Hate speech isn't criminal at all, and any laws declaring it such are void under the Constitution. However, using your own words, it "borders" on criminality, it isn't actually a criminal act. Assault however, IS a criminal act. Clearly one group committed a crime, and the other did not. Ergo, only one group need go to jail.
And the white students who hung the noose on the tree, should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, for hate crimes.
The white student who threatened the six black students with a shotgun, ought to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, for attempted murder, and illegal use of a firearm.
And the DA who threatened the black students in a school assembly, should be disbarred, and run out of town.
Standing up against injustice and hate, is always "heroic". I'm sorry if that concept is lost on your "small-minded" view of the world and its' workings.
Injustice? The kid called them names, so they beat the hell out of him. That's not heroic at all.
I have always been taught to avoid fights, but when they can't be avoided, to fight fairly, and only use as much force as necessary to end it. These kids STARTED the fight, and then beat the other student until he needed to be hospitalized. You wouldn't be nearly as understanding if the races of the two groups had been reversed.
You, obviously don't live in "the real world"....
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..
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.
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.
.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
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.
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.
1. The hanging of nooses was vandalism, and I agree that the kids should've been prosecuted. It appears however that the vandalism was overshadowed by another crime, say, a vicious beating.
Vandalism??????? Breaking out a car window is vandalism. Spray painting graffitti on a building is vandalism. How can you compare hanging a noose on a tree, with its' symbolism, in a southern, racist town, with simple vandalism? Utterly ridiculous.
2. The kid with the shotgun was defending himself from a 3 on 1, and the cops clearly saw it as such. Ergo, no crime was committed.
Well, that's progression....some posts ago, you denied that a shotgun even existed. Did he have a permit for a firearm? What was it doing in his pickup truck? Why didn't he just leave the scene of the incident...he, in fact, went back to confront the 6 black students "with the gun"....if that wasn't criminal intent, I don't know what is.
3. The black kids CLAIM the DA was looking at them when he said he could, "make you disappear with a stroke of my pen". Fact is, it was at an assembly of ALL of the school's students. You have nothing to support this claim other than a few black students' accusations.
You and I both know exactly which students he was talking to....I'll bet a day's wages, the white students knew he wasn't talking to them...we know this by his press conference statements, and his reluctance to discuss what he had said to the students. If he was addressing "all students", there would not have been a big "tadoo" about repeating what he had said, would there?
The inference was drawn by the media, not me...now you're implying that the media had "ulterior motives" in their reporting, are you not?
Then again, they're part of the school, and likely sat together at the assembly, so it is entirely possible that he happened to be looking in that direction when he said it. You have no evidence to support the idea that the DA is crooked.
Unfounded personal attack in lieu of an actual point. You tend to like this tactic.
People have a right to hate, and they have a right to express that hatred. We as society have no right to silence them, and we must either tolerate their crap, or refute their hateful claims PEACEFULLY. You don't have the right to assault somebody because you don't like what they said. The excuse of "he called me a spook" is the same as "he called me fat" in defending violence, it just doesn't hold water, and frankly, is an argument most of us left back in elementary school.
I was using YOUR logic for the assertion that MLK deserved jailtime. You think unpopular thought should be punished. Well, MLK and the rest of his supporters were VERY unpopular in the South, so using your logic, the beatings and imprisonment were justified. Can't you understand that? Are you so full of yourself that you can't recognize a logical correlation?
You're bordering on stupidity now. I clearly (as shown in my original post and above) did not support MLK's jail time, and used it as an example of what your type of thinking does. I don't want to get banned from this board, so I'll refrain from calling you a ***ing idiot who lacks any semblance of cognitive reasoning skills.
THREE convictions for Bell. One was mishandled in trying him as an adult and overturned, making it FOUR violent acts. You expect our peers to believe that a black kid in a racist town could possibly have been let OUT of juvie enough times to commit FOUR violent acts? Please. Tell me, if the town is so racist, why wasn't Bell tried as an adult for the first three assaults of his life? Why wasn't he locked up until he was 21? If anything, the DA was too lenient. You detect a pattern that is substantiated ONLY by your gut feeling, whereas I have shown 1/3 of the "Jena Six" to have violent pasts. I win in the FACT category, as always.
AGAIN. The shotgun incident happened TWO DAYS earlier with a DIFFERENT white kid. The case for which the "Jena Six" are famous involved an UNARMED, OUTNUMBERED, AND UNAWARE white student. Nobody contests these facts, not even Jackon or Sharpton. You sir, are a liar.
Piss off, I'll continue to cite Dr. King because his stances bolster my argument. You're right, he would've condemned the hateful atmosphere of the town, but he'd also condemn the racially-motivated attack on the white kid in question. Further, he would condemn the attack because he rejected violence entirely. My point is well-founded, and so I'll continue to cite a historical figure. Dr. King isn't just a black hero, even though you'd seek to marginalize him in such a way, he is simply an American hero.
Again, no facts, just emotional bull****, most of which is either skewed or an outright lie. I'm done discussing this with you, our peers know now what kind of horrible racist person you are. I feel a sense of satisfaction in exposing your intellectual dishonesty, since you tend to think yourself quite the academic despite a glaring lack of formal political education. You sir, are pompous, arrogant, liar, and our peers know it.
Vandalism??????? Breaking out a car window is vandalism. Spray painting graffitti on a building is vandalism. How can you compare hanging a noose on a tree, with its' symbolism, in a southern, racist town, with simple vandalism? Utterly ridiculous.Quote:
Under the law it's vandalism. Don't like it, move to Jena and vote.
Quote:
Well, that's progression....some posts ago, you denied that a shotgun even existed. Did he have a permit for a firearm? What was it doing in his pickup truck? Why didn't he just leave the scene of the incident...he, in fact, went back to confront the 6 black students "with the gun"....if that wasn't criminal intent, I don't know what is.
TWO DIFFERENT INCIDENTS. Jesus fuckin' Christ man, READ.
Quote:
You and I both know exactly which students he was talking to....I'll bet a day's wages, the white students knew he wasn't talking to them...we know this by his press conference statements, and his reluctance to discuss what he had said to the students. If he was addressing "all students", there would not have been a big "tadoo" about repeating what he had said, would there?
The inference was drawn by the media, not me...now you're implying that the media had "ulterior motives" in their reporting, are you not?
Yes, the media is being dishonest in its coverage of the event, primarily out of fear of being labelled racist, but also because it's a kickass human interest piece if you ignore the facts of the case. You're assuming the DA was speaking to the black students....in a room of ALL the students. That's not justice, that's black exceptionalism.
opinion, pervasive as anuses.
No, it is not opinion. I noticed you failed to respond to ANY of my points.
Just tell me ONE thing:
The shotgun incident that occured two days before the beating (Dec 2, 2006), do you, or do you not recognize that as an entirely different event from the beating that occured on Dec 4, 2006?
You're wrong...it is opinion...and one that hardly registers with me.
And I was unaware that the beating incident was different cast of characters....that being said, I say now, that hearsay, innuendo, and bias are components that have muddied the waters surrounding this case...and that all parties have "unclean hands"....Coulda , woulda, shoulda, seems bittersweet sentiments....had everyone used common sense and decency, sadly missing.
Convenience store incident
On Saturday, December 2, 2006, another incident involving Bailey occurred at a local convenience store. A white student who had attended the Fair Barn party encountered Bailey and several friends. Reports from the involved parties are conflicting.[9] Local police reported that the accounts of the white student and black students contradicted each other and formed a report based on testimony taken from eyewitnesses. The white student claimed that Bailey and his friends chased him, that he ran to get his gun, and that the students wrestled it away from him. According to the black students, as they left the convenience store, they were confronted by the white student with a shotgun. They stated they wrestled the gun away from him and fled the scene. After hearing from an uninvolved witness of unspecified race, the police charged Bailey and two others with three counts: theft of a firearm, second-degree robbery, and disturbing the peace. The white student who produced the weapon was not charged.[7][9]
Jena Six legal case
The attack on Barker
On December 4, 2006, 17-year-old Justin Barker, a white Jena High School student, was assaulted at school. He was struck in the head by a black student, knocking him unconscious. A group of black students then repeatedly kicked him.[21]
Some individuals have stated that Barker had mocked Robert Bailey, Jr., who had allegedly been beaten up by a white man the previous Friday.[7] Barker denies that.[22]
Schools superintendent Ray Bleithaupt stated that the attack was no ordinary schoolyard fight. "It was a premeditated ambush and attack by six students against one," Bleithaupt said. "The victim attacked was beaten and kicked into a state of bloody unconsciousness."[23]
aaronssongs;40662 wrote:
Vandalism??????? Breaking out a car window is vandalism. Spray painting graffitti on a building is vandalism. How can you compare hanging a noose on a tree, with its' symbolism, in a southern, racist town, with simple vandalism? Utterly ridiculous.Quote:
Under the law it's vandalism. Don't like it, move to Jena and vote.
TWO DIFFERENT INCIDENTS. Jesus ***in' Christ man, READ.
Yes, the media is being dishonest in its coverage of the event, primarily out of fear of being labelled racist, but also because it's a kickass human interest piece if you ignore the facts of the case. You're assuming the DA was speaking to the black students....in a room of ALL the students. That's not justice, that's black exceptionalism.
Puh-leeze...no one wants to hold the white students as culpable, least of all, the DA...he was speaking to the black students, and they knew it! If he wasn't...there would be white kids in jail, for at least "inciting a riot".
But that's not the case, is it?
Black exceptionalism????? Now , you want to invent "black" paradigms?
You are unbelievable. And grandiose. LOL
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.
I live in Texas, using deadily force to defend a third party is protected. So no, if someone was attacking my mother, even if I killed them, I would not be charged. If tehy were calling her names, she, like I would, would laugh at them.
I guess you never heard of the phrase, "Them's fightin' words"...you being from Texas, like me...can't play dumb when it's convenient.
