Jena, LA (Jena 6) - Thoughts

[BoringAccountant]

As you know, the Jena 6 are in the news, primarily because today is the rally for them. For those not familiar, see the CNN article listed below. Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject?

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/20/jena.six/?iref=mpstoryview

I wanted to point out a few things I noticed, am upset about, etc.

First, I am somewhat glad that the Presidential candidates have refrained from taking sides on this, frankly I do not think it should be a political issue or a place when political gain/loss can be made. Of course this could all change after todays rallies.

Second, I find it very troubling that we have highly influential people in this society, namely Rev Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (who people would jump off the empire state building if they told them to) jumping in to defend the black kids in this case, who attempted to kill a white student (they outnumbered him 6-1 and were beating him and kicking him in the head while on the ground). The troubling part for me is that people are so quick to call racism and hate crime when it happens from a white to a black, yet its unfair and unjust if we charge black kids with trying to beat a kid to death with attempted murder. Is that not also a hate crime?

Third, if the kids were unfairly charged (I do not know all the details yet) then why do we assume its because of their color rather than a town getting fed up with this crap and wanting to make an example out of someone regardless of color. I feel certain that if this were reversed and the white kids beat a black kid that we would have no one marching any rallies for them...would the charges be different, I don't know, I hope not, it would still be a nasty, cruel, hateful crime.

Before any of you label me a racist, I full well know the background of the town and the school which had nooses hanging from a particular tree 3 months earlier...that is also a hate crime. I am just sick and tired of everything being turned into racism...granted some things are, but I think the race card is played way too much in this society.


For a disclaimer, I am a white male, I am not black, I have never been subject to any hate crimes against me, nor took part in any against someone, so if my naive mind gets in the way of "reality" please let me know.

 

[VA9mm]

They get what they deserve. Seems like a cut and dry case of mob assault to me. They were unfairly treated what a crock of you know what.

 

[snaptafar]

I wonder if what the response would have been if the races on the assault were reversed.

 

[Trapper L]

I'm wondering why the six aren't charged with a hate crime.

As I recall, Jesse Jackson has no church and calling him a Reverend in my book is major disrespect to all church pastors. I don't care about his education on the good book, I've got eight years bible college and so does my sister but we don't pretend to be preachers. Jackson and Sharpton are in it for the publicity and money- nothing else. If you don't put on the show, you can't make the dough.

Even after the crime charges, I hope the these creeps are faced with a ton of civil suits.

Since it seems that you have to "prove" you're not a racist today, I was active in black rights back in the 60's and taking part in marches, etc. Any US citizen, regardless of color, has the same rights, no exceptions.

 

[CrazyIvan007]

I think the white kids and the black kids are a bunch of hoodlums who should be shipped out to some island to lay fiber wire for the rest of their lives. Buncha racists, the whites and blacks (in this story) both.

 

[P7fanatic]

As to why they haven't been charged with a hate crime.
It is the opinion of some (Political Correctness?), that there is no such thing as a hate crime if you are a 'minority'.

As far as the Pres candidates not weighing into to it.
Billary has. She called into Sharpton's 'radio talk' I believe and nosed it for the minorities.:barf:



"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson

 

[The Tourist]

As to why they haven't been charged with a hate crime...

In my heart of hearts, I believe that the idea of a 'hate crime' was never intended to be used in reference to Causcasians. At least Caucasians in a position of power.

You're correct here, had the incident involved six Caucasians beating one black, the same black leaders would have been screaming for a hate crime charge. And since OJ is in the news, I've often wondered about the reaction if Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman had successfully fought back, got hold of the knife, and killed him.

Race crime or self defense?

As you know, this topic has been discussed among my friends. We believe even Caucasian bikers will be smeared.

We need some amendments tacked onto the hate crime concept to make sure there is equal justice under the law.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I think the white kids and the black kids are a bunch of hoodlums who should be shipped out to some island to lay fiber wire for the rest of their lives. Buncha racists, the whites and blacks (in this story) both.

Sounds fair to me.

As to why they haven't been charged with a hate crime.
It is the opinion of some (Political Correctness?), that there is no such thing as a hate crime if you are a 'minority'.

A hate crime charge may have been appropriate (depends on what actually motivated the assault). However, an attempted second-degree murder charge was not. While it was possible that the attack could have resulted in his death, considering he was out and about later that night I'd say they didn't try all that hard.

And aggravated second-degree battery (reduced from the attempted murder charge) by calling the kid's shoes a "deadly weapon?" Yeah, I'm calling shenanigans on that one, too.

Especially interesting coming from a DA who bragged that he could "end lives" with the "stroke of a pen."

I'd consider all this pretty objectionable even if there weren't an hints of racism on the part of police/prosecutors. But considering that a white student who produced a firearm from his truck in response to an argument (rather than opting to get in the truck and leave) was charged with nothing, I'm skeptical as to the objectivity here. I mean, in a town where shoes have been determined to be a "deadly weapon," I'd have to assume pulling a gun on somebody rather than leaving would be some kind of crime as well.

Even assuming LA has some kind of "stand your ground" law (which I favor), I'd think that would only protect him pulling/using a gun in immediate self-defense in lieu of a retreat. Extricating himself from the situation by going to his truck, then choosing to return to the confrontation with a firearm, doesn't seem like it would be covered. Though obviously I could be wrong.

 

[Redworm]

This whole situation reeks of irresponsibility. Both sides, both sets of kids seem rife with racism and I wonder how much of this could have been avoided had the parents of the kids that hung the nooses simply whooped the asses of their racist offspring.

A lot of disgusting things happened but in the grand scheme of things the very notion of "hate crimes" only makes things worse. That phrase might as well be synonymous with the word Thoughtcrime.

 

[The Tourist]

attempted second-degree murder...considering he was out and about later that night I'd say they didn't try all that hard.

Since when does the physical condition of the victim factor in on the criminal charges? Isn't 'intent' the deciding factor?

Disclaimers to follow!

Juan, I don't know you, but I assume you have some Hispanic ancestry. For the sake of this debate, lets assume that you and two of your cousins stumble out of a wedding having been 'over served.' I'm near by.

You are clearly heard among bystanders as saying, "I've never liked the debates that Sicilian states, let's get him..."

Due to your inebriated condition you can't even tie your shoes much less throw a decent punch. By the time the police arrive, I'm the only one standing, and I'm without a scratch.

To my way of thinking, you are guilty of a hate crime. You have stated intent based on nationality (and we have witnesses), and you have instigated the assault.

Why is my physical condition an attribute in filing your criminal charges?

 

[JuanCarlos]

Juan, I don't know you, but I assume you have some Hispanic ancestry.

Not even a little.

Since when does the physical condition of the victim factor in on the criminal charges? Isn't 'intent' the deciding factor?

I was suggesting that given the number of attackers, the state the victim was left in might be suggestive of 'intent.' Perhaps that wasn't entirely reasonable. But I'd think that if the kids' intent was to kill him, he'd not have been at the ceremony later that evening...he'd have still been in the hospital.

Which, more than likely, was the reason the charges were eventually reduced. So maybe I'm not just talking out of my third point of contact.

Moving along, what's you opinion of classifying commonly-worn articles of clothing (which, in theory, nearly anybody involved in a fight would have on) being classified as "deadly weapons?" It's not like these were spike-covered steel-toed boots or anything...they were tennis shoes. Probably the second-least-deadly footwear available, after sandals.

 

[Yellowfin]

To me it's further telling of Jackson and Sharpton, appearing that their policy is No Scum Left Behind. Why is it that nobody calls them out for blatant racism in that they always tend to hold the worst people up as characteristic examples of who their constituents are? Isn't that like the NRA validating David Koresh and saying "Yep, that's our boy!"

 

[Musketeer]

Yes they are guilty as sin. At the same time I see this as an instance where jury nullification may come into play. The bottom line is the system failed long before this incident took place. These thugs did the crime but "the state" is at least partially responsible for open acceptance of persecution carried out in the other direction. Jackson and his ilk are publicity whores. In this case though some attention NEEDS to be given to the whole situation.

I look at this as similar to the movie A Few Good Men. The guys who did the crime are guilty of it, and should be punished accordingly. At the same time the system now needs to be attacked with all the force that can be brought to bear. Sadly if it were not for prositutes like Jackson, who are wrong in their siding with the 6, then the attention needed would probably not be given to this situation. There is every possiblity the pendulum will swing too far and let the 6 go free. I would not like to see that. We though have a system based on it being better that 100 guilty men go free than one be imprissoned. This is more like a case of it possibly being better that 6 guilty men go free than a corrupt system be allowed to continue oppressing innocent citizens.

I don't like it. Given the choice I would lock them up and then clean house. I though am not in charge and rational actions are often overcome by emotion. If the choice is getting these 6 off and tearing into the system that helpted create the problem or locking them up and leaving the status quo in place I go for the option that fixes the system.

Sometimes there is no realistic good choice.

 

[The Tourist]

Hispanic ancestry...Not even a little.

My intent was not to belittle you or hurt your feelings. Due to your handle, I used that as a debating postulate. Sorry if that caused you any discomfort.

physical condition of the victim factor in on the criminal charges? Isn't 'intent' the deciding factor?

I don't think so. They could have been just lousy fighters. In the long run, wouldn't it also be a racist facet if we assumed (disclaimer) that all blacks have street creds?

what's you(r) opinion of classifying commonly-worn articles of clothing (which, in theory, nearly anybody involved in a fight would have on) being classified as "deadly weapons?"

That's a raw nerve with me, and I'm glad you brought that up.

Everyday I wear road clothes. That is, riding boots, a knife (in my case an Emerson CQC-7 HD-7, google it), a small E1E Surefire (which I suppose might be used as a kubaton) and a black hankerchief (which could be classified as a 'sarong' which is a weapon.

Now, the boots are for riding, all bikers wear them. But they are deadly.

My knife was originally designed for Navy SEALs. I don't even want to go into the ever-running debate on "knives vs. tools." I use mine as a tool.

As for the E1E flashlight, duh.

As for the black hankerchief, I wear it 'split,' the two ends signifying two of my friends who have died over the past few years.

This is why my friends and I debate our possible fates. I don't think I'm going to get any kind of a deal at all from a DA, simply because I got up in the morning and got dressed.

 

[Wildalaska]

I havent paid any attention to this other than to know there is another brouhaha brewing, but I can assure you all that this entire thread and the underlying incident are clearly covered by WAs Rule Of Life 6.7(a)(1) which reads:

In analyzing any situation wherein Jesse jackson and/or Al Sharpton are involved, it is axiomatic that whatever facts, allegations or claims they make are untrue. This includes any such facts, allegations or claims which may be in actuality fully or partially correct, as the mere presence or either of these two individuals warps reality.

WildsoyoucanclosethisthreadnowAlaska TM

PS...I note that the US Surgeon General is now warning that paying attention to either of those folks for periods of time in excess of three seconds MAY cause bowel incontinence. You have been warned.

 

[JuanCarlos]

My intent was not to belittle you or hurt your feelings. Due to your handle, I used that as a debating postulate. Sorry if that caused you any discomfort.

Oh, you didn't hurt my feelings. Just correcting you, because it's a mistaken assumption that gets made a lot around here, and can be rather inconvenient when talking about things like racism or illegal immigration...makes the ol' ad-hom a little too easy. So I try to nip it in the bud whenever possible.

Though re-reading your argument (I largely ignored it, due to its use of a baseless assumption) I see that you are largely correct...the state of the victim has little bearing on whether or not a crime is a hate crime. It also has no bearing on whether I'm guilty of assault (which requires only the threat) or battery (whether I leave a mark or not, I probably hit you).

I was merely suggesting that it might have some bearing on whether there was an intent to kill. Because if six kids have a guy on the ground, I'd think if they really wanted to kill him they'd probably succeed...and at the least he'd be spending a day or two in a hospital bed. Though you make a good point...they may just be incredibly bad fighters. But then, most fighters that bad won't start a fight even with superior numbers; I can't remember ever seeing my high school chess team jump anybody.

So while you bring up a valid possibility, I still think it's more likely that those that assaulted him had no intent to actually kill him. They had the intent to kick the crap out of him. To put the question more directly, do you think their actual intent was to kill him?

Everyday I wear road clothes. That is, riding boots, a knife (in my case an Emerson CQC-7 HD-7, google it), a small E1E Surefire (which I suppose might be used as a kubaton) and a black hankerchief (which could be classified as a 'sarong' which is a weapon.

Now, the boots are for riding, all bikers wear them. But they are deadly.

My knife was originally designed for Navy SEALs. I don't even want to go into the ever-running debate on "knives vs. tools." I use mine as a tool.

As for the E1E flashlight, duh.

Provided you didn't use any of these items to assault somebody, I'm of the opinion that you should be safe from any charges of assault with a deadly weapon regarding them. Though obviously the law may vary. The boots might be a little iffy if you actually kicked somebody, but again I don't think that somebody should be charged with use of a weapon simply because they were wearing a common article of clothing. Even boots aren't exactly uncommon...I wear steel-toed goretex boots through much of the winter up here. But these weren't even boots...they were tennis shoes. Like I said, about as non-deadly as footwear gets.

 

[BoringAccountant]

As I recall, Jesse Jackson has no church and calling him a Reverend in my book is major disrespect to all church pastors.

Agreed.

A lot of disgusting things happened but in the grand scheme of things the very notion of "hate crimes" only makes things worse. That phrase might as well be synonymous with the word Thoughtcrime.

Yea we have had some discussions on that idea here before and largely I agree with you...

I'd consider all this pretty objectionable even if there weren't an hints of racism on the part of police/prosecutors. But considering that a white student who produced a firearm from his truck in response to an argument (rather than opting to get in the truck and leave) was charged with nothing, I'm skeptical as to the objectivity here. I mean, in a town where shoes have been determined to be a "deadly weapon," I'd have to assume pulling a gun on somebody rather than leaving would be some kind of crime as well.

Hey JC, you have a source, I am trying to read more into the story and I heard this on the radio this morning but I cannot find a good source for it.

I havent paid any attention to this other than to know there is another brouhaha brewing, but I can assure you all that this entire thread and the underlying incident are clearly covered by WAs Rule Of Life 6.7(a)(1) which reads:

In analyzing any situation wherein Jesse jackson and/or Al Sharpton are involved, it is axiomatic that whatever facts, allegations or claims they make are untrue. This includes any such facts, allegations or claims which may be in actuality fully or partially correct, as the mere presence or either of these two individuals warps reality.

WildsoyoucanclosethisthreadnowAlaska TM

PS...I note that the US Surgeon General is now warning that paying attention to either of those folks for periods of time in excess of three seconds MAY cause bowel incontinence. You have been warned.

thats just hilarious, where can I get a copy of WA's Rules Of Life?


Back to the topic though, do we know or has the MSM said whether the kid who was injured was one of the original noose hangers (read that carefully it sounds weird, meaning the one who hung the nooses)

Second, what is the definition of attempted second degree murder? To what degree do intent and planning come into play? Does this seem to be premeditated or did this fight just break out (meaning did they jump him, this specific kid on purpose, or was he just at the wrong place at the wrong time?)

I think all of this needs to be discussed to determine whether or not they were overcharged (IMHO they weren't but my opinion doesnt matter) and whether or not it warrants a huge fiasco that is going on right now.

 

[Alnamvet]

And for a bit of levity...

I suggest everyone involved, and those contributing to this thread take a high colonic, and be done with it...let justice (or whatever passes for justice is in LA) run its course, and THEN, if there are issues, go through the appeal process...change is good...this protest march has merit...Jena is proof positive that the "good 'ol south" still exists...who cares if Sharpton & Jackson are re-inventing themselves again...race and race relations (or lack thereof) has raised its ugly head again...and now it's Jena's turn...much to do about nada.

 

[DoItRight]

I am amazed that everyone here has a strong opinion of the behavior of the youths on trial but nobody wants to apply those same strong opinions to the situation that precipitated this -- specifically the noose hanging.

That this violence broke out at all is an endpoint of the noose incident. We are all Americans and we know exactly what is implied by a noose hanging from a tree. ("Strange Fruit" anyone? And if you don't know, Google the phrase.)

I am not trying to excuse the behavior of the 6 but I submit that if the appropriate level of action against the noose hangers (swift, decisive, and unmistakable) had been applied by the appropriate persons in authority, it wouldn't have gotten this far.

We can bash Jackson and Sharpton all we like but that doesn't change the fact that some people hung nooses from a tree as a signal/symbol to Blacks. Left unaddressed, that action WILL have repercussions.

 

[Redworm]

I am not trying to excuse the behavior of the 6 but I submit that if the appropriate level of action against the noose hangers (swift, decisive, and unmistakable) had been applied by the appropriate persons in authority, it wouldn't have gotten this far.

I'd say the appropriate persons in authority were first and foremost the parents. Those kids should have had their hides tanned for a month for that stunt.

Unfortunately racism - like many ingrained beliefs - has a nasty habit of running in the family. I'm all for allowing a parent to raise their child in the manner they wish but not when it means teaching the child to be a bigot.