I don't know how the statute in LA is written, but in a lot of places hate crime charges can't be brought in accordance with crimes committed against whites. It's possible (though I'd find it unlikely, and supremely stupid if true) that the prosecutor was stepping the charges up because of a possible racial-hatred element.
I don't know how the statute in LA is written, but in a lot of places hate crime charges can't be brought in accordance with crimes committed against whites. It's possible (though I'd find it unlikely, and supremely stupid if true) that the prosecutor was stepping the charges up because of a possible racial-hatred element.
Is this actually true? I know that it's incredibly uncommon, and probably nearly impossible to convict on, but are the laws actually written exempting crimes against whites from even being prosecuted as such? How would you do so?
Basically, I'd like to see documentation on it, because I find it interesting.
You know after they put those nooses in the tree those little shits deserved pretty much what came to them. that just ain't cool
I didn't see anything that said the white kid, Justin Barker, who got beat up was the one who put up the nooses.
I didn't see anything that said Barker was the one who started the fight at the party.
I didn't see anything that said Barker was the one who pulled the shotgun.
From the wiki link, all Barker did to "deserve" what happened to him was to say that a white guy beat up Robert Bailey. Bailey responded to gossip by getting 5 of his friends to attack Barker from behind and stomp him.
How the hell is that "deserved?" Because Barker is white and those other douches are white and white people are somehow all the same, thereby making Barker responsible for the actions of other white douches? That's crap.
If there's a case for a stronger prosecution than simple assault against the Jena 6, it's not one based on attempted murder or aggravated battery (which isn't cause for a juvenile to be tried as an adult in LA anyways), unless it can be shown that they were martial artists for whom hands and feet literally are deadly weapons. The stronger prosecution should be for commission of a hate crime.
The students who hung the nooses should also be tried under hate crime statutes, which in Louisiana include bias-based "institutional vandalism." However, I haven't seen anything that says Barker was the one who put up the nooses. Saying "I heard you got beat up by a white guy" isn't fighting words, or a threat. Hell, it's not even racist.
Yeah I was confused reading this thread because I was under the impression the attacked didn't do anything other then being white? Is that not the case?
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah I was confused reading this thread because I was under the impression the attacked didn't do anything other then being white? Is that not the case?
According to reports he was also talking a bunch of shit. It's not like they just went out and jumped the first white guy they could find.
Dude, that sucks pretty hard. I wish I could say that what you went through was abnormal, but it's not, not by a long shot. Good on you for standing up for your son and for what was right.
The idea that racism has disappeared in this country is just ridiculous. I mean, we have a thread about the crazy things family members say, and half of the crazy shit is just racism. This Jena 6 thing isn't happening in a vacuum, and just because it's happening in the South doesn't mean equally heinous shit isn't happening in Minnesota.
I wonder how much of that is genuine delusion, and how much of that is simple denial.
"What? I got the job over the black guy because of my race? But, that can't be true! I mean... I mean... I mean... racism doesn't even exist anymore, does it?"
I never got a job over a black guy, but I did get one over a white frat boy. And I liked that, since I hate frat boys. I am a fratist.
I remember one time when I was down on my luck job wise I went to apply for work at a labor temp agency (the kind with heavy lifting and such) the woman at the front desk got in a hushed tone and asked "Are you sure you want to apply here, we usually just get mexicans." I didn't even know how to respond.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So talking shit gets you attacked by 6 dudes? And it's racist if the 6 dudes could be facing serious time for attacking you?
It is if repeated shit like that has happened to students of another color with no consequences, yeah.
Ok so an unrelated person to those incidences mentions those incidents (which to the best of my knowledge was not a 6 on 1 beat down) he gets beat down as well and its all fine and dandy? I just fail to see what the victim in this case did that warranted the reaction he recieved. The towns racist so you go out to prove that by beating up a random white kid who talked shit about you?
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
So talking shit gets you attacked by 6 dudes? And it's racist if the 6 dudes could be facing serious time for attacking you?
It is if repeated shit like that has happened to students of another color with no consequences, yeah.
Ok so an unrelated person to those incidences mentions those incidents (which to the best of my knowledge was not a 6 on 1 beat down) he gets beat down as well and its all fine and dandy? I just fail to see what the victim in this case did that warranted the reaction he recieved. The towns racist so you go out to prove that by beating up a random white kid who talked shit about you?
I'm not trying to excuse their actions, I'm saying that they happened within an unjust system.
I am not familiar with the lousiana break down on laws (washington state only has assault, we don't have battery last I heard). Are those appropriate charges? Whats the max time one could serve etc? Sorry I don't know a whole lot here.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Jesus christ, stop being dense Preacher and Nova_C. No one is saying that those kids should get off scot-free. Seriously, no one. All I want to see is that their charges be in line with what they actually did. Oh, and if the white dude who pulled a gun could get charged for aggravated assault like he should've been in the first place, that'd be swell.
Also, thanks to Salvation for his thinly veiled intimations of both "reverse" racism and race baiting. That's exactly what this thread needed.
I don't know how the statute in LA is written, but in a lot of places hate crime charges can't be brought in accordance with crimes committed against whites. It's possible (though I'd find it unlikely, and supremely stupid if true) that the prosecutor was stepping the charges up because of a possible racial-hatred element.
Is this actually true? I know that it's incredibly uncommon, and probably nearly impossible to convict on, but are the laws actually written exempting crimes against whites from even being prosecuted as such? How would you do so?
Basically, I'd like to see documentation on it, because I find it interesting.
We talked about it in one of my classes last year. I'll see if I can dig up the notes, and if I even had any specific references, but the gist is that the stautes were written so that "Crimes committed due to bias against
can have hate crime charges added," and that whites (and heterosexuals) weren't on the lists because who lynches whites and straight dudes?
Also, thanks to Salvation for his thinly veiled intimations of both "reverse" racism and race baiting. That's exactly what this thread needed.
I... what? I mean, what I posted is 100% accurate with regards to Memphis TN. There's an article there for you to read. I can post more if you really want me to.
The facts as far as I can tell is that these 6 people beat another person to the point where they could have killed him. The reason for the attack is that the victim was talking smack about one of the 6, even if you assume the worst there he just was using words and infuriating Bailey.
Secondly they have/will have a trial. At the one trial that has commenced already he was proven (with a jury) guilty. These charges were later dropped upon appeal due to his age (the defendant was 16). Personally I'm affronted by that as this 'kid' already had multiple prior juvy convictions of assault and was 16. Come on, he knew what he was doing was wrong and cannot handle his anger, he needs to spend some quality time in a cell before we can let him back into society.
The controversy that I believe is leading it to be called a racial incident is that it was an all white jury (though according to the wiki all of the black jurors that day did not show up for jury duty) and that they threw the book at the one defendant (and from the looks are going to throw the book at the others in their upcoming trials). Note that the defense attourny was black and had all of the legal opportunities to defend his client, yet failed and a jury was convinced the defendant was guilty (and also agreed that in this case the tennis shoes were a deadly weapon). The conviction was not thrown out because of classifications of the tennis shoes or because the jury was all white, it was thrown out only because of his age.
BTW it does not matter if the victim pulled a gun on him before (which in the story is a totally different person) or if they got in a fight several days before. Nor does it matter what happened to the white kids and the tree incident. In the eyes of the law these are seperate issues involving totally separate groups of people. The gun was not involved in this incident, and the tree thing happened in the past.
In my opinion the government should throw the book at the Jena 6, not because they are black, but because they cannot live in the rules of society. At least one of them (and I'd be willing to bet more than one of them) have proven in the past they cannot handle the rules of society.
Imagine you will what would happen if 6 white guys were to go and beat another white guy to an inch of his life, you'd expect the law to throw the book at them as well, wouldn't you? Especially if you found out that this isn't the first time these guys beat someone up and was punished for it.
roman2440 on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Jesus christ, stop being dense Preacher and Nova_C. No one is saying that those kids should get off scot-free. Seriously, no one. All I want to see is that their charges be in line with what they actually did. Oh, and if the white dude who pulled a gun could get charged for aggravated assault like he should've been in the first place, that'd be swell.
It is if repeated shit like that has happened to students of another color with no consequences, yeah.
which was totally untrue. A white dude was charged in a fight with blacks with no other charges laid. There were no instances of whites not being charged for assaulting blacks.
There was the noose thing, which I agree should have resulted in at the very least expulsion. The shotgun thing I already said was odd, but that we don't know enough of the facts to say that it's
of this clusterfuck. And I'm being dense because I'm not jumping on the "OMG THE SOUTH IS A BUNCH OF RACIST PRICKS" bandwagon? I NEVER said you guys wanted them to get off. I said you guys were jumping to conclusions. That's ALL I said.
I wasn't saying they should get off, I asked Doc what charges he felt were appropriate and then due to me not knowing what those charges corresponded to in his reply how appropirate they would be for the case.
I don't mean to spark a fight here wwtmask, but I think you missed both Nova and my points and skipped right to your rant.
So what is the penalty of Battery 2 in Louisianna? What is it compared to what these boys are facing now?
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Also, thanks to Salvation for his thinly veiled intimations of both "reverse" racism and race baiting. That's exactly what this thread needed.
I... what? I mean, what I posted is 100% accurate with regards to Memphis TN. There's an article there for you to read. I can post more if you really want me to.
Sorry, I'm just trying to figure out what that has to do with this particular case.
Nova, I'm saying that you're being dense here because you seem to be arguing that the attempted murder charge is warranted. You're also arguing something that I'm not, namely that only the black kids are getting charged with anything and not the white kids. I have no clue if that's true or not. I'm just arguing that the charges are not in line with what actually happened.
The facts as far as I can tell is that these 6 people beat another person to the point where they could have killed him.
What exactly does that mean? For instance, the other day I ate food at a restaurant, where they could have killed me. Does that mean that they did kill me, or that they intended to kill me, or that they left me for dead in a condition where I would have died if no one had come to my aid? Or does it simply mean that they were in a position of power where yes, they could very well have chosen to kill me if they really wanted to? Say, if the chef put some rat poison in my soup?
Note that the defense attourny was black and had all of the legal opportunities to defend his client, yet failed and a jury was convinced the defendant was guilty (and also agreed that in this case the tennis shoes were a deadly weapon).
States have been known to underfund, overwork, or hire generally incompetent defense attorneys in the past.
In my opinion the government should throw the book at the Jena 6, not because they are black, but because they cannot live in the rules of society.
Why? Because apparently they overreact when a non-law enforcement officer pulls a gun on them? Because they get angry over the fact that some white kids hung a noose on a tree?
Imagine you will what would happen if 6 white guys were to go and beat another white guy to an inch of his life, you'd expect the law to throw the book at them as well, wouldn't you?
Not really, no. Assaults happen every friggin day. People occasionally get angry. That doesn't mean we charge them with attempted murder.
Especially if you found out that this isn't the first time these guys beat someone up and was punished for it.
It makes sense. This person beat someone up in the past and paid his debt to society, so clearly, he's a murderer!
And aren't juries usually barred from hearing about past crimes, because it'll taint their perspective on the evidence at hand?
Rather than do that, why not just clarify your stance on the whether the charge of attempted murder was warranted, given the facts in this case. The impression I've gotten from your posts so far is that you do think it was warranted. If my impression is wrong and you think otherwise, feel free to say so.
Also, thanks to Salvation for his thinly veiled intimations of both "reverse" racism and race baiting. That's exactly what this thread needed.
I... what? I mean, what I posted is 100% accurate with regards to Memphis TN. There's an article there for you to read. I can post more if you really want me to.
Sorry, I'm just trying to figure out what that has to do with this particular case.
Lux: I know racism still exists because people believe they are being rational when they are dubious of cases of apparent racism.
Me: Yeah, well, there's a reason for that. Here's an example.
wwt: You're a douchebag, Sal, and also off-topic.
You'll also note that the thread was not limited solely to the Jena 6 controversy, although that has been most of the focus so far.
Salvation122 on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Rather than do that, why not just clarify your stance on the whether the charge of attempted murder was warranted, given the facts in this case. The impression I've gotten from your posts so far is that you do think it was warranted. If my impression is wrong and you think otherwise, feel free to say so.
It is clear to me that this was them simply beating the shit out of a guy because he was white and was making fun of them. Attempted murder should be dropped and they should be charged under hate crime laws.
It is clear to me that this was them simply beating the shit out of a guy because he was white and was making fun of them. Attempted murder should be dropped and they should be charged under hate crime laws.
The underlying basis around hate crime laws is that you're beating up someone solely on the basis of race, which makes it likely for you to repeat the same act in the future, and which is likely to incite future race conflicts later on.
However, if a hate crime has been committed against a person of a certain color, the question is, "Why this particular person?" If it's a white-on-black or a white-on-Asian crime, then the answer to that is pretty. Either because there aren't a lot of black or Asian people to pick or choose from, or because the black and Asian guy was trying to get too "uppity" (e.g., affirming their equal rights, in the case of the noose incident.).
It's not so easy to make that same argument on a black-on-white crime, because a) there's a lot more white people to choose from, and b) white people don't have an equivalent for acting "uppity."
If you read through the articles about the situation and look at the context the particular event on which they focus is blown our of proportion. The six students ought to have been arrested for assault.
The nooses hung from the tree and the segregated atmosphere of the high school is what they ought to address. But you can't get an angry mob to rally around that. Now, students arrested for legitimate purposes? That's the sort of thing around which you can amass an angry black mob.
Idiots.
The sensible voice in Race Relations died with Martin Luther King, Jr. Now all we have are a bunch of shitheads hungry for the limelight.
_J_ on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
It is clear to me that this was them simply beating the shit out of a guy because he was white and was making fun of them. Attempted murder should be dropped and they should be charged under hate crime laws.
The underlying basis around hate crime laws is that you're beating up someone solely on the basis of race, which makes it likely for you to repeat the same act in the future, and which is likely to incite future race conflicts later on.
However, if a hate crime has been committed against a person of a certain color, the question is, "Why this particular person?" If it's a white-on-black or a white-on-Asian crime, then the answer to that is pretty. Either because there aren't a lot of black or Asian people to pick or choose from, or because the black and Asian guy was trying to get too "uppity" (e.g., affirming their equal rights, in the case of the noose incident.).
It's not so easy to make that same argument on a black-on-white crime, because a) there's a lot more white people to choose from, and b) white people don't have an equivalent for acting "uppity."
So you feel that vengeance on an uninvolved person, even if that person is a jerk, solely because that person is white shouldn't be considered a hate crime? That hate crimes only work if they're perpetrated against a minority? (IE, getting 'uppity')
Nova, thanks for clarifying. I seem to have been misinterpreting what you were trying to say. I'm not convinced that these guys targeted this white guy because he was white so much as him talking shit and being a douche. The fact that they were smarting from a previous encounter may have played into it, but I wouldn't say it was the primary motivation for the crime.
Hate crimes should apply to any crime that is motivated primarily by race, and the race of the victim is irrelevant. It may be harder to convince a jury that one has been perpetrated against a white person, though. Actually, I wonder if it's hard, period, to build a hate crime case that doesn't involve the perpetrator using racial epithets prior to or in the course of committing the crime.
_J_, this case has actually been known about for a while among civil rights groups, but it's only gotten big nationally now. The "big black mob" (or just a group of protesters if you're not being a sensationalist) has come around to protest because one of the boys is in legal jeopardy and they want to draw attention to the case. The civil rights groups were doing this before, but not on as large a scale.
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited September 2007
I think it'd be unlikely that they'd be convicted of the hate crime, but it would be a more appropriate charge than attempted murder. But these kids can't just be let off.
Barker was then knocked to the ground after being hit in the back of his head, and a group of students followed suit by repeatedly kicking him.[15] Barker, who was left unconscious after the attack, was examined by a doctor at the local hospital. In the meantime, the six students accused of the attack, eventually dubbed the "Jena Six",[16] were arrested.
So the guy didn't even get a chance to fight back. Basically, he was attacked from behind, knocked down and then six guys kicked him unconscious.
If you go to the page about this where the NAACP is trying to drum up support, they paint a VERY different picture.
On Monday, December 4 2006, a white student who allegedly had been racially taunting black students in support of the students who hung the nooses got into a fight with black students. Allegedly, the white student was taken to the hospital treated, released, reportedly attended a social function later that evening.
And when this thread started, it really seemed like you guys were attempting to pull the same "This is only because of racism. Those black kids are victims of the system!" bullshit.
Nova_C on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
And aren't juries usually barred from hearing about past crimes, because it'll taint their perspective on the evidence at hand?
Schrodinger, the jury didn't hear of the previous convictions. They were brought up by the prosecutor when considering charges and the judge for consideration in sentencing. At least, that's how I understood it.
They are victims of the system in that the system is laying on charges that don't fit the crime, and it appears to be because of their race and other incidents related to racism in that town.
And aren't juries usually barred from hearing about past crimes, because it'll taint their perspective on the evidence at hand?
Schrodinger, the jury didn't hear of the previous convictions. They were brought up by the prosecutor when considering charges and the judge for consideration in sentencing. At least, that's how I understood it.
Imagine you will what would happen if 6 white guys were to go and beat another white guy to an inch of his life, you'd expect the law to throw the book at them as well, wouldn't you?
Not really, no. Assaults happen every friggin day. People occasionally get angry. That doesn't mean we charge them with attempted murder.
Also note that the victim was out of the hospital and walking around just hours later.
Hardly "within in inch of his life."
So yeah, I'd like to see them charged (and convicted) of battery. Not attempted murder. And not aggravated assault and battery, which is defined as involving a deadly weapon. Because all they did was, as a group, beat a kid up.
So you feel that vengeance on an uninvolved person, even if that person is a jerk, solely because that person is white shouldn't be considered a hate crime? That hate crimes only work if they're perpetrated against a minority? (IE, getting 'uppity')
Look dude, most people can understand the difference between "They attacked that guy, who was black" and "They attacked that guy, because he was black." Contrary to what South Park may have told you, lawyers in the real can recognize that distinction.
Your claim is that they attacked the guy solely because he was white. If that were true, then why single out that particular white guy? Why at this particular moment? Obviously, there had to be an additional criteria, which you seem to neglect. You know, like how the guy who they attacked was alledgedly talking shit about them before the incident. That might have something to do with it.
I think it'd be unlikely that they'd be convicted of the hate crime, but it would be a more appropriate charge than attempted murder. But these kids can't just be let off.
Hey, you know what would be a more appropriate charge? Assault and battery.
So the guy didn't even get a chance to fight back. Basically, he was attacked from behind, knocked down and then six guys kicked him unconscious.
Yeah, it's a little late for that after you start talking shit about people to their face. This isn't an era of "I challenge you to a duel, pistols at dawn." If you want the chance to defend yourself, then perhaps you should have thought of that before you started talking shit? Really, if I'm going to start shit with 6 thugs who weren't strangers to using violence, I would probably make sure that I had an escape plan right from the bat.
Jesus christ, stop being dense Preacher and Nova_C. No one is saying that those kids should get off scot-free. Seriously, no one. All I want to see is that their charges be in line with what they actually did. Oh, and if the white dude who pulled a gun could get charged for aggravated assault like he should've been in the first place, that'd be swell.
Imagine you will what would happen if 6 white guys were to go and beat another white guy to an inch of his life, you'd expect the law to throw the book at them as well, wouldn't you?
Not really, no. Assaults happen every friggin day. People occasionally get angry. That doesn't mean we charge them with attempted murder.
Also note that the victim was out of the hospital and walking around just hours later.
Hardly "within in inch of his life."
So yeah, I'd like to see them charged (and convicted) of battery. Not attempted murder. And not aggravated assault and battery, which is defined as involving a deadly weapon. Because all they did was, as a group, beat a kid up.
The aggravated assault & battery charge is being over-emphasized in the Bell case. The real problem with the case is that Bell was tried for aggravated battery as an adult. There is no provision in Louisiana for trying a juvenile as an adult for aggravated battery - only for attempted murder. The case should be thrown out (and has) and be re-tried in juvenile court.
Four other defendants, including Bailey, were 17 at the time, making them eligible to be tried as adults in Louisiana. The 5th was 14.
Also note that the victim was out of the hospital and walking around just hours later.
Hardly "within in inch of his life."
So yeah, I'd like to see them charged (and convicted) of battery. Not attempted murder. And not aggravated assault and battery, which is defined as involving a deadly weapon. Because all they did was, as a group, beat a kid up.
What a novel concept, setting it up so that the punishment can fit the crime, rather than trying to trump up extra charges because the attackers were black and the victim was white. It seems that there seems to be a false dilemma in this thread, "Either you charge the assaulters with murder/hate crimes, or you let them go off scott free!"
1969 law
18 U.S.C. § 245 (b)(2), enacted in 1969, permits federal prosecution of people who "by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with... any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been" attempting to engage in one of six types of federally protected activities, such as voting or going to school. Penalties for hate crimes involving firearms are prison terms of up to 10 years, while crimes involving kidnapping, sexual assault, or murder can bring life terms or the death penalty.[1]
Appellant courts have upheld the constitutionality of the law,[2] and the Supreme Court has declined to review those decisions.[3] Courts have also held that the law provides for criminal sanctions only, and does not create a cause of action for civil liability.[4]
Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act (1994)
The Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 944 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person. In 1995, the Sentencing Commission implemented these guidelines, which only apply to federal crimes.
Attempted expansion of 1969 law
Main article: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007
On May 3, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (LLEHCPA), HR 1592, which would expand existing United States federal hate crime law to include crimes motivated by a victim's actual or perceived gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability, and which would drop the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally-protected activity. Similar legislation is expected to pass in the Senate, but President Bush has indicated he may veto the legislation if it reaches his desk.[6] This would be President Bush's fourth veto.
The LLEHCPA has been introduced in substantially similar form in each Congress since the 105th Congress in 1999, but has never made it into law. The 2007 bill expands on the earlier versions (originally called the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act) by including transgender provisions and making it explicit that the law should not be interpreted to restrict people's freedom of speech or association.[7]
The noose incident should definitely be considered a hate crime under the above standards. The person was singled out based on race, with a clear threat of force, while attempting to engage in a federal protected activity (e.g., sitting under a tree on school grounds.). He did not do anything which, if he were white, would have warranted any form of antagonism.
OTOH, the guy who was assaulted basically started talking shit to a bunch of black kids who had just been through a violent altercation. Newsflash: If you talk shit to people who are prone to violence, then they might be likely to attack you, regardless of your race.
If anyone is interested, CNN is doing a report on this right now. Their investigative reports are a fluke because they tend to be useful for understanding what they cover.
Posts
Is this actually true? I know that it's incredibly uncommon, and probably nearly impossible to convict on, but are the laws actually written exempting crimes against whites from even being prosecuted as such? How would you do so?
Basically, I'd like to see documentation on it, because I find it interesting.
Yeah I was confused reading this thread because I was under the impression the attacked didn't do anything other then being white? Is that not the case?
pleasepaypreacher.net
According to reports he was also talking a bunch of shit. It's not like they just went out and jumped the first white guy they could find.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I wonder how much of that is genuine delusion, and how much of that is simple denial.
"What? I got the job over the black guy because of my race? But, that can't be true! I mean... I mean... I mean... racism doesn't even exist anymore, does it?"
It is if repeated shit like that has happened to students of another color with no consequences, yeah.
I remember one time when I was down on my luck job wise I went to apply for work at a labor temp agency (the kind with heavy lifting and such) the woman at the front desk got in a hushed tone and asked "Are you sure you want to apply here, we usually just get mexicans." I didn't even know how to respond.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Ok so an unrelated person to those incidences mentions those incidents (which to the best of my knowledge was not a 6 on 1 beat down) he gets beat down as well and its all fine and dandy? I just fail to see what the victim in this case did that warranted the reaction he recieved. The towns racist so you go out to prove that by beating up a random white kid who talked shit about you?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Doc are you even paying attention? The night club incident involved a group of blacks and whites fighting. The only one charged was white.
And when did a group of white kids beat the shit out of a black kid and not get charged? Because I didn't hear about that one.
I'm not trying to excuse their actions, I'm saying that they happened within an unjust system.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit second-degree battery.
the shoe thing was stupid though.
edit: oh, aggravated is with a deadly weapon .... stupid. I agree the charges should be lowered to Doc's suggestion
pleasepaypreacher.net
Also, thanks to Salvation for his thinly veiled intimations of both "reverse" racism and race baiting. That's exactly what this thread needed.
can have hate crime charges added," and that whites (and heterosexuals) weren't on the lists because who lynches whites and straight dudes?
The facts as far as I can tell is that these 6 people beat another person to the point where they could have killed him. The reason for the attack is that the victim was talking smack about one of the 6, even if you assume the worst there he just was using words and infuriating Bailey.
Secondly they have/will have a trial. At the one trial that has commenced already he was proven (with a jury) guilty. These charges were later dropped upon appeal due to his age (the defendant was 16). Personally I'm affronted by that as this 'kid' already had multiple prior juvy convictions of assault and was 16. Come on, he knew what he was doing was wrong and cannot handle his anger, he needs to spend some quality time in a cell before we can let him back into society.
The controversy that I believe is leading it to be called a racial incident is that it was an all white jury (though according to the wiki all of the black jurors that day did not show up for jury duty) and that they threw the book at the one defendant (and from the looks are going to throw the book at the others in their upcoming trials). Note that the defense attourny was black and had all of the legal opportunities to defend his client, yet failed and a jury was convinced the defendant was guilty (and also agreed that in this case the tennis shoes were a deadly weapon). The conviction was not thrown out because of classifications of the tennis shoes or because the jury was all white, it was thrown out only because of his age.
BTW it does not matter if the victim pulled a gun on him before (which in the story is a totally different person) or if they got in a fight several days before. Nor does it matter what happened to the white kids and the tree incident. In the eyes of the law these are seperate issues involving totally separate groups of people. The gun was not involved in this incident, and the tree thing happened in the past.
In my opinion the government should throw the book at the Jena 6, not because they are black, but because they cannot live in the rules of society. At least one of them (and I'd be willing to bet more than one of them) have proven in the past they cannot handle the rules of society.
Imagine you will what would happen if 6 white guys were to go and beat another white guy to an inch of his life, you'd expect the law to throw the book at them as well, wouldn't you? Especially if you found out that this isn't the first time these guys beat someone up and was punished for it.
Eh? Doc said:
which was totally untrue. A white dude was charged in a fight with blacks with no other charges laid. There were no instances of whites not being charged for assaulting blacks.
There was the noose thing, which I agree should have resulted in at the very least expulsion. The shotgun thing I already said was odd, but that we don't know enough of the facts to say that it's
of this clusterfuck. And I'm being dense because I'm not jumping on the "OMG THE SOUTH IS A BUNCH OF RACIST PRICKS" bandwagon? I NEVER said you guys wanted them to get off. I said you guys were jumping to conclusions. That's ALL I said.
I don't mean to spark a fight here wwtmask, but I think you missed both Nova and my points and skipped right to your rant.
So what is the penalty of Battery 2 in Louisianna? What is it compared to what these boys are facing now?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Sorry, I'm just trying to figure out what that has to do with this particular case.
Nova, I'm saying that you're being dense here because you seem to be arguing that the attempted murder charge is warranted. You're also arguing something that I'm not, namely that only the black kids are getting charged with anything and not the white kids. I have no clue if that's true or not. I'm just arguing that the charges are not in line with what actually happened.
Quote me.
What exactly does that mean? For instance, the other day I ate food at a restaurant, where they could have killed me. Does that mean that they did kill me, or that they intended to kill me, or that they left me for dead in a condition where I would have died if no one had come to my aid? Or does it simply mean that they were in a position of power where yes, they could very well have chosen to kill me if they really wanted to? Say, if the chef put some rat poison in my soup?
States have been known to underfund, overwork, or hire generally incompetent defense attorneys in the past.
Why? Because apparently they overreact when a non-law enforcement officer pulls a gun on them? Because they get angry over the fact that some white kids hung a noose on a tree?
Not really, no. Assaults happen every friggin day. People occasionally get angry. That doesn't mean we charge them with attempted murder.
It makes sense. This person beat someone up in the past and paid his debt to society, so clearly, he's a murderer!
And aren't juries usually barred from hearing about past crimes, because it'll taint their perspective on the evidence at hand?
Me: Yeah, well, there's a reason for that. Here's an example.
wwt: You're a douchebag, Sal, and also off-topic.
You'll also note that the thread was not limited solely to the Jena 6 controversy, although that has been most of the focus so far.
It is clear to me that this was them simply beating the shit out of a guy because he was white and was making fun of them. Attempted murder should be dropped and they should be charged under hate crime laws.
The underlying basis around hate crime laws is that you're beating up someone solely on the basis of race, which makes it likely for you to repeat the same act in the future, and which is likely to incite future race conflicts later on.
However, if a hate crime has been committed against a person of a certain color, the question is, "Why this particular person?" If it's a white-on-black or a white-on-Asian crime, then the answer to that is pretty. Either because there aren't a lot of black or Asian people to pick or choose from, or because the black and Asian guy was trying to get too "uppity" (e.g., affirming their equal rights, in the case of the noose incident.).
It's not so easy to make that same argument on a black-on-white crime, because a) there's a lot more white people to choose from, and b) white people don't have an equivalent for acting "uppity."
The nooses hung from the tree and the segregated atmosphere of the high school is what they ought to address. But you can't get an angry mob to rally around that. Now, students arrested for legitimate purposes? That's the sort of thing around which you can amass an angry black mob.
Idiots.
The sensible voice in Race Relations died with Martin Luther King, Jr. Now all we have are a bunch of shitheads hungry for the limelight.
So you feel that vengeance on an uninvolved person, even if that person is a jerk, solely because that person is white shouldn't be considered a hate crime? That hate crimes only work if they're perpetrated against a minority? (IE, getting 'uppity')
Hate crimes should apply to any crime that is motivated primarily by race, and the race of the victim is irrelevant. It may be harder to convince a jury that one has been perpetrated against a white person, though. Actually, I wonder if it's hard, period, to build a hate crime case that doesn't involve the perpetrator using racial epithets prior to or in the course of committing the crime.
_J_, this case has actually been known about for a while among civil rights groups, but it's only gotten big nationally now. The "big black mob" (or just a group of protesters if you're not being a sensationalist) has come around to protest because one of the boys is in legal jeopardy and they want to draw attention to the case. The civil rights groups were doing this before, but not on as large a scale.
So the guy didn't even get a chance to fight back. Basically, he was attacked from behind, knocked down and then six guys kicked him unconscious.
If you go to the page about this where the NAACP is trying to drum up support, they paint a VERY different picture.
And when this thread started, it really seemed like you guys were attempting to pull the same "This is only because of racism. Those black kids are victims of the system!" bullshit.
Schrodinger, the jury didn't hear of the previous convictions. They were brought up by the prosecutor when considering charges and the judge for consideration in sentencing. At least, that's how I understood it.
The judge decides on that issue, usually.
Also note that the victim was out of the hospital and walking around just hours later.
Hardly "within in inch of his life."
So yeah, I'd like to see them charged (and convicted) of battery. Not attempted murder. And not aggravated assault and battery, which is defined as involving a deadly weapon. Because all they did was, as a group, beat a kid up.
Look dude, most people can understand the difference between "They attacked that guy, who was black" and "They attacked that guy, because he was black." Contrary to what South Park may have told you, lawyers in the real can recognize that distinction.
Your claim is that they attacked the guy solely because he was white. If that were true, then why single out that particular white guy? Why at this particular moment? Obviously, there had to be an additional criteria, which you seem to neglect. You know, like how the guy who they attacked was alledgedly talking shit about them before the incident. That might have something to do with it.
Hey, you know what would be a more appropriate charge? Assault and battery.
Yeah, it's a little late for that after you start talking shit about people to their face. This isn't an era of "I challenge you to a duel, pistols at dawn." If you want the chance to defend yourself, then perhaps you should have thought of that before you started talking shit? Really, if I'm going to start shit with 6 thugs who weren't strangers to using violence, I would probably make sure that I had an escape plan right from the bat.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20779755/
Obviously not speaking for the community, but some people do want to see them get off.
The aggravated assault & battery charge is being over-emphasized in the Bell case. The real problem with the case is that Bell was tried for aggravated battery as an adult. There is no provision in Louisiana for trying a juvenile as an adult for aggravated battery - only for attempted murder. The case should be thrown out (and has) and be re-tried in juvenile court.
Four other defendants, including Bailey, were 17 at the time, making them eligible to be tried as adults in Louisiana. The 5th was 14.
What a novel concept, setting it up so that the punishment can fit the crime, rather than trying to trump up extra charges because the attackers were black and the victim was white. It seems that there seems to be a false dilemma in this thread, "Either you charge the assaulters with murder/hate crimes, or you let them go off scott free!"
The noose incident should definitely be considered a hate crime under the above standards. The person was singled out based on race, with a clear threat of force, while attempting to engage in a federal protected activity (e.g., sitting under a tree on school grounds.). He did not do anything which, if he were white, would have warranted any form of antagonism.
OTOH, the guy who was assaulted basically started talking shit to a bunch of black kids who had just been through a violent altercation. Newsflash: If you talk shit to people who are prone to violence, then they might be likely to attack you, regardless of your race.