The Jena 6

[ParanoiA]

Well..somebody had to start a thread on it...

 

Here's the story:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16885997/

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297440,00.html

 

 

"You cannot have justice meted out based on who you are rather than what you did," Sharpton told CBS's "The Early Show" Thursday.

 

And I completely agree. You cannot get away with beating folks just because you're black and they're white and they jerked your chain, racist or otherwise. Jerking your chain is not illegal, beating people is.

 

Hanging nooses from a tree is not illegal. Beating people is.

 

I don't understand this demonstration and calls to free 6 kids who beat some other kid unconscious. Being racist is not illegal. Practicing racism is also not illegal, depending on the practice. Obviously, denying employment, harrassment, unfair treatment by authority and etc are examples of practicing racism that is illegal. But hanging nooses on a tree - legal. There's nothing to charge them with. Why would anyone in their right mind think it's illegal to hang rope? Symbolism is not a crime.

 

Personally, I feel no sympathy for the kid that got beat if he had anything to do with this. And I also feel no sympathy for the kids that beat him up. Idiots. I go round and round with my youngest son about this all of the time - 'don't let other people control you so easily'. Wants to fight everyone who says anything bad about him or taunts him in any way.

 

I think a bigger deal is the fact that this school is self-segregating. The white and black kids are partitioning themselves and the school is doing nothing about it apparently. That's what the demonstration should be about. Not an OJ repeat where we let black people get away with crime because the white people were assholes.

[Blade]

IMHO,

 

once government and the society can serve as an proper example fore the kids to live up to this would not happen.

[Pangloss]

But it did happen. Lynching isn't ok just because it's black people doing it.

[YT2095]

Hurting ANYONE is bad! (unless they deserve it).

 

being a certain color is not a good enough reason.

[mike90]

I think the issue is not so much that they want them to suffer no punishment at all, but that they were initially trying to charge the kids with attempted murder.

[DrDNA]

I think the issue is not so much that they want them to suffer no punishment at all, but that they were initially trying to charge the kids with attempted murder.

 

Interesting. I thought the issue is that certain high profile people and special interest groups with narrow agendas advocate different sets of rules and the application of the law depending on ethnicity or melanin level.

[iNow]

I think a deeper issue in all of this is that it's nearly 2008 and we're still trying to get past such archaic us/them problems. I suppose civil rights and dogs and hoses was only 40 years ago, but this level of ignorance needs to be selected against in a hurry.

 

 

Hmmm... I should probably be careful what I wish for.

[Pangloss]

Ok, this is getting a bit stale so I'd like to expand the discussion slightly with this offshoot question: Why is it that the protestors are stating that the "Jena 6" need to be "freed"?

 

I just watched a Temple University professor on Bill O'Reilly explain carefully and thoughtfully that none of the protestors in Jena last week wants these boys to get off scott free -- they should be punished for their actions. I wanted to ask him how he reconciles the obvious disparity between that statement with the statements of "FREE THE JENA 6!!!" made by protestors at the rally.

 

To me that is a non-sequitur, and it raises at least two possibilities in my mind by way of explanation:

 

1) The protestors feel exactly as this professor does, but they wanted to make an outrageous contrarian statement just to "increase public awareness of the problem". In other words, they're deliberately trying to tweak (let's be honest: WHITE) people's noses a bit in order to get them to pay attention.

 

2) They disagree with this professor's position, and think the six individuals should be freed immediately and not be held accountable for their actions. Two wrongs make a right, and they are just another kind of victim of inequality in America.

 

What do you all think? Which one of these possibilities is more likely, or is there another possibility?

[Blade]

Ok, this is getting a bit stale so I'd like to expand the discussion slightly with this offshoot question: Why is it that the protestors are stating that the "Jena 6" need to be "freed"?

 

I just watched a Temple University professor on Bill O'Reilly explain carefully and thoughtfully that none of the protestors in Jena last week wants these boys to get off scott free -- they should be punished for their actions. I wanted to ask him how he reconciles the obvious disparity between that statement with the statements of "FREE THE JENA 6!!!" made by protestors at the rally.

 

To me that is a non-sequitur, and it raises at least two possibilities in my mind by way of explanation:

 

 

 

What do you all think? Which one of these possibilities is more likely, or is there another possibility?

 

Bill O'Reilly

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

1) The protestors feel exactly as this professor does, but they wanted to make an outrageous contrarian statement just to "increase public awareness of the problem". In other words, they're deliberately trying to tweak (let's be honest: WHITE) people's noses a bit in order to get them to pay attention.

 

the reason given was "it's the onley way to make the trial fair."

 

2) They disagree with this professor's position, and think the six individuals should be freed immediately and not be held accountable for their actions. Two wrongs make a right, and they are just another kind of victim of inequality in America.

 

not guilty until proven by court.

[ecoli]

It's not illegal in most places... but in a school? The situation is slightly different. Students in public high schools are not afforded some protection of private property (anything stored in a locker/ book bag is fair game, for example). No student should feel threatened or be uncomfortable learning at that school.

 

Of course, that doesn't excuse the black kids actions. And, I think this is just another one of those causes that young black students (and 60's era leftovers) want to rally around, in the absence of more heinous stuff that went on in the 60s. It's the same thing that happened in the Duke case... and look where that ended up.

[DrDNA]

I hope that this isn't getting off-thread, but since these kids are (apparently) under 18, why hasn't anyone called for the parents to be held accountable.

Like all mindless acts of violence, this problem started at home. In the homes on both sides of the color tracks.

 

The tribal nature of man is perhaps our most disgusting attribute.

[ecoli]

They're 17, though, so they can be tried as adults.

[Pangloss]

Bill O'Reilly

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

I wonder if you'll have the same reaction the next time I mention something I saw on Bill Moyers or heard on Air America. I'm guessing not.

[Severian]

I agree with ParanoiA, but I do feel that 'attempted murder' is too harsh for what they did. Surely it was assualt at most.

[Pangloss]

Why haven't they been charged with Federal hate crimes?

[ParanoiA]

Why haven't they been charged with Federal hate crimes?

 

Ooh, I hadn't thought of that one. Good question...

[Pangloss]

The prosecutor for LaSalle Parish, where Jena resides, wrote an op-ed piece in today's New York Times. But he doesn't answer my question. Interestingly, he talks about his lengthy, detailed search of Louisiana law (and his federal colleague's similar search) for a way to charge the WHITE boys with a hate crime for hanging the noose. But he never once mentions hate crime in connection with the black boys who physically attacked the white boy who had nothing to do with the noose incident.

 

He even has the gall to say this:

 

The hate crime statute is used to enhance the sentences of defendants found guilty of specific crimes, like murder or rape, who chose their victims based on race, religion, sexual orientation or other factors.

 

And then TWO PARAGRAPHS LATER says this:

 

The victim in this crime, who has been all but forgotten amid the focus on the defendants, was a young man named Justin Barker, who was not involved in the nooses incident three months earlier. According to all the credible evidence I am aware of, after lunch, he walked to his next class. As he passed through the gymnasium door to the outside, he was blindsided and knocked unconscious by a vicious blow to the head thrown by Mychal Bell. While lying on the ground unaware of what was happening to him, he was brutally kicked by at least six people.

 

Personally I'm opposed to hate crimes legislation. But this just smacks of the ugliest kind of hypocrisy.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/opinion/26walters.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[ParanoiA]

This whole incident just gets stinkier...

 

And I wonder...I just wonder if his op-ed piece is really about pacifying the black folks in rage by making them believe they're passionate about punishing the white kids for hanging nooses. I can't believe anyone would really think that's a good precedent.

 

But I think he does a decent job of partitioning what was legal and what wasn't and what he's allowed to pursue. I liked his analogy of likening the attack at school to an attack on your street. It makes sense.

 

But he's also outlined that the noose incident and this attack were unrelated - that it's the media and us that have tied the two together. So, with that in mind, what would indicate this attack was a hate crime?

[ecoli]

I think the media has made the connection. That the nooses, hung by white students, caused racial tensions in the town to flare up. Resulting in incidents like the 'shot-gun robbery' and the 'attemted murder.' Seems like that might be a weak link to me.

 

Seeing as how all these cases seem to be based completely around eye-witnesses, it's going to be hard to resolve. There's going to be (and has already been) a lot of bias all around.

 

I think the black are protesting, because it seems as if they're taking the white people's words over the black people.

 

I guess I understand why they're angry about that... Mychal bell was convicted of attempted murder. That seems a little over the top to me.

[ParanoiA]

I guess I understand why they're angry about that... Mychal bell was convicted of attempted murder. That seems a little over the top to me.

 

I did initially, but I don't see that now. He was knocked unconscious on the first blow. Everything after that can't even be considered "fighting", even if the first surprise (sucker) punch was considered the start of a brawl. 5 other people helped beat on a person that was knocked out - and a weapon was apparently used. How can that not be attempted murder?

 

Of course, I'm making my position per the information we are given - which is quite a sore alternative for a court of law.

[ecoli]

I did initially, but I don't see that now. He was knocked unconscious on the first blow. Everything after that can't even be considered "fighting", even if the first surprise (sucker) punch was considered the start of a brawl. 5 other people helped beat on a person that was knocked out - and a weapon was apparently used. How can that not be attempted murder?

The weapon was the tennis shoe... which the jury agreed was 'lethal.'

Also, the 6 claim that the victim was taunting them (though he denies it).

 

And, I may interpreting this wrong, but doesn't attempted murder mean that they were trying to kill him? Kicking a man while he's down is outright wrong and dirty, but it doesn't necesarily mean they were trying to kill the kid.

 

 

Of course, I'm making my position per the information we are given - which is quite a sore alternative for a court of law.

no worries; we all are.

[ParanoiA]

And, I may interpreting this wrong, but doesn't attempted murder mean that they were trying to kill him? Kicking a man while he's down is outright wrong and dirty, but it doesn't necesarily mean they were trying to kill the kid.

 

Well, maybe our run-ins as kids has desensitized our judgement of the lethal capacity of basic combat. Kicking a person while they're down (not unconscious), is wrong and dirty - agreed. Kicking a person while they're unconscious is beyond wrong and dirty - that's attempted murder.

 

I don't think it matters if they thought they were trying to kill him or not. Teenagers are relatively stupid, and they have a low respect for others and life in general (which I've read has a biological basis too) - so I don't doubt that they didn't think it would kill him. But people get beat to death from less than what this victim went through. 6 people kicking an unconscious person over and over again is attempted murder in my book.

[Pangloss]

But they were just acting out on the racial memory of centuries of slavery, ParanoiA, so it's okay. Two wrongs make a right, don't you know. That's what we call "fairness" in the 21st century.

 

I still think the main hypocrisy here is the way the educated leadership is going on talk shows explaining that nobody is saying they shouldn't have to pay for their crimes at the same time that the work-a-day crowd is screaming "FREE THE JENA 6" at the top of their lungs. It's one of the stupidest and most obvious hypocrisies I've seen out of that outfit since the OJ verdict.

[DrDNA]

"Fry OJ"!

[john5746]

I still think the main hypocrisy here is the way the educated leadership is going on talk shows explaining that nobody is saying they shouldn't have to pay for their crimes at the same time that the work-a-day crowd is screaming "FREE THE JENA 6" at the top of their lungs. It's one of the stupidest and most obvious hypocrisies I've seen out of that outfit since the OJ verdict.

 

Yep and that is common. The leaders of a movement are usually more pragmatic than the followers. Like the Iraq war protest, the followers think they can just get on a plane and fly back tomorrow. I am sure they don't want any of the kids to serve jail time though.

 

Another sad thing is what are people learning from this?

 

The biggest lesson from all this should be to not be racist and above all, not to resort to violence. I don't think these guys were attempting murder, they would have brought a knife if that were the case. But what they did was very bad and they should never set foot into a "normal" school again.

 

 

IMO, hate crimes only make sense in terms of speech. If you invoke violence on someone, it doesn't really matter if it was because of race, creed, gender or for money. If a black person beats a black person, he should get the same punishment as a black beating a white person.

 

With speech, I can see the need. For example, hanging those ropes on the tree is different than painting "I love you" on it. Even this is subjective, because now we have blacks hanging ropes to commemorate the Jena 6 event - similar to Christians with the cross. So, the symbol itself isn't the problem - it is the intent.