I betcha he won't call another racial epithet to anyone within earshot, again. I betcha that.
I'll bet he will. In fact, I can guarantee that he will. Next time, he might just have a pistol or a knife, and then we'll have a real problem on our hands.
The initiation of force against another human being is justifiable ONLY in the defense of another human being who is the victim of established initiated violence. Our laws reflect this principle, as do our social norms. Should a kid running his mouth maybe get tuned up? Probably, but in a fair fight that ends once its clearly over.
What this case breaks down to:
Six people assaulted one person to the point of hospitalization because of something he said.
I don't want to live in that kind of country. I don't want to live in a country that condones violence towards those with unpopular opinions.
Send these kids to jail, juvenile or adult (adult for Bell and Bailey, given their histories), and send the message that initiated force is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Edit:
It's funny. The Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's didn't seem to need violence to effect real change. Really shows you how far black America has fallen.
In this country, people are entitled to their opinions no matter how hateful or unpopular, and their right to express those opinions is constitutitionally protected. There WAS a reprimand for the noose hanging, expulsion was recommended by the principal but he was overruled by the superintendent of the school board, so there WAS a reprimand.
Why should we expect accountability with regard to an unpopular opinion? Racial epithets don't infringe on anybody's rights, you don't have a right not to be offended. The hanging of nooses MIGHT be called a threat, but since no specific victim can be named, there isn't a case. You are equating violence with speech when there simply isn't a correlation. You want everybody to be blamed when in fact only ONE group committed the violent act in question.
I don't expect anybody to keep quiet. Unlike yourself, I am emotionally mature enough to handle free speech without supporting violent retaliation. If these black students had simply confronted the white student they assaulted, returned fire verbally, and left, this entire situation would not have come up. Instead, they chose to gang up and beat on this kid until he required medical attention. I was in my share of fights in high school, but none of them required a hospital visit. These students wanted the white student damaged, plain and simple.
I have an idea. Since through your own thinking, I have a right to attack those with whose speech I take issue, I'll gather up my friends and start beating up black kids who use the word ***, because that word offends my delicate sensibilities. Grow up. Violence initiated against another human being, except in the defense of another, is ALWAYS wrong. I don't care if you're black, white, or chinese, if you commit a violent act, especially one as severe as the one in question, you deserve severe punishment. Especially if you're a repeat offender (which we know 2 of the 6 were).
You're excusing their behavior, or at the very least attempting to downplay it based on their race. Apparently, blacks are permitted to assault others if they don't like what we say.
Edit:
Aaron, NO WEAPON, I say again, NO WEAPON, shotgun or otherwise was involved in the case for which the Jena Six are famous. Two days earlier, a DIFFERENT white student had an altercation with Bailey and his friends at a convenient store. It is unclear who taunted who first (likely the white kid), but the end result was Bailey and his friends chasing the white kid to his truck. The white kid (who is NOT the one involved in the Jena Six case), grabbed a shotgun from his truck, and had it taken away from him. Bailey and his friends then ran off after a short scuffle, where they were picked up and Bailey was charged with theft of a firearm and assault. THIS WAS A TOTALLY UNRELATED INCIDENT. I have told you this numerous times, but you still like to think that the 6/1 attack involved a shotgun, IT DIDN'T. You either aren't reading my posts, or you are ignoring facts that hurt your weak argument. You are being intellectually dishonest and you should apologize to our peers for it.
Frankly, I don't give a cat's meow. And what I want to tell you what you can do, I can't...and so I advise you to use your imagination.
You know what? You just don't get it...and that's not my problem.
Reality of the situation is...if you open your big mouth...you might get a fist in it. The details will be hashed out later...but open your mouth to the wrong people and you might get your ass beat down, or worse. Reality...sometimes it sucks, but it's "real".
Don't confuse my take as condoning what happened...I'm just pointing out the obvious.
I noticed you refuse to place any responsibility for what happened with the white students...which, by the way, is quite telling.
Given your position on the issues at hand, you are the least likely person to comment on the "Civil Rights Movement", and its' impact and/or ramifications.
You do not understand "black America"...so don't pretend to.
The Iraq War, the present administration and its' crimes and misdemeanors, show how far "white, corporate" America has fallen....so hush your mouth.
So the next time a black guy gets his ass kicked by a group of rednecks for hooting at a white lady, you'll understand. Gotcha.
The kid who got his ass kicked isn't on trial, nor should he be. He expressed his opinion, and THEY committed an assault. He committed no crime.
You're a black apologist and the reason so many of your people occupy the bottom tier of society.
You shouldn't get mad because he is using logic and truth to dismantle your emotional defense of assaulting someone because the make a verbal comment that penetrates your thin skin.
In this thread you have risen to the highest level of hypocrisy. I wonder what your take on a homosexual getting beat up by six guys for simply calling them breeders. Would you defend them because they were offended by his words, and "deserved" the beating? I SERIOUSLY doubt it.
What you gonna do when some "white lady" is hooting at a bunch of brothas....kick her ass? You know what they say...might be some truth to it...don't hate, 'though. Penis envy is for lesbians. Personally, I never understood "hooting", anyway...you can best believe it wouldn't be me.
And if the black guy gets his ass kick for "hooting", them's the breaks, ain't it?
He ought to take his medicine, like the man he thought he was. Shouldn't been "hooting", I say.
I'm not going to argue with you any further about this...we all get it...you don't think the white kids (none of them) were responsible...I think they all instigated the incidents, exacerbated the incidents, and were directly responsible for the outcomes. But that's just "me".
The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.
"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.
It is not a stretch to see that the white students who "hung the noose" and the "victim" who hurled "racial epithets" committed slander, and should have been prosecuted...but given the racist DA, and the climate of the community, it's easy to see why that did not happen...ironically, in 2007. Seems we haven't come as far as we claim to have come in regards to race relations.
You calling me a "black apologist", is really grasping at straws, as you seem to be a "white apologist"....which would cancel me out. I don't apologize for anyone, other than myself...I don't entertain "collective guilt".
I take particular offense to your reference of "your people"....and on the contrary, do I detect the hint of sour grapes...black people as a whole do not occupy the "bottom tier of society" ( if there is such a thing)....I'm sure Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice, Bill Cosby, Oprah, Tiger Woods, Phylicia Rashad, Whoopi Goldberg, Magic Johnson, Maya Angelou, Dr. Cornel West, Dr. Eric Michael Dyson, and Beyonce, would dispute your claim, and call you an abject fool.
What? Utter nonsense....I suggest you try out calling some black person a "racial epithet", in a mall...and follow what happens. I didn't say it was right...I didn't say it was the correct methodology...I said it was "real"...and that's all I said. Don't like it...don't try it.
Gays are usually not morons....and wouldn't be caught calling some "six straight guys" "breeders" (as if that was a epithet)....don't play dumb. You know very well what words are unacceptable and the risk you take by saying them...Free speech will only take you so far, when you are surrounded by 6 men, in a dubious mood. Be stupid....you're free.
Or better yet....go into a bar...a straight bar...walk up to the bar...and call the nearest guy, "a queer", and see what happens...the guy might be headed to jail...and you might be dead. Hey...you and him are so gung ho...why not try it?
What? Utter nonsense....
I suggest you try out calling some black person a "racial epithet", in a mall...and follow what happens.
Gays are usually not morons....and wouldn't be caught calling some "six straight guys" "breeders" (as if that was a epithet)....don't play dumb. You know very well what words are unacceptable and the risk you take by saying them...Free speech will only take you so far, when you are surrounded by 6 men, in a dubious mood. Be stupid....you're free.
Or better yet....go into a bar...a straight bar...walk up to the bar...and call the nearest guy, "a queer", and see what happens...the guy might be headed to jail...and you might be dead. Hey...you and him are so gung ho...why not try it?
Everything you have said has been nothing but emotional nonsense.
Well, it's not nonsense to me...and I get emotional because it's something I feel passionate about.
What would follow is hte black person going to jail for commiting a crime if they assaulted me.
Oh, and I guess you bear no responsibility for your words or your actions?
You need to accept the fact that whether the white kids were moraly right, or wrong doesn't matter, they commited no crime, and the black kids that put one in a hospital did. No amount of sidestepping, or talking around the issue is going to change that.
Yeah, I'll bet. So you think Emmett Till's murder was just justice gone a little too far then? You're lying your ass off and you know it.
I never said the white kid didn't contribute to the hostility. He however, did not commit a crime, whereas the six black students DID.
Wrong. Let's see what the legal definitions of these words REALLY are:
A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience. (courtesy of nolo.com)
So if the kid called them "***s", well, according to the accepted definition of that word in that community (ie, black people), they fit the bill. Even if slander had occured, it's a tort, ie, not a criminal offense. So still, the only criminals here are the six black students.
Excellent, you've comprehended a basic legal principle. Now take it a step further and investigate the differences between our civil and criminal legal structures.
Again, slander is not a criminal offensem, it is a tort, and the black students could have filed in small-claims court with what is generally a $20-$50 filing fee (I've been in small-claims twice for supplemental claims I've worked on). They didn't take the legal route, instead, they chose to commit a criminal act. They should live with the consequences of their actions. YOU don't think they should. YOU are legally and ethically in the wrong.
Over 60% of the black male population has at some point in time been involved in the correctional system. In 2004 the US Census Bureau had White per capita income at roughly $25k considering inflation. Blacks made $15k per capita considering inflation. Yes, blacks do largely occupy the lowest tier of our society.
No white kids culpable..but black kids labeled thugs and demonized...end of story. How typical. How 1940's.
Maybe you should become a laywer, than you can try to effect some change in the law, till them, making racial slurs is not a crime, and beating someone into a hospital visit is.
It really doesn't matter how emotional the subject is for you, it doesn't make you right.
I have been in plenty of fights over things I have said. I remember quite vividly an encounter I had in the tenth grade where I referred to a senior as a "douche and a half" (playing on the name of the truck used by the military). He decided he wanted to fight me over it, so we did, and I lost. He WAS a "douche and a half" though, and I ended up fighting him again later that year (and losing again). It's a matter of principle.
So your thinking is that might makes right. The six kids who committed an assault shouldn't be seen as "that bad" because the victim should've known better than to taunt them. Ok, so black kids are like wild animals then. Same rationale. You'd call a guy throwing rocks at a bear a dumbass, and excuse the bear's mauling him as justifiable. I give these kids more credit than you do apparently, because I treat them like HUMANS. They made a decision as humans to break the law, and they deserve to rot in prison for it.
Hate speech borders on criminality....maybe "sticks and stones" may be applied , but also , "never let your mouth write a check your ass can't cash", would apply as well. If I go into a theater, and scream "Fire", and there is no fire...I can go to jail, for inciting a riot....but only after the mob beat my monkey ass for being an ***.
Funny how is this issue is breaking around racial lines. No white kids culpable..but black kids labeled thugs and demonized...end of story. How typical. How 1940's.
Really? And some would consider them heroic....guess it depends on your sense of morality, or the lack thereof.
no, making racial slurs is not a crime...but it ought to be.
if someone attacked your mother, and you beat them to a pulp, and they wound up in a hospital, would you say the same? Hell, no....you would feel justified.
How dare you tell someone that hate should be ignored and/or tolerated...because that is in essence what you are saying.
All you people are talking out the left sides of your faces...as you are not the child of chattal slavery....which permeates society, even still today.
Why after MLK and all he stood for, we have to go through the same ol sh.., in 2007, that we hoped was over, from years gone by....the more things change, the more they stay the same.....it cannot be justified, and should be a source of shame or outrage. I'm sorry.
Actually, I grew out of starting fights based on words right around high school. Unless somebody is causing you or another innocent person physical harm, you have no right to initiate physical harm against them. This is the basis of nearly ALL US assault and murder statutes, and the stance of all civilized people.
You, obviously don't live in "the real world"....
Hate shouldn't be ignored, but it should be tolerated. There is a difference between toleration and acceptance. You tolerate a crying baby, but it still pisses you off.
Excuse me for saying so, but you talk like a crazy person. Hate shouldn't be ignored or tolerated. You tolerate a crying baby???? Babies are innocent, and it is what it is. I'm sure you tolerate not only crying babies, but your parents and siblings...you probably tolerate your boss, and the minister in your church...but that only speaks to the kind of individual you are. tolerating, but with caveats..
In a free society, all speech must be allowed, otherwise you grant the government the power to declare which speech is and is not acceptable. I, unlike yourself, believe in the rule of law, the US Constitution, and FREEDOM. MLK was imprisoned for speaking his mind, but hey, his opinion was unpopular, so his jailtime must have been justified. You argument is weak, unfounded, and wreaks of ignorance of both law and history. In short, you're full of sh-yourself.
Your opinion, to which you're entitled...doesn't mean that it has any basis in fact or truth. You just contradicted yourself. MLK was imprisoned for speaking his mind, "yet", his jailtime "must have been justified"....you do talk like a crazy person. You pointing fingers at me, and have a "big ol' thumb" pointing back at you. So excuse you.
MLK wanted everybody to be treated equally, and for race and creed to be ignored, instead concentrating on the character of people. I think he even declared that message in a speech, but I can't be sure.
How arrogant and insulting. I hardly need the likes of you to lecture me on what MLK wanted and what he stood for...you overstep your bounds.
You just declared that his jailtime was justified, then you try to espouse his convictions to bolster your argument...how ridiculous.
Two of the six kids involved had criminal records already, WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU? Criminals tend to be repeat offenders (and we know they were, 3 time convict in the case of Bell).
.How biased and prejudicial...they could have been "railroaded"...I know many blacks that have been..it's a common outcome, especially in the South.
You've based your opinion on what could be hearsay. I detect a pattern, not only in the chain of events, but their history, all with in the atmosphere of a segregated and racist Southern town. I also detect the pattern of your mindset
These kids brutally assaulted and unarmed, outnumbered, unaware kid. Plain and simple.
And I choose to believe they disarmed him of a shotgun which he used to threaten and intimidate them....and then they beat his ass...which bring me a wicked kind of contentment.
Dr. King would not have accepted this as appropriate, and would make no issue of their race in their condemnation.
You are certainly in no position, less than I, to say what Dr. King would have said about all of this...he certainly would have condemned the atmosphere of the town, as well as the actions of the white students. He would have castigated the DA, to the nth degree. As a matter of fact, leave Dr. King out of your rhetoric, as I, personally, find it offensive and reprehensible.
Fact is, these six kids committed a serious felony and should be punished. The evidence overwhelming supports my position, and you have as of yet provided on iota of proof to exonerate the six kids in question. You sir, are a black apologist without conscience, and have been exposed as such.
Heroic? Six on one is heroic now? We've gone from using "heroic" to describe the likes of Medal of Honor winners and decorated EMT's to using it describe those involved in a six on one beating? Your head is wrecked.
