerous weapon" gets looser and looser as the years go on. But that's a rant for a different thread.

I'm also giving my opinion knowing full well I don't have the case in front of me. I'm going on the news reports like everyone else, given the inaccuracies of most of the stories, I'm not sure what to believe. It goes a bit beyond "simple assault" from the sounds of it. "Assault and battery" to "aggravated assault" seems appropriate. Or in my state Assault in the Third Degree to Assault in the Second Degree.

From what I understand about the Jena 6, six evil "un-American" Black young men violently ganged up on a single white victim. Apparently, they were agitated by some nooses that were hung from a tree.

Now I do not even know hot to tie a noose. I am an Eagle Scout but knots was always my weakness. As an American, I think that everyone has the right to freedom of speech even if that speech is racist. These six monsters targeted a white high school student in an act of disgusting cowardice.

I think that anytime a group of people attack a lone individual, those attackers should be locked up forever or at least a pretty darn long time. I have no problem with two people getting into a fist fight as long as when someone gives up or falls down, he is not pursued by the other combatant.

These monsters beat up a young man like a pack of wild dogs. We do not let wild dog packs roam our streets, neither should we allow packs of wild thugs do the same.

If anybody should be upset as far as this being a racial incident, it should be the white folks in that town because the blacks were the ones causing the trouble. However, I do not think that sort of racial thought is the proper way of thinking about the problem. What is wierd though is that the Blacks are the ones that seem to be agitated about this or at least that is the way the media is portraying it.