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.
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?
the rest of your post withstanding, .... what the hell does this mean?
I really don't understand where you were going with this
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?
the rest of your post withstanding, .... what the hell does this mean?
I really don't understand where you were going with this
The poster in question is trying to make a big deal over the fact that the Jena 6 "could have killed him."
I'm asking for a clarification for when "could have killed him" becomes an accurate label.
Exactly how close do you have to be towards killing someone in order for someone else to claim that you "could have killed him"?
Is it intent? Is it chance? Is it severity? What? Because none of these seem to apply in this particular case.
How in the fucking hell is this attempted murder? If what they wanted to do was to kill him, why didn't they fucking do it? He was concussed, after all, laying on the ground, and there 6 of them. They could've done it, so why didn't they?
Just because all of that went down doesn't mean they can't be victims. They weren't victims in the fight, but in the ensuing legal case they're being railroaded and it seems to be because of their race.
No.
This right here is half the problem. People coming up with bullshit, unfounded reasons why this is racially motivated. A civil rights group pulls the race card, yet again, to make people feel like these shitheads are being hard done by. You bought it hook, line and sinker.
The fact is, 6 guys kicked the living crap out of 1 guy. He was beaten to the ground, at which point they decided to start kicking him in the head. Pretty common knowledge that you can kill somebody by doing that, thus the attempted murder charges. Seems fair to me.
I don't think anyone is saying they're innocent, nor have I heard any news implying they're innocent of any wrongdoing. The uproar is solely about the unwarranted charges that are being leveled at them for what appears to be racial motives.
Where exactly are these apparent 'racial motives' other than the ones some civil rights group has told you are there? I certainly dont see any. I'd think the charges being levelled at them were fair no matter what race they are. I'd say the racist part of whats going on here is basically accusing an entire justice system of being card carrying clansmen.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Did you read the wikipedia article? All the violence that took place was obviously racially motivated (i.e. it was white students fighting black students) and then the black kids get disproportionately large sentences by all white juries.
LO FUCKING L. Know why it was an all white jury? Because none of the black people selected showed up.
That sounds like I'm joking...I'm not. That happened. Ha. I don't consider myself racist, but if you can't see the fucking humor there you are either an idiot or a tightass who pretends not to find it hilarious because it's not PC.
Edit: This has probably been brought up before. Oh well. I didn't read all 7 pages and I'm not going to. I don't see what there is to debate. 6 kids beat up 1 kid and continued to kick the shit out of him while he's on the ground? When does color come into this? The 6 kids deserve whatever they get.
LO FUCKING L. Know why it was an all white jury? Because none of the black people selected showed up.
That sounds like I'm joking...I'm not. That happened. Ha. I don't consider myself racist, but if you can't see the fucking humor there you are either an idiot or a tightass who pretends not to find it hilarious because it's not PC.
How does that make it less of a perversion of justice?
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?
the rest of your post withstanding, .... what the hell does this mean?
I really don't understand where you were going with this
The poster in question is trying to make a big deal over the fact that the Jena 6 "could have killed him."
I'm asking for a clarification for when "could have killed him" becomes an accurate label.
Exactly how close do you have to be towards killing someone in order for someone else to claim that you "could have killed him"?
Is it intent? Is it chance? Is it severity? What? Because none of these seem to apply in this particular case.
There's a slight difference between "eating dinner" and "beaten nearly to death by 6 others".
So example is pretty much worthless.
How does that make it less of a perversion of justice?
Because their peers(in this case, the black community) were given a chance to represent them and turned it down.
The poster in question is trying to make a big deal over the fact that the Jena 6 "could have killed him."
I'm asking for a clarification for when "could have killed him" becomes an accurate label.
Exactly how close do you have to be towards killing someone in order for someone else to claim that you "could have killed him"?
Is it intent? Is it chance? Is it severity? What? Because none of these seem to apply in this particular case.
There's a slight difference between "eating dinner" and "beaten nearly to death by 6 others".
So example is pretty much worthless.
Wow, so you're attempting to refute an analogy by taking it literally. That's so much more effective than, you know... simply answering the underlying question.
When someone claims that the Jena Six could have killed the guy, how exactly are they attempting to qualify the statment? At what point would such a claim be warranted?
How does that make it less of a perversion of justice?
Because their peers(in this case, the black community) were given a chance to represent them and turned it down.
So that makes it more okay that these individuals have ridiculously over-inflated charges up against them?
No, I'm just saying that there's no reason to claim that the jury was stacked against them on purpose. Doesn't mean that stacking every last charge you can against them is complete shit or not.
Wow, so you're attempting to refute an analogy by taking it literally. That's so much more effective than, you know... simply answering the underlying question.
It wasn't an analogy.
An analogy is "It's like saying I COULD have gotten food poisoning from dinner last night because the meat was a bit undercooked."
See, that's a direct analogy. Something with a risk of happening COULD have happened.
You don't generally get beaten to death just eating dinner at the food court.
When someone claims that the Jena Six could have killed the guy, how exactly are they attempting to qualify the statment? At what point would such a claim be warranted?
"Six guys beating the shit out of one guy" seems to warrant the claim.
The poster in question is trying to make a big deal over the fact that the Jena 6 "could have killed him."
I'm asking for a clarification for when "could have killed him" becomes an accurate label.
Exactly how close do you have to be towards killing someone in order for someone else to claim that you "could have killed him"?
Is it intent? Is it chance? Is it severity? What? Because none of these seem to apply in this particular case.
There's a slight difference between "eating dinner" and "beaten nearly to death by 6 others".
So example is pretty much worthless.
Wow, so you're attempting to refute an analogy by taking it literally. That's so much more effective than, you know... simply answering the underlying question.
When someone claims that the Jena Six could have killed the guy, how exactly are they attempting to qualify the statment? At what point would such a claim be warranted?
Had she had a high-caliber rifle present at the scene, and should she have trained previously in the proficiency of said weapon, the case my, or may not, have arrived that Jena could have used said weapon, ending in fatal results.
When someone claims that the Jena Six could have killed the guy, how exactly are they attempting to qualify the statment? At what point would such a claim be warranted?
"Six guys beating the shit out of one guy" seems to warrant the claim.
How does the fact that there are six of them show intent to murder?
Had she had a high-caliber rifle present at the scene, and should she have trained previously in the proficiency of said weapon, the case my, or may not, have arrived that Jena could have used said weapon, ending in fatal results.
That may, or may not, be the case.
O_o......
Just o_O
How does the fact that there are six of them show intent to murder?
When someone claims that the Jena Six could have killed the guy, how exactly are they attempting to qualify the statment? At what point would such a claim be warranted?
"Six guys beating the shit out of one guy" seems to warrant the claim.
How does the fact that there are six of them show intent to murder?
Alone, it'd be assault/battery, or even self-defense. But 6 on one, there's really no possible way to take that other than "trying to kill him".
You don't attack one guy with 5 of your friends unless he's some giant of a man. It's just common sense.
When someone claims that the Jena Six could have killed the guy, how exactly are they attempting to qualify the statment? At what point would such a claim be warranted?
"Six guys beating the shit out of one guy" seems to warrant the claim.
How does the fact that there are six of them show intent to murder?
Alone, it'd be assault/battery, or even self-defense. But 6 on one, there's really no possible way to take that other than "trying to kill him".
You don't attack one guy with 5 of your friends unless he's some giant of a man. It's just common sense.
Or you don't want to get your ass kicked.
Maybe humans are social animals. Maybe his friends wanted to back him up. We're not exactly living in "This is my fight" times. If I was hanging out with four of my friends, and another of my friends walked in and had some extremely valid reason to start a fight in the first place, I'd hope all 5 would come. It would be for support. Granted, I'm not really that violent, and were it the case that it were 6 v 1, I don't imagine the other 5 in my case would participate. Maybe I'm just a pussy.
When someone claims that the Jena Six could have killed the guy, how exactly are they attempting to qualify the statment? At what point would such a claim be warranted?
"Six guys beating the shit out of one guy" seems to warrant the claim.
How does the fact that there are six of them show intent to murder?
Alone, it'd be assault/battery, or even self-defense. But 6 on one, there's really no possible way to take that other than "trying to kill him".
You don't attack one guy with 5 of your friends unless he's some giant of a man. It's just common sense.
Wow, they're really, really bad at murder, then.
I mean, six of them, one of him, and he didn't even have to spend the night in a hospital? Fuck, those guys are just about the most incompetent murderers I've ever seen. :roll:
If anything, the fact that the six of them did mostly superficial damage shows an intent to not seriously hurt the guy.
When someone claims that the Jena Six could have killed the guy, how exactly are they attempting to qualify the statment? At what point would such a claim be warranted?
"Six guys beating the shit out of one guy" seems to warrant the claim.
How does the fact that there are six of them show intent to murder?
Alone, it'd be assault/battery, or even self-defense. But 6 on one, there's really no possible way to take that other than "trying to kill him".
Alone, it'd be assault/battery, or even self-defense. But 6 on one, there's really no possible way to take that other than "trying to kill him".
You don't attack one guy with 5 of your friends unless he's some giant of a man. It's just common sense.
Wow, they're really, really bad at murder, then.
I mean, six of them, one of him, and he didn't even have to spend the night in a hospital? Fuck, those guys are just about the most incompetent murderers I've ever seen. :roll:
If anything, the fact that the six of them did mostly superficial damage shows an intent to not seriously hurt the guy.
They were also all armed to the teeth with tennis shoes. I can't see how they failed.
Also, some people have a real fuzzy grasp of "intent" in the legal sense.
Put simply, even had they managed to kill the guy a murder charge (even second-degree) would not have been a slam dunk, if they could show that their intent was only to hurt him. That's why we have charges like manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide. So attempted murder when the kid was up and about hours later? With six guys? I don't fucking think so.
When someone claims that the Jena Six could have killed the guy, how exactly are they attempting to qualify the statment? At what point would such a claim be warranted?
"Six guys beating the shit out of one guy" seems to warrant the claim.
How does the fact that there are six of them show intent to murder?
Alone, it'd be assault/battery, or even self-defense. But 6 on one, there's really no possible way to take that other than "trying to kill him".
You don't attack one guy with 5 of your friends unless he's some giant of a man. It's just common sense.
The 6 guys in question where already standing around when the first guy started talking shit. They were all pissed off at the time. What would you expect them to do, have them go at him one at a time, while the rest paced around calmly in a circle? This isn't a fucking Bruce Lee movie, dude. This is the real world.
Even then, you seem to have a pretty warped mind to go from "hey, there are 6 guys standing together, who were all pissed off by the same remarks" to "obviously, those six guys were trying to kill him!"
It should also be noted that Louisiana has a generally fucked up legal system compared to the rest of the US, as they don't rely on common law like the other 49 states.
The 6 guys in question where already standing around when the first guy started talking shit. They were all pissed off at the time. What would you expect them to do, have them go at him one at a time, while the rest paced around calmly in a circle? This isn't a fucking Bruce Lee movie, dude. This is the real world.
Bruce Lee movie. Awesome.
Even then, you seem to have a pretty warped mind to go from "hey, there are 6 guys standing together, who were all pissed off by the same remarks" to "obviously, those six guys were trying to kill him!"
I think some people are mixing up "trying to kill him" in the legal sense and "trying to kill him" in the sense of your mom nagging about "what, where you trying to kill him or something?!"
They were almost certainly guilty of attempted murder in the eyes of my mother. Court of law? Not so much.
I get it and I don't get it. I mean, they're talking about "Justice for six black kids" is releasing them. I'm still trying to wrap my head around tacitly approving of a six on one assault (This was NOT a fight) being equated to justice.
I get it and I don't get it. I mean, they're talking about "Justice for six black kids" is releasing them. I'm still trying to wrap my head around tacitly approving of a six on one assault (This was NOT a fight) being equated to justice.
Perhaps the notion of even-tempered justice. It seems that the DA was taking a fucking walk when he tried to pin attempted murder on the six black youths. He then knocked the charges down to second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit battery, but do these kids really deserve a potential 15 to 20 year incarceration for a school-yard brawl? Especially when the fellow they assaulted was released that night and well enough to attend a high school function?
In my opinion this is a school matter, not a fucking city or county matter. Fucking expell them or put them on academic probation. The DA is overreaching.
Ok I can see knocking the charges down but dropping them entirely? What the fuck these guys violently attacked someone 6 on fucking 1! One of them is someone who has been convicted what 4 times previously? Obviously these chucklefucks think that violence is the answer, perhaps it's time they get sent to a place to learn maybe that in a polite society you don't beat someone down. I am ignoring the part where you make it seem like the ability for the victim to be treated and released some how lessons what these assholes did.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
When I beat up a kid at school I didnt even get REAL charges, just some probation. And, while I did have to go to the court house and all that, I wasnt anywhere near to getting charged with battery, let alone attempted murder.
Well it's been a a few years since I was in high school, but when we had fights IE: brawls, mass PVP, etc, people got suspended for a few days. People got some bruises, a fat lip, etc.
I'm not saying we should be lenient to people who break the law, nor should we capitulate the rule of law when people gather in mass protest in an effort to appease them. But we should, at the very least, consider equality and fairness when considering sentencing that will have lifetime repercussions for juveniles.
If they would have put the white cunt in a coma, broken his legs, punctured a lung, or fucking brained him then yes, prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
Here's an interesting thought though: these six black youths beating the shit out of a white kid...how is this not a hate crime?
Well it's been a a few years since I was in high school, but when we had fights IE: brawls, mass PVP, etc, people got suspended for a few days. People got some bruises, a fat lip, etc.
I'm not saying we should be lenient to people who break the law, nor should we capitulate the rule of law when people gather in mass protest in an effort to appease them. But we should, at the very least, consider equality and fairness when considering sentencing that will have lifetime repercussions for juveniles.
If they would have put the white cunt in a coma, broken his legs, punctured a lung, or fucking brained him then yes, prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
Here's an interesting thought though: these six black youths beating the shit out of a white kid...how is this not a hate crime?
If a black guy is talking crap to me, and I kick him in the nuts, I didn't do it because he's black, I did it because he was being an asshole.
There is a large difference between a one on one fight, and one in which a kid is struck from behind and then stomped on by 6 guys. That is battery. "He was ok later" that's just luck on the part of his attackers, they could have done him serious damage (and hell a concussion is no simple bruise that shit can lead to bad stuff). I am not saying it was attempted murder, but this wasn't some school yard tussle, this was 6 boys striking another from behind and beating the shit out of him. That's a crime.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Here's an interesting thought though: these six black youths beating the shit out of a white kid...how is this not a hate crime?
Also, if six white kids beat the shit out of a black kid would you hold the same opinion? Or be part of the "Black people shouldnt call every crime a hate crime." crowd, I wonder.
Evidently, the 17 year old white kid Justin Baker was talking trash about one of the kids who would eventually kick his ass later that day. Baker made comments about how Robert Bailey Jr., a black juvinile, was beaten up by a white fellow earlier in the week.
I'm not saying that is should be a hate crime, I'm just wondering why it's not.
When someone claims that the Jena Six could have killed the guy, how exactly are they attempting to qualify the statment? At what point would such a claim be warranted?
"Six guys beating the shit out of one guy" seems to warrant the claim.
How does the fact that there are six of them show intent to murder?
Alone, it'd be assault/battery, or even self-defense. But 6 on one, there's really no possible way to take that other than "trying to kill him".
I'll rehash my Louisiana racism story...I've told it here before.
So, I spent all of a week out in Louisiana proper (the rest was training on Fort Polk). So we're wandering around the Alexandria mall, because fuck if there's anything else to do. I hear one guy talking to another guy, and not exactly keeping it on the DL, about how Kerry was a "secret Jew," and if you vote for him you "might as well elect a ni***r!" (2004, obviously)
Nobody blinked. The guy talking didn't even do the "quick look around" when saying this. Basically, this is apparently what passes for polite public conversation up in northern Louisiana.
Posts
Assault is generally considered a misdemeanor. Are the kids currently in jail right now? Do they recieve any credit for time served?
the rest of your post withstanding, .... what the hell does this mean?
I really don't understand where you were going with this
The poster in question is trying to make a big deal over the fact that the Jena 6 "could have killed him."
I'm asking for a clarification for when "could have killed him" becomes an accurate label.
Exactly how close do you have to be towards killing someone in order for someone else to claim that you "could have killed him"?
Is it intent? Is it chance? Is it severity? What? Because none of these seem to apply in this particular case.
LO FUCKING L. Know why it was an all white jury? Because none of the black people selected showed up.
That sounds like I'm joking...I'm not. That happened. Ha. I don't consider myself racist, but if you can't see the fucking humor there you are either an idiot or a tightass who pretends not to find it hilarious because it's not PC.
Edit: This has probably been brought up before. Oh well. I didn't read all 7 pages and I'm not going to. I don't see what there is to debate. 6 kids beat up 1 kid and continued to kick the shit out of him while he's on the ground? When does color come into this? The 6 kids deserve whatever they get.
Gee, and who's fault is that?
How does that make it less of a perversion of justice?
There's a slight difference between "eating dinner" and "beaten nearly to death by 6 others".
So example is pretty much worthless.
Because their peers(in this case, the black community) were given a chance to represent them and turned it down.
So that makes it more okay that these individuals have ridiculously over-inflated charges up against them?
Indeed.
Wow, so you're attempting to refute an analogy by taking it literally. That's so much more effective than, you know... simply answering the underlying question.
When someone claims that the Jena Six could have killed the guy, how exactly are they attempting to qualify the statment? At what point would such a claim be warranted?
No, I'm just saying that there's no reason to claim that the jury was stacked against them on purpose. Doesn't mean that stacking every last charge you can against them is complete shit or not.
It wasn't an analogy.
An analogy is "It's like saying I COULD have gotten food poisoning from dinner last night because the meat was a bit undercooked."
See, that's a direct analogy. Something with a risk of happening COULD have happened.
You don't generally get beaten to death just eating dinner at the food court.
"Six guys beating the shit out of one guy" seems to warrant the claim.
Had she had a high-caliber rifle present at the scene, and should she have trained previously in the proficiency of said weapon, the case my, or may not, have arrived that Jena could have used said weapon, ending in fatal results.
That may, or may not, be the case.
How does the fact that there are six of them show intent to murder?
O_o......
Just o_O
I'll go with "It doesn't" for $500, Alex.
It shows "intent to not lose this fight."
Alone, it'd be assault/battery, or even self-defense. But 6 on one, there's really no possible way to take that other than "trying to kill him".
You don't attack one guy with 5 of your friends unless he's some giant of a man. It's just common sense.
Or you don't want to get your ass kicked.
Maybe humans are social animals. Maybe his friends wanted to back him up. We're not exactly living in "This is my fight" times. If I was hanging out with four of my friends, and another of my friends walked in and had some extremely valid reason to start a fight in the first place, I'd hope all 5 would come. It would be for support. Granted, I'm not really that violent, and were it the case that it were 6 v 1, I don't imagine the other 5 in my case would participate. Maybe I'm just a pussy.
I mean, six of them, one of him, and he didn't even have to spend the night in a hospital? Fuck, those guys are just about the most incompetent murderers I've ever seen. :roll:
If anything, the fact that the six of them did mostly superficial damage shows an intent to not seriously hurt the guy.
Maybe if you're retarded.
They were also all armed to the teeth with tennis shoes. I can't see how they failed.
Also, some people have a real fuzzy grasp of "intent" in the legal sense.
Put simply, even had they managed to kill the guy a murder charge (even second-degree) would not have been a slam dunk, if they could show that their intent was only to hurt him. That's why we have charges like manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide. So attempted murder when the kid was up and about hours later? With six guys? I don't fucking think so.
That changes things.
The 6 guys in question where already standing around when the first guy started talking shit. They were all pissed off at the time. What would you expect them to do, have them go at him one at a time, while the rest paced around calmly in a circle? This isn't a fucking Bruce Lee movie, dude. This is the real world.
Even then, you seem to have a pretty warped mind to go from "hey, there are 6 guys standing together, who were all pissed off by the same remarks" to "obviously, those six guys were trying to kill him!"
Now we got here in the state of Louisiana what's known as the Napoleonic code...
On the black screen
Bruce Lee movie. Awesome.
I think some people are mixing up "trying to kill him" in the legal sense and "trying to kill him" in the sense of your mom nagging about "what, where you trying to kill him or something?!"
They were almost certainly guilty of attempted murder in the eyes of my mother. Court of law? Not so much.
I get it and I don't get it. I mean, they're talking about "Justice for six black kids" is releasing them. I'm still trying to wrap my head around tacitly approving of a six on one assault (This was NOT a fight) being equated to justice.
Perhaps the notion of even-tempered justice. It seems that the DA was taking a fucking walk when he tried to pin attempted murder on the six black youths. He then knocked the charges down to second-degree battery and conspiracy to commit battery, but do these kids really deserve a potential 15 to 20 year incarceration for a school-yard brawl? Especially when the fellow they assaulted was released that night and well enough to attend a high school function?
In my opinion this is a school matter, not a fucking city or county matter. Fucking expell them or put them on academic probation. The DA is overreaching.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm not saying we should be lenient to people who break the law, nor should we capitulate the rule of law when people gather in mass protest in an effort to appease them. But we should, at the very least, consider equality and fairness when considering sentencing that will have lifetime repercussions for juveniles.
If they would have put the white cunt in a coma, broken his legs, punctured a lung, or fucking brained him then yes, prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.
Here's an interesting thought though: these six black youths beating the shit out of a white kid...how is this not a hate crime?
If a black guy is talking crap to me, and I kick him in the nuts, I didn't do it because he's black, I did it because he was being an asshole.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Also, if six white kids beat the shit out of a black kid would you hold the same opinion? Or be part of the "Black people shouldnt call every crime a hate crime." crowd, I wonder.
Evidently, the 17 year old white kid Justin Baker was talking trash about one of the kids who would eventually kick his ass later that day. Baker made comments about how Robert Bailey Jr., a black juvinile, was beaten up by a white fellow earlier in the week.
I'm not saying that is should be a hate crime, I'm just wondering why it's not.
What a great town. Why would I ever think they'd try to fuck some kids over just because they're black?
Edit: NM, town next door. I doubt they feel much differently about it, though.
Maybe?
So, I spent all of a week out in Louisiana proper (the rest was training on Fort Polk). So we're wandering around the Alexandria mall, because fuck if there's anything else to do. I hear one guy talking to another guy, and not exactly keeping it on the DL, about how Kerry was a "secret Jew," and if you vote for him you "might as well elect a ni***r!" (2004, obviously)
Nobody blinked. The guy talking didn't even do the "quick look around" when saying this. Basically, this is apparently what passes for polite public conversation up in northern Louisiana.
This was just a few miles down from Jena, too.
Fucked up state, I tell you.