Incident in Jena,La.

[MidGe]

No, adios,

the fact that white bigots said it, and that the school condoned it to a point, or at least didn't seem to have done much about it, maybe even wasn't aware of what happened in their playground, that to me is the root cause.

Now, on the top of that it seems that every step of the legal ways and procedures the administration of the jurisdiction has been obviously based. That is the secondary issues and I am happy to look at each step with a magnifying glass, if it will make you see it.

Let's just put it that way, say a group of african-americans, or first americans, or hispano americans, force you to walk only on the left side of the street. What would you do? I am looking forward to see what you courage or law-abiding actions would be in that case, according to you, of course. What would it be, if it was institutionalized, and any attempt at taking the law in your own hand, since the government doesn't seem to enforce it, although it is such a fundamental law (we are not talking going over the speed limit here) would result in more severe penalties, for you, the complainant? Would you just simply go home using the left side of the street only?

[DblBarrelJ]

Does the fact that 1 1/2 months passed from the "racial injustice" until the beatdown enter into your logic anywhere?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Does the fact that 1 1/2 months passed from the "racial injustice" until the beatdown enter into your logic anywhere?


[/ QUOTE ]

I take it one step at a time, DblBarrel.

The OP in his post had an entire cusal chain. So when we have established the first as right or wrong, I'll move on to the next.

Both a number of posters here, and the media, from what I have seen of it, focus on the nooses as the critical first link in th chain. Personally I thing a "white only" tree is the first link, and I am amazed how few people are accepting it on this forum. Maybe I shouldn't.

[DblBarrelJ]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does the fact that 1 1/2 months passed from the "racial injustice" until the beatdown enter into your logic anywhere?


[/ QUOTE ]

I take it one step at a time, DblBarrel.

The OP in his post had an entire cusal chain. So when we have established the first as right or wrong, I'll move on to the next.

Both a number of posters here, and the media, from what I have seen of it, focus on the nooses as the critical first link in th chain. Personally I thing a "white only" tree is the first link, and I am amazed how few people are accepting it on this forum. Maybe I shouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, of course it's wrong. I'll also concede that it's the "first link". I will not concede, however, that it in anyway condones violence, on either side of this issue, which is what I think you're getting at.

"The whites did this so the blacks were justified in doing this then the whites retaliated by doing this then the blacks did this then the whites retaliated by doing this but the blacks were right in the first place so they jumped the white kid, and that was justified."

Am I about right there?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does the fact that 1 1/2 months passed from the "racial injustice" until the beatdown enter into your logic anywhere?


[/ QUOTE ]

I take it one step at a time, DblBarrel.

The OP in his post had an entire cusal chain. So when we have established the first as right or wrong, I'll move on to the next.

Both a number of posters here, and the media, from what I have seen of it, focus on the nooses as the critical first link in th chain. Personally I thing a "white only" tree is the first link, and I am amazed how few people are accepting it on this forum. Maybe I shouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, of course it's wrong. I'll also concede that it's the "first link". I will not concede, however, that it in anyway condones violence, on either side of this issue, which is what I think you're getting at.

"The whites did this so the blacks were justified in doing this then the whites retaliated by doing this then the blacks did this then the whites retaliated by doing this but the blacks were right in the first place so they jumped the white kid, and that was justified."

Am I about right there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the whole issue isn't that the attack was justified. I haven't seen any rational people arguing that. The whole issue is that there was significant racial tension in the town among the white and black students. It was going on long enough that there were, by custom, whites only hang-outs at the public school. There are several incidents that happened that increased racial tension into what appeared to be racial hostility. During the whole build up of the powder keg, each time a white student/youth was discipline he was treated relatively lightly and each time a black student/youth was disciplined he was treated harshly. A prosecutor allegedly threatened to use the power of his office to end their (black kids) lives.

Now another incident occurs and, once again, the black kids are treated very harshly by the prosecutor --- likely fulfilling his prophesy of ending their lives.

The outcry (or at least the reasonable outcry) isn't that the Jena Six should not be charged with anything, but rather, that the charges should be reasonable/fair and proportionate to white a similarly situation white kid would get. It seems fairly obvious to me that this is not the case.

The prosecutor has a lot of discretion in charging and there are a lot of good reasons he/she can use to distinguish between different cases when deciding what charges to file. Race is not one of those reasons and the history of charges coupled with the threat to end the lives of certain kids suggests that race is a significant factor that this prosecutor is using. That, I think, is what the significant/reasonable outcry is about.

[4 High]

^Sums up how i feel about this very nicely. Good post.

[betgo]

Of course the black guys shouldn't have beaten up the white guy, but high school kids don't usually get 30 years for that. This is a small town in the deep south. 50-100 years ago, those black kids would probably have been lynched. Violent crimes by blacks against whites are traditionally treated very seriously. All the stuff with the "white tree" and the nooses are indications of the environment.

The situation today in the rest of the US is different, and sometimes white people feel intimidated by blacks and afraid to say anything that could be misinterpreted as racist.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the black guys shouldn't have beaten up the white guy, but high school kids don't usually get 30 years for that. This is a small town in the deep south. 50-100 years ago, those black kids would probably have been lynched. Violent crimes by blacks against whites are traditionally treated very seriously. All the stuff with the "white tree" and the nooses are indications of the environment.

The situation today in the rest of the US is different, and sometimes white people feel intimidated by blacks and afraid to say anything that could be misinterpreted as racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would the prior criminal record of the convicted guy influence a prosecuters/judges decision? Do you know if the defendent, Mychal Bell, had a prior criminal record (hint: he was previously involved in 4 other violent crimes and was on probation until his 18th birthday)? I'm fairly certain that this story is being spun hard in a certain direction and that direction is playing on the stereotypes that many have of regarding the South and it's history. I don't know everything about this case and I'm fairly certain that the posters in this thread are getting their info from the media. When Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton show up I make the conclusion that they're probably spinning the story to exploit the situation.


'Jena Six' defendant's criminal history comes to light; bond denied

To me this kid was probably getting a lot of special treatment because he was a good football player.

Cliff Notes on Bell's criminal record:

-- Battery - 12/25/2005
-- Criminal damage to property - 7/25/2006
-- Battery - 9/2006
-- Criminal damage to property - 9/2006

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
the white assailant is totally irrelevant to this. the charges filed against the black kids should be based on what charges are typically filed for similar crimes around the country, not based on what the white kid was charged with.


[/ QUOTE ]

That would be 2nd degree battery at worst, and simple battery on some levels.

Neither of those happened, and instead they went with the more stiff charge of aggravated second degree battery, asserting the shoes the attackers wore to be considered dangerous and deadly weapons.

[ QUOTE ]
it seems to me as though attempted murder was way too much, and simple assault might be a little bit too weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

Second degree battery may be just right, but that wasn't considered.

[ QUOTE ]
but if they're charged with attempted murder and go to trial for it, if its SO obvious they're innocent, they'll be found not guilty right quick don't you think.


[/ QUOTE ]

In a perfect world of objective juries, sure. In the real world of Jena, LA, probably not.

[ QUOTE ]
lastly, i dunno where you're from, but where i'm from a white kid getting beaten up = assault, while a black kid getting beaten up = assault + hate crime, so its pretty much inherently impossible for a white vs. black crime to be punished less than a black vs. white crime,

[/ QUOTE ]

This one just flabbergasted me. If you really think white folks are treated more harshly by the criminal justice system for the same offenses, then I don't really know what to tell you.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
But you're right I didn't point out that since a bunch of white bigots said it was white only that makes it ok for the black kids to viciously attack a white kid and it's no longer a felony.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one is condoning the attack or saying it shouldn't be a crime. If they are, they are misplaced in their assertions or understanding of the law.

What people ARE saying is that the charges being brought are not commensurate with the crime committed.